Official Bulls Tankathon 2025 Thread

[Dan Z]

What's funny is many of us wanted to trade Zach in order to tank. Instead, trading Zach has led to winning. Who woulda thunk it?

At least the Bulls are now in a position to keep their pick due to the trade, though it sure doesn't look to be as high as was hoped.

The front office was never going to tank, even after they got their pick back.

It's possible that the Bulls lose again in the play-in and end up with another #11 or so pick in the draft. It's not a great outcome, but hopefully they make the right pick.

It depends what you mean by "tank." I suspect the FO thought it would get worse after the Zach trade, not better. But I agree there isn't any appetite for a traditional multi-year, tear-it-down type of tank.

I mean do things like play your best players less minutes or put them on the injured list when you can.

The Raptors and Jazz have both done stuff like that. The Bulls on the other hand seem to fight for every win right until the season ends.

I don't think they need a multi-year tank, but its something they couldve done this year.

[drosestruts]

The front office was never going to tank, even after they got their pick back.

It's possible that the Bulls lose again in the play-in and end up with another #11 or so pick in the draft. It's not a great outcome, but hopefully they make the right pick.

It depends what you mean by "tank." I suspect the FO thought it would get worse after the Zach trade, not better. But I agree there isn't any appetite for a traditional multi-year, tear-it-down type of tank.

I mean do things like play your best players less minutes or put them on the injured list when you can.

The Raptors and Jazz have both done stuff like that. The Bulls on the other hand seem to fight for every win right until the season ends.

I don't think they need a multi-year tank, but its something they couldve done this year.

Ill be curious following players like Scottie Barnes and Lauri Markkannen in the years to come. Will we see the promising young players we saw in the past who earned the very large contracts both are now on?

Or is there a downside to tanking?

Someone like SGA missed legit time with plantar fascia tears and ankle injuries. When healthy and playing he was always encouraged to win.

[jnrjr79]

It depends what you mean by "tank." I suspect the FO thought it would get worse after the Zach trade, not better. But I agree there isn't any appetite for a traditional multi-year, tear-it-down type of tank.

I mean do things like play your best players less minutes or put them on the injured list when you can.

The Raptors and Jazz have both done stuff like that. The Bulls on the other hand seem to fight for every win right until the season ends.

I don't think they need a multi-year tank, but its something they couldve done this year.

Ill be curious following players like Scottie Barnes and Lauri Markkannen in the years to come. Will we see the promising young players we saw in the past who earned the very large contracts both are now on?

Or is there a downside to tanking?

Someone like SGA missed legit time with plantar fascia tears and ankle injuries. When healthy and playing he was always encouraged to win.

Yeah, I'm all for front offices constructing rosters that are tank-worthy, when appropriate. But unless it's just for the last few games of the season or something like that, I'm not a huge fan of coaches benching the team's best players to tank.

I don't know how much stock to put into it, but I saw someone on Twitter earlier today noting that Matas, in his rookie season, is playing in quasi-meaningful games down the stretch, and perhaps that's better for his development than just trying to put up some numbers on a bottom-feeder.

I wanted to tank this year, but it ain't happening, so I'm just going to sort of enjoy what's left of the year for what it's worth. When the Bulls are winning primarily because of the contributions of their younger players, I can't find myself getting all that mad about it.

[HomoSapien]

With the way we've played, I would be surprised if we kept our pick. I fully expect AK to package it with our expiring contracts for someone who can help us make a playoff push.

[sco]

With the way we've played, I would be surprised if we kept our pick. I fully expect AK to package it with our expiring contracts for someone who can help us make a playoff push.

Not the worst idea.

[Dan Z]

It depends what you mean by "tank." I suspect the FO thought it would get worse after the Zach trade, not better. But I agree there isn't any appetite for a traditional multi-year, tear-it-down type of tank.

I mean do things like play your best players less minutes or put them on the injured list when you can.

The Raptors and Jazz have both done stuff like that. The Bulls on the other hand seem to fight for every win right until the season ends.

I don't think they need a multi-year tank, but its something they couldve done this year.

Ill be curious following players like Scottie Barnes and Lauri Markkannen in the years to come. Will we see the promising young players we saw in the past who earned the very large contracts both are now on?

Or is there a downside to tanking?

Someone like SGA missed legit time with plantar fascia tears and ankle injuries. When healthy and playing he was always encouraged to win.

OKC traded Paul George for SGA, Gallinari, 5 first round picks and 2 swaps. They also traded Westbrook for Chris Paul, 2 first round picks and 2 swaps.

Chris Paul ended up being better than expected and they finished in 5th place in the West. With all those additional assets they had the luxury of doing that. It meant that they could compete and still had the ability to make moves.

The next year is when SGA got hurt and they traded Paul. The team finished 22-50. Their goal was definitely a top pick. They drafted Giddey and went with their young players for another losing season (24-58) for another top pick (this time it was Chet and later on with their assets Jalen Williams).

At that point they had young players with upside (Chet, Williams, Giddey, and SGA) and extra picks to work with. They finished in 10th place in the West (40-42). Then last year their young players took a step forward and the team improved (57 wins).

The Bulls have never been in a situation like that, in part because AK doesn't trade for future picks (unless you count the Portland pick which is nebulous at best due to the protections).

As for the Jazz, Ainge decided to move on from the Mitchell/Gobert team (I think there was also some issues between those two players...?). He got 4 first round picks (5 if you count Kessler) and a swap for Gobert. For Mitchell he got Markkanen, Sexton, three first round picks and two swaps.

Then the team over achieved to start the season and was a surprise (Markkanen's all-star season). He did what he could to tank the rest of the year, but at that point it was too late.

The following season he traded vets at the deadline and tried to get a top pick again (but didn't push hard for it knowing that it wasn't the best draft). He also talked to teams about Markkanen and ultimately decided to keep him for now.

This year they went for a full on tank and currently have the worst record. If they get Flagg that will change things for them. Picks 2 or 3 might too. I bet Ainge talked to Markkanen about this plan going into the season.

Plus, like OKC they have additional picks to work with.

As for the Raptors I'm not sure what they're doing.

[sco]

I mean do things like play your best players less minutes or put them on the injured list when you can.

The Raptors and Jazz have both done stuff like that. The Bulls on the other hand seem to fight for every win right until the season ends.

I don't think they need a multi-year tank, but its something they couldve done this year.

Ill be curious following players like Scottie Barnes and Lauri Markkannen in the years to come. Will we see the promising young players we saw in the past who earned the very large contracts both are now on?

Or is there a downside to tanking?

Someone like SGA missed legit time with plantar fascia tears and ankle injuries. When healthy and playing he was always encouraged to win.

OKC traded Paul George for SGA, Gallinari, 5 first round picks and 2 swaps. They also traded Westbrook for Chris Paul, 2 first round picks and 2 swaps.

Chris Paul ended up being better than expected and they finished in 5th place in the West. With all those additional assets they had the luxury of doing that. It meant that they could compete and still had the ability to make moves.

The next year is when SGA got hurt and they traded Paul. The team finished 22-50. Their goal was definitely a top pick. They drafted Giddey and went with their young players for another losing season (24-58) for another top pick (this time it was Chet and later on with their assets Jalen Williams).

At that point they had young players with upside (Chet, Williams, Giddey, and SGA) and extra picks to work with. They finished in 10th place in the West (40-42). Then last year their young players took a step forward and the team improved (57 wins).

The Bulls have never been in a situation like that, in part because AK doesn't trade for future picks (unless you count the Portland pick which is nebulous at best due to the protections).

As for the Jazz, Ainge decided to move on from the Mitchell/Gobert team (I think there was also some issues between those two players...?). He got 4 first round picks (5 if you count Kessler) and a swap for Gobert. For Mitchell he got Markkanen, Sexton, three first round picks and two swaps.

Then the team over achieved to start the season and was a surprise (Markkanen's all-star season). He did what he could to tank the rest of the year, but at that point it was too late.

The following season he traded vets at the deadline and tried to get a top pick again (but didn't push hard for it knowing that it wasn't the best draft). He also talked to teams about Markkanen and ultimately decided to keep him for now.

This year they went for a full on tank and currently have the worst record. If they get Flagg that will change things for them. Picks 2 or 3 might too. I bet Ainge talked to Markkanen about this plan going into the season.

Plus, like OKC they have additional picks to work with.

As for the Raptors I'm not sure what they're doing.

Raptors are trying to keep their pick which is top 6 protected.

[Dan Z]

I mean do things like play your best players less minutes or put them on the injured list when you can.

The Raptors and Jazz have both done stuff like that. The Bulls on the other hand seem to fight for every win right until the season ends.

I don't think they need a multi-year tank, but its something they couldve done this year.

Ill be curious following players like Scottie Barnes and Lauri Markkannen in the years to come. Will we see the promising young players we saw in the past who earned the very large contracts both are now on?

Or is there a downside to tanking?

Someone like SGA missed legit time with plantar fascia tears and ankle injuries. When healthy and playing he was always encouraged to win.

Yeah, I'm all for front offices constructing rosters that are tank-worthy, when appropriate. But unless it's just for the last few games of the season or something like that, I'm not a huge fan of coaches benching the team's best players to tank.

I don't know how much stock to put into it, but I saw someone on Twitter earlier today noting that Matas, in his rookie season, is playing in quasi-meaningful games down the stretch, and perhaps that's better for his development than just trying to put up some numbers on a bottom-feeder.

I wanted to tank this year, but it ain't happening, so I'm just going to sort of enjoy what's left of the year for what it's worth. When the Bulls are winning primarily because of the contributions of their younger players, I can't find myself getting all that mad about it.

I said this in the game thread: The Bulls are going to be in the play-in no matter what happens so why not rest Giddey and Coby? If they lose the remaining games that's good for their draft position. If they win that's okay too (because it most likely means Matas did well).

Then Giddey and Coby are rested for the play-in and the same thing applies. If they win that's okay. They get experience. If they lose (which is likely) then it keeps them in the lottery (the team needs to add more talent to this team either way).

This is something they could've done awhile back too.

[Dan Z]

Ill be curious following players like Scottie Barnes and Lauri Markkannen in the years to come. Will we see the promising young players we saw in the past who earned the very large contracts both are now on?

Or is there a downside to tanking?

Someone like SGA missed legit time with plantar fascia tears and ankle injuries. When healthy and playing he was always encouraged to win.

OKC traded Paul George for SGA, Gallinari, 5 first round picks and 2 swaps. They also traded Westbrook for Chris Paul, 2 first round picks and 2 swaps.

Chris Paul ended up being better than expected and they finished in 5th place in the West. With all those additional assets they had the luxury of doing that. It meant that they could compete and still had the ability to make moves.

The next year is when SGA got hurt and they traded Paul. The team finished 22-50. Their goal was definitely a top pick. They drafted Giddey and went with their young players for another losing season (24-58) for another top pick (this time it was Chet and later on with their assets Jalen Williams).

At that point they had young players with upside (Chet, Williams, Giddey, and SGA) and extra picks to work with. They finished in 10th place in the West (40-42). Then last year their young players took a step forward and the team improved (57 wins).

The Bulls have never been in a situation like that, in part because AK doesn't trade for future picks (unless you count the Portland pick which is nebulous at best due to the protections).

As for the Jazz, Ainge decided to move on from the Mitchell/Gobert team (I think there was also some issues between those two players...?). He got 4 first round picks (5 if you count Kessler) and a swap for Gobert. For Mitchell he got Markkanen, Sexton, three first round picks and two swaps.

Then the team over achieved to start the season and was a surprise (Markkanen's all-star season). He did what he could to tank the rest of the year, but at that point it was too late.

The following season he traded vets at the deadline and tried to get a top pick again (but didn't push hard for it knowing that it wasn't the best draft). He also talked to teams about Markkanen and ultimately decided to keep him for now.

This year they went for a full on tank and currently have the worst record. If they get Flagg that will change things for them. Picks 2 or 3 might too. I bet Ainge talked to Markkanen about this plan going into the season.

Plus, like OKC they have additional picks to work with.

As for the Raptors I'm not sure what they're doing.

Raptors are trying to keep their pick which is top 6 protected.

I meant overall because I don't get the make up of their team.

As for the pick are you thinking about the one they owed the Spurs? I think they gave that up in the last draft so they don't owe any now. I agree that their goal is a top pick (but haven't been able to out tank other teams due to the current talent on their team).

[drosestruts]

I mean do things like play your best players less minutes or put them on the injured list when you can.

The Raptors and Jazz have both done stuff like that. The Bulls on the other hand seem to fight for every win right until the season ends.

I don't think they need a multi-year tank, but its something they couldve done this year.

Ill be curious following players like Scottie Barnes and Lauri Markkannen in the years to come. Will we see the promising young players we saw in the past who earned the very large contracts both are now on?

Or is there a downside to tanking?

Someone like SGA missed legit time with plantar fascia tears and ankle injuries. When healthy and playing he was always encouraged to win.

OKC traded Paul George for SGA, Gallinari, 5 first round picks and 2 swaps. They also traded Westbrook for Chris Paul, 2 first round picks and 2 swaps.

Chris Paul ended up being better than expected and they finished in 5th place in the West. With all those additional assets they had the luxury of doing that. It meant that they could compete and still had the ability to make moves.

The next year is when SGA got hurt and they traded Paul. The team finished 22-50. Their goal was definitely a top pick. They drafted Giddey and went with their young players for another losing season (24-58) for another top pick (this time it was Chet and later on with their assets Jalen Williams).

At that point they had young players with upside (Chet, Williams, Giddey, and SGA) and extra picks to work with. They finished in 10th place in the West (40-42). Then last year their young players took a step forward and the team improved (57 wins).

The Bulls have never been in a situation like that, in part because AK doesn't trade for future picks (unless you count the Portland pick which is nebulous at best due to the protections).

As for the Jazz, Ainge decided to move on from the Mitchell/Gobert team (I think there was also some issues between those two players...?). He got 4 first round picks (5 if you count Kessler) and a swap for Gobert. For Mitchell he got Markkanen, Sexton, three first round picks and two swaps.

Then the team over achieved to start the season and was a surprise (Markkanen's all-star season). He did what he could to tank the rest of the year, but at that point it was too late.

The following season he traded vets at the deadline and tried to get a top pick again (but didn't push hard for it knowing that it wasn't the best draft). He also talked to teams about Markkanen and ultimately decided to keep him for now.

This year they went for a full on tank and currently have the worst record. If they get Flagg that will change things for them. Picks 2 or 3 might too. I bet Ainge talked to Markkanen about this plan going into the season.

Plus, like OKC they have additional picks to work with.

As for the Raptors I'm not sure what they're doing.

I don't remember the OKC or Utah trades as being these shrewed high toward the future moves, but rather, players requesting trades out of those teams.

And in OKC's case, they hit a homerun with the trade of Paul George in particular.

But in my mind, and it's probably splitting hairs, they never tanked. Young players, if healthy, played and weren't micromanaged to improve lottery positioning. Maybe you can say players got hurt at the right times, and not only got hurt, but seemed to make good recoveries, without those injuries affecting their ability upon return.


Utah on the other hand, is tanking. And has made so many moves to make their team as bad as possible, I'm not even sure what drafting a Cooper Flagg does for them. They have Flagg for 6-8 years, never making the playoffs until he asks to be traded like Mitchell and Gobert did? It's hard to see the vision. Their draft picks in recent years have been underwhelming (Hendricks, Williams, George, Filipowki, Kessler, Collier). 7 1st round picks in the last three years and I'm not impressed by any of them.

Again best case scenario they get Flagg, and it almost seems like a "so what?" - they'll still be bad.

Spurs have a better roster and Wemby is likely a better player, with him this year they were still 21-25 and being 19-52 the year before.

I don't see Flagg leading the Jazz to a better record than Wemby leads the Spurs to.

The NBA is tough and might be at it's most talented it's been in a long time.

There's all-star caliber players and Hall of Famers littered throughout lottery teams these days. It's tough out there.

[Dan Z]

Ill be curious following players like Scottie Barnes and Lauri Markkannen in the years to come. Will we see the promising young players we saw in the past who earned the very large contracts both are now on?

Or is there a downside to tanking?

Someone like SGA missed legit time with plantar fascia tears and ankle injuries. When healthy and playing he was always encouraged to win.

OKC traded Paul George for SGA, Gallinari, 5 first round picks and 2 swaps. They also traded Westbrook for Chris Paul, 2 first round picks and 2 swaps.

Chris Paul ended up being better than expected and they finished in 5th place in the West. With all those additional assets they had the luxury of doing that. It meant that they could compete and still had the ability to make moves.

The next year is when SGA got hurt and they traded Paul. The team finished 22-50. Their goal was definitely a top pick. They drafted Giddey and went with their young players for another losing season (24-58) for another top pick (this time it was Chet and later on with their assets Jalen Williams).

At that point they had young players with upside (Chet, Williams, Giddey, and SGA) and extra picks to work with. They finished in 10th place in the West (40-42). Then last year their young players took a step forward and the team improved (57 wins).

The Bulls have never been in a situation like that, in part because AK doesn't trade for future picks (unless you count the Portland pick which is nebulous at best due to the protections).

As for the Jazz, Ainge decided to move on from the Mitchell/Gobert team (I think there was also some issues between those two players...?). He got 4 first round picks (5 if you count Kessler) and a swap for Gobert. For Mitchell he got Markkanen, Sexton, three first round picks and two swaps.

Then the team over achieved to start the season and was a surprise (Markkanen's all-star season). He did what he could to tank the rest of the year, but at that point it was too late.

The following season he traded vets at the deadline and tried to get a top pick again (but didn't push hard for it knowing that it wasn't the best draft). He also talked to teams about Markkanen and ultimately decided to keep him for now.

This year they went for a full on tank and currently have the worst record. If they get Flagg that will change things for them. Picks 2 or 3 might too. I bet Ainge talked to Markkanen about this plan going into the season.

Plus, like OKC they have additional picks to work with.

As for the Raptors I'm not sure what they're doing.

I don't remember the OKC or Utah trades as being these shrewed high toward the future moves, but rather, players requesting trades out of those teams.

And in OKC's case, they hit a homerun with the trade of Paul George in particular.

But in my mind, and it's probably splitting hairs, they never tanked. Young players, if healthy, played and weren't micromanaged to improve lottery positioning. Maybe you can say players got hurt at the right times, and not only got hurt, but seemed to make good recoveries, without those injuries affecting their ability upon return.


Utah on the other hand, is tanking. And has made so many moves to make their team as bad as possible, I'm not even sure what drafting a Cooper Flagg does for them. They have Flagg for 6-8 years, never making the playoffs until he asks to be traded like Mitchell and Gobert did? It's hard to see the vision. Their draft picks in recent years have been underwhelming (Hendricks, Williams, George, Filipowki, Kessler, Collier). 7 1st round picks in the last three years and I'm not impressed by any of them.

Again best case scenario they get Flagg, and it almost seems like a "so what?" - they'll still be bad.

Spurs have a better roster and Wemby is likely a better player, with him this year they were still 21-25 and being 19-52 the year before.

I don't see Flagg leading the Jazz to a better record than Wemby leads the Spurs to.

The NBA is tough and might be at it's most talented it's been in a long time.

There's all-star caliber players and Hall of Famers littered throughout lottery teams these days. It's tough out there.

I agree that OKC hit a home run with the Paul George trade, but I have to give them credit for doing the trade. Who knows what that trade looks like under another GM. Maybe they don't ask for as many picks as OKC got?

Even if OKC hadn't made that trade I'm sure Presti would still develop his team using the draft. He's made many moves where he trades a veteran away for future picks or taking on a bad salary to acquire picks. It's what he does.

You seem to think the number 1 overall pick in a draft doesn't matter.

Last years draft was weak and Risacher doesn't have the same potential that most #1 picks have.

Wemby has potential to be a great player and the Spurs weren't looking to be competitive this year. They're still building their team. I bet next year they'll be a lot better.

Paolo Banchero has helped Orlando improve from where they are. I know you don't think much of him, but the numbers show that they improved. Also, keep in mind that he started the season strong, but it got derailed with injuries.

Cade Cunningham has helped Detroit turn things around this year.

Anthony Edwards has done well in Minnesota.

Zion has injury issues.

Number 1 overall picks might not turn a team around fast, but there's a good chance that the team will improve. If Utah drafts Flagg I bet they won't bad for "6-8 years". Flagg gives Utah a prospect with star level potential and that's something they can work with.

[Jcool0]

Last years draft was weak and Risacher doesn't have the same potential that most #1 picks have.

FWIW Zaccharie Risacher is just turning 20 in a couple of days. Over his last 14 games he is averaging 16 points on 49/40/76. He also has 3.8 rebounds, 1 assist, 0.6 steals & 0.5 blocks in that same time frame. He is kind of showing some the versatility upside that Atlanta was looking for. But am sure this was more a long term play.

[DuckIII]

With the way we've played, I would be surprised if we kept our pick. I fully expect AK to package it with our expiring contracts for someone who can help us make a playoff push.

Not the worst idea.

He could also kick a dog while doing it, I guess. That would be worse.

[Dan Z]

With the way we've played, I would be surprised if we kept our pick. I fully expect AK to package it with our expiring contracts for someone who can help us make a playoff push.

If AK does that (which I don't think he should) do you have a player in mind that he should go after?

[kodo]

I said this in the game thread: The Bulls are going to be in the play-in no matter what happens so why not rest Giddey and Coby? If they lose the remaining games that's good for their draft position. If they win that's okay too (because it most likely means Matas did well).

Then Giddey and Coby are rested for the play-in and the same thing applies. If they win that's okay. They get experience. If they lose (which is likely) then it keeps them in the lottery (the team needs to add more talent to this team either way).

This is something they could've done awhile back too.

They probably are eyeing the 8th seed, we're 2 games behind. Big difference between having to win 2 in a row vs 1 out of 2.

From Giddey's POV, he's going to want to play since he's in his contract year.

[Dan Z]

I said this in the game thread: The Bulls are going to be in the play-in no matter what happens so why not rest Giddey and Coby? If they lose the remaining games that's good for their draft position. If they win that's okay too (because it most likely means Matas did well).

Then Giddey and Coby are rested for the play-in and the same thing applies. If they win that's okay. They get experience. If they lose (which is likely) then it keeps them in the lottery (the team needs to add more talent to this team either way).

This is something they could've done awhile back too.

They probably are eyeing the 8th seed, we're 2 games behind. Big difference between having to win 2 in a row vs 1 out of 2.

From Giddey's POV, he's going to want to play since he's in his contract year.

I'm sure that's what really will happen (fight for the 8th seed), but AK needs to think about the teams future.

[Muzbar]

I said this in the game thread: The Bulls are going to be in the play-in no matter what happens so why not rest Giddey and Coby? If they lose the remaining games that's good for their draft position. If they win that's okay too (because it most likely means Matas did well).

Then Giddey and Coby are rested for the play-in and the same thing applies. If they win that's okay. They get experience. If they lose (which is likely) then it keeps them in the lottery (the team needs to add more talent to this team either way).

This is something they could've done awhile back too.

They probably are eyeing the 8th seed, we're 2 games behind. Big difference between having to win 2 in a row vs 1 out of 2.

From Giddey's POV, he's going to want to play since he's in his contract year.

I'm sure that's what really will happen (fight for the 8th seed), but AK needs to think about the teams future.

Tomorrow is the future right? That counts doesn't it?

[Lexluthor]

OKC traded Paul George for SGA, Gallinari, 5 first round picks and 2 swaps. They also traded Westbrook for Chris Paul, 2 first round picks and 2 swaps.

Chris Paul ended up being better than expected and they finished in 5th place in the West. With all those additional assets they had the luxury of doing that. It meant that they could compete and still had the ability to make moves.

The next year is when SGA got hurt and they traded Paul. The team finished 22-50. Their goal was definitely a top pick. They drafted Giddey and went with their young players for another losing season (24-58) for another top pick (this time it was Chet and later on with their assets Jalen Williams).

At that point they had young players with upside (Chet, Williams, Giddey, and SGA) and extra picks to work with. They finished in 10th place in the West (40-42). Then last year their young players took a step forward and the team improved (57 wins).

The Bulls have never been in a situation like that, in part because AK doesn't trade for future picks (unless you count the Portland pick which is nebulous at best due to the protections).

As for the Jazz, Ainge decided to move on from the Mitchell/Gobert team (I think there was also some issues between those two players...?). He got 4 first round picks (5 if you count Kessler) and a swap for Gobert. For Mitchell he got Markkanen, Sexton, three first round picks and two swaps.

Then the team over achieved to start the season and was a surprise (Markkanen's all-star season). He did what he could to tank the rest of the year, but at that point it was too late.

The following season he traded vets at the deadline and tried to get a top pick again (but didn't push hard for it knowing that it wasn't the best draft). He also talked to teams about Markkanen and ultimately decided to keep him for now.

This year they went for a full on tank and currently have the worst record. If they get Flagg that will change things for them. Picks 2 or 3 might too. I bet Ainge talked to Markkanen about this plan going into the season.

Plus, like OKC they have additional picks to work with.

As for the Raptors I'm not sure what they're doing.

I don't remember the OKC or Utah trades as being these shrewed high toward the future moves, but rather, players requesting trades out of those teams.

And in OKC's case, they hit a homerun with the trade of Paul George in particular.

But in my mind, and it's probably splitting hairs, they never tanked. Young players, if healthy, played and weren't micromanaged to improve lottery positioning. Maybe you can say players got hurt at the right times, and not only got hurt, but seemed to make good recoveries, without those injuries affecting their ability upon return.


Utah on the other hand, is tanking. And has made so many moves to make their team as bad as possible, I'm not even sure what drafting a Cooper Flagg does for them. They have Flagg for 6-8 years, never making the playoffs until he asks to be traded like Mitchell and Gobert did? It's hard to see the vision. Their draft picks in recent years have been underwhelming (Hendricks, Williams, George, Filipowki, Kessler, Collier). 7 1st round picks in the last three years and I'm not impressed by any of them.

Again best case scenario they get Flagg, and it almost seems like a "so what?" - they'll still be bad.

Spurs have a better roster and Wemby is likely a better player, with him this year they were still 21-25 and being 19-52 the year before.

I don't see Flagg leading the Jazz to a better record than Wemby leads the Spurs to.

The NBA is tough and might be at it's most talented it's been in a long time.

There's all-star caliber players and Hall of Famers littered throughout lottery teams these days. It's tough out there.

I agree that OKC hit a home run with the Paul George trade, but I have to give them credit for doing the trade. Who knows what that trade looks like under another GM. Maybe they don't ask for as many picks as OKC got?

Even if OKC hadn't made that trade I'm sure Presti would still develop his team using the draft. He's made many moves where he trades a veteran away for future picks or taking on a bad salary to acquire picks. It's what he does.

You seem to think the number 1 overall pick in a draft doesn't matter.

Last years draft was weak and Risacher doesn't have the same potential that most #1 picks have.

Wemby has potential to be a great player and the Spurs weren't looking to be competitive this year. They're still building their team. I bet next year they'll be a lot better.

Paolo Banchero has helped Orlando improve from where they are. I know you don't think much of him, but the numbers show that they improved. Also, keep in mind that he started the season strong, but it got derailed with injuries.

Cade Cunningham has helped Detroit turn things around this year.

Anthony Edwards has done well in Minnesota.

Zion has injury issues.

Number 1 overall picks might not turn a team around fast, but there's a good chance that the team will improve. If Utah drafts Flagg I bet they won't bad for "6-8 years". Flagg gives Utah a prospect with star level potential and that's something they can work with.

Wemby career is a question mark due to blood clots . Since that can be a career/ life threatening situation

[Dan Z]

I don't remember the OKC or Utah trades as being these shrewed high toward the future moves, but rather, players requesting trades out of those teams.

And in OKC's case, they hit a homerun with the trade of Paul George in particular.

But in my mind, and it's probably splitting hairs, they never tanked. Young players, if healthy, played and weren't micromanaged to improve lottery positioning. Maybe you can say players got hurt at the right times, and not only got hurt, but seemed to make good recoveries, without those injuries affecting their ability upon return.


Utah on the other hand, is tanking. And has made so many moves to make their team as bad as possible, I'm not even sure what drafting a Cooper Flagg does for them. They have Flagg for 6-8 years, never making the playoffs until he asks to be traded like Mitchell and Gobert did? It's hard to see the vision. Their draft picks in recent years have been underwhelming (Hendricks, Williams, George, Filipowki, Kessler, Collier). 7 1st round picks in the last three years and I'm not impressed by any of them.

Again best case scenario they get Flagg, and it almost seems like a "so what?" - they'll still be bad.

Spurs have a better roster and Wemby is likely a better player, with him this year they were still 21-25 and being 19-52 the year before.

I don't see Flagg leading the Jazz to a better record than Wemby leads the Spurs to.

The NBA is tough and might be at it's most talented it's been in a long time.

There's all-star caliber players and Hall of Famers littered throughout lottery teams these days. It's tough out there.

I agree that OKC hit a home run with the Paul George trade, but I have to give them credit for doing the trade. Who knows what that trade looks like under another GM. Maybe they don't ask for as many picks as OKC got?

Even if OKC hadn't made that trade I'm sure Presti would still develop his team using the draft. He's made many moves where he trades a veteran away for future picks or taking on a bad salary to acquire picks. It's what he does.

You seem to think the number 1 overall pick in a draft doesn't matter.

Last years draft was weak and Risacher doesn't have the same potential that most #1 picks have.

Wemby has potential to be a great player and the Spurs weren't looking to be competitive this year. They're still building their team. I bet next year they'll be a lot better.

Paolo Banchero has helped Orlando improve from where they are. I know you don't think much of him, but the numbers show that they improved. Also, keep in mind that he started the season strong, but it got derailed with injuries.

Cade Cunningham has helped Detroit turn things around this year.

Anthony Edwards has done well in Minnesota.

Zion has injury issues.

Number 1 overall picks might not turn a team around fast, but there's a good chance that the team will improve. If Utah drafts Flagg I bet they won't bad for "6-8 years". Flagg gives Utah a prospect with star level potential and that's something they can work with.

Wemby career is a question mark due to blood clots . Since that can be a career/ life threatening situation

It's possible, but I wouldn't write him off at this point.

I also don't think number 1 overall picks should be discounted because someone got injured. For the most part having that pick allows a team to have a top level prospect to build with/around.

[Chi town]

I said this in the game thread: The Bulls are going to be in the play-in no matter what happens so why not rest Giddey and Coby? If they lose the remaining games that's good for their draft position. If they win that's okay too (because it most likely means Matas did well).

Then Giddey and Coby are rested for the play-in and the same thing applies. If they win that's okay. They get experience. If they lose (which is likely) then it keeps them in the lottery (the team needs to add more talent to this team either way).

This is something they could've done awhile back too.

They probably are eyeing the 8th seed, we're 2 games behind. Big difference between having to win 2 in a row vs 1 out of 2.

From Giddey's POV, he's going to want to play since he's in his contract year.

I’d rather see them win two play in games on the road to get into the playoffs. Want to see what the core 3 do in those two do or die games in hostile away games.