Road to nowhere

[League Circles]

Sure, though I think trading Giddey this season before the deadline has potential to be the best alternative of all of them. But we digress. Another poster said we couldn't possibly be in a worse situation, which as I've shown is false.

Yeah, things could be worse, if someone intentionally wanted to make them worse. Could just trade all our 1sts and Matas and Pat for a bad contract and it'd be worse, but that's nonsensical.

From a win now perspective, we'd probably be better with Caruso than Giddey. From a win later perspective that same thing might be true too if Caruso was willing to sign an extension with us. Giddey might be worse than no trade or trading for picks.

It would be hard for things to be much worse while actually trying to be competent at your job though.

I think keeping Caruso on his new deal would probably be worse than the trade for Vuc was. I also genuinely think that Giddey helps us win more this season and in the future than Caruso would have. But I still think we should probably trade Giddey or let him walk tbh. My mind isn't made up yet though. He has until the deadline IMO to prove himself.

[kodo]

There's no way Caruso picks Chicago over a contender for the same money, $20M. He has no love for Chicago, he came here from LA because we offered the most money. He even offered to stay with LA for LESS money than we offered, LA still said no. He basically got the door shut on him and he landed here.

Same situation in his next FA, why would he stay with a bad team when he can sign with a contending team for $20M. People might say "oh well contenders don't have cap space," cap space has never stopped trades. We would have S&T'd him to a destination for 2030 2nd rounder and cash. That's basically what we got for facilitating the Derozan trade, 2nd rounders & cash. People said the same thing about Derozan in FA, playoff teams don't have cap space. Irrelevant, always has been.

The only way Caruso stays in Chicago is for the same reason he ended up in Chicago in the first place, we massively outbid everyone else. To reiterate, he was willing to sign for less for a contender than take the Chicago offer. So to stay with Chicago we'd have to give him $25M if a contender is willing to S&T him for him $20M? When you're giving a 30 year old bench player even a great one $25M+, it's not a smart move anymore.

The decision to get something for AC before he moves on was a good one, even from my perspective as a FO hater.

[League Circles]

There's no way Caruso picks Chicago over a contender for the same money, $20M. He has no love for Chicago, he came here from LA because we offered the most money. He even offered to stay with LA for LESS money than we offered, LA still said no. He basically got the door shut on him and he landed here.

Same situation in his next FA, why would he stay with a bad team when he can sign with a contending team for $20M. People might say "oh well contenders don't have cap space," cap space has never stopped trades. We would have S&T'd him to a destination for 2030 2nd rounder and cash. That's basically what we got for facilitating the Derozan trade, 2nd rounders & cash. People said the same thing about Derozan in FA, playoff teams don't have cap space. Irrelevant, always has been.

The only way Caruso stays in Chicago is for the same reason he ended up in Chicago in the first place, we massively outbid everyone else. To reiterate, he was willing to sign for less for a contender than take the Chicago offer. So to stay with Chicago we'd have to give him $25M if a contender is willing to S&T him for him $20M? When you're giving a 30 year old bench player even a great one $25M+, it's not a smart move anymore.

The decision to get something for AC before he moves on was a good one, even from my perspective as a FO hater.

I agree it was smart to move on, but in the vast majority of cases, a team can keep their own FA by simply matching the first year money offered by another team, but then give him the max raises and 5th year that that team can't offer under the CBA rules. That would have been dumb of us, but keeping their own FAs isn't something most teams should be too worried about if they're willing to go 5 years.

[Guru]

I would say that you can't lose if you move the goalposts every time you kick but in this case, people car,e more about trying not to win.

[Dan Z]

I have studied it lots of times, and even though you don't want to hear it, by _far_ the most repeatable way to build a good team is through the draft. It doesn't mean building through the draft will always work. There are lots of teams that fail at it, but it is by _far_ the most likely thing to work.

The problem here is that I genuinely, honestly don't know what is meant by "repeatable" or "building through the draft". No team repeats itself. No process should be characterized as the same as another IMO. Every single nba team and sequence of transactions is a one-off, bespoke thing. Every team has players they drafted on the roster. All the bad teams, all the great teams. They virtually all have both good and bad players that they themselves drafted, and good and bad players that other teams drafted. I'm very anti-essentialist in this way. Did Denver "build through the draft" when they won a title where their only special player was a 2nd round pick? Not in the context we're discussing, I'd argue.

This is true for elite teams with superstars, good teams with superstars, and good teams without superstars (effectively there are no elite teams without superstars). I have in fact, presented the data around it to you, by looking at every 50 win team over the past 20 years and how they basically got there, and it is overwhelmingly, the draft is the most important component.

I would disagree with much of this. There have been title winners without superstars IMO (3 this century IMO). And there are certainly top 8 teams in the league without superstars. Hell we had the best record IIRC in year one of AK before Ball went down with nobody remotely approaching superstar level.

But I don't disagree that the draft is very important. But it's more about how well you draft than where you pick. There are countless bad players selected with very high draft picks, and many very great players selected with pedestrian draft picks.

The next most common route is probably a superstar just wants to be in your city which is an option that is almost certainly closed to us (and 26 other teams) and also is not something you can control the timing on or plan for.

I disagree that it's closed to us (or most other teams). The key is putting together a situation that is appealing on multiple levels to the player. We've already had great players want to play for Chicago, even when we weren't that good. But I'm certainly not relying on that (or any other luck), because I don't think we should be focusing on superstars or championships. I want to focus on having a perpetually good roster and top 8 caliber team.

Regarding Denver:

In 2012-13 they won 57 games. The next year Tim Connelly took over and they traded off vets such as Andre Iguodala, so they could move in a new direction. That year they won 37 games. They kept trading off vets and were looking for the next player to build around (primarily using the draft). Jokic was drafted in 2014-15, but played a year overseas before coming over to the Nuggets.

At that point they weren't sure what they had in him and it took time to figure that out (I remember they liked Nurkic too).

In 2017 they drafted Jamal Murray at #7.

The Nuggets did try to find a star through the draft, but ended up doing so in the 2nd round. Luck? Probably, but that doesn't mean they weren't using the draft as a way to improve. You could say that you don't need a high draft pick to find a star, but Jokic is an outlier.

[League Circles]

I have studied it lots of times, and even though you don't want to hear it, by _far_ the most repeatable way to build a good team is through the draft. It doesn't mean building through the draft will always work. There are lots of teams that fail at it, but it is by _far_ the most likely thing to work.

The problem here is that I genuinely, honestly don't know what is meant by "repeatable" or "building through the draft". No team repeats itself. No process should be characterized as the same as another IMO. Every single nba team and sequence of transactions is a one-off, bespoke thing. Every team has players they drafted on the roster. All the bad teams, all the great teams. They virtually all have both good and bad players that they themselves drafted, and good and bad players that other teams drafted. I'm very anti-essentialist in this way. Did Denver "build through the draft" when they won a title where their only special player was a 2nd round pick? Not in the context we're discussing, I'd argue.

This is true for elite teams with superstars, good teams with superstars, and good teams without superstars (effectively there are no elite teams without superstars). I have in fact, presented the data around it to you, by looking at every 50 win team over the past 20 years and how they basically got there, and it is overwhelmingly, the draft is the most important component.

I would disagree with much of this. There have been title winners without superstars IMO (3 this century IMO). And there are certainly top 8 teams in the league without superstars. Hell we had the best record IIRC in year one of AK before Ball went down with nobody remotely approaching superstar level.

But I don't disagree that the draft is very important. But it's more about how well you draft than where you pick. There are countless bad players selected with very high draft picks, and many very great players selected with pedestrian draft picks.

The next most common route is probably a superstar just wants to be in your city which is an option that is almost certainly closed to us (and 26 other teams) and also is not something you can control the timing on or plan for.

I disagree that it's closed to us (or most other teams). The key is putting together a situation that is appealing on multiple levels to the player. We've already had great players want to play for Chicago, even when we weren't that good. But I'm certainly not relying on that (or any other luck), because I don't think we should be focusing on superstars or championships. I want to focus on having a perpetually good roster and top 8 caliber team.

Regarding Denver:

In 2012-13 they won 57 games. The next year Tim Connelly took over and they traded off vets such as Andre Iguodala, so they could move in a new direction. That year they won 37 games. They kept trading off vets and were looking for the next player to build around (primarily using the draft). Jokic was drafted in 2014-15, but played a year overseas before coming over to the Nuggets.

At that point they weren't sure what they had in him and it took time to figure that out (I remember they liked Nurkic too).

In 2017 they drafted Jamal Murray at #7.

The Nuggets did try to find a star through the draft, but ended up doing so in the 2nd round. Luck? Probably, but that doesn't mean they weren't using the draft as a way to improve. You could say that you don't need a high draft pick to find a star, but Jokic is an outlier.

I don't really know what you're trying to say here. An enormous number of fans here are absolutely insistent that we become worse, and for multiple years, expressly because we MUST "build through the draft" and because the only plausible way to do that is by tanking to get high picks.

So, in the context of this discussion, IMO, "building through the draft" means drafting your building block players with high picks that you got because you were bad. The reason I brought up Denver is because they don't fit this definition at all. Jokic was chosen with a pick that every team has every year essentially, and IMO, nobody else on that rosters matters worth a damn. I think you could have put a huge variety of players around Jokic amd achieved similar success. I don't think in any way that drafting Murray at #7 was critical to their success. There were several guys taken well after him that are better, and, hilariously, to prove my point, Murray was probably better than 4 of the 6 players taken ahead of him. The draft is a pretty wild crap shoot.

Jokic is an outlier, but there have now been MANY elite players drafted WAY later than they "should have" in the modern era. TONS of the very best players have been taken outside the top 10. That's why I'm not nearly as fixated on draft position, and draft picks, as many are.

[Dan Z]

The problem here is that I genuinely, honestly don't know what is meant by "repeatable" or "building through the draft". No team repeats itself. No process should be characterized as the same as another IMO. Every single nba team and sequence of transactions is a one-off, bespoke thing. Every team has players they drafted on the roster. All the bad teams, all the great teams. They virtually all have both good and bad players that they themselves drafted, and good and bad players that other teams drafted. I'm very anti-essentialist in this way. Did Denver "build through the draft" when they won a title where their only special player was a 2nd round pick? Not in the context we're discussing, I'd argue.


I would disagree with much of this. There have been title winners without superstars IMO (3 this century IMO). And there are certainly top 8 teams in the league without superstars. Hell we had the best record IIRC in year one of AK before Ball went down with nobody remotely approaching superstar level.

But I don't disagree that the draft is very important. But it's more about how well you draft than where you pick. There are countless bad players selected with very high draft picks, and many very great players selected with pedestrian draft picks.


I disagree that it's closed to us (or most other teams). The key is putting together a situation that is appealing on multiple levels to the player. We've already had great players want to play for Chicago, even when we weren't that good. But I'm certainly not relying on that (or any other luck), because I don't think we should be focusing on superstars or championships. I want to focus on having a perpetually good roster and top 8 caliber team.

Regarding Denver:

In 2012-13 they won 57 games. The next year Tim Connelly took over and they traded off vets such as Andre Iguodala, so they could move in a new direction. That year they won 37 games. They kept trading off vets and were looking for the next player to build around (primarily using the draft). Jokic was drafted in 2014-15, but played a year overseas before coming over to the Nuggets.

At that point they weren't sure what they had in him and it took time to figure that out (I remember they liked Nurkic too).

In 2017 they drafted Jamal Murray at #7.

The Nuggets did try to find a star through the draft, but ended up doing so in the 2nd round. Luck? Probably, but that doesn't mean they weren't using the draft as a way to improve. You could say that you don't need a high draft pick to find a star, but Jokic is an outlier.

I don't really know what you're trying to say here. An enormous number of fans here are absolutely insistent that we become worse, and for multiple years, expressly because we MUST "build through the draft" and because the only plausible way to do that is by tanking to get high picks.

So, in the context of this discussion, IMO, "building through the draft" means drafting your building block players with high picks that you got because you were bad. The reason I brought up Denver is because they don't fit this definition at all. Jokic was chosen with a pick that every team has every year essentially, and IMO, nobody else on that rosters matters worth a damn. I think you could have put a huge variety of players around Jokic amd achieved similar success. I don't think in any way that drafting Murray at #7 was critical to their success. There were several guys taken well after him that are better, and, hilariously, to prove my point, Murray was probably better than 4 of the 6 players taken ahead of him. The draft is a pretty wild crap shoot.

Jokic is an outlier, but there have now been MANY elite players drafted WAY later than they "should have" in the modern era. TONS of the very best players have been taken outside the top 10. That's why I'm not nearly as fixated on draft position, and draft picks, as many are.

My point is that Denver moved on from their vets with the idea to find the next star to build around and they did so primarily using the draft. They continued to do so, even after drafting Jokic until they realized what they had in him.

It's a direction other teams have done (as Doug points out), but without finding their star in round two.

As for Murray, sure there are better players taken before he was picked. That could be said about many players in many drafts. What about after he was picked? I know he's a divisive player, but he was important during their championship year (they don't win without him).

I guess Denver could've stayed with the vets as a middle-of-the-road team (with players like Iguodala) and perhaps they still draft Jokic, but I don't think they win a championship (in part because of Murray).

[HomoSapien]

There's no way Caruso picks Chicago over a contender for the same money, $20M. He has no love for Chicago, he came here from LA because we offered the most money. He even offered to stay with LA for LESS money than we offered, LA still said no. He basically got the door shut on him and he landed here.

Same situation in his next FA, why would he stay with a bad team when he can sign with a contending team for $20M. People might say "oh well contenders don't have cap space," cap space has never stopped trades. We would have S&T'd him to a destination for 2030 2nd rounder and cash. That's basically what we got for facilitating the Derozan trade, 2nd rounders & cash. People said the same thing about Derozan in FA, playoff teams don't have cap space. Irrelevant, always has been.

The only way Caruso stays in Chicago is for the same reason he ended up in Chicago in the first place, we massively outbid everyone else. To reiterate, he was willing to sign for less for a contender than take the Chicago offer. So to stay with Chicago we'd have to give him $25M if a contender is willing to S&T him for him $20M? When you're giving a 30 year old bench player even a great one $25M+, it's not a smart move anymore.

The decision to get something for AC before he moves on was a good one, even from my perspective as a FO hater.

Trading Caruso was the right move, but I think we would've been able to resign him. I read the LA example differently than you. He was willing to take less money to stay with his current team. He's a loyal guy and he has stated how found he is of Chicago many times as well.

[dougthonus]

Yeah, that would be good in a vacuum, but unfortunately the moves that would get us additional good draft picks are also generally moves that would increase the number of additional good players we'd need. To some extent it can be a zero sum game. I'm definitely open to trading players for picks, but not just to do it, and not just cause a guy is 29 years old or whatever. And not just to hopefully be bad enough to keep our pick this year just to give it up next year.

Potentially.

The problem is you are trying to fit all your talent under a fixed budget. Each player's value to a franchise has some combination of current value, future value as well as current/future costs. When your team is not set to take advantage of current value and does not want to pay future costs (or has diminishing future value), then you should trade those players for assets that will have higher future value and lower costs (draft picks generally speaking).

This is why fundamentally, these moves were just incredibly dumb the moment they were made:
Trading for Vuc, keeping Vuc each year after we traded for him, extending him
Trading for DeRozan, keeping DeRozan each year we did
Not trading Caruso a year earlier
Not trading Coby White (and potentially Ayo) this summer
Not trading Zach LaVine prior to extending him or the first year after extension before he became a bad deal.

All of these times it was obvious we were not set to take advantage of current value, did not want to pay future costs or had diminishing future value. It's not to say all of those moves worked out against us (though most did), as an example, signing DeRozan worked out okay for us, in that we could have gotten out of the deal later, but it worked out okay, because at 33 he went out and had a career year which was a real low probability chance. That said, even when it worked out okay, we didn't take advantage of it and eventually turned it into a fail.

Or long story short, you don't trade all your future assets to win now when you're a 30 win team without a star player by adding 30+ year old empty stat guys. It was a plan that might fit on NBA2K, but no responsible GM should have been dumb enough to execute.

[dougthonus]

I don't really know what you're trying to say here. An enormous number of fans here are absolutely insistent that we become worse, and for multiple years, expressly because we MUST "build through the draft" and because the only plausible way to do that is by tanking to get high picks.

You've been arguing primarily with me in this thread, and I have not used the word tank, nor have I suggested tanking. I've suggested trading your players when their cost structure no longer provides an advantage to you or when they don't fit your timeline. I don't think we should just try to be as bad as possible until we land a star.

Being really bad might be part of what you're doing for a period, but the most important thing is to do what OKC did, which is load up on a ton of picks and give yourself many chances and recognize when players don't fit into your future and trade them earlier for more rather than after they decline for less or nothing. You hope one of those guys turns into a star and a bunch of others into starting caliber guys, but the keys are the volume of chances, recognizing when to pivot, and maximizing the value when you pivot.

[dougthonus]

There's no way Caruso picks Chicago over a contender for the same money, $20M. He has no love for Chicago, he came here from LA because we offered the most money. He even offered to stay with LA for LESS money than we offered, LA still said no. He basically got the door shut on him and he landed here.

Same situation in his next FA, why would he stay with a bad team when he can sign with a contending team for $20M. People might say "oh well contenders don't have cap space," cap space has never stopped trades. We would have S&T'd him to a destination for 2030 2nd rounder and cash. That's basically what we got for facilitating the Derozan trade, 2nd rounders & cash. People said the same thing about Derozan in FA, playoff teams don't have cap space. Irrelevant, always has been.

The only way Caruso stays in Chicago is for the same reason he ended up in Chicago in the first place, we massively outbid everyone else. To reiterate, he was willing to sign for less for a contender than take the Chicago offer. So to stay with Chicago we'd have to give him $25M if a contender is willing to S&T him for him $20M? When you're giving a 30 year old bench player even a great one $25M+, it's not a smart move anymore.

The decision to get something for AC before he moves on was a good one, even from my perspective as a FO hater.

The teams projected to have enough money to offer him that deal next off-season are:
Brooklyn (91M)
Washington (40M)
Pelicans (34M)
Charlotte (30M)
Spurs (28M)
Detroit (25M)

Not sure any of those teams would have made Caruso their #1 priority, and only the Spurs are probably a better destination than Chicago, but the Spurs (building around Wemby) probably wouldn't use the majority of their cap room on a player like Caruso, not sure any of the other teams would have even bid on him vs other options given their timelines either.

So while in an open market, I completely agree with you, it wouldn't have been an open market.

Also, the value of signing with the Bulls would be (just like with OKC) to lock in generational wealth 6 months early and remove the risk of major injury. Caruso's never had a massive contract before, so this extension is actually huge for his financial future.

I'm not saying it was wrong to trade Caruso, he didn't fit our timeline, and there's lots of reasons that move made sense for us, but we'd have had a very good chance of keeping him if we made it a priority.

[Stratmaster]

I mean, we would easily have been in a worse position than we are now if we hadn't traded Caruso for Giddey.

If we had traded him a year a go for two 1st rounders, we'd might be in a better position towards building a good team, because we'd have fewer wins this year, keep our pick in an elite draft and have more assets to build with going forward.

Granted, if Giddey becomes a player whose value exceeds his contract by a good amount next year, that might no longer be true, we'll have to see if Giddey is a value add long term which is unknowable now.

Giddey is a young asset. Isn't that what getting draft picks is all about? Only he is actually a young asset that has already established value. Isn't that better than a draft pick?

White. Williams. Giddey. Matas. Ayo. Phillips. Terry. Williams. Smith. THT. Sanogo. 11 guys under 25 ... young assets. How many more would you like them to obtain?

I don't think anyone here wants to bank on the idea that if we just get a couple more late lottery and non-lottery first round picks that one of them is going to be the next Michael Jordan. It certainly "could" happen but the likelihood is so low as to not be worthy of serious discussion.

The strategy of building through the draft is to acquire assets and turn those assets into players of value. The problem isn't that the Bulls need more draft picks or more young assets. It's that they won't use the ones they have. The front office, just like us fans on here, fall in love with the guys they draft and acquire...until they fall out of love, at which point it's too late.

Patrick Williams, who couldn't start in college, has "all the physical tools" to be a superstar.

Coby White has a good month and "his handles have improved so much" (no, they didn't), "his defense is so much better" (no, it isn't), "on his way to being an all-star" (no, he wasn't and isn't), "he's better than Lavine" (likely the most ridiculous take of all of them).

I could go on. Ayo and Coby were going to be the next dynamic Starting backcourt. Terry just needs to develop a shot to be an all-star etc.

The point is that every one of these guys should have been, or needs to be, moved while on their rookie contract. 11 young players who should have been packaged with Caruso, Demar and Vuc to get 4 players better than any of those 11.

So yeah. AKME screwed this up, if that is your point. But thinking the problem is draft picks is IMHO way off base. They have the young assets. They just don't know what to do with them.

They need to make a move that gets this team through a playoff series and become relevant. It's the only way to build out of this situation. Not shed more talent for a couple more "young assets"

[dougthonus]

Giddey is a young asset. Isn't that what getting draft picks is all about? Only he is actually a young asset that has already established value. Isn't that better than a draft pick?

Might be, the problem is cost control and of course how you evaluate Giddey. I would guess (and many people said this at the time) that Giddey looks like a guy destined for massive overpay due to empty stats that is extremely hard to build with. It might not turn out that way of course, we'll find out next off-season.

White. Williams. Giddey. Matas. Ayo. Phillips. Terry. Williams. Smith. THT. Sanogo. 11 guys under 25 ... young assets. How many more would you like them to obtain?

Of these guys only Matas is a high upside guy on his rookie contract. The idea of "young assets" is "high upside young assets that might turn into stars", not just collecting young players. A guy only counts in this category while you think he still has star potential, of the guys you just named, that's Matas and none of the others, and Matas is at the very fringe of that category.

The strategy of building through the draft is to acquire assets and turn those assets into players of value. The problem isn't that the Bulls need more draft picks or more young assets. It's that they won't use the ones they have. The front office, just like us fans on here, fall in love with the guys they draft and acquire...until they fall out of love, at which point it's too late.

The vast majority of good teams, get a star player in the draft. It is by a million the most likely way you will become a very good team. Very few teams get a bunch of picks then trade them for a star, but sure, it's possible. Typically you get your 1st star in the draft, then 50/50 whether you also get your 2nd star from the draft or trade for them.

Patrick Williams, who couldn't start in college, has "all the physical tools" to be a superstar.

Coby White has a good month and "his handles have improved so much" (no, they didn't), "his defense is so much better" (no, it isn't), "on his way to being an all-star" (no, he wasn't and isn't), "he's better than Lavine" (likely the most ridiculous take of all of them).

I could go on. Ayo and Coby were going to be the next dynamic Starting backcourt. Terry just needs to develop a shot to be an all-star etc.

The point is that every one of these guys should have been, or needs to be, moved while on their rookie contract. 11 young players who should have been packaged with Caruso, Demar and Vuc to get 4 players better than any of those 11.

Provides some of examples of things you think could fit that line. It's really hard to package win now players for better win now players. So packaging those guys with Caruso / DeMar / Vuc is not the type of trade that is almost ever made, the team giving up the better player doesn't want win now players most of the time. Maybe you can make something happen in a 3 way, but it's just not a common dynamic.

So yeah. AKME screwed this up, if that is your point. But thinking the problem is draft picks is IMHO way off base. They have the young assets. They just don't know what to do with them.

They have 0 high upside / likely potential young assets and have acquired 0 of them since they have been here. They have only acquired fringe potential guys. So that isn't what I think they should do. It's like saying a penny and a hundred dollar bill are both money so its the same thing.

They need to make a move that gets this team through a playoff series and become relevant. It's the only way to build out of this situation. Not shed more talent for a couple more "young assets"

They are too far away to get there via trade. That is the problem. Or at least to get there via trade, they'd have to absolutely massively screw over the other team and do it multiple times. Given evidence would suggest we're among the dumbest worst negotiating teams in the league, nor do we have highly coveted assets to illicit a bidding war, and when we did have highly coveted assets (Caruso), we didn't really extract maximal value there either, the idea that this FO will trade its way out of its problems is really hard to swallow, but the reality is regardless of whom our GM is that our present position is not one where trading is likely to yield great results based on the desirability and type of assets we have.

[Stratmaster]

Giddey is a young asset. Isn't that what getting draft picks is all about? Only he is actually a young asset that has already established value. Isn't that better than a draft pick?

Might be, the problem is cost control and of course how you evaluate Giddey. I would guess (and many people said this at the time) that Giddey looks like a guy destined for massive overpay due to empty stats that is extremely hard to build with. It might not turn out that way of course, we'll find out next off-season.

White. Williams. Giddey. Matas. Ayo. Phillips. Terry. Williams. Smith. THT. Sanogo. 11 guys under 25 ... young assets. How many more would you like them to obtain?

Of these guys only Matas is a high upside guy on his rookie contract. The idea of "young assets" is "high upside young assets that might turn into stars", not just collecting young players. A guy only counts in this category while you think he still has star potential, of the guys you just named, that's Matas and none of the others, and Matas is at the very fringe of that category.

The strategy of building through the draft is to acquire assets and turn those assets into players of value. The problem isn't that the Bulls need more draft picks or more young assets. It's that they won't use the ones they have. The front office, just like us fans on here, fall in love with the guys they draft and acquire...until they fall out of love, at which point it's too late.

The vast majority of good teams, get a star player in the draft. It is by a million the most likely way you will become a very good team. Very few teams get a bunch of picks then trade them for a star, but sure, it's possible. Typically you get your 1st star in the draft, then 50/50 whether you also get your 2nd star from the draft or trade for them.

Patrick Williams, who couldn't start in college, has "all the physical tools" to be a superstar.

Coby White has a good month and "his handles have improved so much" (no, they didn't), "his defense is so much better" (no, it isn't), "on his way to being an all-star" (no, he wasn't and isn't), "he's better than Lavine" (likely the most ridiculous take of all of them).

I could go on. Ayo and Coby were going to be the next dynamic Starting backcourt. Terry just needs to develop a shot to be an all-star etc.

The point is that every one of these guys should have been, or needs to be, moved while on their rookie contract. 11 young players who should have been packaged with Caruso, Demar and Vuc to get 4 players better than any of those 11.

Provides some of examples of things you think could fit that line. It's really hard to package win now players for better win now players. So packaging those guys with Caruso / DeMar / Vuc is not the type of trade that is almost ever made, the team giving up the better player doesn't want win now players most of the time. Maybe you can make something happen in a 3 way, but it's just not a common dynamic.

So yeah. AKME screwed this up, if that is your point. But thinking the problem is draft picks is IMHO way off base. They have the young assets. They just don't know what to do with them.

They have 0 high upside / likely potential young assets and have acquired 0 of them since they have been here. They have only acquired fringe potential guys. So that isn't what I think they should do. It's like saying a penny and a hundred dollar bill are both money so its the same thing.

They need to make a move that gets this team through a playoff series and become relevant. It's the only way to build out of this situation. Not shed more talent for a couple more "young assets"

They are too far away to get there via trade. That is the problem. Or at least to get there via trade, they'd have to absolutely massively screw over the other team and do it multiple times. Given evidence would suggest we're among the dumbest worst negotiating teams in the league, nor do we have highly coveted assets to illicit a bidding war, and when we did have highly coveted assets (Caruso), we didn't really extract maximal value there either, the idea that this FO will trade its way out of its problems is really hard to swallow, but the reality is regardless of whom our GM is that our present position is not one where trading is likely to yield great results based on the desirability and type of assets we have.

We have a fundamental disagreement on how to progress from where the team is at. There is no point trying to convince each other.

Where we seem to agree is on the need to use young assets before they have shown the league their ceiling. The advantage you have with young assets is that you get to evaluate them more thoroughly and more quickly than the rest of the league. Williams and Coby shouldn't still be on this team. Talent evaluation has obviously been lacking.

I reject the idea that middling young assets can't be packaged in trades with other players. Teams looking for win now players are not philosophically against also bringing in a young prospect who can fill end of bench or 2nd team minutes. And every once in a while this players pan out to be valuable. You don't think Coby and Caruso, if packaged together last season, bring back more than just Caruso?

[Stratmaster]

Giddey is a young asset. Isn't that what getting draft picks is all about? Only he is actually a young asset that has already established value. Isn't that better than a draft pick?

Might be, the problem is cost control and of course how you evaluate Giddey. I would guess (and many people said this at the time) that Giddey looks like a guy destined for massive overpay due to empty stats that is extremely hard to build with. It might not turn out that way of course, we'll find out next off-season.

White. Williams. Giddey. Matas. Ayo. Phillips. Terry. Williams. Smith. THT. Sanogo. 11 guys under 25 ... young assets. How many more would you like them to obtain?

Of these guys only Matas is a high upside guy on his rookie contract. The idea of "young assets" is "high upside young assets that might turn into stars", not just collecting young players. A guy only counts in this category while you think he still has star potential, of the guys you just named, that's Matas and none of the others, and Matas is at the very fringe of that category.

The strategy of building through the draft is to acquire assets and turn those assets into players of value. The problem isn't that the Bulls need more draft picks or more young assets. It's that they won't use the ones they have. The front office, just like us fans on here, fall in love with the guys they draft and acquire...until they fall out of love, at which point it's too late.

The vast majority of good teams, get a star player in the draft. It is by a million the most likely way you will become a very good team. Very few teams get a bunch of picks then trade them for a star, but sure, it's possible. Typically you get your 1st star in the draft, then 50/50 whether you also get your 2nd star from the draft or trade for them.

Patrick Williams, who couldn't start in college, has "all the physical tools" to be a superstar.

Coby White has a good month and "his handles have improved so much" (no, they didn't), "his defense is so much better" (no, it isn't), "on his way to being an all-star" (no, he wasn't and isn't), "he's better than Lavine" (likely the most ridiculous take of all of them).

I could go on. Ayo and Coby were going to be the next dynamic Starting backcourt. Terry just needs to develop a shot to be an all-star etc.

The point is that every one of these guys should have been, or needs to be, moved while on their rookie contract. 11 young players who should have been packaged with Caruso, Demar and Vuc to get 4 players better than any of those 11.

Provides some of examples of things you think could fit that line. It's really hard to package win now players for better win now players. So packaging those guys with Caruso / DeMar / Vuc is not the type of trade that is almost ever made, the team giving up the better player doesn't want win now players most of the time. Maybe you can make something happen in a 3 way, but it's just not a common dynamic.

So yeah. AKME screwed this up, if that is your point. But thinking the problem is draft picks is IMHO way off base. They have the young assets. They just don't know what to do with them.

They have 0 high upside / likely potential young assets and have acquired 0 of them since they have been here. They have only acquired fringe potential guys. So that isn't what I think they should do. It's like saying a penny and a hundred dollar bill are both money so its the same thing.

They need to make a move that gets this team through a playoff series and become relevant. It's the only way to build out of this situation. Not shed more talent for a couple more "young assets"

They are too far away to get there via trade. That is the problem. Or at least to get there via trade, they'd have to absolutely massively screw over the other team and do it multiple times. Given evidence would suggest we're among the dumbest worst negotiating teams in the league, nor do we have highly coveted assets to illicit a bidding war, and when we did have highly coveted assets (Caruso), we didn't really extract maximal value there either, the idea that this FO will trade its way out of its problems is really hard to swallow, but the reality is regardless of whom our GM is that our present position is not one where trading is likely to yield great results based on the desirability and type of assets we have.

I forgot to add that Donovan should be in this discussion also. But if that Atlanta game doesn't get a coach fired, factoring in his track record to date with the Bulls, then I guess nothing will. He has accomplished nothing positive as head coach of the Bulls. Nothing.

[dougthonus]

I reject the idea that middling young assets can't be packaged in trades with other players. Teams looking for win now players are not philosophically against also bringing in a young prospect who can fill end of bench or 2nd team minutes. And every once in a while this players pan out to be valuable. You don't think Coby and Caruso, if packaged together last season, bring back more than just Caruso?

I don't think any team trading for Caruso last year was going to give you a player better than Caruso, no. The teams that wanted Caruso wanted to win right away, that's why they got Caruso. They want to give up future assets for current assets, not greater current assets for lesser current assets, because that doesn't enhance their chance to win.

You should start with the assumption that trades generally are executed when each side gets similar value. The type of value is typically different, and each side wants a different type of value.

Various types of value might be:
Short or long term financial relief
Short term value
Future (but not current) value
Moving value from one bucket to a different bucket (ie, bigs for guards or defense for offense) (though this trade is the least common type of trade)

If you want current value back, then its hard to improve it by sending current value out, because both teams would fundamentally both need to think the other is misevaluating their guy unless you are in the moving value from one bucket to another, like moving Caruso for a PF to a team that has a ton of bigs, but that trade is also not super common.

[League Circles]

I don't really know what you're trying to say here. An enormous number of fans here are absolutely insistent that we become worse, and for multiple years, expressly because we MUST "build through the draft" and because the only plausible way to do that is by tanking to get high picks.

You've been arguing primarily with me in this thread, and I have not used the word tank, nor have I suggested tanking. I've suggested trading your players when their cost structure no longer provides an advantage to you or when they don't fit your timeline. I don't think we should just try to be as bad as possible until we land a star.

Being really bad might be part of what you're doing for a period, but the most important thing is to do what OKC did, which is load up on a ton of picks and give yourself many chances and recognize when players don't fit into your future and trade them earlier for more rather than after they decline for less or nothing. You hope one of those guys turns into a star and a bunch of others into starting caliber guys, but the keys are the volume of chances, recognizing when to pivot, and maximizing the value when you pivot.

Well, my posts certainly weren't all directed to you, and/or expanded on your points, but the premise of the thread is that we need "top 10 picks". OKC, IMO, is not really where they are because they got a bunch of picks. IMO, they are where they are because they drafted one of the very best players in the league...... At #11! I personally don't think anybody else on their roster is very special. And that's not as rare as you think. Bulls have been #1 in the league multiple times with 1 or even 0 special players.

Then in addition to top 10 picks clearly not being requisite for success, I also am not aware of any opportunity that we've had to trade any of our guys for any top 10 picks. If we could have, I probably would have been in favor, but IIRC it's all been crap picks.

Josh Giddey, even for just one year before we need to decide on him, is a MUCH better prospect than we've passed on. He was a #6 pick who became a starter for a very good team and produced about as much as he could in his role. I still have never expected him to be what we want, but it at least had/has a decent chance of happening.

I would rather have truly talented players with undesirable contract statuses like Giddey, Zach, Ball, and even Coby, and hope to find a way to make that work, than just collect a large quantity of non-top 10 picks (in contrast to the original post which measures top 10 picks that we've never been offered). Roster spots are limited and IMO having too many super young guys on a roster is a real risk to ruin guys that could have been good.

[sco]

Again, in terms of where we are "on the road", I start with the undisputed fact that we still don't have a #1 option. Off the top of my head, other teams that don't arguably have one are (I'll give some teams like CHA and ATL credit with young stars):

WAS
MIA
DET
IND
BKN
SAC
UTA

Of those, only IND and SAC are trying to go forward without one.

[jnrjr79]

I mean, we would easily have been in a worse position than we are now if we hadn't traded Caruso for Giddey.

If we had traded him a year a go for two 1st rounders, we'd might be in a better position towards building a good team, because we'd have fewer wins this year, keep our pick in an elite draft and have more assets to build with going forward.

Granted, if Giddey becomes a player whose value exceeds his contract by a good amount next year, that might no longer be true, we'll have to see if Giddey is a value add long term which is unknowable now.

How do you sleep at night with this mindset. It's not fun

There’s a reason intelligence and depression are correlated.

[jnrjr79]

There's no way Caruso picks Chicago over a contender for the same money, $20M. He has no love for Chicago, he came here from LA because we offered the most money. He even offered to stay with LA for LESS money than we offered, LA still said no. He basically got the door shut on him and he landed here.

Same situation in his next FA, why would he stay with a bad team when he can sign with a contending team for $20M. People might say "oh well contenders don't have cap space," cap space has never stopped trades. We would have S&T'd him to a destination for 2030 2nd rounder and cash. That's basically what we got for facilitating the Derozan trade, 2nd rounders & cash. People said the same thing about Derozan in FA, playoff teams don't have cap space. Irrelevant, always has been.

The only way Caruso stays in Chicago is for the same reason he ended up in Chicago in the first place, we massively outbid everyone else. To reiterate, he was willing to sign for less for a contender than take the Chicago offer. So to stay with Chicago we'd have to give him $25M if a contender is willing to S&T him for him $20M? When you're giving a 30 year old bench player even a great one $25M+, it's not a smart move anymore.

The decision to get something for AC before he moves on was a good one, even from my perspective as a FO hater.

No, this isn’t true. Caruso signed what was his maximum extension, which is what Chicago also could have offered. The Bulls could not have offered a $25M/year extension.