sco wrote:Infinity2152 wrote:sco wrote:If the Bulls' FO wants to contend without tanking (them, not me), then they need to free up enough cap space to sign 2 MAX players to become our new #1/#2 options. If we didn't sign Pat, we would be closer than we'd otherwise be...especially after Ball expires, and if we trade Zach/Vuc.
Isn't it INCREDIBLY rare for any team to sign two max free agents at the same time? Then you have to have two max free agents that not only want to come to your team, which probably sucks since you have so much cap, but also fit together. Then how many max free agents are actually number 1 options? Maybe 1 or 2 a year at most? We're more likely to get that player in trade than FA, and I think Pat holds more value than say $25 mill in expirings to a team that's trading a max player (probably rebuilding). Like Zach, Vuc, and Debo would all be considered max/near max players at some points.
Looking at potential free agents this summer, what two max do we sign if we have the money? Do they both choose Chicago with no Zach, Lonzo, or Pat? If neither is a 1A, we're back in the same boat.
Top available max free agents this summer look like Brandon Ingram, Julius Randle, Jimmy Butler. Which two do you want and are coming? Kyrie and Lebron ain't leaving their teams. Giddey's probably top 5 available, he's already here, and guy's don't want to pay him, lmao! So instead of giving Pat and Giddey $25 mill/ apiece, we give Ingram $50 mill plus?
Look it would take a lot of luck to make that happen, but that's what you're stuck with other than tanking.
The cap space could also be used to get one via trade instead of FA.
That's what I'm saying. Honestly, I look at all these current Bulls as trade assets. Viewed simply as an asset, taking personal opinion out of it, Pat is a 23 year old 6'7 wing forward with good 3 pt shooting and good defense. It's the same with Vucevic and Lavine. I argue with people a lot about their trade value, but I'm really trying to see their value from opposing teams POV. I see media conversations, player interviews, GM interviews where they talk about players, and they care about a lot more than raw statistics. Viewed as an asset, Unless I'm SURE that player is a negative asset, I'd almost never lose a young player I could extend. Say team like Philly would be willing to trade a draft pick(s) and expirings to get help. They'd probably prefer Pat Will to cap space, many winning teams are already over the cap. We complain about him as a starter right now, plenty of contending teams would be fine paying a player like Pat $25 mill as sixth man than some of the guys they currently have. Especially since his value is likely to increase during his contract. Again, I struggle to think of great FA moves by the Bulls for high cost players. We've had max cap space lots of times. we're crying over our draft pick right now after acquiring Derozan in (free) agency, forget the great signing of Ball and re-signing of Vuc. You could consider that a pre-emptive free agency move.
Like I just googled Pat Will's rep, just for giggles. One of the first article I came on was Oct 10th Tribune, which started: "The Chicago Bulls are likely to start one of the most porous defenses in the NBA. If a solution exists, it rests on the shoulders of fifth-year forward Patrick Williams." That's a big statement. When other teams gameplan against the Bulls, are they identifying Pat as the best defender? If they are, if he becomes available, did he stand out more because he was the best defender, or looked like it, pretty much every game. He's a positive trade asset, imo. They could trade him right now for expirings and get at least 1 pick.
I'd certainly think over the next four years, the combo of Giddey and Pat would bring more in trade value than most available much older $50 mill free agents, if we're thinking long term and not just this summer. Bulls clear space for two max free agents this summer, and lose Pat, Gidey and Lavine, it's not going to be pretty.
