jnrjr79 wrote:DuckIII wrote:Whether we overpaid Derozan or not is irrelevant to whether or not it was a good signing. AK chose an all in path when he traded for Vuc, and god damnit he followed up by actually going all in, bless his heart.
We’re over the cap. Being a little more over the cap is irrelevant unless we ignore meaningful talent upgrades to save money.
The problem with the Hollinger piece is the implied premise is that the goal of NBA roster construction is to acquire a team of players whose performance meets or exceeds their contract. Sure, generally that's good, but the goal of NBA roster construction is to (1)
win NBA games and (2) if you're not a contender, give yourself a path to becoming one.
As fans, we should not care about whether individual players are overpaid, unless it's tying your hands and preventing other, more productive moves. All teams are going to consist of guys you think are worth less or more than their contracts, and a lot of that is just timing/salary inflation. With Derozan, if you agree it at least makes the Bulls marginally better, and particularly if you agree that his contract is not unmovable (which seems like a fair proposition), then who exactly was it the Bulls were supposed to S&T for that was available to them that would have been better?
They don't hand out Larry O'Brien trophies to teams that most accurately line up contract values to on-court performance.
Excellent post, and this is why we won't get any love from media members who are analytically driven. Their kinds aren't wired to think in the same way that a front office would.
The second issue that I've seen discussed across the mainstream media is basketball fit. They keep discussing the fact that Derozan is a mid range shooter only, and this means that he does not fit into any team. I disagree with this adamantly - we've surrounding Derozan by the exact team that he should thrive in. He's gotten so much better as a half court playmaker, as evidenced by his assist numbers and his pick and roll numbers from last year. He'll be surrounding by shooters in Chicago, and I'm excited to see the outcome.
Furthermore, we've simultaneously placed Lonzo in the best possible situation - he essentially is the 4th option when it comes to half court offense, and he doesn't need to create anything for us other than off secondary options. His main weakness is completely negated on this team, and that's exciting. Lavine also has a perimeter star that he can play off of, allowing him to fully be optimized off the ball.
The one guy I'd have to see more of in this offense is Vuc - his numbers are probably going to take the biggest hit from anyone now that he isn't a focal piece any more. We'll have to utilize him in the post, but Derozan's man won't be far behind. I'll be curious to see how the interior post up office plays out this year.
Lastly, the defensive struggles are certainly a valid concern. The media talks about how we won't be able to defend anything, and this is likely to be true to a certain extent. We aren't done in free agency, however, and we have more moves to make as the year progresses.
Though we likely did overpay for Derozan by several million, I'm not sure that it really matters. Do we actually need that cap space or the most draft capital in these upcoming years? Probably not but who knows, we may regret having our assets tied up if a stud becomes available.
