Moderators: HomoSapien, AshyLarrysDiaper, coldfish, Payt10, Ice Man, dougthonus, Michael Jackson, Tommy Udo 6 , kulaz3000, fleet, DASMACKDOWN, GimmeDat, RedBulls23
dougthonus wrote:MrSparkle wrote:I know I’m devil-advocating your general point, but most of the best teams of the past few years were entirely due to lop-sided trades (OKC, Boston).. or more fairly made trades (Cleveland, NYK)… Indiana somewhere in-between (clearly won the Haliburton trade despite giving up a star).
Trades can turn out lopsided, but they don't start out lopsided.
jnrjr79 wrote:Yeah, I agree with all of this. I hope I've been clear that my view is the Bulls are in fact rebuilding, but doing so in a way that jeopardizes the ceiling by virtue of a desire to "remain competitive."
Relatedly, nothing irks me more than when AK says he wants to "remain" competitive. Remain? Squeaking into the play-in and losing every year and describing it as competitive should be fairly offensive to the fan base.
jnrjr79 wrote:But in terms of trades being a difficult way to build a team, I'm not sure I fully agree, but I understand the point. A team like Houston this year could be well-suited to make a leap because of their trade capital.
The "trade for one big piece to get you over the top" can work, like it did for Toronto with Kawhi. But it's probably harder to pull off than a draft-based approach, and has the potential to blow up in your face à la Philadelphia or Phoenix, because a lot of the stars who will get traded are going to be old and expensive.
jnrjr79 wrote:dougthonus wrote:MrSparkle wrote:I know I’m devil-advocating your general point, but most of the best teams of the past few years were entirely due to lop-sided trades (OKC, Boston).. or more fairly made trades (Cleveland, NYK)… Indiana somewhere in-between (clearly won the Haliburton trade despite giving up a star).
Trades can turn out lopsided, but they don't start out lopsided.
Nico Harrison would like a word.
jnrjr79 wrote:Dan Z wrote:jnrjr79 wrote:
One thing I would say here is that if Giddey is re-signed at $30M, the trade for Giddey does not require him to be a superstar for it to have been a success. $30M is not going to be one of your two highest players on a contending team.
But where the Bulls go to get those #1 and #2 guys - who knows. I definitely have hope that Matas can become one of them, but obviously it'll be a while before that plays out. The problem is the Bulls are likely to be stuck without draft picks high enough to find those guys, barring some real luck, so it would appear they will need the stars to align in the trade market, which is suspect at best.
This goes to my overall concern about the Bulls' approach. If you look at a team like the Pistons, they spent a bunch of draft capital to get good young players, *then* surrounded those pieces with some solid contributing vets. The Bulls seem to be amassing some good 2nd tier guys first, which will likely keep them too good to use the picks to find the 1st tier guys. It's a backward rebuild that would seem like it's only fixable via trade.
That's why I wouldn't be surprised if the Bulls keep "running in circles".
They moved on from the big three (Zach/DDR/Vuc...I know Vuc is still here) to a team that's likely to have similar results.
Regarding the Zach trade...I'm glad they moved on, but question getting their pick back. I say that because it was protected 1-10 and had they tanked (even slightly) then they could've kept it.
The good thing is that they don't owe a pick in the future.
It'll be interesting to see how much Giddey gets paid on his next contract. I could see it either being okay (because nba contracts are crazy) or he ends up being a player we'll complain about here (over paid for what he does). Hopefully it's the former and not the later.
I see a lot of posts like this where people say "but they could have kept it anyway if they tanked," but that seems dodgy to me for two reasons. First, at the time of the Zach trade, the Bulls were on the precipice of losing it. It was too late at that time to tank, but the prevailing wisdom when the trade was made was that Zach had been playing so well that the team was likely to play worse once he was gone, which led people to say "well, we didn't need to get the pick back, because by trading Zach, we're now doing to be top 10 and would have kept it anyway." That ended up being wrong, because the Bulls played better post-trade and ended up number 12, which means (absent lottery luck), they'd have been without a 1st this year. But the more important factor, which you note but just sort of in passing, is they got out of the prospect of losing draft picks in the upcoming years, since if the pick didn't convey this year, it was going to convey in the future, either in the form of a future 1st or as 2nds when the protections expired. This was bad both because losing the future draft capital would be bad, to varying degree depending on what conveyed, but also because it encumbered future assets for years, limiting what the Bulls could do in trade.
Getting full control over their future picks back, to me, is pretty signifiant.
dougthonus wrote:jnrjr79 wrote:Yeah, I agree with all of this. I hope I've been clear that my view is the Bulls are in fact rebuilding, but doing so in a way that jeopardizes the ceiling by virtue of a desire to "remain competitive."
Relatedly, nothing irks me more than when AK says he wants to "remain" competitive. Remain? Squeaking into the play-in and losing every year and describing it as competitive should be fairly offensive to the fan base.
I agree with you and see things the same way and am only really disagreeing about what the word "rebuild" means, and that isn't really an important thing to agree on whether we'd term what has been done a rebuild, a retool, a rehome, or whatever, we agree on the strengths / weaknesses of the roster changes and the position we sit in.
MGB8 wrote:The relative success of the Pacers, Rockets and Knicks and Cavs actually makes me more optimistic. Pacers never tanked - they had 2 good, though not super high, draft picks - Sabonis and, before then, Turner. Sabonis got flipped into Halli, then they added Siakam through FA, Nesmith (who had seemed like a bust) along with another good pick in Nembardt, a bit of a disappointment in Mathurin, along with TJ McCconnell.
Rockets did have high picks in Jalen Green and Smith, but they both are kind of disappointments. It was a hit on Sengun, a later 1st round hit on Eason, a seeming high round hit on Thompson, but mostly FA FVV plus Brooks plus coach Udoka that set them up.
Knicks roster is built around traded for players, plus former 2nd rounder Mitch Robinson,
Cavs had plenty of high picks, but really only Mobley seems like a guy with top player potential. Garland is good but not world beating, Allen the same, Okoro is about as disappointing as Pat Williams (ok, not that bad)… then the move for Mitchell, this year’s move for Hunter.
Bulls have a guy who looks like a potential hit in Matas, and ditto Giddey albeit through trade. Coby could keep progressing and turn into a PN undisputed good-team lead scorer, but at minimum he is a very legit NBA player. They were able to get Huerter looking like an NBA player again, and even Collins a bit. Ayo has flashed as one, too, and even the disaster that is Pat.
Would add Tre Jones, but he is almost certainly gone in FA given the number of teams that could use a strong bench point or low end starting pg (Miami, Sactown, Dallas given Kyrie’s constant issues, and many more - someone will offer full MLE).
Point being, while I don’t trust AKME, at least the Bulls aren’t wasteland bad - which they were most certainly looking like they were headed for before Giddey broke out at the end. It doesn’t take that much more to shift from where the Bulls are to 2nd round team. From that point to contender is a huge jump, but the vast majority of teams don’t get to contender level, regardless.
WindyCityBorn wrote:MGB8 wrote:The relative success of the Pacers, Rockets and Knicks and Cavs actually makes me more optimistic. Pacers never tanked - they had 2 good, though not super high, draft picks - Sabonis and, before then, Turner. Sabonis got flipped into Halli, then they added Siakam through FA, Nesmith (who had seemed like a bust) along with another good pick in Nembardt, a bit of a disappointment in Mathurin, along with TJ McCconnell.
Rockets did have high picks in Jalen Green and Smith, but they both are kind of disappointments. It was a hit on Sengun, a later 1st round hit on Eason, a seeming high round hit on Thompson, but mostly FA FVV plus Brooks plus coach Udoka that set them up.
Knicks roster is built around traded for players, plus former 2nd rounder Mitch Robinson,
Cavs had plenty of high picks, but really only Mobley seems like a guy with top player potential. Garland is good but not world beating, Allen the same, Okoro is about as disappointing as Pat Williams (ok, not that bad)… then the move for Mitchell, this year’s move for Hunter.
Bulls have a guy who looks like a potential hit in Matas, and ditto Giddey albeit through trade. Coby could keep progressing and turn into a PN undisputed good-team lead scorer, but at minimum he is a very legit NBA player. They were able to get Huerter looking like an NBA player again, and even Collins a bit. Ayo has flashed as one, too, and even the disaster that is Pat.
Would add Tre Jones, but he is almost certainly gone in FA given the number of teams that could use a strong bench point or low end starting pg (Miami, Sactown, Dallas given Kyrie’s constant issues, and many more - someone will offer full MLE).
Point being, while I don’t trust AKME, at least the Bulls aren’t wasteland bad - which they were most certainly looking like they were headed for before Giddey broke out at the end. It doesn’t take that much more to shift from where the Bulls are to 2nd round team. From that point to contender is a huge jump, but the vast majority of teams don’t get to contender level, regardless.
If we truly hit on Giddey and Buzelis the future is hopeful. A GOOD young Chicago team will be a place stars will want to play. We saw how quickly DeMar DeRozan became a star again playing here. You can shine here in the right circumstances.
MGB8 wrote:The relative success of the Pacers, Rockets and Knicks and Cavs actually makes me more optimistic. Pacers never tanked - they had 2 good, though not super high, draft picks - Sabonis and, before then, Turner. Sabonis got flipped into Halli, then they added Siakam through FA, Nesmith (who had seemed like a bust) along with another good pick in Nembardt, a bit of a disappointment in Mathurin, along with TJ McCconnell.
Rockets did have high picks in Jalen Green and Smith, but they both are kind of disappointments. It was a hit on Sengun, a later 1st round hit on Eason, a seeming high round hit on Thompson, but mostly FA FVV plus Brooks plus coach Udoka that set them up.
Knicks roster is built around traded for players, plus former 2nd rounder Mitch Robinson,
Cavs had plenty of high picks, but really only Mobley seems like a guy with top player potential. Garland is good but not world beating, Allen the same, Okoro is about as disappointing as Pat Williams (ok, not that bad)… then the move for Mitchell, this year’s move for Hunter.
Bulls have a guy who looks like a potential hit in Matas, and ditto Giddey albeit through trade. Coby could keep progressing and turn into a PN undisputed good-team lead scorer, but at minimum he is a very legit NBA player. They were able to get Huerter looking like an NBA player again, and even Collins a bit. Ayo has flashed as one, too, and even the disaster that is Pat.
Would add Tre Jones, but he is almost certainly gone in FA given the number of teams that could use a strong bench point or low end starting pg (Miami, Sactown, Dallas given Kyrie’s constant issues, and many more - someone will offer full MLE).
Point being, while I don’t trust AKME, at least the Bulls aren’t wasteland bad - which they were most certainly looking like they were headed for before Giddey broke out at the end. It doesn’t take that much more to shift from where the Bulls are to 2nd round team. From that point to contender is a huge jump, but the vast majority of teams don’t get to contender level, regardless.
Dan Z wrote:WindyCityBorn wrote:MGB8 wrote:The relative success of the Pacers, Rockets and Knicks and Cavs actually makes me more optimistic. Pacers never tanked - they had 2 good, though not super high, draft picks - Sabonis and, before then, Turner. Sabonis got flipped into Halli, then they added Siakam through FA, Nesmith (who had seemed like a bust) along with another good pick in Nembardt, a bit of a disappointment in Mathurin, along with TJ McCconnell.
Rockets did have high picks in Jalen Green and Smith, but they both are kind of disappointments. It was a hit on Sengun, a later 1st round hit on Eason, a seeming high round hit on Thompson, but mostly FA FVV plus Brooks plus coach Udoka that set them up.
Knicks roster is built around traded for players, plus former 2nd rounder Mitch Robinson,
Cavs had plenty of high picks, but really only Mobley seems like a guy with top player potential. Garland is good but not world beating, Allen the same, Okoro is about as disappointing as Pat Williams (ok, not that bad)… then the move for Mitchell, this year’s move for Hunter.
Bulls have a guy who looks like a potential hit in Matas, and ditto Giddey albeit through trade. Coby could keep progressing and turn into a PN undisputed good-team lead scorer, but at minimum he is a very legit NBA player. They were able to get Huerter looking like an NBA player again, and even Collins a bit. Ayo has flashed as one, too, and even the disaster that is Pat.
Would add Tre Jones, but he is almost certainly gone in FA given the number of teams that could use a strong bench point or low end starting pg (Miami, Sactown, Dallas given Kyrie’s constant issues, and many more - someone will offer full MLE).
Point being, while I don’t trust AKME, at least the Bulls aren’t wasteland bad - which they were most certainly looking like they were headed for before Giddey broke out at the end. It doesn’t take that much more to shift from where the Bulls are to 2nd round team. From that point to contender is a huge jump, but the vast majority of teams don’t get to contender level, regardless.
If we truly hit on Giddey and Buzelis the future is hopeful. A GOOD young Chicago team will be a place stars will want to play. We saw how quickly DeMar DeRozan became a star again playing here. You can shine here in the right circumstances.
When is the last time a top player asked to be traded to Chicago?
PaKii94 wrote:Dan Z wrote:WindyCityBorn wrote:
If we truly hit on Giddey and Buzelis the future is hopeful. A GOOD young Chicago team will be a place stars will want to play. We saw how quickly DeMar DeRozan became a star again playing here. You can shine here in the right circumstances.
When is the last time a top player asked to be traded to Chicago?
When was the last time Chicago was good enough to be a desirable location? If the foundation is built, the players will come. It's a big market and the new gen players aren't going to be scared of Jordan's shadow
Dan Z wrote:WindyCityBorn wrote:MGB8 wrote:The relative success of the Pacers, Rockets and Knicks and Cavs actually makes me more optimistic. Pacers never tanked - they had 2 good, though not super high, draft picks - Sabonis and, before then, Turner. Sabonis got flipped into Halli, then they added Siakam through FA, Nesmith (who had seemed like a bust) along with another good pick in Nembardt, a bit of a disappointment in Mathurin, along with TJ McCconnell.
Rockets did have high picks in Jalen Green and Smith, but they both are kind of disappointments. It was a hit on Sengun, a later 1st round hit on Eason, a seeming high round hit on Thompson, but mostly FA FVV plus Brooks plus coach Udoka that set them up.
Knicks roster is built around traded for players, plus former 2nd rounder Mitch Robinson,
Cavs had plenty of high picks, but really only Mobley seems like a guy with top player potential. Garland is good but not world beating, Allen the same, Okoro is about as disappointing as Pat Williams (ok, not that bad)… then the move for Mitchell, this year’s move for Hunter.
Bulls have a guy who looks like a potential hit in Matas, and ditto Giddey albeit through trade. Coby could keep progressing and turn into a PN undisputed good-team lead scorer, but at minimum he is a very legit NBA player. They were able to get Huerter looking like an NBA player again, and even Collins a bit. Ayo has flashed as one, too, and even the disaster that is Pat.
Would add Tre Jones, but he is almost certainly gone in FA given the number of teams that could use a strong bench point or low end starting pg (Miami, Sactown, Dallas given Kyrie’s constant issues, and many more - someone will offer full MLE).
Point being, while I don’t trust AKME, at least the Bulls aren’t wasteland bad - which they were most certainly looking like they were headed for before Giddey broke out at the end. It doesn’t take that much more to shift from where the Bulls are to 2nd round team. From that point to contender is a huge jump, but the vast majority of teams don’t get to contender level, regardless.
If we truly hit on Giddey and Buzelis the future is hopeful. A GOOD young Chicago team will be a place stars will want to play. We saw how quickly DeMar DeRozan became a star again playing here. You can shine here in the right circumstances.
When is the last time a top player asked to be traded to Chicago?
DASMACKDOWN wrote:I actually think that whole statement about Chicago not being a free agent destination is highly overblown.
When you sit back and think about it, only the Cali based teams and Miami have been teams that players would like to go for reasons completely unrelated to the success of the team.
Lakers get players whether is has money or not. Whether they are a lottery team or not. Doesn't matter. Only those handful of teams can do that.
For the other 28 teams in the league, they have to draft, trade or entice with an overpay to acquire them.
That is how the league has been built.
If the Bulls had a great uprising young team and plenty of money, the players will come. It really is as simple as that. Don't let the post dynasty KG and Tmac situations fool you.
Every time when the top stars flirted with coming here, it mostly was because we didn't have enough money. Carmelo comes to mind.
kodo wrote:DASMACKDOWN wrote:I actually think that whole statement about Chicago not being a free agent destination is highly overblown.
When you sit back and think about it, only the Cali based teams and Miami have been teams that players would like to go for reasons completely unrelated to the success of the team.
Lakers get players whether is has money or not. Whether they are a lottery team or not. Doesn't matter. Only those handful of teams can do that.
For the other 28 teams in the league, they have to draft, trade or entice with an overpay to acquire them.
That is how the league has been built.
If the Bulls had a great uprising young team and plenty of money, the players will come. It really is as simple as that. Don't let the post dynasty KG and Tmac situations fool you.
Every time when the top stars flirted with coming here, it mostly was because we didn't have enough money. Carmelo comes to mind.
Agreed with all that, it's NY or LA where the city matters. Everyone else, it's money & team success. We're with everyone else. No difference between us and say Orlando.
DASMACKDOWN wrote:The one thing I appreciate with Giddey, is he is the reason why we finally have an identity on offense.
We would have never achieved it with Coby or Ayo. Giddey is the combination of both to where he pushes it like Ayo and passes it better than both.
The fact that Giddey is an elite rebounder, it makes even easier to play like that more often as well.
kodo wrote:DASMACKDOWN wrote:I actually think that whole statement about Chicago not being a free agent destination is highly overblown.
When you sit back and think about it, only the Cali based teams and Miami have been teams that players would like to go for reasons completely unrelated to the success of the team.
Lakers get players whether is has money or not. Whether they are a lottery team or not. Doesn't matter. Only those handful of teams can do that.
For the other 28 teams in the league, they have to draft, trade or entice with an overpay to acquire them.
That is how the league has been built.
If the Bulls had a great uprising young team and plenty of money, the players will come. It really is as simple as that. Don't let the post dynasty KG and Tmac situations fool you.
Every time when the top stars flirted with coming here, it mostly was because we didn't have enough money. Carmelo comes to mind.
Agreed with all that, it's NY or LA where the city matters. Everyone else, it's money & team success. We're with everyone else. No difference between us and say Orlando.
But I don't even know if the cap space part matters anymore, when FAs move teams these days its because no other team wants them enough to trade for them. Almost everyone valuable moves teams via trade like Butler, KD, Dame, etc.. The guys who moved in actual FA were Tobias Harris and Paul George, both a waste of cap space. Even Brandon Ingram didn't hit FA. Heck we even got a great deal for Derozan as he left, we just gave it to San Antonio.
Dan Z wrote:kodo wrote:DASMACKDOWN wrote:I actually think that whole statement about Chicago not being a free agent destination is highly overblown.
When you sit back and think about it, only the Cali based teams and Miami have been teams that players would like to go for reasons completely unrelated to the success of the team.
Lakers get players whether is has money or not. Whether they are a lottery team or not. Doesn't matter. Only those handful of teams can do that.
For the other 28 teams in the league, they have to draft, trade or entice with an overpay to acquire them.
That is how the league has been built.
If the Bulls had a great uprising young team and plenty of money, the players will come. It really is as simple as that. Don't let the post dynasty KG and Tmac situations fool you.
Every time when the top stars flirted with coming here, it mostly was because we didn't have enough money. Carmelo comes to mind.
Agreed with all that, it's NY or LA where the city matters. Everyone else, it's money & team success. We're with everyone else. No difference between us and say Orlando.
But I don't even know if the cap space part matters anymore, when FAs move teams these days its because no other team wants them enough to trade for them. Almost everyone valuable moves teams via trade like Butler, KD, Dame, etc.. The guys who moved in actual FA were Tobias Harris and Paul George, both a waste of cap space. Even Brandon Ingram didn't hit FA. Heck we even got a great deal for Derozan as he left, we just gave it to San Antonio.
i agree. If the Bulls plan is to attract free agents in the near future then it's a bad one. As you point out players don't typically leave via free agency anymore and generally it's been through trade. If AK wants to do that then he needs to build up assets and he hasn't been willing to do that (for example, deciding not to take on Barnes so he could get the Kings 2031 swap).