Who's willing to trade up?

[Mech Engineer]

IMO, after watching all these drafts...when they say weak draft, that usually means they don't know how to evaluate and are not sure out of the top 10, who will be around as legit NBA players/all-stars 5 years from now. When they say it is a strong draft, they usually have a strong idea that 4 or 5 of those guys in the top 10 will be legit NBA players 5 years from now. This is the kind of draft where you would find a Giannis at 18. If a team has say 7 and 10th picks, there is a good chance they will pick up that new "Giannis" rather than if they just have the 4th pick.

[Red Larrivee]

I know I'm going to get destroyed for this but I'd trade down from the 1 pick to get Morant. I think Zion will be great and has a ceiling of Top 50 All Time. I just think he lacks the handles, shooting, and height to be a great scorer. Greatest role player of all time but could never be in the tier with Jordan, Kobe or Lebron.

I'm trading 1 and Felicio for 2, 3 future first and a quality role player or two. The celtics fleeced the Nets and they still have great assets almost a decade later. Zion likely will turn out better than Zion in the short and long run. If we have any faith in Lauri, Lavine, WCJ, and Morants potential then we could set our franchise up for success w/o pinning all our stake in 1 player

Sent from my SM-J337T using RealGM mobile app

I was going to hit you with a "kill it with fire" gif but Zion for dumping Felicio, #2, 3 future firsts and two quality role players is one hell of a haul. I love Zion and I would have trouble saying no to that.

I'd keep Zion in that scenario. A potential all-time player on a rookie deal just isn't worth trading. And the team you give him to could easily turn those picks into mid to late round picks with his projected impact.

I don't understand why there's a minority of posters who think he's a role player. He's still going to be stronger, faster, more explosive and more athletic than 98% of the players in the NBA.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[pipfan]

I offer the #4 or 5 plus our 2020 top 3 (or 5) protected. That balances our team nicely.

[PlayerUp]

To me, Morant doesn't even need to participate in the combine.

He doesn't as he's a Top 3 Pick locked right now. Neither does Zion.

[ChettheJet]

I don't think anyone at #2 or 3 is so game changing that the Bulls can afford to give up anything of value to move up 1 or 2 slots. And it would cost too much to move up to #1.

The Bulls have a solid lineup, and some bench, that needs a top line PG. They can't afford to take from the solid 4 players to move up for a PG and then create a different hole to fill at another position. They've got to find a way to get that PG, either at #4 or as a FA and ADD to their lineup, not just shift their need to another position

[Peelboy]

And last time they didn't do that they lost out on Doncic. Hopefully that's fresh in their minds.

???

How exactly were the Bulls going to trade for Doncic? Dallas gave up a better pick and the next year's pick. Atlanta wanted Young, Bulls were not in position to make a trade that got them Young. Probably would have required Lauri+#7, or maybe if you gave an unprotected 2019 #1 to offset the loss of Young.

Is this something that was actually discussed? I remember the rumors that Memphis would send #4 for #7 and #21 and maybe Portis and the Bulls take on Parsons contract. But nothing about Atlanta/Doncic.

[Peelboy]

I know I'm going to get destroyed for this but I'd trade down from the 1 pick to get Morant. I think Zion will be great and has a ceiling of Top 50 All Time. I just think he lacks the handles, shooting, and height to be a great scorer. Greatest role player of all time but could never be in the tier with Jordan, Kobe or Lebron.

I'm trading 1 and Felicio for 2, 3 future first and a quality role player or two. The celtics fleeced the Nets and they still have great assets almost a decade later. Zion likely will turn out better than Zion in the short and long run. If we have any faith in Lauri, Lavine, WCJ, and Morants potential then we could set our franchise up for success w/o pinning all our stake in 1 player

Sent from my SM-J337T using RealGM mobile app

I was going to hit you with a "kill it with fire" gif but Zion for dumping Felicio, #2, 3 future firsts and two quality role players is one hell of a haul. I love Zion and I would have trouble saying no to that.

IMO there are enough questions about Zion (shooting, small hands, potential weight issues) that while he'll almost certainly be a very good player, he may well not be a great player let along a top 50 guy. So if you can get a true haul because he's valued that way, it's at least a reasonable option. But on these things I fully trust GarPax - their draft record is evidence enough.

The real question is do you make a trade like Zion+WCJ for AD? Swap the risk on Zion for the risk on AD resigning. Running out a team of Vet PG-Zach-Otto-AD-Lauri with a bench of Hutch-Val-Dunn is a pretty good squad IMO. Can run with anyone in the East. And if so, you'd be in position to offer AD a chance to make more $$$ on a young team built around him with a lot of young talent. Sure it's a risk, but it's not like there are risk-free options out there.

[madvillian]

I know I'm going to get destroyed for this but I'd trade down from the 1 pick to get Morant. I think Zion will be great and has a ceiling of Top 50 All Time. I just think he lacks the handles, shooting, and height to be a great scorer. Greatest role player of all time but could never be in the tier with Jordan, Kobe or Lebron.

I'm trading 1 and Felicio for 2, 3 future first and a quality role player or two. The celtics fleeced the Nets and they still have great assets almost a decade later. Zion likely will turn out better than Zion in the short and long run. If we have any faith in Lauri, Lavine, WCJ, and Morants potential then we could set our franchise up for success w/o pinning all our stake in 1 player

Sent from my SM-J337T using RealGM mobile app

I was going to hit you with a "kill it with fire" gif but Zion for dumping Felicio, #2, 3 future firsts and two quality role players is one hell of a haul. I love Zion and I would have trouble saying no to that.

IMO there are enough questions about Zion (shooting, small hands, potential weight issues) that while he'll almost certainly be a very good player, he may well not be a great player let along a top 50 guy. So if you can get a true haul because he's valued that way, it's at least a reasonable option. But on these things I fully trust GarPax - their draft record is evidence enough.

The real question is do you make a trade like Zion+WCJ for AD? Swap the risk on Zion for the risk on AD resigning. Running out a team of Vet PG-Zach-Otto-AD-Lauri with a bench of Hutch-Val-Dunn is a pretty good squad IMO. Can run with anyone in the East. And if so, you'd be in position to offer AD a chance to make more $$$ on a young team built around him with a lot of young talent. Sure it's a risk, but it's not like there are risk-free options out there.

now that's a hot take. He'll be a top 50 player based on DEFENSE ALONE the minute he steps onto an NBA court.

He's a legit two way superstar. The 1st in the draft since arguably Lebron.

[drosereturn]

I know I'm going to get destroyed for this but I'd trade down from the 1 pick to get Morant. I think Zion will be great and has a ceiling of Top 50 All Time. I just think he lacks the handles, shooting, and height to be a great scorer. Greatest role player of all time but could never be in the tier with Jordan, Kobe or Lebron.

I'm trading 1 and Felicio for 2, 3 future first and a quality role player or two. The celtics fleeced the Nets and they still have great assets almost a decade later. Zion likely will turn out better than Zion in the short and long run. If we have any faith in Lauri, Lavine, WCJ, and Morants potential then we could set our franchise up for success w/o pinning all our stake in 1 player

Sent from my SM-J337T using RealGM mobile app

Theres no need to risk on Morant. Trade the #1 and Felicio for AD who is a perennial superstar. I am with you on Zions ceiling but Morant has even more risk.

[TheJordanRule]

You're likely giving up next year's first to do it. I'm not doing that for a not-Zion player.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I feel you as far as the general philosophy, Red, but what if Ja has a great performance at the NBA Draft Combine? Because I think Ja could put himself into Can't Miss territory with a good showing at the Combine. He's not far from that point already, and he's a fit for our roster as a do-it-all PG who can distribute, draw fouls and finish. Basically, everything people complain about Dunn not doing Ja has in spades.

I think Morant has shown all he realistically can display. His weaknesses will still be his weaknesses and his strengths will still be his strengths at the combine. If you believe Morant is an elite point guard in the making, then you do that deal.

If you believe this team is too far away to move next year's first for anything less than Zion, then you keep it as a safety net for another bad season. With the new odds, you never really know what can happen.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

My answer to how heavily I believe in Ja depends on whether he's as athletic as John Wall or Derrick Rose when they first entered the league. We can compare his combine results with other PGs who've come before him, and see whether he stacks up favorably. I agree with you Red that his on court skills will remain the same, but the Combine often reveals how high a player's ceiling is.

[WindyCityBorn]

I was going to hit you with a "kill it with fire" gif but Zion for dumping Felicio, #2, 3 future firsts and two quality role players is one hell of a haul. I love Zion and I would have trouble saying no to that.

IMO there are enough questions about Zion (shooting, small hands, potential weight issues) that while he'll almost certainly be a very good player, he may well not be a great player let along a top 50 guy. So if you can get a true haul because he's valued that way, it's at least a reasonable option. But on these things I fully trust GarPax - their draft record is evidence enough.

The real question is do you make a trade like Zion+WCJ for AD? Swap the risk on Zion for the risk on AD resigning. Running out a team of Vet PG-Zach-Otto-AD-Lauri with a bench of Hutch-Val-Dunn is a pretty good squad IMO. Can run with anyone in the East. And if so, you'd be in position to offer AD a chance to make more $$$ on a young team built around him with a lot of young talent. Sure it's a risk, but it's not like there are risk-free options out there.

now that's a hot take. He'll be a top 50 player based on DEFENSE ALONE the minute he steps onto an NBA court.

He's a legit two way superstar. The 1st in the draft since arguably Lebron.

Pretty sure they meant top 50 all-time. And no he is not a better prospect than Anthony Davis and has very little chance of being a better player.

[logical_art]

And last time they didn't do that they lost out on Doncic. Hopefully that's fresh in their minds.

???

How exactly were the Bulls going to trade for Doncic? Dallas gave up a better pick and the next year's pick. Atlanta wanted Young, Bulls were not in position to make a trade that got them Young. Probably would have required Lauri+#7, or maybe if you gave an unprotected 2019 #1 to offset the loss of Young.

Is this something that was actually discussed? I remember the rumors that Memphis would send #4 for #7 and #21 and maybe Portis and the Bulls take on Parsons contract. But nothing about Atlanta/Doncic.

The point is that there is an opportunity cost risk to not making a move, not just the risk of making a bad deal.

[coldfish]

I know I'm going to get destroyed for this but I'd trade down from the 1 pick to get Morant. I think Zion will be great and has a ceiling of Top 50 All Time. I just think he lacks the handles, shooting, and height to be a great scorer. Greatest role player of all time but could never be in the tier with Jordan, Kobe or Lebron.

I'm trading 1 and Felicio for 2, 3 future first and a quality role player or two. The celtics fleeced the Nets and they still have great assets almost a decade later. Zion likely will turn out better than Zion in the short and long run. If we have any faith in Lauri, Lavine, WCJ, and Morants potential then we could set our franchise up for success w/o pinning all our stake in 1 player

Sent from my SM-J337T using RealGM mobile app

I was going to hit you with a "kill it with fire" gif but Zion for dumping Felicio, #2, 3 future firsts and two quality role players is one hell of a haul. I love Zion and I would have trouble saying no to that.

IMO there are enough questions about Zion (shooting, small hands, potential weight issues) that while he'll almost certainly be a very good player, he may well not be a great player let along a top 50 guy. So if you can get a true haul because he's valued that way, it's at least a reasonable option. But on these things I fully trust GarPax - their draft record is evidence enough.

The real question is do you make a trade like Zion+WCJ for AD? Swap the risk on Zion for the risk on AD resigning. Running out a team of Vet PG-Zach-Otto-AD-Lauri with a bench of Hutch-Val-Dunn is a pretty good squad IMO. Can run with anyone in the East. And if so, you'd be in position to offer AD a chance to make more $$$ on a young team built around him with a lot of young talent. Sure it's a risk, but it's not like there are risk-free options out there.

Trading 7 years of Zion and Wendell for a one year rental of AD is definitely "kill it with fire" talk.

Zion certainly isn't a guaranteed all time great. Not even a guaranteed all star. I agree with you there. However, the odds of him getting to that level are about as high as anyone I have seen since Lebron. You just can't give that up for anyone not named Giannis. Giving it up for a one year rental could be franchise crushing.

[kodo]

And last time they didn't do that they lost out on Doncic. Hopefully that's fresh in their minds.

???

How exactly were the Bulls going to trade for Doncic? Dallas gave up a better pick and the next year's pick. Atlanta wanted Young, Bulls were not in position to make a trade that got them Young. Probably would have required Lauri+#7, or maybe if you gave an unprotected 2019 #1 to offset the loss of Young.

Is this something that was actually discussed? I remember the rumors that Memphis would send #4 for #7 and #21 and maybe Portis and the Bulls take on Parsons contract. But nothing about Atlanta/Doncic.

There were rumors from good sources (Givony) that both ATL & PHO was willing to trade and Bulls (along with other teams) were looking to trade up. PHO wasn't looking for a pick swap, they were looking for a vet like Anthony Davis which obviously didn't happen.

It's come out recently Bulls had trades lined up this year that nobody in the social media had even the faintest idea of, so I think it's easily assumable the Bulls are successful in not leaking their trade laundry.

I can easily see the Bulls trying to move up to #3. But if the Bulls offer their next year's pick + #7, and Dallas offers their next year's pick + #5, why in the world would ATL take the Bulls offer over Dallas? Makes no sense.

The only team that had any chance of beating the Dallas offer was Memphis at #4, and they weren't interested in Doncic. They only worked out Wendell Carter and checked out Porter Jr, they clearly wanted a big.

[Ice Man]

The last #2 pick who was clearly worth trading up for was Kevin Durant, in 2007. OK, getting Dipo or Russell wouldn't have been bad, but would you give up two high lottery selections for one of them?

So heck, no, I'm not trading up for the #2 guy, especially when Ja (or whomever) doesn't have the credentials that Kevin Durant in 2007. There was a buzz around Durant; he would have been a worthy #1, except there was Oden.

[logical_art]

The last #2 pick who was clearly worth trading up for was Kevin Durant, in 2007. OK, getting Dipo or Russell wouldn't have been bad, but would you give up two high lottery selections for one of them?

So heck, no, I'm not trading up for the #2 guy, especially when Ja (or whomever) doesn't have the credentials that Kevin Durant in 2007. There was a buzz around Durant; he would have been a worthy #1, except there was Oden.

Judging a player based on the recent history of guys at his slot is pretty weak IMO.

[Mech Engineer]

The last #2 pick who was clearly worth trading up for was Kevin Durant, in 2007. OK, getting Dipo or Russell wouldn't have been bad, but would you give up two high lottery selections for one of them?

So heck, no, I'm not trading up for the #2 guy, especially when Ja (or whomever) doesn't have the credentials that Kevin Durant in 2007. There was a buzz around Durant; he would have been a worthy #1, except there was Oden.

Judging a player based on the recent history of guys at his slot is pretty weak IMO.

It's not just about the slot(although Ice Man did say 2nd pick). 2019 Morant is not 2007 Durant to trade up.

[Ice Man]

Judging a player based on the recent history of guys at his slot is pretty weak IMO.

How else to judge? Clearly over the past 20 years people have had trouble identifying the next best player. The #1s have a decent hit rate, but year after year the scouts/experts/teams struggle to get the 2nd pick right. Even though they usually think at the time that it is clear who the next best player is. (It was Rose & Beasley, Fultz & Ball, Wiggins & Jabari, etc.)

Sure this year could be the exception, but that's not how I would bet. Too many people have been wrong too often.

[coldfish]

Judging a player based on the recent history of guys at his slot is pretty weak IMO.

How else to judge? Clearly over the past 20 years people have had trouble identifying the next best player. The #1s have a decent hit rate, but year after year the scouts/experts/teams struggle to get the 2nd pick right. Even though they usually think at the time that it is clear who the next best player is. (It was Rose & Beasley, Fultz & Ball, Wiggins & Jabari, etc.)

Sure this year could be the exception, but that's not how I would bet. Too many people have been wrong too often.

Judging the quality of a draft slot is best done by looking at a large sample of players taken at that position. Not cherry picked but all of them.

Overall, Ice Man is right. If you look at the history of #2 picks, you are better off with say a #5 and a future lottery pick than the #2. In general, trade ups favor the team that gave up the pick and not the one that bought it. The draft is a numbers game. The more times you play the better odds you have of winning. The Bulls shouldn't be in the game of giving up picks and that's what it would take to move up.

[logical_art]

Judging a player based on the recent history of guys at his slot is pretty weak IMO.

How else to judge? Clearly over the past 20 years people have had trouble identifying the next best player. The #1s have a decent hit rate, but year after year the scouts/experts/teams struggle to get the 2nd pick right. Even though they usually think at the time that it is clear who the next best player is. (It was Rose & Beasley, Fultz & Ball, Wiggins & Jabari, etc.)

Sure this year could be the exception, but that's not how I would bet. Too many people have been wrong too often.

First of all, with the 2nd pick you can draft any player in the draft outside the first pick. So basically what you're saying is that its not worth trading up for any pick besides the first pick in the draft. And that's not true, since nearly all of the best players in the league were not the first pick.

Second, its pure statistical noise that the second pick hasnt panned out. What is your alternative explanation? That the second pick is somehow jinxed? I'll go with statistical noise.