Around The NBA: 2019-20 RESTART

[dumbell78]

Sure, many were. And many, like myself and Mark had an issue with specifically selling the pick when we were rebuilding.

Say you are rebuilding and are a GM, and you have the youngest team in the league which is in the locker room means you will have a lot of various problems and no leadership. You have a second round pick and look on the board and don't like anyone or think anyone is a viable future player.

What do you do? I'd try and flip it for future assets of some type. Cash can be one of those things depending on how ownership behaves. I'd have rather seen them grab two second round picks from someone else for future drafts but I wouldn't use it just to use it, and if you were trading to GS then their second rounders didn't project as valuable in the future.

They sold the pick for the amount they lost in getting rid of Rondo, the same guy that could provide the veteran leadership you are implying.

You're just spit balling without any actual evidence to back up your claim. We all knew what it is was then and random theories years later wont change that.

They wanted the money, period.

[HomoSapien]

Sure, many were. And many, like myself and Mark had an issue with specifically selling the pick when we were rebuilding.

Say you are rebuilding and are a GM, and you have the youngest team in the league which is in the locker room means you will have a lot of various problems and no leadership. You have a second round pick and look on the board and don't like anyone or think anyone is a viable future player.

What do you do? I'd try and flip it for future assets of some type. Cash can be one of those things depending on how ownership behaves. I'd have rather seen them grab two second round picks from someone else for future drafts but I wouldn't use it just to use it, and if you were trading to GS then their second rounders didn't project as valuable in the future.

I think that's a recipe for a bad decision. In the 30s, there are often good role players left in the draft. Recent history has proven this over and over again. Also, we didn't seem to value veteran leadership all that much as our additions were Holiday (who we traded the next season), Pondexter (who didn't last the season), Lopez (who we were shopping and then didn't bring back once he was a free-agent), and Wade/Rondo who we bought out. As Dumbell points out, the trade with GS covered Rondo's buyout.

As for the strength of the second round, here's a recent look at the players that have recently been selected 38 or after (in our range for the pick we sold).

2014: Spencer Dinwiddie (38), Jerami Grant (39), Glenn Robinson III (40), Nikola Jokic (41), Dwight Powell (45), Jordan Clarkson (46)

2015: Josh Richardson (40), Pat Connaughton (41), Norman Powell (46)

2016: Jake Layman (47)

2017: Thomas Bryant (42), Dillon Brooks (45), Monte Morris (51)

I could give them the benefit of the doubt if they ended up making the right call, but we already have evidence that they missed out on three quality players that would have helped this team quite a bit.

By the way, in 2018 and 2019 we traded second-round picks that resulted in Mitchell Robinson and Bruno Fernando, two guys who very much could have helped this rebuild. We don't particularly value 2nd round picks, which is a shame, because drafting is the one thing we're sometimes good at.

[supermario]

Jordan Bell was released. Any of his backers around?

[Dresden]

Jordan Bell was released. Any of his backers around?

They all seem to be too occupied at the moment moving the goalposts....

[Dresden]

Do you sincerely think this was their reasoning, or do you think it was financially motivated? Additionally, your above reasoning doesn't reflect well on the Bulls since there ended up being good options that could have helped this rebuild.

I sincerely think if they liked someone that they would have taken them and kept the pick.

By the standard you just set there every single GM in the NBA that has used more than 2-3 second round picks will fail. Every single one. Which makes it an unreasonable and poor standard to hold.

If your GM gets a viable role player in the second round on more than 20% of his tries, then he's probably a superstar of picking second rounders.

I still don't really understand your point. Even if the chances of getting someone steller are poor, it's basically risk-free move to keep your draft pick (especially a relatively high 2nd round pick). In a rebuild, you need to take every opportunity you can to add pieces because you rarely know who is going to end up emerging as a valuable player. There's absolutely no way that this trade was about adding veterans. It couldn't have been, because we bought out Wade and Rondo. After the trade we added Kay Felder, Blakeney, and Arcidiacano to the roster.

I also don't understand why you're so inclinded to give the FO the benefit of the doubt. They haven't earned that. They've made a ton of bad decisions over the past 5-10 years that have brought this franchise to such a bleak place. This move alone isn't what got them there, but it says quite a bit about their lack of creativity and resourcefulness.

It's not that hard to understand. They didn't see anyone they really wanted in the 2nd round that year, and so they traded it for future assets. So many were saying we passed on such a great player in Jordan Bell, and he has proven to be not a real nba player. There are often good players available as UDFA or player's that get cut from other teams that you can pick up, that are just as good of bets as second rounders. So that's what they did.

As for giving the FO the benefit of the doubt- it also seems pretty unfair to assume they have committed a grave error in judgement every time they make a move, which is what happens a lot of the times. You have to look at each move on it's merits, not by saying "well, the FO has screwed up a lot of things in the past, so we can just assume they screwed this up, too."

[dice]

small-ball rockets out-rebounded 65-34 in a loss to the big-ball knicks. but they BARELY lost, so i'm not sure what to make of it

[dice]

I sincerely think if they liked someone that they would have taken them and kept the pick.

By the standard you just set there every single GM in the NBA that has used more than 2-3 second round picks will fail. Every single one. Which makes it an unreasonable and poor standard to hold.

If your GM gets a viable role player in the second round on more than 20% of his tries, then he's probably a superstar of picking second rounders.

I still don't really understand your point. Even if the chances of getting someone steller are poor, it's basically risk-free move to keep your draft pick (especially a relatively high 2nd round pick). In a rebuild, you need to take every opportunity you can to add pieces because you rarely know who is going to end up emerging as a valuable player. There's absolutely no way that this trade was about adding veterans. It couldn't have been, because we bought out Wade and Rondo. After the trade we added Kay Felder, Blakeney, and Arcidiacano to the roster.

I also don't understand why you're so inclinded to give the FO the benefit of the doubt. They haven't earned that. They've made a ton of bad decisions over the past 5-10 years that have brought this franchise to such a bleak place. This move alone isn't what got them there, but it says quite a bit about their lack of creativity and resourcefulness.

It's not that hard to understand. They didn't see anyone they really wanted in the 2nd round that year, and so they traded it for future assets.

it's a real stretch to call dollar bills "future assets"

As for giving the FO the benefit of the doubt- it also seems pretty unfair to assume they have committed a grave error in judgement every time they make a move, which is what happens a lot of the times. You have to look at each move on it's merits, not by saying "well, the FO has screwed up a lot of things in the past, so we can just assume they screwed this up, too."

agreed. unfortunately, on the merits this was a stupid move that doesn't even necessarily make sense if your organization's sole objective is profitability

jordan bell isn't even the point. the point is that you have an outside shot of landing a rotation-caliber nba player with an early 2nd round pick in ANY draft. if you don't like any of the available players, hold your nose and take a swing. or trade the pick for a future 2nd rounder!

july 6, 2017: bulls sign big man cristiano felicio to $32 mil contract
july 8, 2017: bulls sell pick that turns into big man jordan bell for $3.5 mil

bell has been WAY better than felicio in the interim. had a productive rookie season, anyway

[dice]

Read on Twitter

Cash considerations anyone?

Regardless of how Bell turns out, the idea of selling draft picks in a rebuilding year always warranted the criticism it got. Outside of Bell, there were some meaningful players selected after that pick in Thomas Bryant, Dillon Brooks, and Monte Morris. Sure statistically speaking, you're more likely to whiff on a second-round pick, but why not give yourself opportunity to find pieces?

Monte Morris was such low hanging fruit for GarPax but ownership needed that money.

he wasn't low hanging fruit for anyone in that spot given that he went a dozen picks later. and the bulls, then and now, had a glut of guys who could play the point

paxson said publicly that he didn't see a guy he really wanted to take so he basically sold the pick to gain favorability with management. i have no reason to believe that's not the truth. but it shows that there's a particularly pernicious and petty penny-pinching profit purpose that overshadows team building

[dumbell78]

Regardless of how Bell turns out, the idea of selling draft picks in a rebuilding year always warranted the criticism it got. Outside of Bell, there were some meaningful players selected after that pick in Thomas Bryant, Dillon Brooks, and Monte Morris. Sure statistically speaking, you're more likely to whiff on a second-round pick, but why not give yourself opportunity to find pieces?

Monte Morris was such low hanging fruit for GarPax but ownership needed that money.

he wasn't low hanging fruit for anyone in that spot given that he went a dozen picks later. and the bulls, then and now, had a glut of guys who could play the point

paxson said publicly that he didn't see a guy he really wanted to take so he basically sold the pick to gain favorability with management. i have no reason to believe that's not the truth. but it shows that there's a particularly pernicious and petty penny-pinching profit purpose that overshadows team building

It was a tongue and cheek reference to the Iowa State connection.

Yeah the penny pinching from above was obvious and Pax actually having to do it for brownie points was the ultimate for me.

[BookerBulls]

Watching 'The Jump' and they are trying to build a narrative as to why Lebron should win MVP over Giannis. All the while showing stats that showed why Giannis is clearly ahead in every category other than assists.

Trying to suggest that the biggest point towards Lebron is that he took the Lakers from outside the playoffs last year to the leading team in the West this year. Ummm do we remeber Lebron was on that team last year? Do we remember that Anthony Davis is putting up top 5-10 in the League numbers? While Giannis has Middleton as his number 2? They also suggested that Lebron should get points for 'recruiting AD to LA'.

I mean we all know ESPN is basically the Lebron channel - but surely there isn't some sort of groundswell that is looking to gift Lebron an undeserved MVP when Giannis is doing historical stuff for the league leading Bucks.

I am in Australia - so don't hear as much NBA stuff as the US - but surely Giannis has the MVP locked up for now with Lebron and a few others in distant second?

[johnnyvann840]

Jordan Bell was released. Any of his backers around?

They all seem to be too occupied at the moment moving the goalposts....

Nobody's moving the goalposts. It simply never was about "Jordan Bell" or any player.

[dumbell78]

Jordan Bell was released. Any of his backers around?

They all seem to be too occupied at the moment moving the goalposts....

Nobody's moving the goalposts. It simply never was about "Jordan Bell" or any player.

Shhhh, he's too busy changing the narrative because it suits his bias.

[dougthonus]

I still don't really understand your point. Even if the chances of getting someone steller are poor, it's basically risk-free move to keep your draft pick (especially a relatively high 2nd round pick). In a rebuild, you need to take every opportunity you can to add pieces because you rarely know who is going to end up emerging as a valuable player. There's absolutely no way that this trade was about adding veterans. It couldn't have been, because we bought out Wade and Rondo. After the trade we added Kay Felder, Blakeney, and Arcidiacano to the roster.

There is no such thing as a 'risk free' move. Every move has an opportunity cost to it. The Bulls decided that the guys in the second round did not increase their roster quality. They were full of tons of young players already and likely liked the ones they had more than the guys available.

I also don't understand why you're so inclinded to give the FO the benefit of the doubt. They haven't earned that. They've made a ton of bad decisions over the past 5-10 years that have brought this franchise to such a bleak place. This move alone isn't what got them there, but it says quite a bit about their lack of creativity and resourcefulness.

You don't see why I'm inclined to evaluate the circumstances and judge a move rather than just say "I'm unhappy with them so everything most be awful"? Well, sorry, that's not how I operate. Beyond that fact, the move has been validated as reasonable with the passage of time, so not only does the logical explanation make sense, it also in hindsight looks reasonable.

[dougthonus]

They sold the pick for the amount they lost in getting rid of Rondo, the same guy that could provide the veteran leadership you are implying.

You're just spit balling without any actual evidence to back up your claim. We all knew what it is was then and random theories years later wont change that.

They wanted the money, period.

1: They sold the pick for more than Rondo's buy out and Rondo was causing locker room problems not smoothing them over.
2: Your theory that they were forced into it is just as made up as any other theory (could be true, but also has no evidence to back it up and was explicitly denied though I think it is reasonable)
3: My theory is actually backed up by the 16 year history of the Bulls in the second round which is that they're extremely selective and often move out of second rounders but are aggressive when they see someone they like in the second round.

Given that the Bulls once traded three second rounders for Asik (which moved up like 5 picks), it seems highly likely that if the Bulls liked Jordan Bell (or anyone else) they would have found a way to make it happen and that they just didn't like him. Their entirely second round history would back up the theory that they generally don't feel strongly about second rounders, but if they do they are aggressive.

[Ice Man]

Mediocre player, bad attitude, and Bulls fans wrote incessantly about him. Good bye and good riddance.

[KissedByaRose1]

I know this isn't the point with the Bell/Rondo news but I am still 100% convinced we beat Boston in 2016 and Jimmys on the team still if he doesn't break his wrist. Sports are nuts man.

[Dan Z]

Read on Twitter

[TheStig]

They sold the pick for the amount they lost in getting rid of Rondo, the same guy that could provide the veteran leadership you are implying.

You're just spit balling without any actual evidence to back up your claim. We all knew what it is was then and random theories years later wont change that.

They wanted the money, period.

1: They sold the pick for more than Rondo's buy out and Rondo was causing locker room problems not smoothing them over.
2: Your theory that they were forced into it is just as made up as any other theory (could be true, but also has no evidence to back it up and was explicitly denied though I think it is reasonable)
3: My theory is actually backed up by the 16 year history of the Bulls in the second round which is that they're extremely selective and often move out of second rounders but are aggressive when they see someone they like in the second round.

Given that the Bulls once traded three second rounders for Asik (which moved up like 5 picks), it seems highly likely that if the Bulls liked Jordan Bell (or anyone else) they would have found a way to make it happen and that they just didn't like him. Their entirely second round history would back up the theory that they generally don't feel strongly about second rounders, but if they do they are aggressive.

I think this is a silly arguement. If everyone in that draft picks 34 and higher was worthless, why did other teams value it? Why wasn't there this amazing big sell? Why even have a 2nd round at that point.

Answer is, there is some low cost value there. Particularly in those first few picks. If the Bulls FO can't utilize an asset, then what are they expecting cash to bring to the floor?

[TheSuzerain]

If you get to picks in the 30s and can't find anyone worth drafting, then you suck at scouting. Full stop.

[Jimako10]

So the argument I'm hearing against 2nd round picks is that you step up to plate, turn around and tell the ump..."nah, I'm good" and walk back to the dugout? Like it's not even worth swinging at the pitch?