It's time to shut down players.

[dougthonus]

sure, but there's as good a chance that 3 of the 6 are all-stars. draft position still matters significantly even if the performance distribution is something like this:

zion 57% all-star/30% starter/7% rotation player/6% total bust

morant 26/45/20/9
barrett 35/41/14/10

reddish 11/50/30/9
hunter 19/35/28/18
culver 7/49/30/14
garland 6/65/23/6

out of the 2-7 players we could then expect 1/6 to be an all-star, 3/6 to be mere starters, 1 to be a rotation player and 1 a total bust. and that would be considered a bad draft class 2 through 7

the reality is that we can expect 1 of morant and barrett to end up as an all-star on average. because nearly half of #2/#3 picks end up all-stars

In a normal draft I would agree, but usually when people think a draft is pretty lousy, it is. This is such a draft. The guys after Zion do not have the type of performance that would make them picked this highly in a typical draft.

Some drafts are just awful and some are great, and you usually have some view into that prior to the draft. Last year, there were a lot of players that projected out to be very good. This year there are not.

It's like something around 40% of #1 picks are superstars, but you almost always know ahead of time whether your #1 pick is going to be one or if its going to be a crap shoot. I can't think of the last #1 pick that people tagged as a star and the guy was a non all-star (discounting guys ruined by injuries).

In that sense, I think Zion is way more likely to be a future all-star than 57% IMO, and the other guys are much less likely than normal to be stars.

[Red Larrivee]

I was initially against our players sitting out for the remainder of the season - I was hoping that Lavine and Lauri could continue to build upon what they had going for them in February.

But now that Lauri has hit a massive wall and Lavine and Otto are dealing with nagging injuries, it may be time just to tank the best we can. Seems like rest may do everyone some good at this point.

There's no way they're sitting Lauri or Dunn while they're healthy. I think there's a solid argument to sit Zach and Otto the rest of the year given their salary and injuries though. That's a good precaution.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Dieselbound&Down]

The OP I think was arguing that players should be shut down in order to lose games. Maybe the sample size is too small but it doesn't seem to be working. Somehow, giving Felicio undeserved minutes seems to have reinvigorated him and Boylen has this team humming along ( no that's not true but whatever).

[dice]

sure, but there's as good a chance that 3 of the 6 are all-stars. draft position still matters significantly even if the performance distribution is something like this:

zion 57% all-star/30% starter/7% rotation player/6% total bust

morant 26/45/20/9
barrett 35/41/14/10

reddish 11/50/30/9
hunter 19/35/28/18
culver 7/49/30/14
garland 6/65/23/6

out of the 2-7 players we could then expect 1/6 to be an all-star, 3/6 to be mere starters, 1 to be a rotation player and 1 a total bust. and that would be considered a bad draft class 2 through 7

the reality is that we can expect 1 of morant and barrett to end up as an all-star on average. because nearly half of #2/#3 picks end up all-stars

In a normal draft I would agree, but usually when people think a draft is pretty lousy, it is. This is such a draft. The guys after Zion do not have the type of performance that would make them picked this highly in a typical draft.

Some drafts are just awful and some are great, and you usually have some view into that prior to the draft. Last year, there were a lot of players that projected out to be very good. This year there are not.

It's like something around 40% of #1 picks are superstars, but you almost always know ahead of time whether your #1 pick is going to be one or if its going to be a crap shoot. I can't think of the last #1 pick that people tagged as a star and the guy was a non all-star (discounting guys ruined by injuries).

In that sense, I think Zion is way more likely to be a future all-star than 57% IMO, and the other guys are much less likely than normal to be stars.

is zion really one of "those guys" though? there are questions about how well his game will translate to today's nba. i think he'll be an all-star, but he wasn't even the top recruit coming out of high school (consensus barrett). the only guy considered a sure thing this century coming out of college who wasn't also the top dog coming out of high school was blake griffin. other #1s in the draft who were top HS recruits:

wiggins
AD
oden
durant (2nd to oden in both the draft and HS recruiting)
dwight
lebron

and something like 40% of #2 and 3 picks end up being all-stars, so i reduced the chances a bit for morant/barrett. and it's 25% for picks 4-7, so i substantially reduced the chances there. but the point is that current prognostications have a large gap between barrett/morant and those below them, whatever those all-star %s actually are. so having a top 3 pick is significantly better than not regardless if it ends up #1

[jnrjr79]

hard to consider essentially signing an overpriced free agent on a 2 year deal great asset management. not to mention the tank tax on the transaction

It's actually not hard to consider it as such when you realize that the Bulls have plenty of cap room to spare until extending Lauri/WCJ and that they did not project to be major free agent players this offseason. Unless you think they somehow shot themselves in the foot by losing their shot at Durant (lol), this is precisely what they should be doing. And it has had a minimal impact on the tank, so that's not much of critique.

they can't sign non-superstars with the nearly $30 mil per year they'll be paying porter? without hurting the tank?

hell, it's very likely that porter would have been available for a 2nd rounder in the offseason if there weren't better FA options available

You have to match salary (assuming you use cap room on other players this offseason) or absorb him into space. If it's the former scenario, this offseason you've lost the salary to send. If it's the latter, a 2nd rounder is actually giving up more than the Bulls just gave up, combined with the risk that Washington would have moved him elsewhere before you had a chance to make the offer - highly likely given Washington's effort to shed salary after the Wall injury this year.

[Dominator83]

It's actually not hard to consider it as such when you realize that the Bulls have plenty of cap room to spare until extending Lauri/WCJ and that they did not project to be major free agent players this offseason. Unless you think they somehow shot themselves in the foot by losing their shot at Durant (lol), this is precisely what they should be doing. And it has had a minimal impact on the tank, so that's not much of critique.

they can't sign non-superstars with the nearly $30 mil per year they'll be paying porter? without hurting the tank?

hell, it's very likely that porter would have been available for a 2nd rounder in the offseason if there weren't better FA options available

You have to match salary (assuming you use cap room on other players this offseason) or absorb him into space. If it's the former scenario, this offseason you've lost the salary to send. If it's the latter, a 2nd rounder is actually giving up more than the Bulls just gave up, combined with the risk that Washington would have moved him elsewhere before you had a chance to make the offer - highly likely given Washington's effort to shed salary after the Wall injury this year.

Well the Bulls DID give up a 2nd round pick in that Porter trade. So that part is a moot point

[dice]

they can't sign non-superstars with the nearly $30 mil per year they'll be paying porter? without hurting the tank?

hell, it's very likely that porter would have been available for a 2nd rounder in the offseason if there weren't better FA options available

You have to match salary (assuming you use cap room on other players this offseason) or absorb him into space. If it's the former scenario, this offseason you've lost the salary to send. If it's the latter, a 2nd rounder is actually giving up more than the Bulls just gave up, combined with the risk that Washington would have moved him elsewhere before you had a chance to make the offer - highly likely given Washington's effort to shed salary after the Wall injury this year.

Well the Bulls DID give up a 2nd round pick in that Porter trade. So that part is a moot point

and the bulls gave up 22.5 mil in salary in exchange for porter's 26.0. that 3.5 mil difference pro-rated for the last third of the season means the wizards only saved a little over a million bucks this season

the bulls basically gave up a long-term asset (a 2nd rounder) and a little over a million bucks for porter's contract going forward. literally no other team in the league was willing to even give up that much. would a team have suddenly materialized in the offseason to give up a 2nd rounder or more? and if they did, so what?

let's say the bulls squeak into the playoffs next year (maybe even with zion) and become attractive to a big time FA in 2020. would porter's contribution to that really be worth the cap space he'll take up? it's kind of a strange plan if that's what it is. at least i hope that's the plan. bringing in porter just to try and generate some playoff revenue wouldn't terribly surprise me. adding a top rookie next season and that's the nucleus going forward, re-signing porter in a couple of years

[ShadyMoney]

You have to match salary (assuming you use cap room on other players this offseason) or absorb him into space. If it's the former scenario, this offseason you've lost the salary to send. If it's the latter, a 2nd rounder is actually giving up more than the Bulls just gave up, combined with the risk that Washington would have moved him elsewhere before you had a chance to make the offer - highly likely given Washington's effort to shed salary after the Wall injury this year.

Well the Bulls DID give up a 2nd round pick in that Porter trade. So that part is a moot point

and the bulls gave up 22.5 mil in salary in exchange for porter's 26.0. that 3.5 mil difference pro-rated for the last third of the season means the wizards only saved a little over a million bucks this season

the bulls basically gave up a long-term asset (a 2nd rounder) and a little over a million bucks for porter's contract going forward. literally no other team in the league was willing to even give up that much. would a team have suddenly materialized in the offseason to give up a 2nd rounder or more? and if they did, so what?

let's say the bulls squeak into the playoffs next year (maybe even with zion) and become attractive to a big time FA in 2020. would porter's contribution to that really be worth the cap space he'll take up? it's kind of a strange plan if that's what it is. at least i hope that's the plan. bringing in porter just to try and generate some playoff revenue wouldn't terribly surprise me. adding a top rookie next season and that's the nucleus going forward, re-signing porter in a couple of years

Is porter the bulls highest paid player ever in their history?

I know mike did 30 and 33

Doesn’t he have 3 years left at 27+?

[dougthonus]

s zion really one of "those guys" though? there are questions about how well his game will translate to today's nba. i think he'll be an all-star, but he wasn't even the top recruit coming out of high school (consensus barrett). the only guy considered a sure thing this century coming out of college who wasn't also the top dog coming out of high school was blake griffin. other #1s in the draft who were top HS recruits:

wiggins
AD
oden
durant (2nd to oden in both the draft and HS recruiting)
dwight
lebron

and something like 40% of #2 and 3 picks end up being all-stars, so i reduced the chances a bit for morant/barrett. and it's 25% for picks 4-7, so i substantially reduced the chances there. but the point is that current prognostications have a large gap between barrett/morant and those below them, whatever those all-star %s actually are. so having a top 3 pick is significantly better than not regardless if it ends up #1

Fair point, Zion may only feel so much better because everyone else is so bad, and he may actually not realyl be a true superstar potential guy.

My point was that historically people are really horrible at guessing where tiers are after #1. So I don't really put much stock in the Barrett /Morant tier, even though I agree the tier exists in the eyes of many.