Am2626 wrote:DuckIII wrote:dougthonus wrote:
Just curious if you have always thought this way or came to this conclusion over time. This was my initial reaction to the trade, but it didn't seem widely shared.
Interestingly, the most important of the unlikely dominoes (keeping our pick) moved from need a ton of luck to somewhat reasonable given our implosion and Zach's COVID absence.
I didn’t come out of the gates breathing fire angry, but found it highly questionable because it failed to address our desperate need for a playmaker with limited assets in which to do so later. Specifically, I said we need to land Lonzo or this looks like a bad and restrictive deal.
I realize I have a higher opinion of Lonzo than many Bulls fans, but I still think landing him salvages some issues with this trade.
Regardless, that is a remote possibility. As is the even better outcome, which would be jumping into the top 4.
Summary: I was uncomfortable with this deal immediately because the logic of it was contingent on other uncontrollable, unrealized outcomes. I still feel that way today, but the concern is amplified.
P.S. In fairness, I do have a bias. My view of team building is more in line with Paxson’s anyway. Stay flexible and accumulate assets. Don’t make the “big move” unless it’s a pretty clear path. Many fans don’t have patience for the “flexibility” model and it even became a mocking meme around here with negative connotations. But I’m afraid those fans are about to get a 5 year taste of the downside of the other, long desired, approach. Be careful what you wish for.
I have no problems with the approach of remaining flexible but for whatever reason the prior regime never used that flexibility. They just let it expire maybe because they overvalued their guys, were too risk adverse, etc. Something different needed to be done and with a guy like LaVine on your roster I think you have to try and work with what you have rather then blow this thing up again. I think the Bulls would have lost a lot of fans if they took that approach. GarPax were hated amongst most fans and if a new GM came in and continued the same course I don’t think he would have been able to have success. There just has been too much losing and disappointment in the last several years. If this doesn’t work out it’s not like it’s anything new as this organization has been a failure for quite a long time.
Oh, I have no doubt at all that this is a mandate from ownership. Or at minimum was how AK sold himself during the interview process. “I will aggressively overhaul this roster to get this team into the playoffs ASAP.”
That’s a perfectly reasonable and likely 100% accurate explanation for what AK did. But there being an explanation does’t mean it was smart. It just means is was expected or required.
Anyway, as I’ve always said, it can still work out. I just think if you really dig into all the considerations, it’s extremely unlikely and could end up being absolutely devastating to the franchise in the longer term.
