League Circles wrote:jnrjr79 wrote:League Circles wrote: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.
What's preposterous is asking a question, but then disallowing the correct answer because you don't find it entertaining enough. The Bulls currently have a top-down problem in their overall approach. That approach is why the roster is mediocre. Unless and until they are ready to have a more long-term strategy, this kind of roster is what you're likely to have.
Believing it's better (or at least not worse) to have later draft picks because more good players have come later in the draft is just mathematically untrue. Yes, if you combine all of the players drafted 11-60, you might end up with more good players than those drafted 1-10, but that's only because there are way more players (and therefore way more chances) in the former group than the latter. On average, the higher a player is drafted, the more likely it is that the player will succeed. (This is similar to the NFL draft analysis we were looking at recently in terms of the QB hit rate by draft slot).
Here are last year's All-NBA players and their draft positions:
Doncic (3)
Shai (11)
Tatum (3)
Giannis (15)
Embiid (3)
Mitchell (13)
Curry (7)
Butler (30)
Brown (7)
Jokic (41)
Fox (5)
Lillard (6)
LeBron (1)
Randle (7)
Sabonis (11)
9 of 15 All-NBA players were picked in the top 10. Notably, only 2 of 15 were picked in the back half of the first round or later.
These are teams I assume we can agree are championship contenders:
Thunder (Shai #11, Giddy #6, Chet #2)
Nuggets (Gordon and KCP drafted high, but very cool they are led by 2 late-picked guys)
Wolves (top 2 players both picked #1)
Clippers (Harden #3, George #1, Leonard #15)
Mavs (Luka #3, Kyrie #1)
Phoenix (Booker #13, Beal #3, Durant #2)
Celtics (Brown #3, Tatum #3, KP #4)
(I guess we can throw the Knicks and Bucks in here, too, but IMO nobody is getting by the Celtics absent serious injury woes).
Now, many of these players are on the teams that drafted them, while others are not. But even for the players that moved, you generally needed good players and/or good draft capital to acquire them, since outright free agent signings for stars are becoming increasingly rare, so the value of draft capital is only further reinforced by that method of player acquisition, too.
I'm not proposing the Bulls have to go into full-on tank mode. But the current veteran core is going nowhere and it's obvious. They need to hand the reigns to the younger guys and let it go where it goes. That's not going to make them the worst team in the league, but it should be enough of a step back to keep next year's pick and try to build up a team correctly.
The Bulls are not merely, say, a Vooch trade away from being meaningfully better, which is why focusing on any single contract is failing to see the forest for the trees.