How long until the Bulls actually fully commit to a rebuild?

[League Circles]

One thing I've always believed is that because getting the right #1 is virtually impossible and requires massive luck, a prudent way to approach roster construction is to just assume your top 1 or 2 guys won't be elite among top two options, so instead, focus on having the best 3-5 starters possible, especially in terms of chemistry and complementary skills with your flawed top 2 guys. That's probably the most likely way to "build" a contender on a practical level. Try to emulate the 2010 Mavs, the 2003 Pistons, and 2014 Spurs. I might be off on a couple of those years, but those are the types of teams you can actually set out to build, and if you're lucky, might let you play for a championship. And before anyone says Dirk was amazing, just know he was a 32 year old terrible defender coming off of a 24 and 7, 57% TS year. Big whoop.

[Hangtime84]

One thing I've always believed is that because getting the right #1 is virtually impossible and requires massive luck, a prudent way to approach roster construction is to just assume your top 1 or 2 guys won't be elite among top two options, so instead, focus on having the best 3-5 starters possible, especially in terms of chemistry and complementary skills with your flawed top 2 guys. That's probably the most likely way to "build" a contender on a practical level. Try to emulate the 2010 Mavs, the 2003 Pistons, and 2014 Spurs. I might be off on a couple of those years, but those are the types of teams you can actually set out to build, and if you're lucky, might let you play for a championship. And before anyone says Dirk was amazing, just know he was a 32 year old terrible defender coming off of a 24 and 7, 57% TS year. Big whoop.

Denver just stacked above average talent and develop those they could. We are trying to exactly that

If we just did that in the first place instead of swinging we would be a contender right now.

[Stratmaster]

I wouldn't be surprised if that's the actual FO direction, with ownership approval. Neither AK or the ownership group has the stomach for a full tank which can take 4+ years even in best case scenarios like Seattle/OKC.

And AK has opted for in-between moves like trading AC not for a draft pick but Josh Giddey, who just turned 22 so he's the age of many rookies and not as random in quality as a low draft pick. He'll most likely outperform Kyshawn George, but doesn't have that lotto chance that Kyshawn is the next Jimmy Butler. Also matches the rumored return for Vuc AK is looking for, a promising young player not a 1st round draft pick.

I don't even understand what it means to say that a "full tank" can take 4+ years even in the best case scenario. Do you mean if a team is trying to be very bad, it could take 4+ years before they get a player who truly appears talented enough to be their long term #1 guy on a contender?

If so, I totally agree, which is why tanking is so deeply insane. At least deliberate long term.

If the Bulls are deliberately a bottom 5 type team for 4+ years I will almost certainly never be a fan again. Waaaaaaay too much time to waste on "entertainment" just to probably end up with a **** Carmelo Anthony level player.

Honest question: do you find the recent Bulls to be enjoyable to follow these days when they have been a play-in, but not playoff, team?

I do not enjoy watching the Bulls make the 9 or 10 seed and then get bounced before even making the first round, and I enjoy it *less* than if they were even worse, because finishing in that position severely limits their ability to improve.

I'll answer. WAY more enjoyable than they would be for the coming "these days", which will amount to multiple seasons, if they trade away all their talent just to try to get their draft pick this offseason.

Keep Lavine, Ayo, Giddey, Matas, Smith (and Ball if he will sign dirt cheap to pay the Bulls back for all the money he paid not playing). Trade anyone else for the best return you can get. That is the kind of rebuild I could buy into because you likely end up with a better team. Possibly immediately. Certainly within a 2nd season.

[jnrjr79]

I don't even understand what it means to say that a "full tank" can take 4+ years even in the best case scenario. Do you mean if a team is trying to be very bad, it could take 4+ years before they get a player who truly appears talented enough to be their long term #1 guy on a contender?

If so, I totally agree, which is why tanking is so deeply insane. At least deliberate long term.

If the Bulls are deliberately a bottom 5 type team for 4+ years I will almost certainly never be a fan again. Waaaaaaay too much time to waste on "entertainment" just to probably end up with a **** Carmelo Anthony level player.

Honest question: do you find the recent Bulls to be enjoyable to follow these days when they have been a play-in, but not playoff, team?

I do not enjoy watching the Bulls make the 9 or 10 seed and then get bounced before even making the first round, and I enjoy it *less* than if they were even worse, because finishing in that position severely limits their ability to improve.

If they're in the hunt for the playoffs for most of the season, and have young talented players, which has been the case for the last 3+ seasons, I enjoy it enough to have it in my entertainment toolbox. It exists as part of my life that is an enjoyable diversion. If they are a bottom 5 team, without a Victor W type talent already on the roster, they cease to be that at all. I really disagree with the notion that being mediocre instead of bad "severely" limits their ability to improve. There are never more than 5 good long term players in a draft, and usually one or two of them are still available in the middle of the first round. In a sense it's actually better to be a 500 team than like a 50 win team that's capped out with 30+ year olds. THAT is actually what I'd call nba hell. Old enough and capped out enough to not be able to improve much, but not good enough to contend, and not bad enough to break up.

I think a lot of what drives the tank vs. no tank debate is:

1) a sort of semantic disagreement over what it means to be "tanking," and
2) different people enjoying the team for different reasons.

The "tank" the Bulls might be pursuing here seems to be more of a mini-tank: unload some expensive vets, focus on developmental players, and accept that this likely means missing the playoffs this year. That appeals to me, because I think we've seen this team has a very low ceiling as currently constructed. I'm sympathetic to people who don't want to do the full-on Pistons/Philly tank where you suck for a long, long time (though I still can support it - OKC sure has done nicely with that model). Invariably, people only bring up failed tanks when they argue that tanking doesn't work, but that's just frankly inaccurate. No model of team building "works," insofar as "working" means becoming a contender, because all rebuilding/team building plans are likely to fail in a sport where there are 32 teams vying for one championship. So, I am a proponent of the Bulls "tanking" this season - meaning missing the playoffs and keeping the pick - but am open to version of it where they try to snap out of tank mode sooner rather than later. But the last thing I want to see this season is some pointless pursuit of the play-in where the best case scenario is a first-round exit and the pick going to San Antonio.

As to #2, though I may watch games less when the team is bad, I actually enjoy following the team more when they have committed to a path that has a higher long-term ceiling. I'll watch this current team mostly because I'm interested to see how Matas develops, and to a much lesser extent, Ayo, Coby, etc. I'm also interested to see whether Zach and Vooch can keep playing at a high level, but not because I think it gives the team hope this year, but because it makes them potentially useful trade chips to help this team have a brighter future. Others seem to get really dispirited at that, which I get but do not agree with. I also strongly disagree with your draft analysis and think it's really unwise to say "the draft is a crapshoot and hey, sometimes great players are drafted later, so there's no point in focusing on draft position." While it's all well and good to say "Jokic was a 2nd rounder, we don't need to worry about the draft," statistically higher picks are more likely to turn into stars than later picks, and I'd rather optimize the chance of picking a star, even knowing that every given draft pick is unlikely to be one. If the Bulls were the Lakers and could rely on some hope that free agency/market desirability could save them, I might be open to a better approach, but the Bulls are very likely to need to rely on a draft-based strategy to reach contender status again. In order to get this rebuild moving along sooner rather than later (which should appeal to the people who hate sucking), the Bulls should be focused on keeping the pick this year. They'd probably use it, but having the pick this year also increases the chance of using it in a win-now trade at draft night. Having that pick makes the Bulls more interesting from a competitive standpoint now instead of kicking the can down the road.

Anyway, my two cents.

[Ballerkingn23]

Never thats when.

Ak and billy don't want the stigma that comes with a rebuild. I think this will be a soft rebuild though and they will try to get competitive asap. But we gotta keep our pick this year or get more picks in this draft class somehow.

[League Circles]

Honest question: do you find the recent Bulls to be enjoyable to follow these days when they have been a play-in, but not playoff, team?

I do not enjoy watching the Bulls make the 9 or 10 seed and then get bounced before even making the first round, and I enjoy it *less* than if they were even worse, because finishing in that position severely limits their ability to improve.

If they're in the hunt for the playoffs for most of the season, and have young talented players, which has been the case for the last 3+ seasons, I enjoy it enough to have it in my entertainment toolbox. It exists as part of my life that is an enjoyable diversion. If they are a bottom 5 team, without a Victor W type talent already on the roster, they cease to be that at all. I really disagree with the notion that being mediocre instead of bad "severely" limits their ability to improve. There are never more than 5 good long term players in a draft, and usually one or two of them are still available in the middle of the first round. In a sense it's actually better to be a 500 team than like a 50 win team that's capped out with 30+ year olds. THAT is actually what I'd call nba hell. Old enough and capped out enough to not be able to improve much, but not good enough to contend, and not bad enough to break up.

I think a lot of what drives the tank vs. no tank debate is:

1) a sort of semantic disagreement over what it means to be "tanking," and
2) different people enjoying the team for different reasons.

The "tank" the Bulls might be pursuing here seems to be more of a mini-tank: unload some expensive vets, focus on developmental players, and accept that this likely means missing the playoffs this year. That appeals to me, because I think we've seen this team has a very low ceiling as currently constructed. I'm sympathetic to people who don't want to do the full-on Pistons/Philly tank where you suck for a long, long time (though I still can support it - OKC sure has done nicely with that model). Invariably, people only bring up failed tanks when they argue that tanking doesn't work, but that's just frankly inaccurate. No model of team building "works," insofar as "working" means becoming a contender, because all rebuilding/team building plans are likely to fail in a sport where there are 32 teams vying for one championship. So, I am a proponent of the Bulls "tanking" this season - meaning missing the playoffs and keeping the pick - but am open to version of it where they try to snap out of tank mode sooner rather than later. But the last thing I want to see this season is some pointless pursuit of the play-in where the best case scenario is a first-round exit and the pick going to San Antonio.

As to #2, though I may watch games less when the team is bad, I actually enjoy following the team more when they have committed to a path that has a higher long-term ceiling. I'll watch this current team mostly because I'm interested to see how Matas develops, and to a much lesser extent, Ayo, Coby, etc. I'm also interested to see whether Zach and Vooch can keep playing at a high level, but not because I think it gives the team hope this year, but because it makes them potentially useful trade chips to help this team have a brighter future. Others seem to get really dispirited at that, which I get but do not agree with. I also strongly disagree with your draft analysis and think it's really unwise to say "the draft is a crapshoot and hey, sometimes great players are drafted later, so there's no point in focusing on draft position." While it's all well and good to say "Jokic was a 2nd rounder, we don't need to worry about the draft," statistically higher picks are more likely to turn into stars than later picks, and I'd rather optimize the chance of picking a star, even knowing that every given draft pick is unlikely to be one. If the Bulls were the Lakers and could rely on some hope that free agency/market desirability could save them, I might be open to a better approach, but the Bulls are very likely to need to rely on a draft-based strategy to reach contender status again. In order to get this rebuild moving along sooner rather than later (which should appeal to the people who hate sucking), the Bulls should be focused on keeping the pick this year. They'd probably use it, but having the pick this year also increases the chance of using it in a win-now trade at draft night. Having that pick makes the Bulls more interesting from a competitive standpoint now instead of kicking the can down the road.

Anyway, my two cents.

Truly no disrespect, but I feel like you're talking around everything that matters.

For example, the "mini tank" you describe could be a million different things. First of all, we're currently in the playoff hunt, and we'd have to take back a LOT of nba talent if we were to "unload some expensive vets". The reason no one ever really specifies the generic Zach and/or Vuc trades that they generically pine for is that such trades are virtually an impossibility. Just due to salary matching rules alone, there is a HUGE chance that a trade of either or both of those guys doesn't make us much worse on the court, but at least in the case of Zach, loses us a high level talent who isn't old as is under contract. I just feel like Zach and Vuc are on different planets for this team. Zach is 5 years younger, has had a better career, is a lot more talented, and is under contract for longer, and lacks Vuc's fatal flaw of atrocious defense at the most important defensive position.

Even if dumping Zach is possible and results in us keeping our pick, that pick has a very low chance to ever be the kind of player that Zach is likely to be for the next 5 years. THAT is the key point IMO.

Vuc basically sucks and is on a wild hot streak and I don't care what we do with him at all. Despite his good offensive play this year I don't think he meaningfully helps us win games over other alternatives, and he's certainly not likely to going forward, as opposed to Zach.

Every one else is young.

If we could magically trade Zach for terrible players on expiring contracts AND a projected top 8ish pick in THIS SUMMER'S draft, then sure of course we should do it. But that is a really cartoonish version of the likely reality.

[drosestruts]

I don't even understand what it means to say that a "full tank" can take 4+ years even in the best case scenario. Do you mean if a team is trying to be very bad, it could take 4+ years before they get a player who truly appears talented enough to be their long term #1 guy on a contender?

If so, I totally agree, which is why tanking is so deeply insane. At least deliberate long term.

If the Bulls are deliberately a bottom 5 type team for 4+ years I will almost certainly never be a fan again. Waaaaaaay too much time to waste on "entertainment" just to probably end up with a **** Carmelo Anthony level player.

I think it's way worse than that.

Carmelo Anthony is a Hall of Fame player.

The Pistons have been one of the worst teams in the NBA for 5 years in a row.

Their best player from all that losing is Cade Cunningham. His high usage (31%) helps him fill up the stat sheet - 23 points 7 rebounds and 9 assists. But he's doing so on awful efficiency 54% TS% and has never had a positive On Court +/- in his entire career. And he's locked in to a HUGE. extension.

This is what tanking gets you. 5 years. 5 years of tanking and Detroit is currently not even in the play-in

Exactly, I was trying to be generous. And yeah, Melo might be a hall of fame player, but I don't think anyone would argue that he was ever going to be the man on a championship team. Just not good enough. But yeah Cade is a great example. He's their building block, but is it likely that he'll ever be a top 5 nba player? No, it's not.

Not to sidetrack this into a Carmelo situation - but I feel he's often not given the credit he deserves, and think like a lot of players out there, I less question how good he was, but have far more questions on how good any of his teams were.

And with someone like Carmelo we have the benefit of time to more accurately look at his team.

The deepest Carmelo ever made it in the playoffs was the 2009 WCF where he lost in 6-games to the eventual champion Lakers

Let's look at Carmelo's team that year.

2md best player was probably 32-year old Chauncey Billups. After that it was a pretty big drop - 3rd best is probably JR Smith or Kenyon Martin??

Looking at the Lakers in comparison who had Kobe, Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom. Strong role players like Ariza, Bynum, Fisher, etc.

like, of course he lost that series.

Also looking at that team is funny cause I use to swear Linas Kleiza was a diamond in the rough simply stuck behind Carmelo on the depth chart.

[League Circles]

I think it's way worse than that.

Carmelo Anthony is a Hall of Fame player.

The Pistons have been one of the worst teams in the NBA for 5 years in a row.

Their best player from all that losing is Cade Cunningham. His high usage (31%) helps him fill up the stat sheet - 23 points 7 rebounds and 9 assists. But he's doing so on awful efficiency 54% TS% and has never had a positive On Court +/- in his entire career. And he's locked in to a HUGE. extension.

This is what tanking gets you. 5 years. 5 years of tanking and Detroit is currently not even in the play-in

Exactly, I was trying to be generous. And yeah, Melo might be a hall of fame player, but I don't think anyone would argue that he was ever going to be the man on a championship team. Just not good enough. But yeah Cade is a great example. He's their building block, but is it likely that he'll ever be a top 5 nba player? No, it's not.

Not to sidetrack this into a Carmelo situation - but I feel he's often not given the credit he deserves, and think like a lot of players out there, I less question how good he was, but have far more questions on how good any of his teams were.

And with someone like Carmelo we have the benefit of time to more accurately look at his team.

The deepest Carmelo ever made it in the playoffs was the 2009 WCF where he lost in 6-games to the eventual champion Lakers

Let's look at Carmelo's team that year.

2md best player was probably 32-year old Chauncey Billups. After that it was a pretty big drop - 3rd best is probably JR Smith or Kenyon Martin??

Looking at the Lakers in comparison who had Kobe, Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom. Strong role players like Ariza, Bynum, Fisher, etc.

like, of course he lost that series.

Also looking at that team is funny cause I use to swear Linas Kleiza was a diamond in the rough simply stuck behind Carmelo on the depth chart.

Your reasoning is sound, but I just think in a career that long, even a broken clock is right twice, so to speak.

Jalen Rose was the 2nd best player on a team that took the dynasty Bulls to 7 games, for what it's worth. Melo wasn't terrible, but if you're "building around" a guy like that, IMO you probably can't win a title. Frankly he was a slightly better, healthier Zach Lavine.

[jnrjr79]

If they're in the hunt for the playoffs for most of the season, and have young talented players, which has been the case for the last 3+ seasons, I enjoy it enough to have it in my entertainment toolbox. It exists as part of my life that is an enjoyable diversion. If they are a bottom 5 team, without a Victor W type talent already on the roster, they cease to be that at all. I really disagree with the notion that being mediocre instead of bad "severely" limits their ability to improve. There are never more than 5 good long term players in a draft, and usually one or two of them are still available in the middle of the first round. In a sense it's actually better to be a 500 team than like a 50 win team that's capped out with 30+ year olds. THAT is actually what I'd call nba hell. Old enough and capped out enough to not be able to improve much, but not good enough to contend, and not bad enough to break up.

I think a lot of what drives the tank vs. no tank debate is:

1) a sort of semantic disagreement over what it means to be "tanking," and
2) different people enjoying the team for different reasons.

The "tank" the Bulls might be pursuing here seems to be more of a mini-tank: unload some expensive vets, focus on developmental players, and accept that this likely means missing the playoffs this year. That appeals to me, because I think we've seen this team has a very low ceiling as currently constructed. I'm sympathetic to people who don't want to do the full-on Pistons/Philly tank where you suck for a long, long time (though I still can support it - OKC sure has done nicely with that model). Invariably, people only bring up failed tanks when they argue that tanking doesn't work, but that's just frankly inaccurate. No model of team building "works," insofar as "working" means becoming a contender, because all rebuilding/team building plans are likely to fail in a sport where there are 32 teams vying for one championship. So, I am a proponent of the Bulls "tanking" this season - meaning missing the playoffs and keeping the pick - but am open to version of it where they try to snap out of tank mode sooner rather than later. But the last thing I want to see this season is some pointless pursuit of the play-in where the best case scenario is a first-round exit and the pick going to San Antonio.

As to #2, though I may watch games less when the team is bad, I actually enjoy following the team more when they have committed to a path that has a higher long-term ceiling. I'll watch this current team mostly because I'm interested to see how Matas develops, and to a much lesser extent, Ayo, Coby, etc. I'm also interested to see whether Zach and Vooch can keep playing at a high level, but not because I think it gives the team hope this year, but because it makes them potentially useful trade chips to help this team have a brighter future. Others seem to get really dispirited at that, which I get but do not agree with. I also strongly disagree with your draft analysis and think it's really unwise to say "the draft is a crapshoot and hey, sometimes great players are drafted later, so there's no point in focusing on draft position." While it's all well and good to say "Jokic was a 2nd rounder, we don't need to worry about the draft," statistically higher picks are more likely to turn into stars than later picks, and I'd rather optimize the chance of picking a star, even knowing that every given draft pick is unlikely to be one. If the Bulls were the Lakers and could rely on some hope that free agency/market desirability could save them, I might be open to a better approach, but the Bulls are very likely to need to rely on a draft-based strategy to reach contender status again. In order to get this rebuild moving along sooner rather than later (which should appeal to the people who hate sucking), the Bulls should be focused on keeping the pick this year. They'd probably use it, but having the pick this year also increases the chance of using it in a win-now trade at draft night. Having that pick makes the Bulls more interesting from a competitive standpoint now instead of kicking the can down the road.

Anyway, my two cents.

Truly no disrespect, but I feel like you're talking around everything that matters.

For example, the "mini tank" you describe could be a million different things. First of all, we're currently in the playoff hunt, and we'd have to take back a LOT of nba talent if we were to "unload some expensive vets". The reason no one ever really specifies the generic Zach and/or Vuc trades that they generically pine for is that such trades are virtually an impossibility. Just due to salary matching rules alone, there is a HUGE chance that a trade of either or both of those guys doesn't make us much worse on the court, but at least in the case of Zach, loses us a high level talent who isn't old as is under contract.

No, I don't think this is true at all. Sure, there are plenty of trades you could do where the value you get back still contributes well, but the idea here is you'd mostly be trading for bad salary, young guys who might have a future, and draft compensation.

The most bandied-about trade you've seen re: Zach is with the Lakers. In that case, the big salary you'd be taking back is DeAngelo Russell, who you would simply waive.

The way anyone knows that your supposition here is false is that teams elect to trade vets and blow up all the time. If they had to salary match and those incoming salaries would mean they'd be just as good, they couldn't pull this off.

I just feel like Zach and Vuc are on different planets for this team. Zach is 5 years younger, has had a better career, is a lot more talented, and is under contract for longer, and lacks Vuc's fatal flaw of atrocious defense at the most important defensive position.

Ehh, maybe? Zach is at a less important defensive position, to be sure, but he's a minus defender. I agree he's much better, but because of his salary, he's harder to trade. The whole "under contract for longer" thing may be a negative, not a positive, for his trade value. It absolutely was recently, but he may be playing well enough and enough time may be coming off his deal that the dynamic is starting to change.

Even if dumping Zach is possible and results in us keeping our pick, that pick has a very low chance to ever be the kind of player that Zach is likely to be for the next 5 years. THAT is the key point IMO.

This gets to the heart of the issue, and I agree it's the key point, and it absolutely indicates the opposite plan of what you're advocating for. Zach is a darn good player. But we've seen what a Zach-led team can get you. You're trapped. I don't give a you-know-what that the player who replaces him will be likely worse for the next 5 years because the chance that the player will be better makes it worth taking the shot. And if the player does succeed, the 5-year timeline is not what you're worried about. Now maybe you have a cornerstone for the next decade.

Vuc basically sucks and is on a wild hot streak and I don't care what we do with him at all. Despite his good offensive play this year I don't think he meaningfully helps us win games over other alternatives, and he's certainly not likely to going forward, as opposed to Zach.

I think today's Vooch absolutely help you win games. He's just too damned productive offensively, despite his shortcoming. But sure, he looks to be a huge candidate to regress to the mean, which means you absolutely should be trying to unload him and hope somebody bites due to his current hot play.

Every one else is young.

Kinda? Young-ish, but not everyone is young enough for me to not have a strong opinion about who they are. I think Coby is basically Coby at this point, which is a good player and probably ideally suited to a 6th man bench heater guy. Ayo is a solid starter or bench player. These are not guys you can build a team around, but are useful NBA players. They likely won't be able to keep both, so dealing one this season would make a lot of sense.

If we could magically trade Zach for terrible players on expiring contracts AND a projected top 8ish pick in THIS SUMMER'S draft, then sure of course we should do it. But that is a really cartoonish version of the likely reality.

Literally nobody in the universe thinks you're getting a top 8 player in this draft for Zach and that certainly does not mean you don't trade him. Nobody is proposing this.

The thing you fail to note in this analysis is that offloading Zach this year means the Bulls would likely go from not having a top 10 pick this year to having one - their own! This is an additional thing you'd "get" in the trade, even though it's not coming from the trading partner.