Around The NBA : 2023-24 Season #2

[drosestruts]

Surprising to see him go. Guess he lost his love for the team.

Read on Twitter

I know Mark pretty well and knew it was coming in advance. It doesn't surprise me too much for a lot of reasons he stated and having gone through something similar when I quit my blog / regularly doing my podcast due to a lot of similar thoughts.

After doing it so long when it becomes more of a job than a passion, and you're getting paid, but no where near enough for it to be worth your time, and the team is in kind of this junky, non enjoyable state, it just gets old. You start thinking "I have so little free time left, and I'm using it on this?"

the background/business of podcast and blogging has always been intriguing to me. How to balance it being something you enjoy doing vs something driven by "more clicks/listens" - at one point does the quest for clicks/listens drive what you discuss vs what you want to discuss.

Sports content, and content in general, seems to often be fueled by a reader/listeners quest for confirmation bias.

I personally really like listening to the Dunker Spot and feel they've done a good job maintaining doing a show how they want to do a show - but i do wonder what their listenership is like compared to other podcasts.

[dougthonus]

the background/business of podcast and blogging has always been intriguing to me. How to balance it being something you enjoy doing vs something driven by "more clicks/listens" - at one point does the quest for clicks/listens drive what you discuss vs what you want to discuss.

Sports content, and content in general, seems to often be fueled by a reader/listeners quest for confirmation bias.

I personally really like listening to the Dunker Spot and feel they've done a good job maintaining doing a show how they want to do a show - but i do wonder what their listenership is like compared to other podcasts.

I personally never created content in order to get clicks/listens. I didn't really care much about growing my brand, I knew I'd never make a ton of money off of it. At my peak, I made about $7k per year for the years I was doing my blog, but I put about probably 800-1000 hours into it a year.

A lot of that wasn't a big deal, I mean I was putting nearly that many hours into just posting about the Bulls on realgm anyway, so it wasn't so bad. For me, my goal was to post something every day, so it wasn't about creating content that people wanted and changing my view, it was just about creating _any_ content on a lot of days. There just isn't much original stuff to talk about after awhile, so you just end up with a lot of filler.

From what I've heard, podcasting now has pretty good money in it if you can get your listenership up to 10k. Blogging basically is dead for revenue, web ads are near worthless compared to podcast ads.

[Jcool0]

the background/business of podcast and blogging has always been intriguing to me. How to balance it being something you enjoy doing vs something driven by "more clicks/listens" - at one point does the quest for clicks/listens drive what you discuss vs what you want to discuss.

Sports content, and content in general, seems to often be fueled by a reader/listeners quest for confirmation bias.

I personally really like listening to the Dunker Spot and feel they've done a good job maintaining doing a show how they want to do a show - but i do wonder what their listenership is like compared to other podcasts.

I personally never created content in order to get clicks/listens. I didn't really care much about growing my brand, I knew I'd never make a ton of money off of it. At my peak, I made about $7k per year for the years I was doing my blog, but I put about probably 800-1000 hours into it a year.

A lot of that wasn't a big deal, I mean I was putting nearly that many hours into just posting about the Bulls on realgm anyway, so it wasn't so bad. For me, my goal was to post something every day, so it wasn't about creating content that people wanted and changing my view, it was just about creating _any_ content on a lot of days. There just isn't much original stuff to talk about after awhile, so you just end up with a lot of filler.

From what I've heard, podcasting now has pretty good money in it if you can get your listenership up to 10k. Blogging basically is dead for revenue, web ads are near worthless compared to podcast ads.

It used to be pretty easy to make decent money with a decent podcast following but with celebrities moving into the podcasting game it's harder because all the ad revenue is going to there podcasts. It was just announced Bill Maher was launching a podcast network with Billy Corgan & Fred Durst getting shows. And I'm sure most heard LeBron and JJ Redick just launched there pod.

[drosestruts]

the background/business of podcast and blogging has always been intriguing to me. How to balance it being something you enjoy doing vs something driven by "more clicks/listens" - at one point does the quest for clicks/listens drive what you discuss vs what you want to discuss.

Sports content, and content in general, seems to often be fueled by a reader/listeners quest for confirmation bias.

I personally really like listening to the Dunker Spot and feel they've done a good job maintaining doing a show how they want to do a show - but i do wonder what their listenership is like compared to other podcasts.

I personally never created content in order to get clicks/listens. I didn't really care much about growing my brand, I knew I'd never make a ton of money off of it. At my peak, I made about $7k per year for the years I was doing my blog, but I put about probably 800-1000 hours into it a year.

A lot of that wasn't a big deal, I mean I was putting nearly that many hours into just posting about the Bulls on realgm anyway, so it wasn't so bad. For me, my goal was to post something every day, so it wasn't about creating content that people wanted and changing my view, it was just about creating _any_ content on a lot of days. There just isn't much original stuff to talk about after awhile, so you just end up with a lot of filler.

From what I've heard, podcasting now has pretty good money in it if you can get your listenership up to 10k. Blogging basically is dead for revenue, web ads are near worthless compared to podcast ads.

It used to be pretty easy to make decent money with a decent podcast following but with celebrities moving into the podcasting game it's harder because all the ad revenue is going to there podcasts. It was just announced Bill Maher was launching a podcast network with Billy Corgan & Fred Durst getting shows. And I'm sure most heard LeBron and JJ Redick just launched there pod.

It does feel like everyone has a podcast and I keep waiting for the market to be over saturated but everyone just keeps doing it and it seems to work for them. Or they just like doing it.

[MrSparkle]

The good news is we’re not the Blazers! (And we didn’t draft Scoot)

[DASMACKDOWN]

I get so irritated as a Bulls fan when you have just about every other team go on at least a 5 game win streak. Even the bad ones in the past 2 seasons.

The Rockets who were terribly bad last season, have turned it around and now on an 11 game win streak.

It took us 2+ seasons of continuity to bust out a 4 game win streak.

This team has no consistency. Its also not built to sustain it either.

[MrSparkle]

I get so irritated as a Bulls fan when you have just about every other team go on at least a 5 game win streak. Even the bad ones in the past 2 seasons.

The Rockets who were terribly bad last season, have turned it around and now on an 11 game win streak.

It took us 2+ seasons of continuity to bust out a 4 game win streak.

This team has no consistency. Its also not built to sustain it either.

Well, Vuc’s about to close the season with his worst numbers since his 2nd year. First time his net BPM has been negative since 2013. You’d think you’d want him stepping up, with Zach and Pat out. His attempts are above his career average. Percentages are way down. He’s missing a lot of open shots and bunnies, barely getting to the line, and not drawing any special defensive attention whatsover.

AK needs to come to terms with the fact that either he declined into a net-negative starter, or Demar/small-ball don’t work with Vuc (not hard to figure who’s more valuable). Either way, Vuc is not an all star, so hearing he’s a “double-double machine” isn’t all that relevant as literally any 6’10 scrub would get a double double in the NBA if they were fed 17 shots a game and playing next to sub-6’7 guards at the PF position. The net effect is we are underdogs in almost every game.

We don’t have an x-factor due to such high usage designated for a mediocre inefficient offensive C, who is also so bad at defense we have to stick to one scheme and play quick scrappy small guards to cover the 3P line and help rotations.

[drosestruts]

I get so irritated as a Bulls fan when you have just about every other team go on at least a 5 game win streak. Even the bad ones in the past 2 seasons.

The Rockets who were terribly bad last season, have turned it around and now on an 11 game win streak.

It took us 2+ seasons of continuity to bust out a 4 game win streak.

This team has no consistency. Its also not built to sustain it either.

The Rockets kind of followed a similar playbook to us - acquired young talent and then quickly added multiple veterans (FVV, Brooks, Jeff Green, Steven Adams). There's just might fit better - FVV and Brooks are better fits alongside the young guys they have.

I still maintain that both DeRozan and LaVine are good players - they're just not good together, it doesn't work.

Vuc is just bad - that's the issue there.

And Ball is just injured.

But it's a similar concept. Just executed much differently.

[DuckIII]

I get so irritated as a Bulls fan when you have just about every other team go on at least a 5 game win streak. Even the bad ones in the past 2 seasons.

The Rockets who were terribly bad last season, have turned it around and now on an 11 game win streak.

It took us 2+ seasons of continuity to bust out a 4 game win streak.

This team has no consistency. Its also not built to sustain it either.

The Rockets kind of followed a similar playbook to us - acquired young talent and then quickly added multiple veterans (FVV, Brooks, Jeff Green, Steven Adams).

No. They did the opposite. The actually did a rebuild. They did what you don't want the Bulls to do now, because as you keep saying there are "no guarantees that rebuilding will work." Which is true, of course, but irrelevant because what we are doing instead certainly didn't work and has no upside to work better later.

Lets break down what Houston did.

1. From 2012-2020 the Rockets reached the postseason (the real postseason, not the pretend one we call the play in).

2. During the last year of that, they were led by James Harden (30), Russell Westbrook (31), PJ Tucker (34), Clint Capela (25) and Eric Gordon (31). They won 44 games and reached the WC Semi-Finals, but the team had reached its peak, was aging, and no longer had a contending ceiling.

3. They then completely gutted the team. They traded Harden for draft picks. They traded Westbrook to eat Wall's deal because they got a first round pick with it. They even traded Capela at age 25, nearly giving him away so they could free up cap space for the future. They turned over the core of a playoff roster (from a much better team than ours) in exchange for win later, future assets.

4. And got bad quick. Intentionally. Enduring three straight years with a total of 59 wins. Just 14 wins more in three years than in the one year prior to the blow-up.

5. Due to these moves, and the willingness to gut the team of veterans to completely bottom out, they then drafted Jalen Green, Jabari Smith, Cam Whitmore, Tari Eason, Amen Thompson and used picks to trade for Sengun on draft day.

6. Then, only after being sufficiently bad for enough time (3 years) to have loaded up a nice young roster and dramatically reduced their salary, then went out and spent big money on specific vets they felt would elevate their young studs to hasten the rebuild.

This is not at all what the Bulls did. AKME TRADED AWAY young players and future draft picks to get older and "better" as quickly as possible. And not to elevate cultivated youth, but to replace youth completely as the core of the team. Then they repeatedly passed up on opportunities to trade away their vets for future assets like Houston did to effect a classic rebuild.

NOTE: One might say that Harden forced their hand. And he did. But the motive is irrelevant to the conduct. They still did what they did, and I'd bet you my house there isn't a single Rockets fan in existence today who doesn't love that they did it.

[MrSparkle]

I get so irritated as a Bulls fan when you have just about every other team go on at least a 5 game win streak. Even the bad ones in the past 2 seasons.

The Rockets who were terribly bad last season, have turned it around and now on an 11 game win streak.

It took us 2+ seasons of continuity to bust out a 4 game win streak.

This team has no consistency. Its also not built to sustain it either.

The Rockets kind of followed a similar playbook to us - acquired young talent and then quickly added multiple veterans (FVV, Brooks, Jeff Green, Steven Adams). There's just might fit better - FVV and Brooks are better fits alongside the young guys they have.

I still maintain that both DeRozan and LaVine are good players - they're just not good together, it doesn't work.

Vuc is just bad - that's the issue there.

And Ball is just injured.

But it's a similar concept. Just executed much differently.

They kept significantly more high lotto picks on the roster, though. AK traded 3 young bigs and 2 future lotto picks for 1 guy who’s currently net negative - something Houston did not do.

Lauri and Gafford were essentially given away for cap purposes (not wanting to pay extensions, catering to high minutes for Vuc). The Vuc trade is a hindsight F.

It’d be more parallel if Houston traded Sengun, Smith and their lotto pick for Valanciunas.

[DuckIII]

I get so irritated as a Bulls fan when you have just about every other team go on at least a 5 game win streak. Even the bad ones in the past 2 seasons.

The Rockets who were terribly bad last season, have turned it around and now on an 11 game win streak.

It took us 2+ seasons of continuity to bust out a 4 game win streak.

This team has no consistency. Its also not built to sustain it either.

The Rockets kind of followed a similar playbook to us - acquired young talent and then quickly added multiple veterans (FVV, Brooks, Jeff Green, Steven Adams). There's just might fit better - FVV and Brooks are better fits alongside the young guys they have.

I still maintain that both DeRozan and LaVine are good players - they're just not good together, it doesn't work.

Vuc is just bad - that's the issue there.

And Ball is just injured.

But it's a similar concept. Just executed much differently.

They kept significantly more high lotto picks on the roster, though. AK traded 3 young bigs and 2 future lotto picks for 1 guy who’s currently net negative - something Houston did not do.

Lauri and Gafford were essentially given away for cap purposes (not wanting to pay extensions, catering to high minutes for Vuc). The Vuc trade is a hindsight F.

It’d be more parallel if Houston traded Sengun, Smith and their lotto pick for Valanciunas.

Right. Houston did the opposite thing that we did. The analogy could not be less accurate. Its like saying fire and water are basically the same thing.

[League Circles]

The Rockets kind of followed a similar playbook to us - acquired young talent and then quickly added multiple veterans (FVV, Brooks, Jeff Green, Steven Adams). There's just might fit better - FVV and Brooks are better fits alongside the young guys they have.

I still maintain that both DeRozan and LaVine are good players - they're just not good together, it doesn't work.

Vuc is just bad - that's the issue there.

And Ball is just injured.

But it's a similar concept. Just executed much differently.

They kept significantly more high lotto picks on the roster, though. AK traded 3 young bigs and 2 future lotto picks for 1 guy who’s currently net negative - something Houston did not do.

Lauri and Gafford were essentially given away for cap purposes (not wanting to pay extensions, catering to high minutes for Vuc). The Vuc trade is a hindsight F.

It’d be more parallel if Houston traded Sengun, Smith and their lotto pick for Valanciunas.

Right. Houston did the opposite thing that we did. The analogy could not be less accurate. Its like saying fire and water are basically the same thing.

It's humorous that they did the opposite and came to the same result: a thoroughly mediocre team without any elite prospects for future development.

[DuckIII]

They kept significantly more high lotto picks on the roster, though. AK traded 3 young bigs and 2 future lotto picks for 1 guy who’s currently net negative - something Houston did not do.

Lauri and Gafford were essentially given away for cap purposes (not wanting to pay extensions, catering to high minutes for Vuc). The Vuc trade is a hindsight F.

It’d be more parallel if Houston traded Sengun, Smith and their lotto pick for Valanciunas.

Right. Houston did the opposite thing that we did. The analogy could not be less accurate. Its like saying fire and water are basically the same thing.

It's humorous that they did the opposite and came to the same result: a thoroughly mediocre team without any elite prospects for future development.

Whatever.

[MrSparkle]

They kept significantly more high lotto picks on the roster, though. AK traded 3 young bigs and 2 future lotto picks for 1 guy who’s currently net negative - something Houston did not do.

Lauri and Gafford were essentially given away for cap purposes (not wanting to pay extensions, catering to high minutes for Vuc). The Vuc trade is a hindsight F.

It’d be more parallel if Houston traded Sengun, Smith and their lotto pick for Valanciunas.

Right. Houston did the opposite thing that we did. The analogy could not be less accurate. Its like saying fire and water are basically the same thing.

It's humorous that they did the opposite and came to the same result: a thoroughly mediocre team without any elite prospects for future development.

I think we can cool the hyperboles and meet halfway… Sengun, Green, Smith and Thompson have much higher ceiling than Coby, Ayo, Terry and Phillips.

[League Circles]

Right. Houston did the opposite thing that we did. The analogy could not be less accurate. Its like saying fire and water are basically the same thing.

It's humorous that they did the opposite and came to the same result: a thoroughly mediocre team without any elite prospects for future development.

I think we can cool the hyperboles and meet halfway… Sengun, Green, Smith and Thompson have much higher ceiling than Coby, Ayo, Terry and Phillips.

I disagree, and would point out that you're leaving out Patrick for some reason, but that's besides the point. Neither team has any elite prospects, are thoroughly mediocre, and almost nobody ever reaches their ceiling. The point being that the "full rebuild" strategy ("tanking") is not supposed to work, and usually won't under the CBA rules. The only kinds of bad teams that are really projected to improve a lot are teams with a generational prospect like Wemba. Other than that, all the picks in the world don't really mean much. The Bulls aren't in a good spot at all, but neither is Houston, though they probably have more flexibility.

[DuckIII]

Right. Houston did the opposite thing that we did. The analogy could not be less accurate. Its like saying fire and water are basically the same thing.

It's humorous that they did the opposite and came to the same result: a thoroughly mediocre team without any elite prospects for future development.

I think we can cool the hyperboles and meet halfway… Sengun, Green, Smith and Thompson have much higher ceiling than Coby, Ayo, Terry and Phillips.

If you really want to take his bait, you can drill down even deeper than that. Because even if you accept his premise as true - that they have no elite products to develop, which is hardly a given fact at all - it still would not put them in the "same result" as the Bulls You could make a compelling argument that they have 6 players 21 or younger who have established a foundation that projects them out as being better than any young player we have, and Ayo and Coby are already 23.

This gives them way more swings at a franchise player within their diversely talented group (their young players combine to play every position on the floor with a wide variety of body types and skill sets) and provides them with significantly more options to package those players for a star.

They are 38-35 in a tougher conference, and even at full strength with all of their players healthy, 5 of their top 8 players are ages 19-21, 1 is 22, and then you have FVV and Brooks who are 29 and 28. 75% of their 8 man rotation, at full health, is between the ages of 19-22.

In every possible way in which a NBA basketball team can be measured in both the present and the future, they are in an immeasurably better situation than the Bulls because they rebuilt their team.

But if we want to reduce it to the most meaningless and superficial use of the English language and use no real analysis, sure they are the "same."

[League Circles]

It's humorous that they did the opposite and came to the same result: a thoroughly mediocre team without any elite prospects for future development.

I think we can cool the hyperboles and meet halfway… Sengun, Green, Smith and Thompson have much higher ceiling than Coby, Ayo, Terry and Phillips.

If you really want to take his bait, you can drill down even deeper than that. Because even if you accept his premise as true - that they have no elite products to develop, which is hardly a given fact at all - it still would not put them in the "same result" as the Bulls You could make a compelling argument that they have 6 players 21 or younger who have established a foundation that projects them out as being better than any young player we have, and Ayo and Coby are already 23.

This gives them way more swings at a franchise player within their diversely talented group (their young players combine to play every position on the floor with a wide variety of body types and skill sets) and provides them with significantly more options to package those players for a star.

They are 38-35 in a tougher conference, and even at full strength with all of their players healthy, 5 of their top 8 players are ages 19-21, 1 is 22, and then you have FVV and Brooks who are 29 and 28. 75% of their 8 man rotation, at full health, is between the ages of 19-22.

In every possible way in which a NBA basketball team can be measured in both the present and the future, they are in an immeasurably better situation than the Bulls because they rebuilt their team.

But if we want to reduce it to the most meaningless and superficial use of the English language and use no real analysis, sure they are the "same."

Lol, the point is that every team with a similar collection of "promising youth" (of which there are probably half a dozen at any given time in the NBA) looks like this and is talked about like this....... And then becomes the 2007-2008 Chicago Bulls. People project waaaaay more improvement out of players due to age than is justified. I agree they're in a better spot than the Bulls at the moment, but not by a lot, and more importantly, they're still not in a good spot and have no clear path to get there. Which is not really a criticism of them fwiw. I just find it funny how strong of opinions people have that path X is so obviously better than path Y when they both obviously suck most of the time. There simply is no strategic narrative on how to build a winner IMO. I've been claiming for many many years that teams shouldn't have plans or coherent strategies. It's all about opportunism, wise horizon perspective, valuing different seasons equally (not favoring the present OR future most of the time), and talent and roster chemistry evaluation.

[MrSparkle]

It's humorous that they did the opposite and came to the same result: a thoroughly mediocre team without any elite prospects for future development.

I think we can cool the hyperboles and meet halfway… Sengun, Green, Smith and Thompson have much higher ceiling than Coby, Ayo, Terry and Phillips.

I disagree, and would point out that you're leaving out Patrick for some reason, but that's besides the point. Neither team has any elite prospects, are thoroughly mediocre, and almost nobody ever reaches their ceiling. The point being that the "full rebuild" strategy ("tanking") is not supposed to work, and usually won't under the CBA rules. The only kinds of bad teams that are really projected to improve a lot are teams with a generational prospect like Wemba. Other than that, all the picks in the world don't really mean much. The Bulls aren't in a good spot at all, but neither is Houston, though they probably have more flexibility.

Sengun is a definitive future/perennial all star, barre some terrible injury (currently just a severe sprain). He’s a high-minute 22yo with a 22 PER.

Patrick’s not resigned at the moment. He’s also got worse numbers (after 4 years) than their 1-2 year prospects.

Furthermore, they’re 3 games above 500 with their best player sidelined, we’re 4 below with our best player active. That’s a significant 7-win difference. We just happen to play in the much less competitive conference.

I’m not that pessimistic in general. We have cap space (maybe) and top10 protection on the Spurs pick. A cheaply resigned Pat might be one break, but until he inks $13m salary for 3y+ and improves his numbers, I’m not holding my breathe. Reality is that Arturas played a little too much Las Vegas, and didn’t really hedge his risky bets. Now he needs his penny stocks to blossom. Or he needs to dump Demar and tank.

[League Circles]

I think we can cool the hyperboles and meet halfway… Sengun, Green, Smith and Thompson have much higher ceiling than Coby, Ayo, Terry and Phillips.

I disagree, and would point out that you're leaving out Patrick for some reason, but that's besides the point. Neither team has any elite prospects, are thoroughly mediocre, and almost nobody ever reaches their ceiling. The point being that the "full rebuild" strategy ("tanking") is not supposed to work, and usually won't under the CBA rules. The only kinds of bad teams that are really projected to improve a lot are teams with a generational prospect like Wemba. Other than that, all the picks in the world don't really mean much. The Bulls aren't in a good spot at all, but neither is Houston, though they probably have more flexibility.

Sengun is a definitive future/perennial all star, barre some terrible injury (currently just a severe sprain). He’s a high-minute 22yo with a 22 PER.

Patrick’s not resigned at the moment. He’s also got worse numbers (after 4 years) than their 1-2 year prospects.

Furthermore, they’re 3 games above 500 with their best player sidelined, we’re 4 below with our best player active. We just happen to play in the much less competitive conference.

Tell Andre Drummond that putting up a big PER in big minutes for a meh team at a young age makes you a definite perennial all star. Hell, he's still putting up a 22 PER as a healthy 30 year old (and has damn near every year of his career), and he's a backup on a vet min deal. Sengun is a good prospect though and definitely has a chance to be an all star, but that's not really what I consider elite. I'm not trying to make some contentious point here: people just always have a grass is greener outlook when things aren't going well for their team. It makes it easier to cope with the disappointment if it can be easily blamed on allegedly simple alternative moves that their gm could have made that would have ensured a better situation. I just think the alternatives are often a wash.

[Repeat 3-peat]

Watch on YouTube