People were interested in these podcasts
Image ImageImage Image

Bulls @ Thunder 7pm CT Mar. 31 2025

Moderators: HomoSapien, AshyLarrysDiaper, coldfish, Payt10, Ice Man, dougthonus, Michael Jackson, Tommy Udo 6 , kulaz3000, fleet, DASMACKDOWN, GimmeDat, RedBulls23

User avatar
DuckIII
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 71,241
And1: 36,519
Joined: Nov 25, 2003
Location: On my high horse.
     

Re: Bulls @ Thunder 7pm CT Mar. 31 2025 

Post#121 » by DuckIII » Tue Apr 1, 2025 4:07 pm

League Circles wrote:I guess my point is that Cade Cunningham isn't the answer to any question that matters. The value of an individual player is basically meaningless unless he's arguably as good as anyone in the world, which Cade certainly won't be. Flagg has a decent chance, yes, but probably not.


The defending NBA champs and favorites to repeat have zero players who are “arguably as good as anyone in the world.” Same with the Cavs. I guess none of their players matter.
Once a pickle, never a cucumber again.
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 35,198
And1: 9,871
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: Bulls @ Thunder 7pm CT Mar. 31 2025 

Post#122 » by League Circles » Tue Apr 1, 2025 4:11 pm

DuckIII wrote:
League Circles wrote:
DuckIII wrote:And the higher you pick the more options you have and the greater their trade value if you would prefer a quicker rebuild with vets.

This is only true if you totally ignore the moves required to pick higher.



No it’s not. My days of trying to convince flat earthers are over. All your arguments against the value of draft picks have always been awful and rebutted a thousand times with arguments that are not awful. Life is too short.


Cool, "flat earther" is a cute dig. I personally never bought into all the flat earther stuff they were pushing in my astrodynamics class.

Whether you realize it or not, in order to maximize the value of our own pick, we'd have had to dump talent such as Coby and Giddey for example. Obviously you'd argue that you want to trade them for future picks. Those picks are simply not projected to ever be as valuable as they are now, on court or in trade. Sure, you increase your chances to get a superstar via the draft in this way, and maybe your chances to get a superstar overall (though that's dubious). But you do not increase your options, because trades are much harder.

Tanking hard may work sometimes, might be advisable sometimes. I might even agree to do it this summer depending on how we look and play the rest of the way and what's on the table as far as a Giddey contract or a Coby trade or whatever. But tanking hard definitely puts all your eggs in one basket, in exactly the way Powerball does - you're hoping to beat severe odds and reduce your chances of success to lucking into a unicorn. Occasionally the least bad route for an org, but never the most flexible one.
https://august-shop.com/ - sneakers and streetwear
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 35,198
And1: 9,871
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: Bulls @ Thunder 7pm CT Mar. 31 2025 

Post#123 » by League Circles » Tue Apr 1, 2025 4:25 pm

DuckIII wrote:
League Circles wrote:I guess my point is that Cade Cunningham isn't the answer to any question that matters. The value of an individual player is basically meaningless unless he's arguably as good as anyone in the world, which Cade certainly won't be. Flagg has a decent chance, yes, but probably not.


The defending NBA champs and favorites to repeat have zero players who are “arguably as good as anyone in the world.” Same with the Cavs. I guess none of their players matter.

Read closer. "The value of an individual player" is basically meaningless. Boston isn't great because Tatum as an individual player is the best. They're great because they have either the best top 2, top 3, or top 4 core in the league in terms of skills and chemistry. That's exactly the kind of team that I think makes most sense to build. Boston is proof of my idea, though maybe I didn't or don't explain it perfectly.

You need really good and even great players. But IMO, once you're out of the discussion for having "the best" player, I think focusing on a greater-than-the-sum-of-their-parts build is wiser than trying to maximize your best guy. So there isn't a big difference between your best guy being say the 9th best player in the league and your best guy being say the 24th best player in the league. Neither guy is driving you to true success. Only your top 2, 3, 4, or 5 guys can. So while a guy like Cade may easily be better indefinitely than guys like Coby or Giddey, neither team will go anywhere unless their 3, 4, 5 guys are better than anyone's.
https://august-shop.com/ - sneakers and streetwear
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 35,198
And1: 9,871
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: Bulls @ Thunder 7pm CT Mar. 31 2025 

Post#124 » by League Circles » Tue Apr 1, 2025 4:27 pm

DuckIII wrote:
League Circles wrote:I guess my point is that Cade Cunningham isn't the answer to any question that matters. The value of an individual player is basically meaningless unless he's arguably as good as anyone in the world, which Cade certainly won't be. Flagg has a decent chance, yes, but probably not.


The defending NBA champs and favorites to repeat have zero players who are “arguably as good as anyone in the world.” Same with the Cavs. I guess none of their players matter.

Read closer. "The value of an individual player" is basically meaningless. Boston isn't great because Tatum as an individual player is the best. They're great because they have either the best top 2, top 3, or top 4 core in the league in terms of skills and chemistry. That's exactly the kind of team that I think makes most sense to build. Boston is proof of my idea, though maybe I didn't or don't explain it perfectly.

You need really good and even great players. But IMO, once you're out of the discussion for having "the best" player, I think focusing on a greater-than-the-sum-of-their-parts build is wiser than trying to maximize your best guy. So there isn't a big difference between your best guy being say the 9th best player in the league and your best guy being say the 24th best player in the league. Neither guy is driving you to true success. Only your top 2, 3, 4, or 5 guys can. So while a guy like Cade may easily be better indefinitely than guys like Coby or Giddey, neither team will go anywhere unless their 3, 4, 5 guys are better than anyone's.
https://august-shop.com/ - sneakers and streetwear
MrSparkle
RealGM
Posts: 23,211
And1: 11,086
Joined: Jul 31, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: Bulls @ Thunder 7pm CT Mar. 31 2025 

Post#125 » by MrSparkle » Tue Apr 1, 2025 4:31 pm

Even if the player at 2-4 is not ideal, just think how much more leverage and value that pick has over 11-14. It’s a colossal difference in trade power. Not saying we want to trade #2 for some $50M washed “star”, but when your cupboard’s bare, a top-4 pick in any draft is a game-changer. I’ve been on the “lose most games possible” train all year long, and the March run doesn’t change that. It did however ruin our fairly safe 7-8 zone. I would’ve preferred to see modest player improvement instead of red hot overachievement.

I do think the team is better with the new cast, but you can see guys coming back to earth. And ultimately we still have an easy defensive glitch to exploit in Vuc (and Giddey/Coby, to lesser extents). And the worst high-minute player in the NBA, Pat. Playoffs would be nice and all, but seeing the Bulls stomped by OKC reminds me that the same would prob happen in CLE. Just an ugly whipping with little to draw from, like the Bucks series. A playoff team with Vuc and Pat is not serious. If Collins, Huerter, Giddey and Matas all stepped up and shot their best, it’d be more interesting, but they won’t get “first dibs” and Billy’s trust. Atleast not until game 4 when we’re toast. They’ll get punched in the mouth, and I’m not sure Billy will give them a chance to play through it.
User avatar
Jcool0
RealGM
Posts: 15,167
And1: 9,228
Joined: Jul 12, 2014
Location: Illinois
         

Re: Bulls @ Thunder 7pm CT Mar. 31 2025 

Post#126 » by Jcool0 » Tue Apr 1, 2025 5:04 pm

SirKaiser wrote:One loss to the Thunder and everyone is already back on the tank bandwagon? Good grief. I would argue that it was actually the 1 point loss to the Mavs that really did us in, coupled with the injuries that basically cut our guard depth in half.
Thunder also shot lights out.

7 games (fairly easy ones) remaining, and im still excited to see how this team closes out the season.


If you are okay being a play in team each and every year... Fine. You like some kind of post season play. I'm sure the United Center will be packed for the play in so you aren't a lone. I would prefer making the playoffs as say the 5th seed. I can live with not contending each and every year but i want some kind of progress with my team not stagnation.
kodo
RealGM
Posts: 20,766
And1: 15,197
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
Location: Northshore Burbs
 

Re: Bulls @ Thunder 7pm CT Mar. 31 2025 

Post#127 » by kodo » Tue Apr 1, 2025 6:14 pm

Jcool0 wrote:
Read on Twitter


Atlanta had a 61W team with Jeff Teague, Kyle Korver, and Paul Millsap. I think Horford too?
RS wins are attainable without stars. But that 60 win Atlanta team got swept by Lebron rather easily. Elimination game it was a 30 point blowout. Generally when the level of difficulty rises, the true stars carry their team and ATL had nobody that could carry. It was a full system/teamwork team.

I think the org would be more than happy with that. Lot of RS wins, a playoff round or two, then getting blown out as soon as you run into a team with an actual superstar. I guess a lot of fans would be happy with that too?
User avatar
OldSchoolNoBull
General Manager
Posts: 9,031
And1: 4,422
Joined: Jun 27, 2003
Location: Ohio
 

Re: Bulls @ Thunder 7pm CT Mar. 31 2025 

Post#128 » by OldSchoolNoBull » Tue Apr 1, 2025 6:42 pm

DuckIII wrote:
League Circles wrote:
DuckIII wrote:And the higher you pick the more options you have and the greater their trade value if you would prefer a quicker rebuild with vets.

This is only true if you totally ignore the moves required to pick higher.



No it’s not. My days of trying to convince flat earthers are over. All your arguments against the value of draft picks have always been awful and rebutted a thousand times with arguments that are not awful. Life is too short.


I very much wanted to pick higher in the draft, but I don't think there's a lot to be upset about with the decisions the organization made. These late season wins haven't been coming on the backs of vets(like in 2023, when Wemby was coming out, which absolutely drove me nuts and I will still criticize the organization for that); they're coming on the back of Giddey and Coby exploding and Matas showing some signs as well. There was no reason for anyone to think the team would do this well post-Zach trade, and I can't fault AK for thinking he'd done enough for the tank. And we actually did look pretty bad the first couple of weeks after the trade.

And also the teams below us have been so bad that we were realistically never going to get above #8. Philly refused to win, and then we had bad luck with Wemby going down, which enabled SAS to jump us too, and Miami traded Jimmy.

I mean, short of making up fake injuries for Coby and Giddey and swallowing the fines from the NBA, what else could we have done?

Anyway, we are at #10 right now, and SAS and Portland are close enough that we could still get back to #8.
drosestruts
General Manager
Posts: 9,000
And1: 4,156
Joined: Apr 05, 2012
 

Re: Bulls @ Thunder 7pm CT Mar. 31 2025 

Post#129 » by drosestruts » Tue Apr 1, 2025 6:42 pm

A loss against a great regular season team when we have several injuries doesn't really do much to change my thinking of this team one way or the other.

I'm still happy with the development and growth we've seen from Matas, Giddey, and Coby and I'm happy that we seem to be moving towards a team that fits together rather than just random talent thrown together.

I also still think that this is a one player draft, and with the way others have tanked, it'd be nearly impossible to out tank them.

I'm also curious of the idea that one could "tank too hard". When I look at the bottom teams in the league, none are a Cooper Flagg away from becoming a playoff team (with the exception of Philly - injury based tanking might be the most historically successful tanking strategy).


Also will the Thunder become a tax team or will we see another sell off? We're two years away from Chet and Jalen Williams being due for extensions.

There's a reason teams pay scouts lots of money and don't just throw up a poll on who to draft on realgm
cocktailswith_2short
Head Coach
Posts: 6,925
And1: 428
Joined: May 25, 2002
     

Re: Bulls @ Thunder 7pm CT Mar. 31 2025 

Post#130 » by cocktailswith_2short » Tue Apr 1, 2025 6:52 pm

drosestruts wrote:A loss against a great regular season team when we have several injuries doesn't really do much to change my thinking of this team one way or the other.

I'm still happy with the development and growth we've seen from Matas, Giddey, and Coby and I'm happy that we seem to be moving towards a team that fits together rather than just random talent thrown together.

I also still think that this is a one player draft, and with the way others have tanked, it'd be nearly impossible to out tank them.

I'm also curious of the idea that one could "tank too hard". When I look at the bottom teams in the league, none are a Cooper Flagg away from becoming a playoff team (with the exception of Philly - injury based tanking might be the most historically successful tanking strategy).


Also will the Thunder become a tax team or will we see another sell off? We're two years away from Chet and Jalen Williams being due for extensions.

There's a reason teams pay scouts lots of money and don't just throw up a poll on who to draft on realgm

I'm definitely more optimistic about our future than I was in October . We have at least a foundation to build on . We need to hope for continued Internal growth and keep looking for a 1 . Okc is going to lose someone they won't be able to keep all these guys but they probably win a championship soon so it won't sting .
User avatar
DuckIII
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 71,241
And1: 36,519
Joined: Nov 25, 2003
Location: On my high horse.
     

Re: Bulls @ Thunder 7pm CT Mar. 31 2025 

Post#131 » by DuckIII » Tue Apr 1, 2025 7:54 pm

drosestruts wrote:A loss against a great regular season team when we have several injuries doesn't really do much to change my thinking of this team one way or the other.



Same. But it does put into context what a great team looks like. Not a bad reminder after a run through a very weak part of our schedule.

Regardless, it doesn’t take away from the important things we’ve been seeing from some of our guys the last 2 months.
Once a pickle, never a cucumber again.
SirKaiser
Sophomore
Posts: 197
And1: 97
Joined: Jan 05, 2022

Re: Bulls @ Thunder 7pm CT Mar. 31 2025 

Post#132 » by SirKaiser » Tue Apr 1, 2025 11:56 pm

Jcool0 wrote:
SirKaiser wrote:One loss to the Thunder and everyone is already back on the tank bandwagon? Good grief. I would argue that it was actually the 1 point loss to the Mavs that really did us in, coupled with the injuries that basically cut our guard depth in half.
Thunder also shot lights out.

7 games (fairly easy ones) remaining, and im still excited to see how this team closes out the season.


If you are okay being a play in team each and every year... Fine. You like some kind of post season play. I'm sure the United Center will be packed for the play in so you aren't a lone. I would prefer making the playoffs as say the 5th seed. I can live with not contending each and every year but i want some kind of progress with my team not stagnation.

I was just referring to the short term outlook of this season, but you really doubt we won't have a playoff team next year, as is? The East sucks and we will only be better.
User avatar
Jcool0
RealGM
Posts: 15,167
And1: 9,228
Joined: Jul 12, 2014
Location: Illinois
         

Re: Bulls @ Thunder 7pm CT Mar. 31 2025 

Post#133 » by Jcool0 » Wed Apr 2, 2025 12:14 pm

SirKaiser wrote:
Jcool0 wrote:
SirKaiser wrote:One loss to the Thunder and everyone is already back on the tank bandwagon? Good grief. I would argue that it was actually the 1 point loss to the Mavs that really did us in, coupled with the injuries that basically cut our guard depth in half.
Thunder also shot lights out.

7 games (fairly easy ones) remaining, and im still excited to see how this team closes out the season.


If you are okay being a play in team each and every year... Fine. You like some kind of post season play. I'm sure the United Center will be packed for the play in so you aren't a lone. I would prefer making the playoffs as say the 5th seed. I can live with not contending each and every year but i want some kind of progress with my team not stagnation.

I was just referring to the short term outlook of this season, but you really doubt we won't have a playoff team next year, as is? The East sucks and we will only be better.


Bulls look good during Tank Season every year. It doesn't mean the Bulls are better.
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 58,059
And1: 18,331
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:
 

Re: Bulls @ Thunder 7pm CT Mar. 31 2025 

Post#134 » by dougthonus » Wed Apr 2, 2025 2:25 pm

Jcool0 wrote:Bulls look good during Tank Season every year. It doesn't mean the Bulls are better.


I don't think the Bulls are better, but they are younger, cheaper and no longer out any future picks. So those are all positive outcomes if you managed to do those three things and be the same.

I'm not sure that it is true they are just as good necessarily, and I'm not sold on our core to compete by any stretch, but if this is a 41 win caliber team (big if), then that's an incredible improvement to be there with 30-40M to spare under the luxury tax and all your key contributors being younger than 27.
http://linktr.ee/bullsbeat - links to the bullsbeat podcast
@doug_thonus on twitter
User avatar
Jcool0
RealGM
Posts: 15,167
And1: 9,228
Joined: Jul 12, 2014
Location: Illinois
         

Re: Bulls @ Thunder 7pm CT Mar. 31 2025 

Post#135 » by Jcool0 » Wed Apr 2, 2025 2:36 pm

dougthonus wrote:
Jcool0 wrote:Bulls look good during Tank Season every year. It doesn't mean the Bulls are better.


I don't think the Bulls are better, but they are younger, cheaper and no longer out any future picks. So those are all positive outcomes if you managed to do those three things and be the same.

I'm not sure that it is true they are just as good necessarily, and I'm not sold on our core to compete by any stretch, but if this is a 41 win caliber team (big if), then that's an incredible improvement to be there with 30-40M to spare under the luxury tax and all your key contributors being younger than 27.


Will they have that much cap space after giving 30M to Giddey?
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 58,059
And1: 18,331
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:
 

Re: Bulls @ Thunder 7pm CT Mar. 31 2025 

Post#136 » by dougthonus » Wed Apr 2, 2025 3:43 pm

Jcool0 wrote:
dougthonus wrote:
Jcool0 wrote:Bulls look good during Tank Season every year. It doesn't mean the Bulls are better.


I don't think the Bulls are better, but they are younger, cheaper and no longer out any future picks. So those are all positive outcomes if you managed to do those three things and be the same.

I'm not sure that it is true they are just as good necessarily, and I'm not sold on our core to compete by any stretch, but if this is a 41 win caliber team (big if), then that's an incredible improvement to be there with 30-40M to spare under the luxury tax and all your key contributors being younger than 27.


Will they have that much cap space after giving 30M to Giddey?


I said under the tax not under the cap, we've spent most of the past 3 years at the tax line where we couldn't even use the full MLE or take on extra money from trades, but yeah, I think we project to be like 30M under the tax after adding Giddey at that price. We also have Carter, Vuc, Huerter, Ball, and Collins falling off the books in a year (which is roughly 75M?) of guys we may not necessarily want back. We also have Coby/Ayo coming off the books at another ~18M, but we may want one or both back and those guys will likely cost more.

And I'm certainly not trying to oversell how good this situation is, because I'm not sure I really believe in Giddey, Coby, or Matas as even a top 3 piece, but it's still better than winning 41 games behind DeMar, Zach, and Vuc with two of those three guys likely to age out.
http://linktr.ee/bullsbeat - links to the bullsbeat podcast
@doug_thonus on twitter

Return to Chicago Bulls