NBA Trade Thread #11

[Dan Z]

Like I've been saying for years, losing Lonzo was the biggest killer of the Bulls the last three years imo. Not just losing the player, but the $20 mill dead cap. Not the team construction or Vuc's defense. With $20 mill, we could have mitigated some of that. Having Zion as $40 mill dead cap for 2-3 years right after we get out of this is just a risk I wouldn't take. Zion's not Lebron or Luka or Jokic or Wemby. He's a great offensive player when healthy, but don't know if he's even a 1A who could lead a team to a championship.

Hell, Butler's probably a better gamble for nearly the same money, and more likely to lead your team further then next 3 years. And I don't really want Butler.

Bulls had their chances to retool the team after Lonzo went down but chose to stand pat.

I bet the Bulls would be in a better position right now had they done that. It was fairly obvious that Lonzo was going to be out for a long time.

[prolific passer]

Like I've been saying for years, losing Lonzo was the biggest killer of the Bulls the last three years imo. Not just losing the player, but the $20 mill dead cap. Not the team construction or Vuc's defense. With $20 mill, we could have mitigated some of that. Having Zion as $40 mill dead cap for 2-3 years right after we get out of this is just a risk I wouldn't take. Zion's not Lebron or Luka or Jokic or Wemby. He's a great offensive player when healthy, but don't know if he's even a 1A who could lead a team to a championship.

Hell, Butler's probably a better gamble for nearly the same money, and more likely to lead your team further then next 3 years. And I don't really want Butler.

Bulls had their chances to retool the team after Lonzo went down but chose to stand pat.

I bet the Bulls would be in a better position right now had they done that. It was fairly obvious that Lonzo was going to be out for a long time.

They would have if they parted ways with one of the mid 3 at the time.

[jnrjr79]

I won't disagree that if that's the price, sure, but the NBA has figured him out. He gets blocked a ton. Can't shoot 3's. Only average on defense. He's like THT with better branding.

Have they figured him out? He has career average of 27ppg on 59% shooting despite never really being in shape or particularly healthy.

His career average is 24.6ppg he also averages over his career 38.8 games a season (I excluded the season he completely missed).

He'll never be in good shape or healthy. It's not worth the risk, IMO.

I’m not sure it’s much of a risk if you’re trading players you’re not keeping for him. His contract is non-guaranteed, so pretty easy to see what he can do after you get him in the building and then turn him into cap space if it doesn’t work out.

Let’s say there’s a 20% chance it works out with Zion as a player. Do the Bulls have a better % chance in the draft or free agency of finding a Zion-level player?

[Guru]

Have they figured him out? He has career average of 27ppg on 59% shooting despite never really being in shape or particularly healthy.

His career average is 24.6ppg he also averages over his career 38.8 games a season (I excluded the season he completely missed).

He'll never be in good shape or healthy. It's not worth the risk, IMO.

I’m not sure it’s much of a risk if you’re trading players you’re not keeping for him. His contract is non-guaranteed, so pretty easy to see what he can do after you get him in the building and then turn him into cap space if it doesn’t work out.

Let’s say there’s a 20% chance it works out with Zion as a player. Do the Bulls have a better % chance in the draft or free agency of finding a Zion-level player?

At that price it's an absolute no brainer. Plus it gives the team energy.

Then maybe you find a way to add like a Robert Williams

[prolific passer]

His career average is 24.6ppg he also averages over his career 38.8 games a season (I excluded the season he completely missed).

He'll never be in good shape or healthy. It's not worth the risk, IMO.

I’m not sure it’s much of a risk if you’re trading players you’re not keeping for him. His contract is non-guaranteed, so pretty easy to see what he can do after you get him in the building and then turn him into cap space if it doesn’t work out.

Let’s say there’s a 20% chance it works out with Zion as a player. Do the Bulls have a better % chance in the draft or free agency of finding a Zion-level player?

At that price it's an absolute no brainer. Plus it gives the team energy.

Then maybe you find a way to add like a Robert Williams

I wouldn't mind Isaiah Stewart myself. Him and Zion would help form the Brickhouse Bulls.

[Muzbar]

Have they figured him out? He has career average of 27ppg on 59% shooting despite never really being in shape or particularly healthy.

His career average is 24.6ppg he also averages over his career 38.8 games a season (I excluded the season he completely missed).

He'll never be in good shape or healthy. It's not worth the risk, IMO.

I’m not sure it’s much of a risk if you’re trading players you’re not keeping for him. His contract is non-guaranteed, so pretty easy to see what he can do after you get him in the building and then turn him into cap space if it doesn’t work out.

Let’s say there’s a 20% chance it works out with Zion as a player. Do the Bulls have a better % chance in the draft or free agency of finding a Zion-level player?

I'm actually refusing to get involved in any more Zion conversations, as I think it's absolutely ridiculous, but I like you as a poster so I'll reply to your query.

In this coming draft, probably not, however in the next draft? It's definitely possible, AJ Dybantsa I think is going to be the next big star, Cameron Boozer won't be Zion level but I think he'll be a star also. The 2026 draft is pretty loaded from memory.

As for free agency, you never know what that could yield. It depends on the FA class also.

All options have risks obviously, I just find the Zion risk much higher, the chances of him playing more than half his games isn't high and I'm not a fan of giving lottery picks a team whilst the 'star acquisition' collects his cheque from the bench.

I'm well aware of Zions contract structure, I've read into it, but if it comes to a point where he's unable to stay on the floor consistently and you decide to just cut him lose, then you've lost picks for nothing.

Zion, IMO, doesn't make sense to a team like Chicago, he makes sense for a team with an established up-and-coming core in place that needs that one piece to potentially push them over the hump.

That's my final 2 cents on that subject.

[jnrjr79]

His career average is 24.6ppg he also averages over his career 38.8 games a season (I excluded the season he completely missed).

He'll never be in good shape or healthy. It's not worth the risk, IMO.

I’m not sure it’s much of a risk if you’re trading players you’re not keeping for him. His contract is non-guaranteed, so pretty easy to see what he can do after you get him in the building and then turn him into cap space if it doesn’t work out.

Let’s say there’s a 20% chance it works out with Zion as a player. Do the Bulls have a better % chance in the draft or free agency of finding a Zion-level player?

I'm actually refusing to get involved in any more Zion conversations, as I think it's absolutely ridiculous, but I like you as a poster so I'll reply to your query.

In this coming draft, probably not, however in the next draft? It's definitely possible, AJ Dybantsa I think is going to be the next big star, Cameron Boozer won't be Zion level but I think he'll be a star also. The 2026 draft is pretty loaded from memory.

As for free agency, you never know what that could yield. It depends on the FA class also.

All options have risks obviously, I just find the Zion risk much higher, the chances of him playing more than half his games isn't high and I'm not a fan of giving lottery picks a team whilst the 'star acquisition' collects his cheque from the bench.

I'm well aware of Zions contract structure, I've read into it, but if it comes to a point where he's unable to stay on the floor consistently and you decide to just cut him lose, then you've lost picks for nothing.

Zion, IMO, doesn't make sense to a team like Chicago, he makes sense for a team with an established up-and-coming core in place that needs that one piece to potentially push them over the hump.

That's my final 2 cents on that subject.

In this scenario, I wouldn’t contemplate trading away picks for Zion. I agree that would change the calculus. I’m only for it if you can swap him out for current players you don’t intend to keep. So, for instance, if nobody is going to give you a 1st for Zach but the Pellies would swap him for Zion, I’d do it just to take a look at him and then turn him into cap space if you don’t ultimately believe in him.

[Dan Z]

Bulls had their chances to retool the team after Lonzo went down but chose to stand pat.

I bet the Bulls would be in a better position right now had they done that. It was fairly obvious that Lonzo was going to be out for a long time.

They would have if they parted ways with one of the mid 3 at the time.

I bet they couldve got more for Caruso too had they traded him earlier.

[prolific passer]

I bet the Bulls would be in a better position right now had they done that. It was fairly obvious that Lonzo was going to be out for a long time.

They would have if they parted ways with one of the mid 3 at the time.

I bet they couldve got more for Caruso too had they traded him earlier.

Seeing how many picks Okc has. If they tried a little harder they could have gotten 2 first round picks

[Dan Z]

They would have if they parted ways with one of the mid 3 at the time.

I bet they couldve got more for Caruso too had they traded him earlier.

Seeing how many picks Okc has. If they tried a little harder they could have gotten 2 first round picks

A year earlier I thought they shouldve offered OKC Caruso and Drummond for picks. Both players wouldve helped them during that playoff run.

[sco]

His career average is 24.6ppg he also averages over his career 38.8 games a season (I excluded the season he completely missed).

He'll never be in good shape or healthy. It's not worth the risk, IMO.

I’m not sure it’s much of a risk if you’re trading players you’re not keeping for him. His contract is non-guaranteed, so pretty easy to see what he can do after you get him in the building and then turn him into cap space if it doesn’t work out.

Let’s say there’s a 20% chance it works out with Zion as a player. Do the Bulls have a better % chance in the draft or free agency of finding a Zion-level player?

At that price it's an absolute no brainer. Plus it gives the team energy.

Then maybe you find a way to add like a Robert Williams

Again, it depends on price. At this point, I'd like to see what Coby/Vuc/Pat/POR 1st can fetch us in trade for a high upside guy.

I think Giddey/Zach/Ball/Zion/Smith plus Ayo/Matas might be a very good foundation.

[prolific passer]

Bulls can offer Giddey, Lonzo, and Duarte who all have expiring for Zion. Pels are probably gonna have to throw in a future first though on any deal.

[ChettheJet]

For what it's worth two Fox stories. No trade until the summer. Now the Magic looking at him. Let's play with the latter.

Does the Magic have what SAC would be looking for, in exchange for a star guard? Does the total of Anthony, Harris, Black, Howard, KCP add up to helping the Kings in the long or short term? Enter the Bulls to send Lavine to SAC and take back Isaac, Anthony, Howard and whatever else needs to match from ORL? I personally don't think Demar and Zach is any kind of west coast combo any more than it was in CHI, but big names make more glow.

Ivey out with a broken leg, does DET think Lavine might finish the year and score enough for them to shake up their look next year? The usual THJ, Stewart, out of favor Thompson.


Forget Zion, you know who he reminds me of DeJuan Blair. Short for a PF, but wide, good post game bad knees made him plummet in the draft. So he got picked, got injured and stayed injured , never amounted to anything. Now Zion has actually played some and looks powerful for those few games he's played but he's also got the questionable desire to get his body to where it could excel.

[jnrjr79]

For what it's worth two Fox stories. No trade until the summer. Now the Magic looking at him. Let's play with the latter.

Does the Magic have what SAC would be looking for, in exchange for a star guard? Does the total of Anthony, Harris, Black, Howard, KCP add up to helping the Kings in the long or short term? Enter the Bulls to send Lavine to SAC and take back Isaac, Anthony, Howard and whatever else needs to match from ORL? I personally don't think Demar and Zach is any kind of west coast combo any more than it was in CHI, but big names make more glow.

Ivey out with a broken leg, does DET think Lavine might finish the year and score enough for them to shake up their look next year? The usual THJ, Stewart, out of favor Thompson.


Forget Zion, you know who he reminds me of DeJuan Blair. Short for a PF, but wide, good post game bad knees made him plummet in the draft. So he got picked, got injured and stayed injured , never amounted to anything. Now Zion has actually played some and looks powerful for those few games he's played but he's also got the questionable desire to get his body to where it could excel.

Also, if Detroit doesn't want Lavine or finds him too expensive, one wonders whether they might trade a pick for Coby.

[drosestruts]

Like I've been saying for years, losing Lonzo was the biggest killer of the Bulls the last three years imo. Not just losing the player, but the $20 mill dead cap. Not the team construction or Vuc's defense. With $20 mill, we could have mitigated some of that. Having Zion as $40 mill dead cap for 2-3 years right after we get out of this is just a risk I wouldn't take. Zion's not Lebron or Luka or Jokic or Wemby. He's a great offensive player when healthy, but don't know if he's even a 1A who could lead a team to a championship.

Hell, Butler's probably a better gamble for nearly the same money, and more likely to lead your team further then next 3 years. And I don't really want Butler.

Bulls had their chances to retool the team after Lonzo went down but chose to stand pat.

I bet the Bulls would be in a better position right now had they done that. It was fairly obvious that Lonzo was going to be out for a long time.

I feel like this is revisionist history. It was not obvious that Lonzo would be out a long time.

It was always constantly rumored it would be beginning of the season or maybe Christmas or maybe new years or maybe all star break and then out for a year.

[Dan Z]

Bulls had their chances to retool the team after Lonzo went down but chose to stand pat.

I bet the Bulls would be in a better position right now had they done that. It was fairly obvious that Lonzo was going to be out for a long time.

I feel like this is revisionist history. It was not obvious that Lonzo would be out a long time.

It was always constantly rumored it would be beginning of the season or maybe Christmas or maybe new years or maybe all star break and then out for a year.

You can go back and look at posts here on Realgm. Many people, including myself, said he'd be out for a long period of time. It didn't take much to figure out and we're not the experts.

[Infinity2152]

So the front office should have checked RealGM and ignored what the actual medical experts were saying? Sure they were consulting with top doctors who actually know a lot more than laymen level knowledge about the injury, looking at X Rays, MRI's etc. Actual access to the medical info on Lonzo's specific injury. He is in fact back playing, right? Took longer than expected. Even though most of the people were actually saying he'd never be healthy, not that he would be out for a long period of time. Tons of conversation about medical retirement, IIRC. Be specific when you say "a long time". One year wouldn't have been that bad. Two years, we might still have Debo and look like a decent team. It's still not certain how healthy he'll be. But hindsight is always 20/20 and specifically accurate. Precognition, not so much.

Easy for fans to make predictive guesses based on extremely limited information, no cost if they're wrong. They don't have the same facts on hand that we do, so their decision will be different. What could they realistically have gotten for an injured Ball who might never play again anyway? Use draft picks to move him for expirings? The earlier we do it, the higher the cost, more years left on contract. Cost at least a first, so maybe no Matas right now but we'd have cash to re-sign Debo last summer and no Ball either. We were a mid-team for years, but the worst is almost over and it didn't cost us picks to clear up.

[Dan Z]

So the front office should have checked RealGM and ignored what the actual medical experts were saying? Sure they were consulting with top doctors who actually know a lot more than laymen level knowledge about the injury, looking at X Rays, MRI's etc. Actual access to the medical info on Lonzo's specific injury. He is in fact back playing, right? Took longer than expected. Even though most of the people were actually saying he'd never be healthy, not that he would be out for a long period of time. Tons of conversation about medical retirement, IIRC. Be specific when you say "a long time". One year wouldn't have been that bad. Two years, we might still have Debo and look like a decent team. It's still not certain how healthy he'll be. But hindsight is always 20/20 and specifically accurate. Precognition, not so much.

Easy for fans to make predictive guesses based on extremely limited information, no cost if they're wrong. They don't have the same facts on hand that we do, so their decision will be different. What could they realistically have gotten for an injured Ball who might never play again anyway? Use draft picks to move him for expirings? The earlier we do it, the higher the cost, more years left on contract. Cost at least a first, so maybe no Matas right now but we'd have cash to re-sign Debo last summer and no Ball either. We were a mid-team for years, but the worst is almost over and it didn't cost us picks to clear up.

A good GM would accept that Lonzo isn't coming back for awhile and pivot in a new direction. Even if Lonzo came back a year after he got injured it would take him at least a year (or most of the year) to shake off the rust.

Continuing with Zack/DDR/Vuc, while waiting for Lonzo, didn't work and its no surprise.

[prolific passer]

Regardless of the timing. Bulls should have tried to retool anyway.

[Infinity2152]

So the front office should have checked RealGM and ignored what the actual medical experts were saying? Sure they were consulting with top doctors who actually know a lot more than laymen level knowledge about the injury, looking at X Rays, MRI's etc. Actual access to the medical info on Lonzo's specific injury. He is in fact back playing, right? Took longer than expected. Even though most of the people were actually saying he'd never be healthy, not that he would be out for a long period of time. Tons of conversation about medical retirement, IIRC. Be specific when you say "a long time". One year wouldn't have been that bad. Two years, we might still have Debo and look like a decent team. It's still not certain how healthy he'll be. But hindsight is always 20/20 and specifically accurate. Precognition, not so much.

Easy for fans to make predictive guesses based on extremely limited information, no cost if they're wrong. They don't have the same facts on hand that we do, so their decision will be different. What could they realistically have gotten for an injured Ball who might never play again anyway? Use draft picks to move him for expirings? The earlier we do it, the higher the cost, more years left on contract. Cost at least a first, so maybe no Matas right now but we'd have cash to re-sign Debo last summer and no Ball either. We were a mid-team for years, but the worst is almost over and it didn't cost us picks to clear up.

A good GM would accept that Lonzo isn't coming back for awhile and pivot in a new direction. Even if Lonzo came back a year after he got injured it would take him at least a year (or most of the year) to shake off the rust.

Continuing with Zack/DDR/Vuc, while waiting for Lonzo, didn't work and its no surprise.

Easy to say. Much harder to do. Who are you trading an injured, may never play again player with 3 yrs/60 mill left on their contract? You can't possibly think we would not have had to attach first round picks, maybe 2-3, just for expirings. We certainly weren't getting any players to actually help this team for Ball. Then you give up those picks and Lonzo comes back like multiple doctors said he would. Other team has healthy Ball and our picks, and we have the probable bad contract we had to swallow, along with the expirings. They definitely weren't doing it year 1. Say they do it year 2, give up 2 firsts and Ball, get some crap player and expirings, still probably no immediate cap space. Year 3, we're able to add $10-$20 mill in players to Lavine, Derozan, and Vuc. Are we a great team now? Because we gave up picks to get to this team.

EVERYBODY saying Zach/Debo/Vuc was not a good fit, but because it worked with Ball, they were going to "retool" and find someone else like Ball with that $20 mill?? In all likelihood, not too many players besides Ball could make that team work, he's kind of unique. Not easy to replace a 6'6" high BBall IQ, playmaking, rebounding defensive 3pt shooting PG. We certainly wouldn't be much better than we were anyway, let's not forget Pat and Lavine missed a lot of the last few years too. Keep talking about retooling like it wouldn't have cost picks to move Ball before this year. Do you really think AK didn't want to use picks and move Ball to improve the team and save his job? I'm GLAD they didn't let him. We'd have damn near exactly the same team we have now, and Debo gets re-signed because we won 5 more games with the added "retool" player.

Trading our future for short term gains is how we got here in the first place (picks for Debo and Vuc).