RealGM

Jcool0 wrote:FWIW Carlisle has been coaching in Indiana since 2021.

Call me senile!

Michael Jackson wrote:

GoBlue72391 wrote:

terry wrote:Hes a role player. Who cares. Drummond is better. You can find role players.

Gafford would be the perfect starting C for this team. Plus we would have $20m+ per year in salary that we wouldn't be paying Vuc.

True but afford is 14 mil so it really is only a 6 mil savings, that being said I would prefer Gafford still.

Yeah Gafford would look better than Vuc, but I wouldn't be all jacked about Gafford on a 14M dollar deal either.

dougthonus wrote:

Michael Jackson wrote:

GoBlue72391 wrote:Gafford would be the perfect starting C for this team. Plus we would have $20m+ per year in salary that we wouldn't be paying Vuc.

True but afford is 14 mil so it really is only a 6 mil savings, that being said I would prefer Gafford still.

Yeah Gafford would look better than Vuc, but I wouldn't be all jacked about Gafford on a 14M dollar deal either.

He provides Blocks and rim running. Now I wasn't that high on Myles Turner (I wanted Sabonis more), but his deal is good now and he has the interior defense and can hit the 3 ball.

Gafford had started a bunch of games before he was traded (Carter was hurt) but he did not play well in that stretch.

I guess they just gave up on him early thinking he won’t improve. Same went with Hutchinson, for him though they were right.

As it turns out, several ex Bulls are getting playoff time in the second round -

Gafford
Justin Holiday
DJJ
Kornet
Strus

But all very much supporting roles ... if that was your starting lineup, you'd win 10 games.

I tried to tell everybody who would listen. But AKME wouldn't take my calls.

I was more annoyed that we got the bigger Wagner in that deal and stupidly flipped him for theis. I remember being excited that we got Wagner and couldn’t believe we just flipped him. Now we could really use him…

sco wrote:Our model was clear...we wanted C's who could playmake and set picks/screens on the perimeter. IMO, we went after AD because he was a good passer/screener as much as his rebounding. Gafford was purely a paint guy. He was also a bit pouty, IIRC.

Agreed with this, and I think there was still some hope way back then that Marko would be our future backup C. His more skill based style is what AK is looking for vs a dunk/block athlete like Daniel. Of what I saw of Marko, the one thing he did do well was high-low passing. Unfortunately you can't justify a spot on a 5 man lineup if all you do is secondary passing. That's basically an upside of Thad Young, who became unplayable in the NBA after he left Chicago.

AK thought organizations win championships, not players... a little too much.

Two things:

- Overall, I don't think the org liked Gafford that much. Both AK & Billy seem to prioritize big men that can work at the top of the key and Gafford can't do that at all. I'd bet they already decided they didn't want to keep him around so were happy to shop him for whatever they could get. Theis fit the team's preferred style of play more than Gafford did

- Troy Brown Jr. is the exact sort of player AKME like to take gambles on, and I think they saw him as an important piece in the trade. It's ironic that neither Theis or Troy Brown Jr did anything with the team and Javonte was the only one that stuck around. I get the impression he was just there to match salaries and they had no idea how much he'd play for them.

people are giving the Bulls too much credit. They didn't know what they had with him. They thought he was a guy who could run and jump and do nothing else. "low bball IQ". He was riding the bench before he got traded then broke out in a big way with WAS. In retrospect we got pretty good value for him and "one man's trash, another man's trash", but being patient and not making a trade would have been an even better decision. A center rotation of Gafford/Drummond making $14mil probably would've been a better roster-building move than trading everything for Vucevic and paying him 20mil

rosenthall wrote:Two things:

- Overall, I don't think the org liked Gafford that much. Both AK & Billy seem to prioritize big men that can work at the top of the key and Gafford can't do that at all. I'd bet they already decided they didn't want to keep him around so were happy to shop him for whatever they could get. Theis fit the team's preferred style of play more than Gafford did

- Troy Brown Jr. is the exact sort of player AKME like to take gambles on, and I think they saw him as an important piece in the trade. It's ironic that neither Theis or Troy Brown Jr did anything with the team and Javonte was the only one that stuck around. I get the impression he was just there to match salaries and they had no idea how much he'd play for them.

That makes me question AK's ability to find talent and plan for the future. I think the most of us here thought that Theis was the best player in that deal and AK seemed to have no intention of keeping him (not that Theis would've made a difference, but the team needed a PF with size...still does).

Poor asset management. Gafford was the best asset when the trade happened, a young rim running backup 5 on a cheap contract (4yrs/6M). Theis was on an expiring contract and would likely look for more money and a bigger role (He did). Javonte was a good get but a nonshooting defensive wing isn't a valuable archetype.

AK seems to prefer bigs that can pass. Vuc, Theis, Marko, and even Drummond were all solid playmaking bigs at some point in their careers. Gafford isn't a good passer now and was not a good passer in college. Gafford didn't fit the vision AK had for the team and was shipped out.

Ice Man wrote:As it turns out, several ex Bulls are getting playoff time in the second round -

Gafford
Justin Holiday
DJJ
Kornet
Strus

But all very much supporting roles ... if that was your starting lineup, you'd win 10 games.

It proves that the NBA is completely reliant on the 1-3 guys on your team. You can find plenty of role players on terrible teams that fit on very good teams. Our top 3 guys are all have highly questionable impact.

Gafford certainly would look awful on our team. He has a clearly defined role and gets to benefit by playing with Luka & Kyrie drawing all of the attention.

I don't remember, nor care to. I do know I wasn't happy when it happened.

I really liked Gafford. I thought we should've kept him. All that said, the trade at that moment, wasn't a "bad" deal. We netted Troy Brown who at the time was a recent 15th overall pick, Daniel Theis who was considered to be instrumental to Boston's premier defense, and JaVonte Green who I feel was more of a throw-in but ended up becoming a rotation player.

It became a bad trade when we gave up on Theis so quickly, despite him playing well for us and providing something that no one else on the roster really provides. If we had committed to him as a role player, I think this trade ages better.

jordanwilliams6 wrote:It proves that the NBA is completely reliant on the 1-3 guys on your team. You can find plenty of role players on terrible teams that fit on very good teams. Our top 3 guys are all have highly questionable impact.

Yes, that's right. There are good role players all over the NBA. They just need the right slot, surrounded by the right stars, to shine. An example would be PJ Tucker. On a bad team, he's a nobody. Not good enough to change the team's results, just a short, slow, forgettable guy. Make him the 5th starter on a loaded team, though, and that same overlooked player is praised for the attributes that were always there, but not appreciated when he wasn't playing with stars.

Honestly, I was fine losing Gafford (thought we needed to take a shot on some more wings like Troy and Javonte), but there was an uneasiness about sending the ENTIRE big man farm out in a short time-frame. Wendell, Gafford and Lauri were the Bulls primary assets (besides Coby) collected over a 3 year stretch. Gafford was a pleasant surprise. Obviously having a bunch of kids compete (without a vet mentor) for minutes rarely works out. But then, you trade ALL the kids and bring in ALL vets? Big swing.

Keeping Thad at the deadline without the plan to keep him past the off-season, acquiring Theis without the plan to resign him, and getting Vuc for a big cost (inc. Aminu's dead salary) ... And putting Lauri in a crowded and slow-footed front court (still with no PG)... Went from a 21yo average age in the front-court to 31+ in one quick shot, and we actually played even worse down the stretch. So that was a rough sandwich to swallow, followed by a really exciting off-season and 3 month start, followed by a disastrous 2.5 years.

HomoSapien wrote:I really liked Gafford. I thought we should've kept him. All that said, the trade at that moment, wasn't a "bad" deal. We netted Troy Brown who at the time was a recent 15th overall pick, Daniel Theis who was considered to be instrumental to Boston's premier defense, and JaVonte Green who I feel was more of a throw-in but ended up becoming a rotation player.

It became a bad trade when we gave up on Theis so quickly, despite him playing well for us and providing something that no one else on the roster really provides. If we had committed to him as a role player, I think this trade ages better.

Did AK even want to re-sign Theis? I can't remember if he said anything about that. It seemed odd to trade for him and let him walk. Was part of that to avoid paying the luxury tax?

Dan Z wrote:

HomoSapien wrote:I really liked Gafford. I thought we should've kept him. All that said, the trade at that moment, wasn't a "bad" deal. We netted Troy Brown who at the time was a recent 15th overall pick, Daniel Theis who was considered to be instrumental to Boston's premier defense, and JaVonte Green who I feel was more of a throw-in but ended up becoming a rotation player.

It became a bad trade when we gave up on Theis so quickly, despite him playing well for us and providing something that no one else on the roster really provides. If we had committed to him as a role player, I think this trade ages better.

Did AK even want to re-sign Theis? I can't remember if he said anything about that. It seemed odd to trade for him and let him walk. Was part of that to avoid paying the luxury tax?

Not sure, but I think they originally wanted to S&T Theis for Caruso so they could use their MLE on another guy, but then there were limits to how many S&Ts they could execute over the cap (and Rockets paid less salary for Theis anyway), the Demar trade came up, so they ended up trading Theis for the TPE (which they of course never used), and signed Caruso with the MLE. Might've mixed the order up. That was a creative off-season, but had Reinsdorf been willing to pay the tax, it could've been much better (pay Lauri's asking price and sort the rotations later, spend the MLE/TPE on another forward, using the bird rights on Theis, etc.). Reinsdorf of course drew the line at adding too much guaranteed salary. They also probably had a choice of DJJ vs. Nance Jr. but went for the marginal savings and less guaranteed salary. I mean , honestly, we're all conditioned to think frugally due to Reinsdorf, but any normal new-age owner would've just paid the top dollar to keep all the talent, hedge whatever moves they made.

I also think Billy and Arturas concluded they'll never run big lineups again, after the dismal post-deadline performance, as the team transformed from small ball to big ball (Thad/Vuc/Theis/Lauri rotation) to hyper small ball (DJJ and PW at C ). This has backfired, if we may all agree to an extent. I mean, there's small ball (playing an athletic SF at PF), but then there's stupid ball (playing a front-court of Demar/Caruso/Vuc for huge minutes, out of necessity, where you give up standing reach and athleticism at all 3 positions in the paint).

Lonzo, Pat and Zach's injuries aside, there have been SO MANY other issues to write about (at a basic level, team chemistry and low ceiling once things clicked), 4 years in, it's now impossible to feel sorry for Arturas and Reinsdorf.