Bulls @ Thunder 7pm CT Mar. 31 2025

[BullChit]

I'm in no way shape or form a defender of tanking while also both being excited by Coby and Giddeys recent play and reticent about building around them I don't think they have what it takes to be a contender but a good young core especially with Matas.

And while the Thunder are clearly the top team in the league and just incredible I do have to wonder if SGA wasn't on the team they would be just a good young core and SGA was drafted at 11 right?

The Draft is such a crap shoot and it's all based on immense amounts of luck.

If we draft at 13 or 14 this year and that player surprisingly becomes an absolute stud it would be better to have a good young core around him than not.

Sometimes I think I'm not as passionate a fan as I could be.. Maybe I do settle for mediocrity or maybe I just don't let it stress me to much..

[Muzbar]

Read on Twitter

This is why I say, Matas is PF now and going forward! His rim protection and blocks are already great and will only get better. PWill could never do this.. he lacks multiple things.

Tonight I kinda expected a blowout loss.. Giddey playing injured, no Huerter, Jones, Ayo, Ball..OKC just too good atm.

I'm with you on the Matas is a PF train. He provides solid rim protection at the 4 and has good size.

The PF spot isn't the same as it was in the 90s etc, most of today's PFs are just SFs anyways.

[Ice Man]

As I wrote elsewhere, Matas is a wing #4. It's a thing now. In fact, it's pretty much THE thing at the #4 spot.

On two other matters, one the game showed how far we have to go. Beating a fake "contender" like the Lakers is one thing. Beating -- or even competing with -- a true championship-quality team is another.

Second, OKC's roster highlights how many different paths there are to success. Let's see how OKC acquired its best players, which I have listed in order of their 2024 VORP scores.

1) SGA - Trade

There weren't any draft picks involved, not even indirectly. The trade asset was Paul George, who himself had been acquired for trade assets (Sabonis & Dipo).

2) Jalen Williams - Draft, #12 pick

3) Hartenstein - Free Agent

4) Cason Wallace - Draft, #12 pick

Technically, this was a trade, but in reality it was OKC swapping its #12 pick for Dallas's #10 pick in the summer before their rookie years.

5) Caruso - Trade/Draft, #6 pick

Acquired by trading of a former #6 pick with three years' experience.

Then there is Chet, who would be in the Top #5, if he had played all season. He was of course a #2 pick.

So aside from Chet, there's nothing that OKC did in acquiring its Top 6 players that the Bulls couldn't do, given the Bulls' recent draft positions.

[sco]

Read on Twitter

This is why I say, Matas is PF now and going forward! His rim protection and blocks are already great and will only get better. PWill could never do this.. he lacks multiple things.

Tonight I kinda expected a blowout loss.. Giddey playing injured, no Huerter, Jones, Ayo, Ball..OKC just too good atm.

I'm with you on the Matas is a PF train. He provides solid rim protection at the 4 and has good size.

The PF spot isn't the same as it was in the 90s etc, most of today's PFs are just SFs anyways.

I feel like this is a moot point going into next season. Matas is slotted in at the 4 and Giddey at the 3 (Coby at the 2 and Ball/Jones at the 1). If I told you that Giddey was at the 4 and Matas at the 3, what exactly would change about their role on offense or defense?

[DuckIII]

At some point during the first quarter I swear I heard a carriage turn into a pumpkin.

[League Circles]

As I wrote elsewhere, Matas is a wing #4. It's a thing now. In fact, it's pretty much THE thing at the #4 spot.

On two other matters, one the game showed how far we have to go. Beating a fake "contender" like the Lakers is one thing. Beating -- or even competing with -- a true championship-quality team is another.

Second, OKC's roster highlights how many different paths there are to success. Let's see how OKC acquired its best players, which I have listed in order of their 2024 VORP scores.

1) SGA - Trade

There weren't any draft picks involved, not even indirectly. The trade asset was Paul George, who himself had been acquired for trade assets (Sabonis & Dipo).

2) Jalen Williams - Draft, #12 pick

3) Hartenstein - Free Agent

4) Cason Wallace - Draft, #12 pick

Technically, this was a trade, but in reality it was OKC swapping its #12 pick for Dallas's #10 pick in the summer before their rookie years.

5) Caruso - Trade/Draft, #6 pick

Acquired by trading of a former #6 pick with three years' experience.

Then there is Chet, who would be in the Top #5, if he had played all season. He was of course a #2 pick.

So aside from Chet, there's nothing that OKC did in acquiring its Top 6 players that the Bulls couldn't do, given the Bulls' recent draft positions.

Amen. This is why generic hard tanking is probably unwise for us.

If the goal is to strategically position a team for an elite talent, it should be drilled into everyone's heads that only the worst 3 teams in the league have more than 50% chance at a top 4 pick, and only barely at 52% at that. The NBA saw tanking and did what it took to make it an insane strategy. Getting even a top 3 pick has never been good assurance to get an elite player worth building a contender around, but now even getting good odds at a top 4 pick is almost impossible.

Now none of this is to say that teams should all try to "win now" instead of hard tank. You should never overcommit to mediocrity. But there is a prudent middle ground.

[Jcool0]

Read on Twitter

[MGB8]

This is why I say, Matas is PF now and going forward! His rim protection and blocks are already great and will only get better. PWill could never do this.. he lacks multiple things.

Tonight I kinda expected a blowout loss.. Giddey playing injured, no Huerter, Jones, Ayo, Ball..OKC just too good atm.

I'm with you on the Matas is a PF train. He provides solid rim protection at the 4 and has good size.

The PF spot isn't the same as it was in the 90s etc, most of today's PFs are just SFs anyways.

I feel like this is a moot point going into next season. Matas is slotted in at the 4 and Giddey at the 3 (Coby at the 2 and Ball/Jones at the 1). If I told you that Giddey was at the 4 and Matas at the 3, what exactly would change about their role on offense or defense?

They are both combo-forwards defensively. Offensively, Giddey is the point - not interchangeable with Matas. I would call Coby the 1, but that is more defensive, and really he’ll be guarding the lesser perimeter player. Bulls plan is, at base, 2 forwards, 1 big, 1 guard, and then either a guard or a wing as the last guy. Sometimes one of the forwards will be switched out for a more perimeter oriented wing.

I compartment the current Bulls roster as:
Guards: Coby, Ayo, Jones, Carter
Wings: Ball, Huerter, Terry, THT* (THT may be more undersized forward, though)
Forwards: Giddey, Matas, Pat, Phillips, Liddell
Bigs: Vuc, Collins, Smith

[DuckIII]

Read on Twitter

Don’t care for the part about go back to not watching the current Bulls, but the rest is correct.

Which is why Ice Man’s detailed post about how OKC built their team underscores exactly why rebuilding through draft asset value is so critical in playing the odds. What OKC did is an exception born of trading for a very nice player no one thought would be even close to what he became, and they only got him because Paul George demanded a trade.

People need to quit fantasizing based on exceptions (which is AK’s shared delusion) and get with the program of making decisions based on likelihoods.

[Jcool0]

Read on Twitter

Don’t care for the part about go back to not watching the current Bulls, but the rest is correct.

Which is why Ice Man’s detailed post about how OKC built their team underscores exactly why rebuilding through draft asset value is so critical in playing the odds. What OKC did is an exception born of trading for a very nice player no one thought would be even close to what he became, and they only got him because Paul George demanded a trade.

People need to quit fantasizing based on exceptions (which is AK’s shared delusion) and get with the program of making decisions based on likelihoods.

We all knew this was an L and it wasn't going to be close. But to be down at one point almost 50 points and for most of the 2nd half by 40. I have to say that was unexpected. Also for Coby to have a game worst -39, i guess i shouldn't have been surprised.. but i kind of was. Just kind of showed how this is probably a typical end of season for the Bulls. Beat bad/tanking teams... Mostly lose to good teams... Best case scenario lose 4-1 to Cleveland and be stuck drafting 15th.

[Jcool0]

As I wrote elsewhere, Matas is a wing #4. It's a thing now. In fact, it's pretty much THE thing at the #4 spot.

On two other matters, one the game showed how far we have to go. Beating a fake "contender" like the Lakers is one thing. Beating -- or even competing with -- a true championship-quality team is another.

Second, OKC's roster highlights how many different paths there are to success. Let's see how OKC acquired its best players, which I have listed in order of their 2024 VORP scores.

1) SGA - Trade

There weren't any draft picks involved, not even indirectly. The trade asset was Paul George, who himself had been acquired for trade assets (Sabonis & Dipo).

2) Jalen Williams - Draft, #12 pick

3) Hartenstein - Free Agent

4) Cason Wallace - Draft, #12 pick

Technically, this was a trade, but in reality it was OKC swapping its #12 pick for Dallas's #10 pick in the summer before their rookie years.

5) Caruso - Trade/Draft, #6 pick

Acquired by trading of a former #6 pick with three years' experience.

Then there is Chet, who would be in the Top #5, if he had played all season. He was of course a #2 pick.

So aside from Chet, there's nothing that OKC did in acquiring its Top 6 players that the Bulls couldn't do, given the Bulls' recent draft positions.

Amen. This is why generic hard tanking is probably unwise for us.

If the goal is to strategically position a team for an elite talent, it should be drilled into everyone's heads that only the worst 3 teams in the league have more than 50% chance at a top 4 pick, and only barely at 52% at that. The NBA saw tanking and did what it took to make it an insane strategy. Getting even a top 3 pick has never been good assurance to get an elite player worth building a contender around, but now even getting good odds at a top 4 pick is almost impossible.

Now none of this is to say that teams should all try to "win now" instead of hard tank. You should never overcommit to mediocrity. But there is a prudent middle ground.

What had better odds of producing a #1 option? Winning 17 games and getting a 14% chance at #1 and Cooper Flagg or Drafting 8th and hoping Khaman Maluach becomes Rudy Gobert with a 3 or Jase Richardson at 11 is the next Donovan Mitchell or Collin Murray-Boyles at 15 is the next Draymond. It seems like that is way more riskier. For every SGA at 11th you have Jett Howard (11th 2023) currently averaging 4.1 ppg, 1.2 rebounds and 0.7 assists for Orlando. That year you could of tanked and gotten Amen Thompson 4th currently at 14/8/3/1.4/1.3 for a 49 win Houston team. No strategy is perfect and players slip all the time (worked out well with Matas so far). But better players go higher in the draft for a reason.

[DuckIII]

As I wrote elsewhere, Matas is a wing #4. It's a thing now. In fact, it's pretty much THE thing at the #4 spot.

On two other matters, one the game showed how far we have to go. Beating a fake "contender" like the Lakers is one thing. Beating -- or even competing with -- a true championship-quality team is another.

Second, OKC's roster highlights how many different paths there are to success. Let's see how OKC acquired its best players, which I have listed in order of their 2024 VORP scores.

1) SGA - Trade

There weren't any draft picks involved, not even indirectly. The trade asset was Paul George, who himself had been acquired for trade assets (Sabonis & Dipo).

2) Jalen Williams - Draft, #12 pick

3) Hartenstein - Free Agent

4) Cason Wallace - Draft, #12 pick

Technically, this was a trade, but in reality it was OKC swapping its #12 pick for Dallas's #10 pick in the summer before their rookie years.

5) Caruso - Trade/Draft, #6 pick

Acquired by trading of a former #6 pick with three years' experience.

Then there is Chet, who would be in the Top #5, if he had played all season. He was of course a #2 pick.

So aside from Chet, there's nothing that OKC did in acquiring its Top 6 players that the Bulls couldn't do, given the Bulls' recent draft positions.

Amen. This is why generic hard tanking is probably unwise for us.

If the goal is to strategically position a team for an elite talent, it should be drilled into everyone's heads that only the worst 3 teams in the league have more than 50% chance at a top 4 pick, and only barely at 52% at that. The NBA saw tanking and did what it took to make it an insane strategy. Getting even a top 3 pick has never been good assurance to get an elite player worth building a contender around, but now even getting good odds at a top 4 pick is almost impossible.

Now none of this is to say that teams should all try to "win now" instead of hard tank. You should never overcommit to mediocrity. But there is a prudent middle ground.

What had better odds of producing a #1 option? Winning 17 games and getting a 14% chance at #1 and Cooper Flagg or Drafting 8th and hoping Khaman Maluach becomes Rudy Gobert with a 3 or Jase Richardson at 11 is the next Donovan Mitchell or Collin Murray-Boyles at 15 is the next Draymond. It seems like that is way more riskier. For every SGA at 11th you have Jett Howard (11th 2023) currently averaging 4.1 ppg, 1.2 rebounds and 0.7 assists for Orlando. That year you could of tanked and gotten Amen Thompson 4th currently at 14/8/3/1.4/1.3 for a 49 win Houston team. No strategy is perfect and players slip all the time (worked out well with Matas so far). But better players go higher in the draft for a reason.

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.

I don’t even go into deep debate anymore on this. Exceptions are exceptions because they don’t normally work. They are evidence of nothing other than being exceptions.

If you don’t have “the guy” - and especially if you have lame assets to trade for “the guy” like us - by far the most likely way to get said guy is by loading up on the highest value draft assets you can get. It’s an immutable fact even though lots of times that doesn’t work either.

All methods of building a contender are unlikely to work. But some are more likely than others.

[League Circles]

As I wrote elsewhere, Matas is a wing #4. It's a thing now. In fact, it's pretty much THE thing at the #4 spot.

On two other matters, one the game showed how far we have to go. Beating a fake "contender" like the Lakers is one thing. Beating -- or even competing with -- a true championship-quality team is another.

Second, OKC's roster highlights how many different paths there are to success. Let's see how OKC acquired its best players, which I have listed in order of their 2024 VORP scores.

1) SGA - Trade

There weren't any draft picks involved, not even indirectly. The trade asset was Paul George, who himself had been acquired for trade assets (Sabonis & Dipo).

2) Jalen Williams - Draft, #12 pick

3) Hartenstein - Free Agent

4) Cason Wallace - Draft, #12 pick

Technically, this was a trade, but in reality it was OKC swapping its #12 pick for Dallas's #10 pick in the summer before their rookie years.

5) Caruso - Trade/Draft, #6 pick

Acquired by trading of a former #6 pick with three years' experience.

Then there is Chet, who would be in the Top #5, if he had played all season. He was of course a #2 pick.

So aside from Chet, there's nothing that OKC did in acquiring its Top 6 players that the Bulls couldn't do, given the Bulls' recent draft positions.

Amen. This is why generic hard tanking is probably unwise for us.

If the goal is to strategically position a team for an elite talent, it should be drilled into everyone's heads that only the worst 3 teams in the league have more than 50% chance at a top 4 pick, and only barely at 52% at that. The NBA saw tanking and did what it took to make it an insane strategy. Getting even a top 3 pick has never been good assurance to get an elite player worth building a contender around, but now even getting good odds at a top 4 pick is almost impossible.

Now none of this is to say that teams should all try to "win now" instead of hard tank. You should never overcommit to mediocrity. But there is a prudent middle ground.

What had better odds of producing a #1 option? Winning 17 games and getting a 14% chance at #1 and Cooper Flagg or Drafting 8th and hoping Khaman Maluach becomes Rudy Gobert with a 3 or Jase Richardson at 11 is the next Donovan Mitchell or Collin Murray-Boyles at 15 is the next Draymond. It seems like that is way more riskier. For every SGA at 11th you have Jett Howard (11th 2023) currently averaging 4.1 ppg, 1.2 rebounds and 0.7 assists for Orlando. That year you could of tanked and gotten Amen Thompson 4th currently at 14/8/3/1.4/1.3 for a 49 win Houston team. No strategy is perfect and players slip all the time (worked out well with Matas so far). But better players go higher in the draft for a reason.

You have to factor in the asset and prospect deletion necessary in order to win 17 games. It's not about Maluach or similar guys. It's about in order to maximize the chances at Flagg, which would still be extremely low, you would basically have had to sell guys like Coby, Giddey etc for pennies on the dollar. Hell, we had to build Zach's value up by winning games with him just to get our never-was-going-to-project-as-elite pick back, and get rid of Zach in the process, who himself surely projects as a better #1 option than whoever we could project to get in the draft.

IMO, to build a team around a true superstar, the guy basically has to be arguably the best player in the league. That probably means a top 3 or 4 player in the world. Those guys come around once every few years. It's an incredible long shot to get one and involves massive luck in addition to depleting your team of other assets that have a lesser, but still existent chance to be special. I simply don't think aiming for a superstar is right for nba teams. If you get one, sure, build around him. But until you do, it's best to try to build a deep flexible talented team where the total is greater than the sum of the parts and you have something like the best "big 2", "big 3", "big 4", or "starting lineup" in the league. You can potentially do that with 5 fringe all star or above average starters if their skills complement each other well enough. Because in the process of doing that, you position your team optimally for trading for great players in opportunistic ways.

[Jcool0]

Amen. This is why generic hard tanking is probably unwise for us.

If the goal is to strategically position a team for an elite talent, it should be drilled into everyone's heads that only the worst 3 teams in the league have more than 50% chance at a top 4 pick, and only barely at 52% at that. The NBA saw tanking and did what it took to make it an insane strategy. Getting even a top 3 pick has never been good assurance to get an elite player worth building a contender around, but now even getting good odds at a top 4 pick is almost impossible.

Now none of this is to say that teams should all try to "win now" instead of hard tank. You should never overcommit to mediocrity. But there is a prudent middle ground.

What had better odds of producing a #1 option? Winning 17 games and getting a 14% chance at #1 and Cooper Flagg or Drafting 8th and hoping Khaman Maluach becomes Rudy Gobert with a 3 or Jase Richardson at 11 is the next Donovan Mitchell or Collin Murray-Boyles at 15 is the next Draymond. It seems like that is way more riskier. For every SGA at 11th you have Jett Howard (11th 2023) currently averaging 4.1 ppg, 1.2 rebounds and 0.7 assists for Orlando. That year you could of tanked and gotten Amen Thompson 4th currently at 14/8/3/1.4/1.3 for a 49 win Houston team. No strategy is perfect and players slip all the time (worked out well with Matas so far). But better players go higher in the draft for a reason.

You have to factor in the asset and prospect deletion necessary in order to win 17 games. It's not about Maluach or similar guys. It's about in order to maximize the chances at Flagg, which would still be extremely low, you would basically have had to sell guys like Coby, Giddey etc for pennies on the dollar. Hell, we had to build Zach's value up by winning games with him just to get our never-was-going-to-project-as-elite pick back, and get rid of Zach in the process, who himself surely projects as a better #1 option than whoever we could project to get in the draft.

IMO, to build a team around a true superstar, the guy basically has to be arguably the best player in the league. That probably means a top 3 or 4 player in the world. Those guys come around once every few years. It's an incredible long shot to get one and involves massive luck in addition to depleting your team of other assets that have a lesser, but still existent chance to be special. I simply don't think aiming for a superstar is right for nba teams. If you get one, sure, build around him. But until you do, it's best to try to build a deep flexible talented team where the total is greater than the sum of the parts and you have something like the best "big 2", "big 3", "big 4", or "starting lineup" in the league. You can potentially do that with 5 fringe all star or above average starters if their skills complement each other well enough. Because in the process of doing that, you position your team optimally for trading for great players in opportunistic ways.

Look at Detroit. Been "tanking" since what 2019. Mostly got screwed in the lottery. But was able to get Cade Cunningham #1 and while not a superstar is a really good player. Right now they are 5th in the East with 42 wins.

Bulls won to much early to have great odds at Flagg, but if they had traded the Sac guys like was the plan, they might have gotten to 6th and a 9% chance at #1 & 37% at a top 4 which is still not amazing but you are in the game. VJ would fit in nicely with this team.

[League Circles]

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.

Guys like Coby and Giddey are what #6 and #7 picks look like when they pan out. They cause a team to draft lower. Anything we could have traded them for would almost certainly end up being of less on-court and trade value than they are.

A quick rebuild with "vets" like AK did when he came here is stupid, but that's not what we're doing now. We're being patient and trying to build a good young team. That's why we traded for Giddey, it's why we traded Zach and for the package of pick and relatively young players that we got, and it's why we signed Jalen Smith, why we re-signed Coby and Ayo to flexible deals, etc.

The tear it all down to maximize picks at all costs strategy is, at best, likely to result in like a Camelo Anthony type after several wasted years of being terrible, but with very little around them, and thus not much of a future, despite eventually landing "the guy". Cause the picks we'd have got for guys like Coby and Giddey would project to end up like Kris Dunn, Patrick Williams, etc.

Basically, if you don't have literally the best player in the league (Jokic? Giannis?), you're better off committing to good young players (Giddey, Coby, hopefully Matas?), not committing to mediocre ones (Patrick), trying to build the best 2, 3, 4 or 5 man unit instead of trying to find "the guy", who if you're lucky will end up being like the 6th best player in the league, which still means in order to win you need to build the best 2, 3, 4, or 5 man unit.

[League Circles]

What had better odds of producing a #1 option? Winning 17 games and getting a 14% chance at #1 and Cooper Flagg or Drafting 8th and hoping Khaman Maluach becomes Rudy Gobert with a 3 or Jase Richardson at 11 is the next Donovan Mitchell or Collin Murray-Boyles at 15 is the next Draymond. It seems like that is way more riskier. For every SGA at 11th you have Jett Howard (11th 2023) currently averaging 4.1 ppg, 1.2 rebounds and 0.7 assists for Orlando. That year you could of tanked and gotten Amen Thompson 4th currently at 14/8/3/1.4/1.3 for a 49 win Houston team. No strategy is perfect and players slip all the time (worked out well with Matas so far). But better players go higher in the draft for a reason.

You have to factor in the asset and prospect deletion necessary in order to win 17 games. It's not about Maluach or similar guys. It's about in order to maximize the chances at Flagg, which would still be extremely low, you would basically have had to sell guys like Coby, Giddey etc for pennies on the dollar. Hell, we had to build Zach's value up by winning games with him just to get our never-was-going-to-project-as-elite pick back, and get rid of Zach in the process, who himself surely projects as a better #1 option than whoever we could project to get in the draft.

IMO, to build a team around a true superstar, the guy basically has to be arguably the best player in the league. That probably means a top 3 or 4 player in the world. Those guys come around once every few years. It's an incredible long shot to get one and involves massive luck in addition to depleting your team of other assets that have a lesser, but still existent chance to be special. I simply don't think aiming for a superstar is right for nba teams. If you get one, sure, build around him. But until you do, it's best to try to build a deep flexible talented team where the total is greater than the sum of the parts and you have something like the best "big 2", "big 3", "big 4", or "starting lineup" in the league. You can potentially do that with 5 fringe all star or above average starters if their skills complement each other well enough. Because in the process of doing that, you position your team optimally for trading for great players in opportunistic ways.

Look at Detroit. Been "tanking" since what 2019. Mostly got screwed in the lottery. But was able to get Cade Cunningham #1 and while not a superstar is a really good player. Right now they are 5th in the East with 42 wins.

Bulls won to much early to have great odds at Flagg, but if they had traded the Sac guys like was the plan, they might have gotten to 6th and a 9% chance at #1 & 37% at a top 4 which is still not amazing but you are in the game. VJ would fit in nicely with this team.

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.

[SirKaiser]

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.

[ChettheJet]

This was a game that they figured to lose. It would have taken an absolutely perfect game from 12 players and some poor effort fro OKC. Well you don't get the huge lead and best record in the west by phoning it in for games you should win. The Bulls have been hot of late but there's a reason they're still well below .500 and it's because they need to upgrade and improve all around. Some guys got some rest, the bench got minutes get on the plane and move on.

[DuckIII]

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.

[DuckIII]

One loss to the Thunder and everyone is already back on the tank bandwagon? Good grief.

No. The loss is illustrative of a larger point regarding our perceived “core” and how to improve it. There’s less than 10 games left. Real tanking, which is done by the FO and not the players, can’t happen anyway.