Zach/DeMar/Vuc in 2024/2025

[drosestruts]

2 elite defenders (Ball and Caruso) and two elite 3P shooters (Lavine and Ball) seems pretty equal to me. Why are we comparing this shooting of Duncan and Strus to that of Vuc? I don't get the comparison?

This good 3-point shooter shoots better than this bad 3-point shooter, while ignoring our good 3-point shooters just seems odd.

I think we could play a good series against Milwaukee or Cleveland. Boston is just on another level to me, not just to the Bulls, but to everyone in the East.

Milwaukee isn't the Milwaukee of even last year. Middleton is experiecing the drop off everyones afraid DeRozan will go through. Lopez isn't as good, and the Dame trade in my view has been a bad trade. They miss Holiday and Allen more than whatever Lillard is providing - which at this point is very streaky offense and some of the worst defense in the league, which makes things much harder for someone like Lopez than in years past.

Cleveland too - we saw them get knocked out in the first round last year. We've played them tight this year and I believe we could continue to do so.

I am terrified of Boston. And I wouldn't favor us vs Milwaukee or Cleveland but I'd feel much better about going against either in the first round.

[League Circles]

I doubt "loyalty" will be enough to convince a top free agent to come here, especially if the Bulls are a continually losing team. Maybe that changes if said player wants to team up with someone who is already here, but that's a doubtful.

I agree with you that the Bulls should try to get players like Wemby. I wanted them to tank last year when it was obvious that the season was going nowhere (even though it was a long shot. I don't care that Orlando had the pick protected 1-4).

Right now Wemby is on SA until his contract is up and then he'll sign a max and be there for even more years. A lot can happen, but we won't know the results until years down the road. I'd be surprised if things went so bad that he'll want out and if he does it'll probably be through a trade.

Well yeah loyalty isn't nearly enough to get a guy to choose us, it's just one factor among many. But it is potentially one factor where we can really differentiate ourselves from the rest of the league, with the proof to back it up, both under AK and long term organizationally.

I think tanking under the current rules is an insane way to try to get elite players. The guys that are obviously elite go #1 overall when they appear once every 3 years or so, and even the very worst team in the league is almost sure to NOT get them. And an increasing number of the guys that aren't obviously elite at all (but become clearly elite) go much further down in the draft, like SGA, Jokic, Giannis, Butler etc.

Wemby might not re-sign with SA for all we know. Yes taking the QO is unlikely, but not insane. A guy like him is going to get a supermax regardless of injury in that 5th year, when his QO is like 24 mil anyways. Or he could force a trade. But again, me mentioning him was generic. Realistically more focus and likelihood will always be on signing olde FAs, which I'm fine with.

[MrSparkle]

I doubt "loyalty" will be enough to convince a top free agent to come here, especially if the Bulls are a continually losing team. Maybe that changes if said player wants to team up with someone who is already here, but that's a doubtful.

I agree with you that the Bulls should try to get players like Wemby. I wanted them to tank last year when it was obvious that the season was going nowhere (even though it was a long shot. I don't care that Orlando had the pick protected 1-4).

Right now Wemby is on SA until his contract is up and then he'll sign a max and be there for even more years. A lot can happen, but we won't know the results until years down the road. I'd be surprised if things went so bad that he'll want out and if he does it'll probably be through a trade.

Well yeah loyalty isn't nearly enough to get a guy to choose us, it's just one factor among many. But it is potentially one factor where we can really differentiate ourselves from the rest of the league, with the proof to back it up, both under AK and long term organizationally.

I think tanking under the current rules is an insane way to try to get elite players. The guys that are obviously elite go #1 overall when they appear once every 3 years or so, and even the very worst team in the league is almost sure to NOT get them. And an increasing number of the guys that aren't obviously elite at all (but become clearly elite) go much further down in the draft, like SGA, Jokic, Giannis, Butler etc.

Wemby might not re-sign with SA for all we know. Yes taking the QO is unlikely, but not insane. A guy like him is going to get a supermax regardless of injury in that 5th year, when his QO is like 24 mil anyways. Or he could force a trade. But again, me mentioning him was generic. Realistically more focus and likelihood will always be on signing olde FAs, which I'm fine with.

There is about 0.1% chance in hell Wemby takes the QO and leaves SAS.

[Dan Z]

I doubt "loyalty" will be enough to convince a top free agent to come here, especially if the Bulls are a continually losing team. Maybe that changes if said player wants to team up with someone who is already here, but that's a doubtful.

I agree with you that the Bulls should try to get players like Wemby. I wanted them to tank last year when it was obvious that the season was going nowhere (even though it was a long shot. I don't care that Orlando had the pick protected 1-4).

Right now Wemby is on SA until his contract is up and then he'll sign a max and be there for even more years. A lot can happen, but we won't know the results until years down the road. I'd be surprised if things went so bad that he'll want out and if he does it'll probably be through a trade.

Well yeah loyalty isn't nearly enough to get a guy to choose us, it's just one factor among many. But it is potentially one factor where we can really differentiate ourselves from the rest of the league, with the proof to back it up, both under AK and long term organizationally.

I think tanking under the current rules is an insane way to try to get elite players. The guys that are obviously elite go #1 overall when they appear once every 3 years or so, and even the very worst team in the league is almost sure to NOT get them. And an increasing number of the guys that aren't obviously elite at all (but become clearly elite) go much further down in the draft, like SGA, Jokic, Giannis, Butler etc.

Wemby might not re-sign with SA for all we know. Yes taking the QO is unlikely, but not insane. A guy like him is going to get a supermax regardless of injury in that 5th year, when his QO is like 24 mil anyways. Or he could force a trade. But again, me mentioning him was generic. Realistically more focus and likelihood will always be on signing olde FAs, which I'm fine with.

I don't mean the Bulls should tank every year, but last season it was obvious that the team was going nowhere so they should've pivoted to a tank mode (Dallas did that). Aim for Wemby and if you don't get him then you move on (anyone in the top 4 last year would've been nice).

As for Wemby I bet he'll sign the max with SA and if he wants out he'll talk to them and figure out a trade. But this won't be for years and I know you mentioned him only as one example. My two cents is that I don't think loyalty will mean much to players. Location and current roster are higher on their lists (typically).

[MGB8]

I don’t know about the premise.

DDR at 3/105 is a big risk - DeRozan is in certain ways very inconsistent already (defense, whether playing within team offense and helping or detracting from others getting in rhythm, occasional DeJordan flashes). Signing him to that eliminates any serious chance of a major FA based reload - but the chances of that even with cap space are slim. My guess is they reap DDR because they like him, but not sure it’s the best risk to take.

Vuc would be great to just dump if able to actually get cap space back, but it’s unlikely. He does occasionally contribute significantly to wins, but it’s matchup dependent and he also can contribute significantly to losses. They like him, too, so I doubt they actually dump him. Plus, does dumping him actually generate cap space?

Zach, you have to see what he looks like post surgery. I think recency bias for this season, where he sucked in a large number of games, is out weighing the fact that last season’s LaVine was a much better player. Especially if there’s a chance that Lonzo can come back and be effective (and thus manage the ego issues that harm the team from LaVine and, to a lesser extent, DDR) - you want to see, at minimum, if you can at least increase value for Zach (which I think is likely).

The real question is whether Coby-healthy LaVine-DDR can play together, and in particular if the can play together without Vuc. Can LaVine be a 3&D+ guy for large stretches of the game, focusing on defensive effort (which he can do) and working mostly as a finisher on offense (catch the call and shoot, drive, finish the drive, or quick pass to next), with creating and dominating-ball only for a small fraction of time? If not, then you have to move him.

Better option, actually, may be too look to trade flawed pieces for better fitting flawed pieces.

[coldfish]

Most rational GM's would have broken up the mid 3 some time ago and got whatever value they could.

If you put yourself in a Bulls mindset of trying to make the play in, I think you bring back Derozan and try to dump Lavine. I'm not sure I would ever trust Zach again after the foot surgery thing.

[Stratmaster]

Most rational GM's would have broken up the mid 3 some time ago and got whatever value they could.

If you put yourself in a Bulls mindset of trying to make the play in, I think you bring back Derozan and try to dump Lavine. I'm not sure I would ever trust Zach again after the foot surgery thing.

Yeah, between his feet, ankle and knees I am not sure he can get back to the player he was. But he works hard and has been an overachiever his entire career. Who knows.

Very sad that the Bulls couldn't do anything during the 7 prime seasons with the 2nd most prolific and athletic scorer in their history.



Sent from my SM-S911U using RealGM mobile app

[coldfish]

Most rational GM's would have broken up the mid 3 some time ago and got whatever value they could.

If you put yourself in a Bulls mindset of trying to make the play in, I think you bring back Derozan and try to dump Lavine. I'm not sure I would ever trust Zach again after the foot surgery thing.

Yeah, between his feet, ankle and knees I am not sure he can get back to the player he was. But he works hard and has been an overachiever his entire career. Who knows.

Very sad that the Bulls couldn't do anything during the 7 prime seasons with the 2nd most prolific and athletic scorer in their history.



Sent from my SM-S911U using RealGM mobile app

Yeah, I think Zach can be a positive contributor on a good team in the right role with the right people around him. The Bulls were never able to create that situation and I don't see it happening going forward any time soon. Lavine next to Joker, Doncic, Lebron in his prime, etc. would be deadly.

Lavine as a first banana next to Vucevic and time sharing with Derozan? Yeah, that isn't going to work.

[Stratmaster]

Most rational GM's would have broken up the mid 3 some time ago and got whatever value they could.

If you put yourself in a Bulls mindset of trying to make the play in, I think you bring back Derozan and try to dump Lavine. I'm not sure I would ever trust Zach again after the foot surgery thing.

Yeah, between his feet, ankle and knees I am not sure he can get back to the player he was. But he works hard and has been an overachiever his entire career. Who knows.

Very sad that the Bulls couldn't do anything during the 7 prime seasons with the 2nd most prolific and athletic scorer in their history.



Sent from my SM-S911U using RealGM mobile app

Yeah, I think Zach can be a positive contributor on a good team in the right role with the right people around him. The Bulls were never able to create that situation and I don't see it happening going forward any time soon. Lavine next to Joker, Doncic, Lebron in his prime, etc. would be deadly.

Lavine as a first banana next to Vucevic and time sharing with Derozan? Yeah, that isn't going to work.

Hadn't thought about it this way before, but it is like they took a modern style high flying NBA scorer and put him alongside 1990's style players. I hope he hooks up with a real playoff team and can taste a few seasons of winning before he is done.

Sent from my SM-S911U using RealGM mobile app

[DropStep]

I'll mention here that the Bill Simmons pod had a fairly entertaining draft of the worst contracts in the league, and we were the only team with two of the six worst contracts, 3) Zach, 6) Vuc. We win! Let's see if we can get DeMar on this list in a couple years.

This pod made me think that we have traveled the same road as Atlanta in some ways (and, God forbid, Washington), who signed several of the contracts on the list. Basically, negotiating against yourself and doubling down with outsized extensions on a roster that hasn't accomplished anything is a good way of ending up in mediocrity with no good way out. Then again, we do have a couple of good contracts, too. Unfortunately the good ones tend to be shorter than the bad ones.

Spoiler:

The list was Ben Simmons, Jordan Poole, Zach, Wiggins, Beal, Vuc, Towns, Trae, Ayton, Keldon Johnson, Jerami Grant, Kawhi, CJ McCollum, DeAndre Hunter, John Collins, Lamelo, Lillard, Michael Porter Jr., Sabonis, the forthcoming Siakam extension, Cam Johnson, Anthony Davis, Kuzma, Herro. Honorable mention: Bruce Brown, Huerter, Grant Williams, PJ Tucker, Robert Williams, Draymond, Bertans.

https://www.theringer.com/the-bill-simmons-podcast/2024/3/15/24101451/worst-nba-contracts-draft-with-joe-house-big-wos

[dougthonus]

I'll mention here that the Bill Simmons pod had a fairly entertaining draft of the worst contracts in the league, and we were the only team with two of the six worst contracts, 3) Zach, 6) Vuc. We win! Let's see if we can get DeMar on this list in a couple years.

This pod made me think that we have traveled the same road as Atlanta in some ways (and, God forbid, Washington), who signed several of the contracts on the list. Basically, negotiating against yourself and doubling down with outsized extensions on a roster that hasn't accomplished anything is a good way of ending up in mediocrity with no good way out. Then again, we do have a couple of good contracts, too. Unfortunately the good ones tend to be shorter than the bad ones.

Spoiler:

The list was Ben Simmons, Jordan Poole, Zach, Wiggins, Beal, Vuc, Towns, Trae, Ayton, Keldon Johnson, Jerami Grant, Kawhi, CJ McCollum, DeAndre Hunter, John Collins, Lamelo, Lillard, Michael Porter Jr., Sabonis, the forthcoming Siakam extension, Cam Johnson, Anthony Davis, Kuzma, Herro. Honorable mention: Bruce Brown, Huerter, Grant Williams, PJ Tucker, Robert Williams, Draymond, Bertans.

https://www.theringer.com/the-bill-simmons-podcast/2024/3/15/24101451/worst-nba-contracts-draft-with-joe-house-big-wos

Teams will always sign "bad" contracts because they get locked into a scenario where the alternative is worse. It's because the max artificially underinflates the amount you can pay the very top players, leaving both more money on the board to go to less deserving players and no gap between the best players and the next tier of players whom generally take that extra money and get paid the max too.

Good contracts in the league are probably, in general, your elite players, vet min ring chasers, rookie deals of the guys who hit, and guys like Coby whom break out after signing. Of those groups, most of them have artificial constraints that make them good contracts, and a GM has relatively little control about acquiring them.

Your choice is often to overpay to be mediocre or not overpay and be really bad, but there is very rarely a choice to only sign good deals and be very good. That choice only comes up if you were lucky enough to have players with artificial constraints on what you can pay them that force them to be good contracts against their will.

Which is really just a lot of mental gymnastics to say teams with superstars win, and you have very little control about whether you have a superstar.

[DropStep]

I'll mention here that the Bill Simmons pod had a fairly entertaining draft of the worst contracts in the league, and we were the only team with two of the six worst contracts, 3) Zach, 6) Vuc. We win! Let's see if we can get DeMar on this list in a couple years.

This pod made me think that we have traveled the same road as Atlanta in some ways (and, God forbid, Washington), who signed several of the contracts on the list. Basically, negotiating against yourself and doubling down with outsized extensions on a roster that hasn't accomplished anything is a good way of ending up in mediocrity with no good way out. Then again, we do have a couple of good contracts, too. Unfortunately the good ones tend to be shorter than the bad ones.

Spoiler:

The list was Ben Simmons, Jordan Poole, Zach, Wiggins, Beal, Vuc, Towns, Trae, Ayton, Keldon Johnson, Jerami Grant, Kawhi, CJ McCollum, DeAndre Hunter, John Collins, Lamelo, Lillard, Michael Porter Jr., Sabonis, the forthcoming Siakam extension, Cam Johnson, Anthony Davis, Kuzma, Herro. Honorable mention: Bruce Brown, Huerter, Grant Williams, PJ Tucker, Robert Williams, Draymond, Bertans.

https://www.theringer.com/the-bill-simmons-podcast/2024/3/15/24101451/worst-nba-contracts-draft-with-joe-house-big-wos

Teams will always sign "bad" contracts because they get locked into a scenario where the alternative is worse. It's because the max artificially underinflates the amount you can pay the very top players, leaving both more money on the board to go to less deserving players and no gap between the best players and the next tier of players whom generally take that extra money and get paid the max too.

Good contracts in the league are probably, in general, your elite players, vet min ring chasers, rookie deals of the guys who hit, and guys like Coby whom break out after signing. Of those groups, most of them have artificial constraints that make them good contracts, and a GM has relatively little control about acquiring them.

Your choice is often to overpay to be mediocre or not overpay and be really bad, but there is very rarely a choice to only sign good deals and be very good. That choice only comes up if you were lucky enough to have players with artificial constraints on what you can pay them that force them to be good contracts against their will.

Which is really just a lot of mental gymnastics to say teams with superstars win, and you have very little control about whether you have a superstar.

Generally agree. I have posted myself about bargains being at the high end and low end, where there are artificial constraints.

I think a worthy goal can be not to sign all good contracts, but avoid the real albatrosses. Maybe that means, if you have a star, but not a foundational star - Beal/Zach - tread carefully. Just because they are the best you have doesn't mean they aren't in that "next tier" you are talking about, where franchise-sinking deals lurk. Maybe you trade them a year early get yourself a new hand of cards?

There was actually a little discussion on the pod as to whether we are at the end of something, as far as Beal/Zach type of contracts - decent stars who get huge max contracts at least partially in the name of "protecting the asset," rather than getting a player you want to build your team around. IS the alternative actually worse, rather than risk turning them into a huge negative asset? We will see whether anything changes, obviously, but it's interesting. When you only have two max contracts (assuming you are under the second apron), will people spend one of them on Brad Beal, next time around, or will they negotiate harder, since there may be fewer maxes to go around?

Many GMs are terrified of the market, and end up overpaying their own guys. There is a lot of fear of "losing them for nothing," but that's where the negotiating against yourself happens, which is perhaps the worst of all worlds. Was there really someone who was going to pay Vuc what we did? Beal? John Collins? Would Vuc have tested the market if we offered $5 million less a year? We'll never know, and AKME has more context than we do, I'd hope. Results are very mixed in that situation. It may be as bad or worse than free agency itself. But it's also impossible to know the future. There's real art there.

[Axl Rose]

Re DeRozan: I fail to see why we need to sign him to a contract that we know we'll regret. It's a struggle for this team to make .500, so what's the value? "Not losing so&so for nothing" has got us stuck in a bad contract with Vuc.