DanTown8587 wrote:kulaz3000 wrote:DanTown8587 wrote:So this is weird but in a vacuum, I think Carter is a higher prospect than either Mikal Bridges or Kevin Knox but at 7, I'm probably going with one of those two guys over Carter due to the roster makeup and how I think you're going to win with the team you have and the players you're hopeful to get.
Over the roster make up? Please explain.
I say this because I think Carter is almost a perfect fit besides Lauri. Carter does almost everything that Lauri doesn't do at a high level yet, which is blocking shots, rim protection and rebounding. I think they are going to compliment each other extremely well for years to come.
That said, the glaring missing piece along those two front court pieces is a very good play-making point guard. This isn't a knock on Dunn, because he is valuable and has skills, but play-making and feel for the game isn't exactly one of his greatest strengths. To be clear, I'm not saying he isn't a willing passer, but he isn't a natural play-maker, you wouldn't call him a point guard who has a great feel for the game, and even now, one of the ways he gets himself going on the offensive end is to get his own shot and his passing game follows.
Why it's super critical for the Bulls to keep an eye out on the market for a point guard is because it looks like our greatest assets currently are our two big men, and as history shows all really good big men need a really good point guard to compliment them, to pass them the ball where they are most comfortable, to create opportunities for them etc. Someone like Nash, Rondo, etc. would be perfect for this youth movement to continue to flourish and grow, not only as individuals but as a team.
First off, it should be noted that this conversation is not about a 82 game season but how to best maximize a team for the playoffs. I think Lauri and Wendell are a low ceiling/high floor duo that wins you some number of games in the 30s if you get better play from the wing than previously. I think right now the Bulls are probably a low 20s to mid 20s win team next year.
Regarding the pairing, the Bulls lack a truly great player that can dictate and beat good defenses. Those guys are very rare and hard to get. It's not a complaint of Lauri's or Carter's talent to say they're not at that level; it's really hard to get guys at that level. There are probably less than a dozen guys in the league who dictate that but it's not something I think Lauri or anyone else on the roster is capable of doing. When you're trying to win by maximizing the opportunity guys get, you start to see and care more about fit than say individual talent.
It's one of the reasons I felt so strongly about not resigning Lavine because while he's individually talented, we're going in to year five (six if you want to count his time at UCLA) where he's athletic and struggles to make teammates better or the team good. So now the question is what's the way to maximize the talent already here. One of those ways is Lauri in a P&R against other bigs. If he's guarded by the 3/4s of the league, I don't see the value in him being able to post those guys up because post offense is woefully inefficient. What Lauri showed a decent ability to do is beat bigger guys off the dribble. If you start asking him to beat much quicker guys off the dribble, you're asking for a ton of development and play from Lauri.
Secondarily, if you roll Lauri and Carter at the 4/5 defensively, when teams go quick on the perimeter, you really don't have a ton of options considering the role Lavine will play. I find it hard to believe that Lavine, Markanenn, and Carter together is enough defense. While people just want to pin the hopes of the defense on Dunn and whoever else, you're basically robbing Peter (high level offense that someone other than Dunn can provide) to pay Paul (base level defense).
At the end of the day, I struggle to see where the Bulls are going to ever be really good with the style of the players on the roster. The reason I favored Knox or Bridges is that this team is not close and both of those players have high level potential to be two way guys who can help you space the floor, move off the ball, switch defensively multiple positions, and hopefully be a good team later. I tend to believe you either draft guys who fit with your team or keep drafting high level players who can be game changers. Carter, for the reasons I stated, isn't a great fit to how this team likely wants to play and I feel there is a choice coming between Lauri and Carter down the road (if Carter is as good as advertised) in terms of fit at the five. I think the likelihood these two guys are both here long term is highly unlikely.
Great post. Awesome writing. Valid concern with different rationale than my own.
You rightly point out the defensive deficiencies of a Lavine/Markkanen/Carter lineup. IIUC, this leads you to conclude that Mikal Bridges might have been a wiser pick.than WCJ.
I like the focus on defense.
The point I've been making all along is that, in this Moneyball era, teams are winning by being able handle these kinds of matchup situations by having someone on the bench for every possible matchup, rather than a 'star' who is expected to outshine anything thrown his way.
You don't sign Dkembe Mtubo to a max contract. You get JaVale McGee and Andre Iguodala on affordable contracts, play one 'big', the other 'small', and get 5 fouls to give out of each of them, with money to pick up other specialists to boot.
You don't keep cap space to swing for the fences trying to get two big-name franchise messiahs in sweepstakes where one team gets the prize and the other four walk home barefoot, carrying their high heels in one hand by the heelstrap, with mascara running down their faces, scribbling slogaans of self-hatred on their own bathroom mirrors in red lipstick, vowing never to try again.
Supply and demand shows how skilled big men come at a premium, which makes the top of the fish-in -a-barrel situation that is the draft, the only reallistic place to be assured to get one. So, I don't regret the WCJ pick at all, and even you don't describe him as a defensive liability in anything but a 'small ball' situation, and what 6'10" player wouldn't be?
Meanwhile, Kyle Anderson, Mario Herzonja and Trevor Ariza (each averaging over 1steal per game) all just signed for a fraction of what Lavine just got.
Another kind of matchup we seem ill-equipped for is the little runt who moves well without the ball. Isaiah Thomas/Nate Robinson/Muggsy Bogues.That's why I thought Sacramento wouldn't think anything of sending us a package that included bench players like Harry Giles, Skal Labissiere and, to my point, Frank Mason III.
"Here ya go, Zach.$78 million. You want big bills or small?"
