Bulls sign Lonzo Ball to 2 year, $20 million extension

[Jcool0]

I disagree. Lonzo's real injury has had zero warning signs this year, but more importantly, a #26 pick projects as a replacement caliber player, especially during the 4 seasons of their guaranteed contract. Lonzo is likely to make more of an impact in his 10 best games alone for the rest of his career than a #26 will ever make in their career. Obviously a team can get lucky and get a decent player there, it's just not projected.

Lonzo doing anything in 10 games doesn't mean anything to you in a season that ultimately doesn't mean anything to you, like next season as an example, like Lonzo actually probably hurts your ability to get a good draft pick next year.

A #26 pick is likely to be worthless, I totally agree, but you need to stop thinking about only the likely case, like if the value is 50% worthless, 40% role player, 10% high upside, high value player, when you are really bad, that 10% chance is worth more than Lonzo for a short period of time in a year you would rather chase a draft pick anyway.

Also, while Lonzo has shown no reason to be scared about his future, the same was true prior to him missing 2.5 years with an injury out of no where. What we know is that Lonzo, even prior to the big injury, has had a long history of massive injury problems. Who knows how he projects going forward.

Either way, I agree with you, I'd rather have Lonzo than #26, just think your definitive view of that is a bit off, because not all value is created equally, we need long term value, and with Lonzo's history, quantifying him as long term value (in 2+ years) to me is very dicey.

But I do think he'll be worth more than #26 next deadline.

Just to be clear, I value Lonzo as a trade chip and as a player on the court in 2026-27 and beyond (on his next bird-rights contract potentially), as he's only 27. I want to try to start winning in 26-27 after adding two more lottery picks, hopefully at least one significant free agent or trade return, and internal improvement. I think of him as I would a 27 year old lottery pick if that were a thing.

I think odds for a #26 pick are more like 50% worthless 4 year bad contract (albeit a small contract), 47% role player (which is also basically worthless considering how easily such guys can be found in free agency for peanuts), and 3% high value, high upside. Hard to wrap my head around the concept that a very late first round pick has even a 10% chance to be a high value, high upside guy.

I really just don't want low quality prospects taking up roster spots and guaranteed dollars for us, especially
As we approach 2026 free agency. Now, in contrast to my usual mantras, late firsts can have decent value to us years down the road when we are hopefully becoming good and over the cap, as they can provide cheap stability in bench roles over multiple years, but overloading our roster with too many bad young guys is a recipe for developmental disaster even for the good talents like Buzelis, 2025 frp and 2026 frp.

Basically all I care about for the Bulls right now is:

Buzelis
Smith
Ball
Patrick
2025 FRP
2026 FRP
Free agency

EVERYTHING else should be sacrificed to maximize those things IMO. The magic thing about those 4 guys is their contract length and physical talent level.

2 years to winning? We just got killed by Detroit twice, took them 5 years to get to there current 29-26 record. Bulls haven't been contenders in almost 15 years. Same for Orlando who just recently got two players to build around. OKC did it in 3 but that's only because they had George only wanting to go to LA, who just happened to have SGA who no one was thinking was a future MVP. Took Houston 5 years to get team built. Cleveland took 4 years to get back to the playoffs.

[Hangtime84]

We need FA luck

[League Circles]

Lonzo doing anything in 10 games doesn't mean anything to you in a season that ultimately doesn't mean anything to you, like next season as an example, like Lonzo actually probably hurts your ability to get a good draft pick next year.

A #26 pick is likely to be worthless, I totally agree, but you need to stop thinking about only the likely case, like if the value is 50% worthless, 40% role player, 10% high upside, high value player, when you are really bad, that 10% chance is worth more than Lonzo for a short period of time in a year you would rather chase a draft pick anyway.

Also, while Lonzo has shown no reason to be scared about his future, the same was true prior to him missing 2.5 years with an injury out of no where. What we know is that Lonzo, even prior to the big injury, has had a long history of massive injury problems. Who knows how he projects going forward.

Either way, I agree with you, I'd rather have Lonzo than #26, just think your definitive view of that is a bit off, because not all value is created equally, we need long term value, and with Lonzo's history, quantifying him as long term value (in 2+ years) to me is very dicey.

But I do think he'll be worth more than #26 next deadline.

Just to be clear, I value Lonzo as a trade chip and as a player on the court in 2026-27 and beyond (on his next bird-rights contract potentially), as he's only 27. I want to try to start winning in 26-27 after adding two more lottery picks, hopefully at least one significant free agent or trade return, and internal improvement. I think of him as I would a 27 year old lottery pick if that were a thing.

I think odds for a #26 pick are more like 50% worthless 4 year bad contract (albeit a small contract), 47% role player (which is also basically worthless considering how easily such guys can be found in free agency for peanuts), and 3% high value, high upside. Hard to wrap my head around the concept that a very late first round pick has even a 10% chance to be a high value, high upside guy.

I really just don't want low quality prospects taking up roster spots and guaranteed dollars for us, especially
As we approach 2026 free agency. Now, in contrast to my usual mantras, late firsts can have decent value to us years down the road when we are hopefully becoming good and over the cap, as they can provide cheap stability in bench roles over multiple years, but overloading our roster with too many bad young guys is a recipe for developmental disaster even for the good talents like Buzelis, 2025 frp and 2026 frp.

Basically all I care about for the Bulls right now is:

Buzelis
Smith
Ball
Patrick
2025 FRP
2026 FRP
Free agency

EVERYTHING else should be sacrificed to maximize those things IMO. The magic thing about those 4 guys is their contract length and physical talent level.

2 years to winning? We just got killed by Detroit twice, took them 5 years to get to there current 29-26 record. Bulls haven't been contenders in almost 15 years. Same for Orlando who just recently got two players to build around. OKC did it in 3 but that's only because they had George only wanting to go to LA, who just happened to have SGA who no one was thinking was a future MVP. Took Houston 5 years to get team built. Cleveland took 4 years to get back to the playoffs.

I don't know what to tell you. I have absolutely no interest in the Bulls being bad long term just because many other teams have. We also previously went from 33 wins to the best record in the league the next season. There's nothing structural preventing us from being a .500 or better team in 2 years IMO. I'm not predicting that we will, I'm saying that if I were running things, I would proceed with that projection in mind. Any long term "plan" to contend is really just "tank hard until we get a superstar and then magically fill in the team around him before he leaves". Not interested. I watch the Bulls for regular entertainment, not some kind of long term project nonsense. I've seen plenty of that.

I guess my "plan" is for us to hit on our draft picks instead of waterboarding ourselves with them. If we hit on our next two picks and Matas and get a good FA or two, we should be an outright good team in 2 years. So I'm tempering that significantly to say I just want to be 500 then.

I know, I know, even good draft picks take time to develop. Ehh, not so sure about that. I kinda call those "not such great draft picks". Great players can usually contribute in year 1 and really contribute positively in years 2 and 3.

[sco]

Just to be clear, I value Lonzo as a trade chip and as a player on the court in 2026-27 and beyond (on his next bird-rights contract potentially), as he's only 27. I want to try to start winning in 26-27 after adding two more lottery picks, hopefully at least one significant free agent or trade return, and internal improvement. I think of him as I would a 27 year old lottery pick if that were a thing.

I think odds for a #26 pick are more like 50% worthless 4 year bad contract (albeit a small contract), 47% role player (which is also basically worthless considering how easily such guys can be found in free agency for peanuts), and 3% high value, high upside. Hard to wrap my head around the concept that a very late first round pick has even a 10% chance to be a high value, high upside guy.

I really just don't want low quality prospects taking up roster spots and guaranteed dollars for us, especially
As we approach 2026 free agency. Now, in contrast to my usual mantras, late firsts can have decent value to us years down the road when we are hopefully becoming good and over the cap, as they can provide cheap stability in bench roles over multiple years, but overloading our roster with too many bad young guys is a recipe for developmental disaster even for the good talents like Buzelis, 2025 frp and 2026 frp.

Basically all I care about for the Bulls right now is:

Buzelis
Smith
Ball
Patrick
2025 FRP
2026 FRP
Free agency

EVERYTHING else should be sacrificed to maximize those things IMO. The magic thing about those 4 guys is their contract length and physical talent level.

2 years to winning? We just got killed by Detroit twice, took them 5 years to get to there current 29-26 record. Bulls haven't been contenders in almost 15 years. Same for Orlando who just recently got two players to build around. OKC did it in 3 but that's only because they had George only wanting to go to LA, who just happened to have SGA who no one was thinking was a future MVP. Took Houston 5 years to get team built. Cleveland took 4 years to get back to the playoffs.

I don't know what to tell you. I have absolutely no interest in the Bulls being bad long term just because many other teams have. We also previously went from 33 wins to the best record in the league the next season. There's nothing structural preventing us from being a .500 or better team in 2 years IMO. I'm not predicting that we will, I'm saying that if I were running things, I would proceed with that projection in mind. Any long term "plan" to contend is really just "tank hard until we get a superstar and then magically fill in the team around him before he leaves". Not interested. I watch the Bulls for regular entertainment, not some kind of long term project nonsense. I've seen plenty of that.

I guess my "plan" is for us to hit on our draft picks instead of waterboarding ourselves with them. If we hit on our next two picks and Matas and get a good FA or two, we should be an outright good team in 2 years. So I'm tempering that significantly to say I just want to be 500 then.

I know, I know, even good draft picks take time to develop. Ehh, not so sure about that. I kinda call those "not such great draft picks". Great players can usually contribute in year 1 and really contribute positively in years 2 and 3.

What's crazy to me is how the Spurs are a sub .500 team right now.

[dougthonus]

I don't know what to tell you. I have absolutely no interest in the Bulls being bad long term just because many other teams have. We also previously went from 33 wins to the best record in the league the next season. There's nothing structural preventing us from being a .500 or better team in 2 years IMO. I'm not predicting that we will, I'm saying that if I were running things, I would proceed with that projection in mind.

I would love to hear how you feel we will get to above .500 in 2 years. Like actually put pen to paper and tell me how you would do that. After trading Zach, this looks like a 30-52 caliber team.

[sco]

I don't know what to tell you. I have absolutely no interest in the Bulls being bad long term just because many other teams have. We also previously went from 33 wins to the best record in the league the next season. There's nothing structural preventing us from being a .500 or better team in 2 years IMO. I'm not predicting that we will, I'm saying that if I were running things, I would proceed with that projection in mind.

I would love to hear how you feel we will get to above .500 in 2 years. Like actually put pen to paper and tell me how you would do that. After trading Zach, this looks like a 30-52 caliber team.

I think it can happen with Matas has a progression that is reasonably positive, coupled with taking Vuc and the other expirings at the end of next season and turn that into a MAX player (I'm too lazy to look at the FA's) or two really good players. Plus our 1st from this offseason turns out to be a starting level talent by his 2nd year.

[League Circles]

I don't know what to tell you. I have absolutely no interest in the Bulls being bad long term just because many other teams have. We also previously went from 33 wins to the best record in the league the next season. There's nothing structural preventing us from being a .500 or better team in 2 years IMO. I'm not predicting that we will, I'm saying that if I were running things, I would proceed with that projection in mind.

I would love to hear how you feel we will get to above .500 in 2 years. Like actually put pen to paper and tell me how you would do that. After trading Zach, this looks like a 30-52 caliber team.

It's not a prediction. It's a projection. I would proceed AS-IF I'm going to be competitive that year, despite knowing we very well might not be. The reasoning for this is that if you follow the more popular sinusoidal model where you have to get bad for a long time and then slowly become good again based on some generic projection of hitting on draft picks (which is mathematical nonsense), you will likely never reach the intended goal, cause you'll have too many ill fitting pieces bundled in with the couple of good pieces that you have. I think people wildly oversimplify the projection of young prospects into "star" and "bust" in an unrealistic way that cannot actually be determined in that binary way in the time frame allowed.

People want to get a bunch of pics over a few years and then believe that those pics will either be stars or busts and we can just jettison the busts and resign the Stars and then start adding role players. But these are typically the same people that get excited about guys like Giddey and Ayo. The middle ground guys.

My basic point isn't to rush out and sign BPA as an overpay in 2026 FA if it doesn't make sense. The point is to be ready to do that if it's warranted and you can't decide how to address your salary structure until after you have the players that form the foundation of it. You do have to guess somewhat and be proactive. That's why I'm pretty strongly against taking on long-term salary unless truly high-end draft picks are attached like top 5 to 10 pics. But again, the basic idea is to hit strongly on 2-3 from among Buzelis, 2025 FRP and 2026 FRP, get internal improvement from Smith, Ball and Patrick (all plausible), and sign or trade for another piece or two in FA or by lopsided trade (due to salary flexibility). That's your 7-8 guys right there. I'm sorry I don't have time to elaborate on specific free agents or anything and that's not the point anyway. The general point is to be ready to pounce immediately when we have talent. We can always pivot and not blow our load and instead sign guys to OnePlus One deals or take on expiring contracts for pics or whatever as needed. But I think the earliest plausible time that we have a talented roster in place is 26-27.

[Jcool0]

Just to be clear, I value Lonzo as a trade chip and as a player on the court in 2026-27 and beyond (on his next bird-rights contract potentially), as he's only 27. I want to try to start winning in 26-27 after adding two more lottery picks, hopefully at least one significant free agent or trade return, and internal improvement. I think of him as I would a 27 year old lottery pick if that were a thing.

I think odds for a #26 pick are more like 50% worthless 4 year bad contract (albeit a small contract), 47% role player (which is also basically worthless considering how easily such guys can be found in free agency for peanuts), and 3% high value, high upside. Hard to wrap my head around the concept that a very late first round pick has even a 10% chance to be a high value, high upside guy.

I really just don't want low quality prospects taking up roster spots and guaranteed dollars for us, especially
As we approach 2026 free agency. Now, in contrast to my usual mantras, late firsts can have decent value to us years down the road when we are hopefully becoming good and over the cap, as they can provide cheap stability in bench roles over multiple years, but overloading our roster with too many bad young guys is a recipe for developmental disaster even for the good talents like Buzelis, 2025 frp and 2026 frp.

Basically all I care about for the Bulls right now is:

Buzelis
Smith
Ball
Patrick
2025 FRP
2026 FRP
Free agency

EVERYTHING else should be sacrificed to maximize those things IMO. The magic thing about those 4 guys is their contract length and physical talent level.

2 years to winning? We just got killed by Detroit twice, took them 5 years to get to there current 29-26 record. Bulls haven't been contenders in almost 15 years. Same for Orlando who just recently got two players to build around. OKC did it in 3 but that's only because they had George only wanting to go to LA, who just happened to have SGA who no one was thinking was a future MVP. Took Houston 5 years to get team built. Cleveland took 4 years to get back to the playoffs.

I don't know what to tell you. I have absolutely no interest in the Bulls being bad long term just because many other teams have. We also previously went from 33 wins to the best record in the league the next season. There's nothing structural preventing us from being a .500 or better team in 2 years IMO. I'm not predicting that we will, I'm saying that if I were running things, I would proceed with that projection in mind. Any long term "plan" to contend is really just "tank hard until we get a superstar and then magically fill in the team around him before he leaves". Not interested. I watch the Bulls for regular entertainment, not some kind of long term project nonsense. I've seen plenty of that.

I guess my "plan" is for us to hit on our draft picks instead of waterboarding ourselves with them. If we hit on our next two picks and Matas and get a good FA or two, we should be an outright good team in 2 years. So I'm tempering that significantly to say I just want to be 500 then.

I know, I know, even good draft picks take time to develop. Ehh, not so sure about that. I kinda call those "not such great draft picks". Great players can usually contribute in year 1 and really contribute positively in years 2 and 3.

As of right now the probable top option in the 6-8 range is Tre Johnson. Let's say after what I assume is a full tank season they get a top 3 pick and let's give them Cameron Boozer (ranked as high as #2 HS recruit).

PG: Giddey
SG: Johnson
SF: Matas
PF: Boozer

Is that a playoff team? Top free agents include 2026 include Jimmy Butler, Kyrie Irving, Kevin Durant and De'Aaron Fox. Jaren Jackson Jr could be FA but I doubt it.

[dougthonus]

I think it can happen with Matas has a progression that is reasonably positive, coupled with taking Vuc and the other expirings at the end of next season and turn that into a MAX player (I'm too lazy to look at the FA's) or two really good players. Plus our 1st from this offseason turns out to be a starting level talent by his 2nd year.

FWIW, I don't think getting a legit max caliber player for expirings (or even two really good players) is even remotely viable.

No one is giving you "really good" or "great" things for dead salary.

[jnrjr79]

I don't know what to tell you. I have absolutely no interest in the Bulls being bad long term just because many other teams have. We also previously went from 33 wins to the best record in the league the next season. There's nothing structural preventing us from being a .500 or better team in 2 years IMO. I'm not predicting that we will, I'm saying that if I were running things, I would proceed with that projection in mind.

I would love to hear how you feel we will get to above .500 in 2 years. Like actually put pen to paper and tell me how you would do that. After trading Zach, this looks like a 30-52 caliber team.

I have no idea whether it'll happen, and I don't trust this front office, and this may not be wise, but it's fairly easy to see how you get there:

1) Matas is great
2) 2025 draft pick hits
3) Bulls use cap space + expirings + draft assets to sign/trade for impact player(s)

Heck, I think it's probably more likely that the Bulls end up above .500 in 2 years than I think they should be, because AK has shown a penchant for cutting corners. Getting to 42-40 or whatever is probably not that hard if you're willing to mortgage the future.

[League Circles]

2 years to winning? We just got killed by Detroit twice, took them 5 years to get to there current 29-26 record. Bulls haven't been contenders in almost 15 years. Same for Orlando who just recently got two players to build around. OKC did it in 3 but that's only because they had George only wanting to go to LA, who just happened to have SGA who no one was thinking was a future MVP. Took Houston 5 years to get team built. Cleveland took 4 years to get back to the playoffs.

I don't know what to tell you. I have absolutely no interest in the Bulls being bad long term just because many other teams have. We also previously went from 33 wins to the best record in the league the next season. There's nothing structural preventing us from being a .500 or better team in 2 years IMO. I'm not predicting that we will, I'm saying that if I were running things, I would proceed with that projection in mind. Any long term "plan" to contend is really just "tank hard until we get a superstar and then magically fill in the team around him before he leaves". Not interested. I watch the Bulls for regular entertainment, not some kind of long term project nonsense. I've seen plenty of that.

I guess my "plan" is for us to hit on our draft picks instead of waterboarding ourselves with them. If we hit on our next two picks and Matas and get a good FA or two, we should be an outright good team in 2 years. So I'm tempering that significantly to say I just want to be 500 then.

I know, I know, even good draft picks take time to develop. Ehh, not so sure about that. I kinda call those "not such great draft picks". Great players can usually contribute in year 1 and really contribute positively in years 2 and 3.

As of right now the probable top option in the 6-8 range is Tre Johnson. Let's say after what I assume is a full tank season they get a top 3 pick and let's give them Cameron Boozer (ranked as high as #2 HS recruit).

PG: Giddey
SG: Johnson
SF: Matas
PF: Boozer

Is that a playoff team? Top free agents include 2026 include Jimmy Butler, Kyrie Irving, Kevin Durant and De'Aaron Fox. Jaren Jackson Jr could be FA but I doubt it.

I haven't started looking into the prospects yet so I can't comment, but I want to proceed in a way that IF we get a top player (say, top 3 player) in either or both of the next two drafts, whether that comes from a #9 pick or #1 or whatever, then I want to be able to start winning. We should be able to afford multiple free agents. Btw other guys like Luka, Porzingis etc are also either FAs IIRC or have player options.

Also, considering that Giddey is not under contract, does not play the 1 position, and is inferior to Lonzo Ball, who is under contract for 2 more years at least, not sure why Giddey gets penciled in there. Though I would absolutely say that no team with Josh Giddey playing the 1 spot could ever make the playoffs. He's a 3/4, not a 1.

Think of it this way - if Josh Giddey is good enough to be our long term point (forward) in his 5th year and beyond, isn't he also good enough to "ruin" a true tank job for a top pick? I don't understand how many people want to have these things both ways.

[dougthonus]

I have no idea whether it'll happen, and I don't trust this front office, and this may not be wise, but it's fairly easy to see how you get there:

1) Matas is great
2) 2025 draft pick hits
3) Bulls use cap space + expirings + draft assets to sign/trade for impact player(s)

Heck, I think it's probably more likely that the Bulls end up above .500 in 2 years than I think they should be, because AK has shown a penchant for cutting corners. Getting to 42-40 or whatever is probably not that hard if you're willing to mortgage the future.

Sorry, I should have said without relying on the draft, because League Circles has made it super clear in 1000s of posts that he detests draft assets and thinks they are worthless.

[League Circles]

I think it can happen with Matas has a progression that is reasonably positive, coupled with taking Vuc and the other expirings at the end of next season and turn that into a MAX player (I'm too lazy to look at the FA's) or two really good players. Plus our 1st from this offseason turns out to be a starting level talent by his 2nd year.

FWIW, I don't think getting a legit max caliber player for expirings (or even two really good players) is even remotely viable.

No one is giving you "really good" or "great" things for dead salary.

If we want to (like if Matas and our 2025 FRP look GREAT next year for example), we can probably trivially get a very good player or two in trade and/or free agency. We have tons of expirings next year, including quality players Coby, Ayo, hopefully Giddey, plus of course Huerter, Collins, Carter, Terry, etc.

Obviously it would be an overpaid very good player, an "illegitimate max player", if you will, but that would be quite OK on a team with multiple high level rookie scale talents. We want to be prepared to trade for or max the 2026 version of 2010 Carlos Boozer, if that makes sense.

[League Circles]

I have no idea whether it'll happen, and I don't trust this front office, and this may not be wise, but it's fairly easy to see how you get there:

1) Matas is great
2) 2025 draft pick hits
3) Bulls use cap space + expirings + draft assets to sign/trade for impact player(s)

Heck, I think it's probably more likely that the Bulls end up above .500 in 2 years than I think they should be, because AK has shown a penchant for cutting corners. Getting to 42-40 or whatever is probably not that hard if you're willing to mortgage the future.

Sorry, I should have said without relying on the draft, because League Circles has made it super clear in 1000s of posts that he detests draft assets and thinks they are worthless.

Lol, except for all the posts on this topic at this time where I'm clear about the critical nature of hitting on our next two picks. All I believe about picks is that they're overrated by fans, some what overrated by execs, and that it's unwise to throw away good players that can help you long term for the sole purpose of helping your tank, considering how much of a crap shoot the draft has been for a quarter century plus.

[sco]

I think it can happen with Matas has a progression that is reasonably positive, coupled with taking Vuc and the other expirings at the end of next season and turn that into a MAX player (I'm too lazy to look at the FA's) or two really good players. Plus our 1st from this offseason turns out to be a starting level talent by his 2nd year.

FWIW, I don't think getting a legit max caliber player for expirings (or even two really good players) is even remotely viable.

No one is giving you "really good" or "great" things for dead salary.

If we want to (like if Matas and our 2025 FRP look GREAT next year for example), we can probably trivially get a very good player or two in trade and/or free agency. We have tons of expirings next year, including quality players Coby, Ayo, hopefully Giddey, plus of course Huerter, Collins, Carter, Terry, etc.

Obviously it would be an overpaid very good player, an "illegitimate max player", if you will, but that would be quite OK on a team with multiple high level rookie scale talents. We want to be prepared to trade for or max the 2026 version of 2010 Carlos Boozer, if that makes sense.

LC you get it. That's what I meant too.

[Dan Z]

Atlanta got Djurisic, 43rd pick, for 'cash considerations' in a 3 team trade just last year. Doesn't say how much.
Wizards got $2M for Tracye Jackson-Davis the 57th pick in 2023.

76ers sent $2M to the Pelicans in 2021 for the 53rd pick.
We infamously traded Jordan Bell for $3.5M in 2017, 38th pick.

Many deals are obscured by the inclusion of the draft rights to this obscure player (who'll often never play in the NBA) or future picks instead too. Like 2023, Magic got a 2030 2nd rounder plus cash considerations for their 36th pick (Andre Jackson Jr).

That's why I said outright. In the deals you mentions players were in them.

For all intents and purpose, they were picks traded for cash. Teams tell the other which player to draft and then they have a week to finalise the trade and the NBA records it as the player was traded in exchange for cash considerations. Not as it is often revealed by Shams and Woj on twitter in real time on draft night.

In order for the Bulls to do that they'd need assets.

We are in agreeance with that.

My main point is its not so easy to just buy 2nd round picks today.

Eh it is so so. It literally happens every year still enough to show you can always find someone.
And if we expand on our assets to include future 2nds, then we are likely to find many takers.

Food for thought - 15 picks were traded on the 2nd day of last year's draft (link below).
https://www.nba.com/news/nba-draft-2024-3-takeaways-second-round
Another nifty link - https://www.thedraftreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=139

Also the market may change with an influx of them becoming available in the coming years. Given a few teams control a large number of the upcoming picks in which they simply can't accommodate them on their own, they're either going to be sellers and either look to defer them or to bundle in a hell of a trade. A quick scan shows:

San Antonio has 5 picks next year alone (2 firsts and 3 seconds)
Oklahoma has 4 (2 firsts and 2 seconds)
Utah has 4 (2 and 2)
Orlando has 4 (2 and 2)
New York has 4 (2 and 2)

Utah may be the only one that may use them all... I see the others trading some of them as they move more to win-now mode.

Is your premise that 2nd round picks don't matter because it's easy to get one? I've heard that before and disagree.

One, you're talking about the Chicago Bulls a team that isn't known for spending money. When is the last time they bought a 2nd round pick? Have they ever done that?

Two, how many 2nd round picks pan out? I say that and do think it's good to have those picks so you can take that chance. Out of the names you mentioned above Jaylen Wells and TJD have been productive. Djursic? He hasn't done anything. Maybe some else (in recent years) will be productive and just needs time/opportunity?

Are you looking for the Bulls to get another Julian Phillips level player?

I also think the teams with too many picks will try to kick the can down the road more than sell them, but we won't know until they actually make a move (Utah has already done that with the Suns trade).

[dougthonus]

If we want to (like if Matas and our 2025 FRP look GREAT next year for example), we can probably trivially get a very good player or two in trade and/or free agency. We have tons of expirings next year, including quality players Coby, Ayo, hopefully Giddey, plus of course Huerter, Collins, Carter, Terry, etc.

Obviously it would be an overpaid very good player, an "illegitimate max player", if you will, but that would be quite OK on a team with multiple high level rookie scale talents. We want to be prepared to trade for or max the 2026 version of 2010 Carlos Boozer, if that makes sense.

So what you are saying is the path to be good is to get a great player in the draft and hope our previous draft pick is great. Please now reconcile this with every other post you've made about how you value draft assets.

[dougthonus]

Lol, except for all the posts on this topic at this time where I'm clear about the critical nature of hitting on our next two picks. All I believe about picks is that they're overrated by fans, some what overrated by execs, and that it's unwise to throw away good players that can help you long term for the sole purpose of helping your tank, considering how much of a crap shoot the draft has been for a quarter century plus.

It's critical to hit on our next two picks, but you aren't in favor of moves that maximize our odds of hitting on the next two picks?

I've never suggested throwing away good players, I've suggested taking players that will not help you over the time period you are focusing on the draft, and turning their present value into future value that will occur after you are no longer focusing on the draft.

[League Circles]

Lol, except for all the posts on this topic at this time where I'm clear about the critical nature of hitting on our next two picks. All I believe about picks is that they're overrated by fans, some what overrated by execs, and that it's unwise to throw away good players that can help you long term for the sole purpose of helping your tank, considering how much of a crap shoot the draft has been for a quarter century plus.

It's critical to hit on our next two picks, but you aren't in favor of moves that maximize our odds of hitting on the next two picks?

I've never suggested throwing away good players, I've suggested taking players that will not help you over the time period you are focusing on the draft, and turning their present value into future value that will occur after you are no longer focusing on the draft.

I think the critical difference in our perspectives is that I value bird rights a lot more than you do. So when I have a good player, I assess some value to him to my team well beyond the length of his current contract, until he's In his mid 30s more or less. I basically operate under the notion that you can and should pay what it takes to keep good players indefinitely. So Ball I value for more like 6 years (until he's 33 which I admit is arbitrary).

Our draft picks are important, but they aren't the only thing to consider. Most people discuss halves of trades. Trade this player, or that player, without discussing the return very much.

Take Coby and Ayo. I like them and value them. And they hurt our draft pick. So I won't just give them away for nothing, which would maximize our draft position (probably - you never know what a guy like THT might do - not joking), but the fact that subtracting them would probably help our pick is ONE FACTOR to weigh.

Ideally, when you suck like we now do, you maximize your draft position without diminishing current assets. Ball, Matas, Smith and Patrick all have elevated value to us IMO because they can all theoretically play important roles on their current deals while still allowing us to load up on talent (2026 FA), and all 4 have substantial physical gifts that the rest of our roster doesn't.

It's quite rare to find out true actual precise trade specifics that were on the table, but most people act like they can definitively say what you could get for player x or player Y.


But regarding hitting on our picks, there is a very high chance that there will be a high level player available when we pick in each of the next two drafts, regardless of what our roster looks like. We need to choose wisely moreso than anything.

If we can get something decent (not a late first, not bad salary) for guys like Coby, Ayo, Giddey, we should. I doubt that though.

[League Circles]

Like, I just looked back like 15 years at drafts and there is virtually always at least one guy that turns into an all star available outside the top 10.