Zach/DeMar/Vuc in 2024/2025

[dougthonus]

An interesting though, if you really want to go for a title, the path way to do so, is to trade Coby, Ayo, Pat, and AC for as many draft picks as you can get. Those are the guys who will have real value and also guys whom probably aren't good enough to lead you to a title. You then stay afloat with the mid 3 for a couple years, and try to collect more long term assets for a real tear down in 2 years.

[jnrjr79]

Using the assumptions suggested, I would get rid of all 3. The best thing the Bulls can do to improve their long-term chances of becoming a contender is to be bad next year and try to keep that 2025 draft pick that could otherwise convey to San Antonio.

What do I think they will do? They'll bring DeMar back on a 3-year deal. They'll keep Vooch - he has little trade value at his salary and I genuinely think the front office thinks Vooch is very good. They'll try to trade Zach but won't find value for him coming off his injury, so he'll be back and play until the deadline, at which point (assuming he's been healthy), he'll get dumped in a deal for mediocre draft assets.

[League Circles]

Was thinking about how the Bulls should do going forward?

Assumptions:
1: You will not get back any meaningful player for any of these guys
2: With DeMar, he just walks, so you free up his cap number this year
3: With Zach/Vuc you move for an expiring but nothing else, so you free up their cap number next year
4: If you choose to keep DeMar, he is now on a long term contract at 3/105 (35M per year)

Under those assumptions who are you bringing back?

Under these (questionable) assumptions, I'm bringing back Zach and maybe Demar. Hard to say for sure though cause a lot depends on whether Drummond and Williams would be back and who the "non-meaningful" player(s) coming back for Vuc are.

I find it to be virtually impossible that no meaningful players would come back in a Zach or Vuc trade (or Demar). Not because I'm so sure teams would give up something meaningful for any of them, but because I heavily doubt there are any teams who could out together a CBA-compliant deal with enough matching salary for guys that are non meaningful.

Hell, I'd probably drop Zach for pure expirings also, but it really depends on the guys coming back, meaningful or not.

It's hard to give accurate assumptions, but those are my best guesses at reality.

Yeah you have to assume for conversations sake. I just don't see us getting back roughly 20-60 million in "neutral" money players for next year.

[drosestruts]

The only one I want to be here is DeMar.

I'd guess Vuc will be here cause i'm honestly kind of confused on where else he could even be.

And Zach I think still gets traded this summer. As a "where theres smoke there's fire" kind of guy I believe Detroits interest in Zach at the trade deadline was real, I think working out a deal was difficult, but it becomes a lot easier this summer with the enormous amount of cap space they have. Reminds me of our interest in Lonzo before eventually trading for him in the summer.

[dougthonus]

Yeah you have to assume for conversations sake. I just don't see us getting back roughly 20-60 million in "neutral" money players for next year.

It's not really neutral. I think Zach and Vuc have some oncourt value, it's just not as much as contractual value. Say you had a 20M totally dead, 0 value player, I could see you trading that player for Vuc. Now you are paying 20M for two year's of Vuc, because the other 20M was of no value to you, and that's maybe a reasonable view of his value, plus next year, he can be used to flip for salary matching if needed even if on court value is low.

Same as true to a lesser extent of LaVine, if you sent 43M for him or whatever it is now, and you are getting him for 3 years but only 90M after you unloaded dead salary, then effectively real cost of 30M per year might be feasible.

Not to say either of those deals are for sure on the table, but I don't think they're unthinkable either. Like I could see Ben Simmons (effectively a 40M+ expiring with 0 on court value) being offered for Zach.

[Bandit King]

Keep them all ball is coming back!

Continuity baby!

1st place bulls!!!

[League Circles]

Yeah you have to assume for conversations sake. I just don't see us getting back roughly 20-60 million in "neutral" money players for next year.

It's not really neutral. I think Zach and Vuc have some oncourt value, it's just not as much as contractual value. Say you had a 20M totally dead, 0 value player, I could see you trading that player for Vuc. Now you are paying 20M for two year's of Vuc, because the other 20M was of no value to you, and that's maybe a reasonable view of his value, plus next year, he can be used to flip for salary matching if needed even if on court value is low.

Same as true to a lesser extent of LaVine, if you sent 43M for him or whatever it is now, and you are getting him for 3 years but only 90M after you unloaded dead salary, then effectively real cost of 30M per year might be feasible.

Not to say either of those deals are for sure on the table, but I don't think they're unthinkable either. Like I could see Ben Simmons (effectively a 40M+ expiring with 0 on court value) being offered for Zach.

Yes there are a very few limited examples such as Simmons, Chris Paul, etc.

But Simmons is hardly zero value IMO. Yes of course he has health issues now and has had health and mental issues his whole career, but he's still a 27 year old 3 time all star who, on paper, would fit extremely well as a point-4 for us. If he's healthy and engaged, swapping Zach for him could end up making us a lot better. Not saying I necessarily support it, but Simmons is one of the very few examples that really fit your criteria.

Bad, large, expiring contracts seem, at a glance, to be much rarer than they used to be.

[sco]

Yeah you have to assume for conversations sake. I just don't see us getting back roughly 20-60 million in "neutral" money players for next year.

It's not really neutral. I think Zach and Vuc have some oncourt value, it's just not as much as contractual value. Say you had a 20M totally dead, 0 value player, I could see you trading that player for Vuc. Now you are paying 20M for two year's of Vuc, because the other 20M was of no value to you, and that's maybe a reasonable view of his value, plus next year, he can be used to flip for salary matching if needed even if on court value is low.

Same as true to a lesser extent of LaVine, if you sent 43M for him or whatever it is now, and you are getting him for 3 years but only 90M after you unloaded dead salary, then effectively real cost of 30M per year might be feasible.

Not to say either of those deals are for sure on the table, but I don't think they're unthinkable either. Like I could see Ben Simmons (effectively a 40M+ expiring with 0 on court value) being offered for Zach.

Yes there are a very few limited examples such as Simmons, Chris Paul, etc.

But Simmons is hardly zero value IMO. Yes of course he has health issues now and has had health and mental issues his whole career, but he's still a 27 year old 3 time all star who, on paper, would fit extremely well as a point-4 for us. If he's healthy and engaged, swapping Zach for him could end up making us a lot better. Not saying I necessarily support it, but Simmons is one of the very few examples that really fit your criteria.

Bad, large, expiring contracts seem, at a glance, to be much rarer than they used to be.

I think Simmons is toast. He seems to have chronic back and knee injuries on top of attitude problems. Now would I trade Zach for an expiring that wouldn't also cost me Caruso? If we had a clear plan to free up enough cap space for a MAX player after next season, maybe. I still think our better course of action is to try to rehabilitate Zach's value before trading him. I think the FO won't dump him because they have so few assets with which to improve the team that giving a potential one away would be a big problem for them.

Not that I think AK will tank next season, but, to me, all they need to do is let Demar walk (ideally via S&T for a minor asset) and trade Caruso for a 1st, and they should be set to be a bottom 10 team next season.

[League Circles]

It's not really neutral. I think Zach and Vuc have some oncourt value, it's just not as much as contractual value. Say you had a 20M totally dead, 0 value player, I could see you trading that player for Vuc. Now you are paying 20M for two year's of Vuc, because the other 20M was of no value to you, and that's maybe a reasonable view of his value, plus next year, he can be used to flip for salary matching if needed even if on court value is low.

Same as true to a lesser extent of LaVine, if you sent 43M for him or whatever it is now, and you are getting him for 3 years but only 90M after you unloaded dead salary, then effectively real cost of 30M per year might be feasible.

Not to say either of those deals are for sure on the table, but I don't think they're unthinkable either. Like I could see Ben Simmons (effectively a 40M+ expiring with 0 on court value) being offered for Zach.

Yes there are a very few limited examples such as Simmons, Chris Paul, etc.

But Simmons is hardly zero value IMO. Yes of course he has health issues now and has had health and mental issues his whole career, but he's still a 27 year old 3 time all star who, on paper, would fit extremely well as a point-4 for us. If he's healthy and engaged, swapping Zach for him could end up making us a lot better. Not saying I necessarily support it, but Simmons is one of the very few examples that really fit your criteria.

Bad, large, expiring contracts seem, at a glance, to be much rarer than they used to be.

I think Simmons is toast. He seems to have chronic back and knee injuries on top of attitude problems. Now would I trade Zach for an expiring that wouldn't also cost me Caruso? If we had a clear plan to free up enough cap space for a MAX player after next season, maybe. I still think our better course of action is to try to rehabilitate Zach's value before trading him. I think the FO won't dump him because they have so few assets with which to improve the team that giving a potential one away would be a big problem for them.

Not that I think AK will tank next season, but, to me, all they need to do is let Demar walk (ideally via S&T for a minor asset) and trade Caruso for a 1st, and they should be set to be a bottom 10 team next season.

The problem is that being a bottom 10 team doesn't project to get you anything of high value. Hell, even being the worst team in the league really only projects to get you a guy that becomes, after several years, a good starter (the #4 or #5 overall pick). This is why tanking is insane now for all 30 teams and AK knows this.

[League Circles]

To me it's absolutely mandatory that at least one of Caruso, Zach, Demar or Patrick os gone this summer. It's a ridiculous use of resources to be paying all 4 of those guys substantial money to basically split 2 positions (Patrick shouldn't be playing all that much 4) when we have dire needs at the 4/5 positions. Caruso makes the most sense to be moved along with Zach IMO.

[dougthonus]

Yeah you have to assume for conversations sake. I just don't see us getting back roughly 20-60 million in "neutral" money players for next year.

It's not really neutral. I think Zach and Vuc have some oncourt value, it's just not as much as contractual value. Say you had a 20M totally dead, 0 value player, I could see you trading that player for Vuc. Now you are paying 20M for two year's of Vuc, because the other 20M was of no value to you, and that's maybe a reasonable view of his value, plus next year, he can be used to flip for salary matching if needed even if on court value is low.

Same as true to a lesser extent of LaVine, if you sent 43M for him or whatever it is now, and you are getting him for 3 years but only 90M after you unloaded dead salary, then effectively real cost of 30M per year might be feasible.

Not to say either of those deals are for sure on the table, but I don't think they're unthinkable either. Like I could see Ben Simmons (effectively a 40M+ expiring with 0 on court value) being offered for Zach.

Yes there are a very few limited examples such as Simmons, Chris Paul, etc.

But Simmons is hardly zero value IMO. Yes of course he has health issues now and has had health and mental issues his whole career, but he's still a 27 year old 3 time all star who, on paper, would fit extremely well as a point-4 for us. If he's healthy and engaged, swapping Zach for him could end up making us a lot better. Not saying I necessarily support it, but Simmons is one of the very few examples that really fit your criteria.

Bad, large, expiring contracts seem, at a glance, to be much rarer than they used to be.

Simmons is out for the year again this year with back injuries, he hasn't had a meaningful NBA year in like 3 seasons. I think you have to view him as totally dead.

That said, it's a minor point, I agree the options here are very limited, and I am not sure my theoretical point has practical application, was just providing a framework why it might

[Red8911]

Zach is pretty much a goner, he will leave one way or another at some point.

Vuc it depends on who will be replacing him if he were to get traded.

Then Demar keep 100%, hopefully resign on a better deal for a couple of years since he is getting older.

[drosestruts]

the funniest timeline is obviously to bring all of them back, Lonzo somehow actually returns, and the Bulls are a top 4-seed in the East next year.

[Dan Z]

An interesting though, if you really want to go for a title, the path way to do so, is to trade Coby, Ayo, Pat, and AC for as many draft picks as you can get. Those are the guys who will have real value and also guys whom probably aren't good enough to lead you to a title. You then stay afloat with the mid 3 for a couple years, and try to collect more long term assets for a real tear down in 2 years.

I agree with you, but would like to think they could build a good roster with Coby and Ayo (PW and AC to a lesser extent). For example, what Dallas did last year. But as the years go on it's less and less likely that they'll be able to do it.

I think this thread is a good discussion to have, but it ends up being what you want to happen vs what the front office will really do. Unfortunately, what I think they'll really do is re-sign DDR to a three year deal, hope for health (including the return of Lonzo) and trade Zach at the deadline. My prediction is the Bulls will end up around the same place they're at this season (9th..40ish wins). Not very exciting nor does the front office have much of a vision/plan.

What I'd like them to do...well...that ship sailed when the trade deadline passed. At this point I'd ask around about Zach and if the offers are bad wait until he plays a bit before asking around again. If there's a passable deal (meaning no long term bad contracts and maybe even a small asset) then you take it.

I'd also try to figure out a way to re-sign Drummond if he doesn't cost a lot (a raise is expected). For the draft I'd pick BPA regardless of position.

I like AC, but I'd see what kind of value he has.

[DropStep]

An interesting though, if you really want to go for a title, the path way to do so, is to trade Coby, Ayo, Pat, and AC for as many draft picks as you can get. Those are the guys who will have real value and also guys whom probably aren't good enough to lead you to a title. You then stay afloat with the mid 3 for a couple years, and try to collect more long term assets for a real tear down in 2 years.

How does staying afloat help lead to a title, if we're going to tear it down in two years anyway? Is that period just biding our time to let the current unwanted contracts that we can't trade expire?

[dougthonus]

An interesting though, if you really want to go for a title, the path way to do so, is to trade Coby, Ayo, Pat, and AC for as many draft picks as you can get. Those are the guys who will have real value and also guys whom probably aren't good enough to lead you to a title. You then stay afloat with the mid 3 for a couple years, and try to collect more long term assets for a real tear down in 2 years.

How does staying afloat help lead to a title, if we're going to tear it down in two years anyway? Is that period just biding our time to let the current unwanted contracts that we can't trade expire?

It accomplishes the goal of not being an unwatchable product. It doesn't really help you win a title.

[The Box Office]

Who is available for trade?

Who are we signing via free agency?

Vuc should be gone.
Zach LaVine is gone, too...because he's barely playing right now.
Pat Williams should be traded.
We shouldn't mind if DeMar DeRozan stays since he has 63 playoff games experience. I don't mind. He's steady AF and dependable.

[drosestruts]

An interesting though, if you really want to go for a title, the path way to do so, is to trade Coby, Ayo, Pat, and AC for as many draft picks as you can get. Those are the guys who will have real value and also guys whom probably aren't good enough to lead you to a title. You then stay afloat with the mid 3 for a couple years, and try to collect more long term assets for a real tear down in 2 years.

Hard to argue with this logic, though it also sparked a thought in my head about how AK/ME potentially thought of this team had things gone well.

Had things gone well, and players remained healthy I feel like their were clear transition opportunities:

DeMar and Vuc come in for the immediate veteran help/presence then are sign and traded when their contracts are up (obviously didn't do this with Vuc) and the team kind of passes to Ball/LaVine/Caruso

And then the Ball/LaVine/Caruso trio eventually passes the mantle to Coby/Williams/whomever else is drafted

We just seemed to have these three distinct groups of players if we were to group them by ages

[MrSparkle]

Whatever happens next, we got 3 years of max salary Demar at almost half-off. More than anything, it's a shame that the other 4 big pieces (Zach, Pat, Vuc, *Lonzo) couldn't put it together and/or stay healthy (honorable mentions for Javonte's injury, and slow development from Coby).

I think Demar's camp will want 3-4 years of good money. I look at the summer FA landscape, and I'm concerned that Detroit has nothing to lose by offering Demar a 4y max, even if he doesn't fit their team or timeline. He's proven his worth as a locker-room mentor, and that team needs a lot of that. And Troy Weaver has made some nonsensical FA vet overpays, so this would be another day at the office. Fact is , it's their only mean of adding an all-star without giving up anything. There is nobody of Demar's caliber who would consider signing in Detroit, and if Demar has a chance at one more max, like every other player in his position, he's going to take the money, not the paycut.

Now of course, the alternative would be revisiting the Zach/Detroit trade, and just trying to get a TPE.

[Infinity2152]

An interesting though, if you really want to go for a title, the path way to do so, is to trade Coby, Ayo, Pat, and AC for as many draft picks as you can get. Those are the guys who will have real value and also guys whom probably aren't good enough to lead you to a title. You then stay afloat with the mid 3 for a couple years, and try to collect more long term assets for a real tear down in 2 years.

Hard to argue with this logic, though it also sparked a thought in my head about how AK/ME potentially thought of this team had things gone well.

Had things gone well, and players remained healthy I feel like their were clear transition opportunities:

DeMar and Vuc come in for the immediate veteran help/presence then are sign and traded when their contracts are up (obviously didn't do this with Vuc) and the team kind of passes to Ball/LaVine/Caruso

And then the Ball/LaVine/Caruso trio eventually passes the mantle to Coby/Williams/whomever else is drafted

We just seemed to have these three distinct groups of players if we were to group them by ages

That's a good point. The varying age ranges gave the team flexibility for star power across three different age brackets.

Lavine keeps getting grouped with Vuc and Demar but he's way younger. He was 22 years old when he got traded to this new team to be the number 1. He has performed admirably as a high tier player, but he's not Lebron or KD. The biggest problem people have is his contract, not the contributing to winning crap. If his contract was $20 mill, every team in the league would be leaping to trade for him. In this league, young 25+ scoring, three point contest entering, dunk contest winning 2x All Stars get paid a lot. I'm trying to think of a player who could legit get in the dunk and three point contest in the league now, and I'm failing. Donovan Mitchell, maybe?