The Bulls biggest problem

[Dan Z]

plenty of blame to go around. But the worst thing is does anyone think we'll see improvement next year with a mediocre Draft this year? Or the year after that? Or 2027? 2028? I don't see a path to relevance as a title contender anywhere down the line. The Bears have stolen any interest I had in the Bulls. I'm excited for the NFL Draft. I'm not enthused about the NBA Draft at all. No needle movers where we're picking. I think the Bears are legit playoff contenders this coming season. While the Bulls are just play-in cannon fodder. No hope whatsoever. And there are no miracle trades or some generational Draft talent coming our way to matter. The Bulls are mediocre and will continue to be mediocre for years to come. Unfortunately.

The problem is when AK got here they stopped looking for a franchise player and decided to go in a "win now" direction without one.

The team played well for a few months when Lonzo was healthy, but how far was that team really going to go?

I was happy with that concept. Winning 45+ games is a good place to be in. All your player trade values increase. We also still had quite a decent pool of prospects, and the salary structure/flexibility was perfect.

The lack of moves afterwards is the big issue. It was painfully obvious that at best, Lonzo would never be as good again, and at worst, he'd never play a game again... and having more and more sample size of how bad Vuc+Zach were... and getting a clearer and clearer picture of how Patrick, Coby, etc. are not star caliber players...

If he pivoted quickly from the slow-moving explosion, we'd be in a better place. Instead he's doubled down through 3 trade deadlines and 2 summers, and now is faced with a really challenging off-season. The total irrelevance of Marko, Patrick, Terry and Phillips really hurts too, as time passes.

I agree that AK should've moved in a different direction a long time ago, but I also don't think his direction was very good.

I don't think Zach was ever a franchise player and now he's being paid as one. Building around Zach, DDR and Vucevic wasn't a good idea. Trading two lottery picks plus WCJ for Vucevic was also bad. I know AK didn't think they'd be lottery picks, but if he did the trade with that in mind then why not do a better job of protecting the picks?

[MrSparkle]

The problem is when AK got here they stopped looking for a franchise player and decided to go in a "win now" direction without one.

The team played well for a few months when Lonzo was healthy, but how far was that team really going to go?

I was happy with that concept. Winning 45+ games is a good place to be in. All your player trade values increase. We also still had quite a decent pool of prospects, and the salary structure/flexibility was perfect.

The lack of moves afterwards is the big issue. It was painfully obvious that at best, Lonzo would never be as good again, and at worst, he'd never play a game again... and having more and more sample size of how bad Vuc+Zach were... and getting a clearer and clearer picture of how Patrick, Coby, etc. are not star caliber players...

If he pivoted quickly from the slow-moving explosion, we'd be in a better place. Instead he's doubled down through 3 trade deadlines and 2 summers, and now is faced with a really challenging off-season. The total irrelevance of Marko, Patrick, Terry and Phillips really hurts too, as time passes.

I agree that AK should've moved in a different direction a long time ago, but I also don't think his direction was very good.

I don't think Zach was ever a franchise player and now he's being paid as one. Building around Zach, DDR and Vucevic wasn't a good idea. Trading two lottery picks plus WCJ for Vucevic was also bad. I know AK didn't think they'd be lottery picks, but if he did the trade with that in mind then why not do a better job of protecting the picks?

Well, Zach didn't get the super-max. The regular max... is basically available for about 50 players. There are atleast 40 players on the regular max. At 28yo, 25 PPG and 2x all-star appearances, you basically pay that guy the max or you lose him to free agency. Would I personally have preferred to trade (or S&T) Zach for a different player? Yes. I didn't think it was a bad idea stacking the deck and sorting it later. The problem is they didn't sort the messy deck.

The way Billy talked to the press in his first Bulls season, he made it seem like he didn't love Zach from the get-go. I'm surprised they kept him as long as they did, past "expiration." I'm fairly sure that they wanted to build his value to some kind of 4 FRP or Shai style trade return, but either their asking price got to high, they fell to enamored with Zach (and their "player development"), etc.

Now I'll also say that Lonzo and Zach were a very good pairing. As a duo, they checked almost every box for a top-5 backcourt, besides for good half-court creation (which I believe was the thinking with Demar and Vuc). But truth is, you'd want runners/3D guys in the front court, not those 2.

But the Vuc trade... Yes, terrible. Sadly, even just keeping ole washed Thad would've been better for the franchise.

End of the day… Caruso/Lonzo/Demar were the all-stars, Zach was a good microwave scorer, Vuc/Pat/Coby/Ayo were below-average role-players.

[Dan Z]

I was happy with that concept. Winning 45+ games is a good place to be in. All your player trade values increase. We also still had quite a decent pool of prospects, and the salary structure/flexibility was perfect.

The lack of moves afterwards is the big issue. It was painfully obvious that at best, Lonzo would never be as good again, and at worst, he'd never play a game again... and having more and more sample size of how bad Vuc+Zach were... and getting a clearer and clearer picture of how Patrick, Coby, etc. are not star caliber players...

If he pivoted quickly from the slow-moving explosion, we'd be in a better place. Instead he's doubled down through 3 trade deadlines and 2 summers, and now is faced with a really challenging off-season. The total irrelevance of Marko, Patrick, Terry and Phillips really hurts too, as time passes.

I agree that AK should've moved in a different direction a long time ago, but I also don't think his direction was very good.

I don't think Zach was ever a franchise player and now he's being paid as one. Building around Zach, DDR and Vucevic wasn't a good idea. Trading two lottery picks plus WCJ for Vucevic was also bad. I know AK didn't think they'd be lottery picks, but if he did the trade with that in mind then why not do a better job of protecting the picks?

Well, Zach didn't get the super-max. The regular max... is basically available for about 50 players. There are atleast 40 players on the regular max. At 28yo, 25 PPG and 2x all-star appearances, you basically pay that guy the max or you lose him to free agency. Would I personally have preferred to trade (or S&T) Zach for a different player? Yes. I didn't think it was a bad idea stacking the deck and sorting it later. The problem is they didn't sort the messy deck.

The way Billy talked to the press in his first Bulls season, he made it seem like he didn't love Zach from the get-go. I'm surprised they kept him as long as they did, past "expiration." I'm fairly sure that they wanted to build his value to some kind of 4 FRP or Shai style trade return, but either their asking price got to high, they fell to enamored with Zach (and their "player development"), etc.

Now I'll also say that Lonzo and Zach were a very good pairing. As a duo, they checked almost every box for a top-5 backcourt, besides for good half-court creation (which I believe was the thinking with Demar and Vuc). But truth is, you'd want runners/3D guys in the front court, not those 2.

But the Vuc trade... Yes, terrible. Sadly, even just keeping ole washed Thad would've been better for the franchise.

End of the day… Caruso/Lonzo/Demar were the all-stars, Zach was a good microwave scorer, Vuc/Pat/Coby/Ayo were below-average role-players.

The other question is: What would Zach's career look like if DDR never came to Chicago? DDR has typically been the guy who takes the 4th quarter shots since he got here, which means Zach hasn't been in the role. Could he lead the way if DDR wasn't here? Maybe, but I doubt it.

That's something AK should've considered when they decided to pay Zach and continue to move forward with him.

As for their asking price you might be right, but shouldn't a front office understand the market better if that's the case?

[dougthonus]

I was happy with that concept. Winning 45+ games is a good place to be in. All your player trade values increase. We also still had quite a decent pool of prospects, and the salary structure/flexibility was perfect.

The lack of moves afterwards is the big issue. It was painfully obvious that at best, Lonzo would never be as good again, and at worst, he'd never play a game again... and having more and more sample size of how bad Vuc+Zach were... and getting a clearer and clearer picture of how Patrick, Coby, etc. are not star caliber players...

The reason for the lack of moves afterwards is we had 0 financial flexibility and 0 trade assets. We used all of those things to get to 46 wins for a single season.

If he pivoted quickly from the slow-moving explosion, we'd be in a better place. Instead he's doubled down through 3 trade deadlines and 2 summers, and now is faced with a really challenging off-season. The total irrelevance of Marko, Patrick, Terry and Phillips really hurts too, as time passes.

That's sort of true, but if he had just not done all this stuff it would have been way better than pivoting after it didn't work. He could have simply predicted it wouldn't work, because it was obvious it wouldn't work before he did it. The year we did all this stuff, the analytical guys were like "what the hell are they doing? Why would you give up 3 future 1sts to build a big 3 of Zach, DeMar, and Vuc?"

[Dan Z]

The problem is when AK got here they stopped looking for a franchise player and decided to go in a "win now" direction without one.

The team played well for a few months when Lonzo was healthy, but how far was that team really going to go?

I was happy with that concept. Winning 45+ games is a good place to be in. All your player trade values increase. We also still had quite a decent pool of prospects, and the salary structure/flexibility was perfect.

The lack of moves afterwards is the big issue. It was painfully obvious that at best, Lonzo would never be as good again, and at worst, he'd never play a game again... and having more and more sample size of how bad Vuc+Zach were... and getting a clearer and clearer picture of how Patrick, Coby, etc. are not star caliber players...

The reason for the lack of moves afterwards is we had 0 financial flexibility and 0 trade assets. We used all of those things to get to 46 wins for a single season.

If he pivoted quickly from the slow-moving explosion, we'd be in a better place. Instead he's doubled down through 3 trade deadlines and 2 summers, and now is faced with a really challenging off-season. The total irrelevance of Marko, Patrick, Terry and Phillips really hurts too, as time passes.

That's sort of true, but if he had just not done all this stuff it would have been way better than pivoting after it didn't work. He could have simply predicted it wouldn't work, because it was obvious it wouldn't work before he did it. The year we did all this stuff, the analytical guys were like "what the hell are they doing? Why would you give up 3 future 1sts to build a big 3 of Zach, DeMar, and Vuc?"[/quote]

I can understand moving in a direction to see if something will work, but once its not working then he should've moved in a different direction (so we agree on that).

I just think that the Vuc, DDR, and Zach pairing was never a good idea and giving up assets to do it makes it even worse.

[League Circles]

I'd think we could dump Vuc or Zach in a Ben Simmons trade if anyone has interest. Changes our whole financial outlook and gives us a wildcard for a year.

[JRoy]

The FO for thinking this collection of talent is worth keeping.

[RSP83]

I want to say Vuc. But I go with Zach as 1a problem, Vuc as 1b problem.

Why Zach? Not having him lower our floor and ceiling this season. Why 1a? His contract crippled us, especially with not being able to get any value out of him. Close to zero on court production (when looking at overall season perspective) and zero trade value. So he's just sort of like a large block of void asset this season.

Why Vuc? Because he didn't step up when this undermanned team need more production from him. His offense efficiency drops significantly below his own career standard, despite it's the only value he's supposed to offer. He hurts the team defensively everytime he's on the floor. He provides zero leadership. Things got to his head easily, doesn't walk the talk, complains but doesn't lead by example, not a vocal leader as well. Despite all that he's the 4th highest paid player on our team.

Among the 4 highest paid players on this team, 2 players generate 0 value, 1 player generate negative value. All 3 combined for 78 million dollar, that's 58% of salary cap generating less than 20% of production. I would be fired from my job immediately with that kind of numbers. The only positive thing I can say from that number, despite 58% of bad investment, this team manage to win 48% of their game. Which means theoretically to improve to win 15-17% more games, we have 58% of bad assets to try to convert to work with. That's a lot to work with to try to improve your team. But of course those 58% has to be movable/convert-able first.

[Kurt Heimlich]

Voted Zach (since the owners and front office are so uninterestingly the run away real answer). His contract is a negative and kills any hopes for flexibility in trying to acquire that illusive superstar, which he simply is not in terms of team elevating ability. And we don't have a progressive front office the rebuilds by stockpiling young talent and draft picks. So we're stuck in no man's land, with negative future draft capital and "mid" level solid vets and solid role player level guys who can grind us to that 9th/10th seed.

[NZB2323]

I think the biggest issue is the lack of a star player. Who is the best player on this team? Instead of a big 3 we have a mid 3.

You can play scapegoat all day long but the reason we’re not a good team is because we don’t have a top 30 player on our team.

[nekorajo]

Bulls fans. We don't hold ownership accountable for repeatedly failing.

[MrSparkle]

I was happy with that concept. Winning 45+ games is a good place to be in. All your player trade values increase. We also still had quite a decent pool of prospects, and the salary structure/flexibility was perfect.

The lack of moves afterwards is the big issue. It was painfully obvious that at best, Lonzo would never be as good again, and at worst, he'd never play a game again... and having more and more sample size of how bad Vuc+Zach were... and getting a clearer and clearer picture of how Patrick, Coby, etc. are not star caliber players...

The reason for the lack of moves afterwards is we had 0 financial flexibility and 0 trade assets. We used all of those things to get to 46 wins for a single season.

If he pivoted quickly from the slow-moving explosion, we'd be in a better place. Instead he's doubled down through 3 trade deadlines and 2 summers, and now is faced with a really challenging off-season. The total irrelevance of Marko, Patrick, Terry and Phillips really hurts too, as time passes.

That's sort of true, but if he had just not done all this stuff it would have been way better than pivoting after it didn't work. He could have simply predicted it wouldn't work, because it was obvious it wouldn't work before he did it. The year we did all this stuff, the analytical guys were like "what the hell are they doing? Why would you give up 3 future 1sts to build a big 3 of Zach, DeMar, and Vuc?"

Well, Vuc, Zach, Demar, Caruso were all tradeable players at some point, after the Lonzo season. There was top-4 pick protection on 2023 (in a very strong draft - Wemby), and they didn't have to resign Vuc (nor hold Zach another year) to "run it back."

There were trade assets, there were pick, and there was financial flexibility. Zach's disastrous start to last season followed by the injury eliminated most the options.

[dougthonus]

Well, Vuc, Zach, Demar, Caruso were all tradeable players at some point, after the Lonzo season. There was top-4 pick protection on 2023 (in a very strong draft - Wemby), and they didn't have to resign Vuc (nor hold Zach another year) to "run it back."

There were trade assets, there were pick, and there was financial flexibility. Zach's disastrous start to last season followed by the injury eliminated most the options.

Sure, I agree that he could have pivoted earlier, and it would have been better (and I advocated for that at every major juncture since the initial path was chosen), but since the most value lost was in the initial move, the best thing would have been to never go down this path at all.

[MrSparkle]

Well, Vuc, Zach, Demar, Caruso were all tradeable players at some point, after the Lonzo season. There was top-4 pick protection on 2023 (in a very strong draft - Wemby), and they didn't have to resign Vuc (nor hold Zach another year) to "run it back."

There were trade assets, there were pick, and there was financial flexibility. Zach's disastrous start to last season followed by the injury eliminated most the options.

Sure, I agree that he could have pivoted earlier, and it would have been better (and I advocated for that at every major juncture since the initial path was chosen), but since the most value lost was in the initial move, the best thing would have been to never go down this path at all.

Well, what’s done (and not done) is done. In agreement that this offseason shall be a cluster f***, regardless whether they keep this team together or break it up (Probably minor middle inconsequential moves).

The truth is i think that everyone (besides 1 poster) has lost all faith in this FO.. personally, even if something seems like a good move, I have reason to be skeptical. Their draft and trade hit rate is so low, and the most recurring result is everything looks worse in hindsight.

[Senor Chang]

Firing garpax. The bulls sucked near the end of their tenure but it wasn’t necessarily a bad thing because we were still kinda in the rebuilding phase. Fans got impatient and paid for billboards to shout “fire garpax” during all star weekend in Chicago and it kinda forced Reinsdorf’s hand to then let garpax go. If people would have chilled out a bit and let the bulls suck we would still have Lauri, probably Wendell, and garpax would have drafted Iowa star Tyrese Haliburton.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MGB8]

Vuc, and not particularly close.

For better or worse, this has become DDR’s team.

If you were going to build a team “around” DeRozan, you would want:

1- primary ball handler (because DDR is secondary, and noting that while Coby shined at times, not clear that he really is the lead ball handler yet), and,

2 - to address DDRs weak points, everyone else would need to be “3&D” or “3&D+”, the D being as important, if not moreso, than the 3.

Vuc is neither 3 nor D, and his offensive style doesn’t really complement DDR.

LaVine had a horrid season between injury issues and just not playing well (mentality + ego/role issues)… but at the end of the day, you could use LaVine as “3&D+” type player (where both offensive and defensive roles would have to be fairly narrowly designed). Nether his ego could take be8ng used in that kind of role - a finisher rather than creator on offense (who would still score in the mid to high 20s), a lot of energy expended on perimeter defense… unclear, but theoretically it is doable.

Vuc, healthy or hurt, however, never works in if you are trying to win around DDR as your primary scorer / closer. All the other main guys work or could be made to. Even Drummond, though far from ideal, at least doesn’t get in the way in the way that Vuc and his need for shots does, and Drummond is generally a better (if not great) defender than Vuc. But Vuc just doesn’t fit. Might fit if Zach is playing well and he is the primary offensive player, no DDR… but Vuc and DDR aren’t a good pairing.

[jnrjr79]

Ownership

Why isn't this an option it has been the #1 problem for years

It should be:

1. Ownership
2. FO
3. Coaching
4. Injuries (Lonzo/Lavine) & Medical Staff
5a. Overvalued mid-level talent (Patrick/Vuc/Lavine)
5b. Overvalued low-level talent (Carter/Craig)

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MrSparkle]

Drafting: F
Trading: F
Signing FAs: B

[_txchilibowl_]

I mean...it has to be Ball, no?

[League Circles]

Why isn't this an option it has been the #1 problem for years

It should be:

1. Ownership
2. FO
3. Coaching
4. Injuries (Lonzo/Lavine) & Medical Staff
5a. Overvalued mid-level talent (Patrick/Vuc/Lavine)
5b. Overvalued low-level talent (Carter/Craig)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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