Time to say NO to NikO? - update Niko signed 2/27

[MrSparkle]

I don't want to watch Niko walk, but I think they acted too late.

He makes zero sense with the tank plan, especially since Lauri and Portis will benefit the Bulls far more from any development.

[JeremyB0001]

At this point you have to wonder what the plan is for Niko's agent?

I guess just play chicken till the last minute to see if Bulls will up the offer? If not, just take the QO?

With how things are playing out, Niko's best bet would be taking the QO.

The worst case (for Niko) is to take the offer which is currently on the table, which I'm assuming is a Bulls friendly contract 3 years 30-40 million range and just suck it up for the duration of that contract.

Either way, I think the Bulls win out because it looks like we have all the leverage right now, and the longer this drags on then less leverage Niko will continue to have.

Not many teams have money next off-season either.

His agent may have dropped the ball for Niko on this one.

I don't think that a three-year deal for $30 to $36 million (I'd be surprised if the Bulls offer $40 million) would be a bad outcome for Mirotic. Sure, there's a decent chance he'll get a better offer a year from now because he would be an unrestricted free agent and he might be coming off a better season. But that's hardly guaranteed. He might have a poor season, get injured, or see the market dry up on him again with so little available cap space. If he takes the qualifying offer over three years, $36 million and something catastrophic happens, he's cost himself $23 million. And as we've discussed, the assumption doesn't always hold that, for free agents, it's all about money or, maybe also the basketball situation. Unlike the average player coming off of his first contract, Mirotic has already banked something like $25 to $30 million in his career. He may care more about keeping his family in Chicago than squeezing out an extra $5 or $10 million over the course of his playing career.

Mirotic in mind wouldn't it be better for him to sign a 1 year deal with another team than here? He'd get a new start and could be on a team better suited for him and raise his value significantly. I just don't think him signing here will help his career especially when he could be replaced in the draft if Bulls decide to go for a center.

He can't sign a one-year contract with another team unless the Bulls let him and that's not going to happen.

[JeremyB0001]

If you're the Bulls and trying to do 2 things - develop youth and lose, why would you give minutes to Niko on a 1 year deal (who turned down your offer)?

I think it was League Circles who mentioned that benching Mirotic because he accepted the Qualifying Offer might start up a beef with the Players Association. They might even be able to file a successful grievance. You're not supposed to punish employees for pursuing their rights under the CBA.

QO is worst solution for Niko. If he doesn't want Bull's offer, I think he'd be better off asking them to withdraw it and let him go - they probably would.

Why on earth would the Bulls do that?

[JeremyB0001]

I don't want to watch Niko walk, but I think they acted too late.

He makes zero sense with the tank plan, especially since Lauri and Portis will benefit the Bulls far more from any development.

I disagree with two underlying assumptions here. One is that the Bulls with Mirotic are in danger of winning too many games. Kevin Pelton's projection system has the Bulls with Mirotic within 1.5 wins of the worst record in the NBA, i.e., they're projected to be essentially as bad as any team in the league. That's bad enough. It's doubly true, when you have the (former) DX guys saying that there are currently seven (!) players in the mix to get drafted first. The other questionable assumption IMO is that the more minutes the Bulls give to Portis and Markkanen, the better it will be for the team. Once a young player gets around 20 MPG, I think it's entirely debatable whether additional minutes help at all with his development. In fact, I think one could even make reasonable arguments that, past that point, additional minutes hurt the player because it might mean less accountability, more minutes played while fatigued, which can lead to injury, etc.

[League Circles]

I don't want to watch Niko walk, but I think they acted too late.

He makes zero sense with the tank plan, especially since Lauri and Portis will benefit the Bulls far more from any development.

I disagree with two underlying assumptions here. One is that the Bulls with Mirotic are in danger of winning too many games. Kevin Pelton's projection system has the Bulls with Mirotic within 1.5 wins of the worst record in the NBA, i.e., they're projected to be essentially as bad as any team in the league. That's bad enough. It's doubly true, when you have the (former) DX guys saying that there are currently seven (!) players in the mix to get drafted first. The other questionable assumption IMO is that the more minutes the Bulls give to Portis and Markkanen, the better it will be for the team. Once a young player gets around 20 MPG, I think it's entirely debatable whether additional minutes help at all with his development. In fact, I think one could even make reasonable arguments that, past that point, additional minutes hurt the player because it might mean less accountability, more minutes played while fatigued, which can lead to injury, etc.

I think it's literally impossible to say what number of minutes will help or hurt any player's development. IMO, any given player may be best developed by giving him a short leash, making him earn every minute, etc. Another given player may be best served by total forgiveness, entitlement starting level minutes (35 mpg or so) to encourage him to play as aggressively as possible.

Doing the best job to determine who benefits from what approach is a core job of the head coach, and not easy IMO.

[JeremyB0001]

I think it's literally impossible to say what number of minutes will help or hurt any player's development. IMO, any given player may be best developed by giving him a short leash, making him earn every minute, etc. Another given player may be best served by total forgiveness, entitlement starting level minutes (35 mpg or so) to encourage him to play as aggressively as possible.

Doing the best job to determine who benefits from what approach is a core job of the head coach, and not easy IMO.

Yeah, I totally agree that the amount of playing time that will help a player to develop best has to be determined on a case-by-case basis. It's why I'm shocked to see so many people say, "Well, obviously, it will be better for the development of Markkanen and Portis if they don't have to compete with Mirotic for minutes." I think that statement could be true and the opposite could very well be true.

[sco]

If you're the Bulls and trying to do 2 things - develop youth and lose, why would you give minutes to Niko on a 1 year deal (who turned down your offer)?

I think it was League Circles who mentioned that benching Mirotic because he accepted the Qualifying Offer might start up a beef with the Players Association. They might even be able to file a successful grievance. You're not supposed to punish employees for pursuing their rights under the CBA.

QO is worst solution for Niko. If he doesn't want Bull's offer, I think he'd be better off asking them to withdraw it and let him go - they probably would.

Why on earth would the Bulls do that?

They wouldn't be punishing him because he accepted the QO, they would be giving minutes to players who they are trying to develop for the future. Also, there is value in finishing dead last in that you are guaranteed a top 4 pick.

To you second point, the Bulls would let him out if he was otherwise going to sign the QO because they would rather develop the other guys and to avoid situation above (out of respect). He wouldn't be tradable anyway.

[League Circles]

I think it's literally impossible to say what number of minutes will help or hurt any player's development. IMO, any given player may be best developed by giving him a short leash, making him earn every minute, etc. Another given player may be best served by total forgiveness, entitlement starting level minutes (35 mpg or so) to encourage him to play as aggressively as possible.

Doing the best job to determine who benefits from what approach is a core job of the head coach, and not easy IMO.

Yeah, I totally agree that the amount of playing time that will help a player to develop best has to be determined on a case-by-case basis. It's why I'm shocked to see so many people say, "Well, obviously, it will be better for the development of Markkanen and Portis if they don't have to compete with Mirotic for minutes." I think that statement could be true and the opposite could very well be true.

Yeah, with one caveat. I like a young rebuilding team like this to be arranged such that if everyone does their job, there is a role for them. I think young guys start to have their talents get lost in the mix if they are aware that they may not play even if they do well due to what other guys are doing. Generally teams won't play 3 guys at a position with regularity in the NBA. And we have 5 bigs with Niko, 4 of which are younger guys. So if Bobby or Lauri starts as the 5th big, and does what they are told, yet Lopez (and the other 3 younger guys) also do all of what they're told, and the Bulls keep Lopez in the rotation to keep up his trade value, to me that's a problem. My ideal big man situation is to have Cris, Niko, Lauri and Bobby compete for all 4 roles (starter and backup at the 4 and 5 spots). I don't like the possibility that there almost must be an odd man out.

[JeremyB0001]

They wouldn't be punishing him because he accepted the QO, they would be giving minutes to players who they are trying to develop for the future. Also, there is value in finishing dead last in that you are guaranteed a top 4 pick.

Somehow, I think the Bulls would prefer to avoid having an arbitrator decide whether those are winning arguments.

To you second point, the Bulls would let him out if he was otherwise going to sign the QO because they would rather develop the other guys and to avoid situation above (out of respect). He wouldn't be tradable anyway.

How would the Bulls know that he was going to sign the QO? If the answer is "Because Mirotic's agent told them so," I'd sure love to negotiate a deal with you.

[JeremyB0001]

I think it's literally impossible to say what number of minutes will help or hurt any player's development. IMO, any given player may be best developed by giving him a short leash, making him earn every minute, etc. Another given player may be best served by total forgiveness, entitlement starting level minutes (35 mpg or so) to encourage him to play as aggressively as possible.

Doing the best job to determine who benefits from what approach is a core job of the head coach, and not easy IMO.

Yeah, I totally agree that the amount of playing time that will help a player to develop best has to be determined on a case-by-case basis. It's why I'm shocked to see so many people say, "Well, obviously, it will be better for the development of Markkanen and Portis if they don't have to compete with Mirotic for minutes." I think that statement could be true and the opposite could very well be true.

Yeah, with one caveat. I like a young rebuilding team like this to be arranged such that if everyone does their job, there is a role for them. I think young guys start to have their talents get lost in the mix if they are aware that they may not play even if they do well due to what other guys are doing. Generally teams won't play 3 guys at a position with regularity in the NBA. And we have 5 bigs with Niko, 4 of which are younger guys. So if Bobby or Lauri starts as the 5th big, and does what they are told, yet Lopez (and the other 3 younger guys) also do all of what they're told, and the Bulls keep Lopez in the rotation to keep up his trade value, to me that's a problem. My ideal big man situation is to have Cris, Niko, Lauri and Bobby compete for all 4 roles (starter and backup at the 4 and 5 spots). I don't like the possibility that there almost must be an odd man out.

Agreed, except that, if Markkanen gets buried as the fifth big man, I would blame that on Hoiberg more than roster construction. It's atypical to play five bigs but it's entirely doable, especially in a situation like this one where anything goes because the Bulls are rebuilding/tanking and there's no star big man on the roster. I'm also not sure that I agree that it would be a disaster for Portis to be out of the rotation for a while. He's a mediocre enough prospect that I don't think that the Bulls need to bend over backwards to give him a roster spot and it would be worth it to bury him for a while if it maximized the trade value for Lopez or Mirotic.

[League Circles]

Yeah, I totally agree that the amount of playing time that will help a player to develop best has to be determined on a case-by-case basis. It's why I'm shocked to see so many people say, "Well, obviously, it will be better for the development of Markkanen and Portis if they don't have to compete with Mirotic for minutes." I think that statement could be true and the opposite could very well be true.

Yeah, with one caveat. I like a young rebuilding team like this to be arranged such that if everyone does their job, there is a role for them. I think young guys start to have their talents get lost in the mix if they are aware that they may not play even if they do well due to what other guys are doing. Generally teams won't play 3 guys at a position with regularity in the NBA. And we have 5 bigs with Niko, 4 of which are younger guys. So if Bobby or Lauri starts as the 5th big, and does what they are told, yet Lopez (and the other 3 younger guys) also do all of what they're told, and the Bulls keep Lopez in the rotation to keep up his trade value, to me that's a problem. My ideal big man situation is to have Cris, Niko, Lauri and Bobby compete for all 4 roles (starter and backup at the 4 and 5 spots). I don't like the possibility that there almost must be an odd man out.

Agreed, except that, if Markkanen gets buried as the fifth big man, I would blame that on Hoiberg more than roster construction. It's atypical to play five bigs but it's entirely doable, especially in a situation like this one where anything goes because the Bulls are rebuilding/tanking and there's no star big man on the roster. I'm also not sure that I agree that it would be a disaster for Portis to be out of the rotation for a while. He's a mediocre enough prospect that I don't think that the Bulls need to bend over backwards to give him a roster spot and it would be worth it to bury him for a while if it maximized the trade value for Lopez or Mirotic.

But I'm talking about a scenario where Bobby isn't a mediocre prospect, but rather a guy who is doing what he's supposed to, playing well, etc. I'm not saying that will be the case. Almost certainly, one of the 5 or one of the 4 younger guys more accurately will not do what they're supposed to. I think Niko will sign a deal with us (not the QO), which basically means he and Cris are rotation locks. If Lauri looks really good and Lopez is doing his thing, I can easily see a doing-what-he's-supposed-to-and-looking-good Portis be squeezed out with a rotation like this:

5: Cris 26, Lauri 10, Lopez 12
4: Niko 32, Lauri 16

In general, there is room for 3 really good players at the 4/5, or 4 normal level, or maybe 5 bad guys (so you can experiment for ways to improve).

This is partly why I didn't care about selling #35. I simply don't want any more young guys. I don't think any team should have more than 2 per position for a total of 10. They've got to know that they control their own destiny IMO. And that's only possible when, if you do everything you're supposed to, you know you'll at least get a 12-20 mpg backup role.

Of course, I'm hoping that we have a magical Lopez trade lined up for if/when Niko signs. We'll see.

[JeremyB0001]

Yeah, with one caveat. I like a young rebuilding team like this to be arranged such that if everyone does their job, there is a role for them. I think young guys start to have their talents get lost in the mix if they are aware that they may not play even if they do well due to what other guys are doing.

Sure but this raises a chicken-or-the-egg problem, right? You're saying that Portis might struggle because he's the fifth big man. So the Bulls can't wait to see whether he does everything he's supposed to and plays well because he might not do those things because he's the fifth big. That would mean that the Bulls have to make him the fourth big to know what they have with him. What I'm saying is that I don't think Portis is worth doing that.

[League Circles]

Sure but this raises a chicken-or-the-egg problem, right? You're saying that Portis might struggle because he's the fifth big man. So the Bulls can't wait to see whether he does everything he's supposed to and plays well because he might not do those things because he's the fifth big. That would mean that the Bulls have to make him the fourth big to know what they have with him. What I'm saying is that I don't think Portis is worth doing that.

For a normal, non tanking team, I 100% agree with you on Portis. However, the whole purpose right now is to leave no stone unturned, and, if that process results in losing more games, all the better. Lopez is stone turned. Portis is largely a stone unturned due to his age and inexperience (I guess his college system was a total joke).

Yes, Portis might struggle because he's the fifth big (I believe some guys are like that for sure - their anxiety about getting lost in a large shuffle causes them to play more poorly than they would if they knew they were going to be playing - IDK if Bobby is a guy like this or not). Even if not, if he's not stuggling because he's the 5th big, him not getting PT because he's the 5th big is problematic for the Bulls because it limits his trade value. And make no mistake, if he's a good shooting, rebounding, running big man on a rookie deal with good size, good motor, he will have trade value. Value that we desperately need.

But I'm mostly just describing why I don't like this situation. Other than trading Lopez, I just don't think there is much we can do about it.

Worst case, what I'd like to see, if all 5 guys are playing well which wouldn't shock me (I'm much higher on our bigs than our perimeter guys), I'd like to see a platoon among two of them, where instead of say playing Lauri and Bobby 10 mpg each every night, they rotate nights at 20 mpg.

But if all 5 are here, and it's even close to debatable that Lopez is the worst of the 5, which I also think is definitely possible, I would bench him. Which really, really sucks, cause then he's pure dead weight for two years IMO.

And THIS is why the Derrick Rose trade was so dumb for the Bulls. Locking an average team into an average center for 3 years. SMH

[sco]

Sure but this raises a chicken-or-the-egg problem, right? You're saying that Portis might struggle because he's the fifth big man. So the Bulls can't wait to see whether he does everything he's supposed to and plays well because he might not do those things because he's the fifth big. That would mean that the Bulls have to make him the fourth big to know what they have with him. What I'm saying is that I don't think Portis is worth doing that.

For a normal, non tanking team, I 100% agree with you on Portis. However, the whole purpose right now is to leave no stone unturned, and, if that process results in losing more games, all the better. Lopez is stone turned. Portis is largely a stone unturned due to his age and inexperience (I guess his college system was a total joke).

Yes, Portis might struggle because he's the fifth big (I believe some guys are like that for sure - their anxiety about getting lost in a large shuffle causes them to play more poorly than they would if they knew they were going to be playing - IDK if Bobby is a guy like this or not). Even if not, if he's not stuggling because he's the 5th big, him not getting PT because he's the 5th big is problematic for the Bulls because it limits his trade value. And make no mistake, if he's a good shooting, rebounding, running big man on a rookie deal with good size, good motor, he will have trade value. Value that we desperately need.

But I'm mostly just describing why I don't like this situation. Other than trading Lopez, I just don't think there is much we can do about it.

Worst case, what I'd like to see, if all 5 guys are playing well which wouldn't shock me (I'm much higher on our bigs than our perimeter guys), I'd like to see a platoon among two of them, where instead of say playing Lauri and Bobby 10 mpg each every night, they rotate nights at 20 mpg.

But if all 5 are here, and it's even close to debatable that Lopez is the worst of the 5, which I also think is definitely possible, I would bench him. Which really, really sucks, cause then he's pure dead weight for two years IMO.

And THIS is why the Derrick Rose trade was so dumb for the Bulls. Locking an average team into an average center for 3 years. SMH

Here's the thing, we have 3 guys who are all stretch bigs and I think you can't really play any two of Niko, Bobby or Lauri together. You need a rim/paint protector alongside any of them. Others may disagree, but to develop guys, you need the right guys playing the right positions or you can't really see what you have.

I admit that it is possible we haven't seen the best version of Niko. I hope we haven't seen the best version of Bobby. But I know I am willing to sacrifice either of them to make sure Lauri gets every possible second he can earn. To that end, I think it is best for the team if we don't keep both Bobby or Niko, and if they sign Niko, I hope they can convert Bobby into another asset before his value plummets.

[League Circles]

Sure but this raises a chicken-or-the-egg problem, right? You're saying that Portis might struggle because he's the fifth big man. So the Bulls can't wait to see whether he does everything he's supposed to and plays well because he might not do those things because he's the fifth big. That would mean that the Bulls have to make him the fourth big to know what they have with him. What I'm saying is that I don't think Portis is worth doing that.

For a normal, non tanking team, I 100% agree with you on Portis. However, the whole purpose right now is to leave no stone unturned, and, if that process results in losing more games, all the better. Lopez is stone turned. Portis is largely a stone unturned due to his age and inexperience (I guess his college system was a total joke).

Yes, Portis might struggle because he's the fifth big (I believe some guys are like that for sure - their anxiety about getting lost in a large shuffle causes them to play more poorly than they would if they knew they were going to be playing - IDK if Bobby is a guy like this or not). Even if not, if he's not stuggling because he's the 5th big, him not getting PT because he's the 5th big is problematic for the Bulls because it limits his trade value. And make no mistake, if he's a good shooting, rebounding, running big man on a rookie deal with good size, good motor, he will have trade value. Value that we desperately need.

But I'm mostly just describing why I don't like this situation. Other than trading Lopez, I just don't think there is much we can do about it.

Worst case, what I'd like to see, if all 5 guys are playing well which wouldn't shock me (I'm much higher on our bigs than our perimeter guys), I'd like to see a platoon among two of them, where instead of say playing Lauri and Bobby 10 mpg each every night, they rotate nights at 20 mpg.

But if all 5 are here, and it's even close to debatable that Lopez is the worst of the 5, which I also think is definitely possible, I would bench him. Which really, really sucks, cause then he's pure dead weight for two years IMO.

And THIS is why the Derrick Rose trade was so dumb for the Bulls. Locking an average team into an average center for 3 years. SMH

Here's the thing, we have 3 guys who are all stretch bigs and I think you can't really play any two of Niko, Bobby or Lauri together. You need a rim/paint protector alongside any of them. Others may disagree, but to develop guys, you need the right guys playing the right positions or you can't really see what you have.

I admit that it is possible we haven't seen the best version of Niko. I hope we haven't seen the best version of Bobby. But I know I am willing to sacrifice either of them to make sure Lauri gets every possible second he can earn. To that end, I think it is best for the team if we don't keep both Bobby or Niko, and if they sign Niko, I hope they can convert Bobby into another asset before his value plummets.

I'm very interested in seeing Lauri and/or Bobby get minutes at C. Sure they won't be good rim protectors probably but they will counter that by bringing the opposing C out to the three point line, so neither team will have a rim protecting big on the court.

[dougthonus]

I don't think that a three-year deal for $30 to $36 million (I'd be surprised if the Bulls offer $40 million) would be a bad outcome for Mirotic.

I haven't paid close attention, but I thought there was a report of the Bulls offering 12M a year in that one that said the sides were separated by 6M or so.

[erlim]

I don't want to watch Niko walk, but I think they acted too late.

He makes zero sense with the tank plan, especially since Lauri and Portis will benefit the Bulls far more from any development.

Skill wise, he definitely fits with the tank plan. He's too mentally weak to help win any games whatsoever.

As a bonus you could run him out of position and make us even worse.

Dunn/Wade/Niko/Portis/Rolo sounds real bad on paper and that's likely what we are running. If we lose Rolo and Wade;

Dunn/Valentine/Niko/Portis/Felicio sounds hilariously bad, and if we decide to develop Lauri,

Dunn/Valentine/Niko/Lauri/Felicio will probably net you a 14 win season. Tank achieved.

Salary may not fit with the tank plan. I honestly don't see him as more than a $10mil a year player, especially with the salary cap going down.

[jnrjr79]

If you're the Bulls and trying to do 2 things - develop youth and lose, why would you give minutes to Niko on a 1 year deal (who turned down your offer)?

I think it was League Circles who mentioned that benching Mirotic because he accepted the Qualifying Offer might start up a beef with the Players Association. They might even be able to file a successful grievance. You're not supposed to punish employees for pursuing their rights under the CBA.

QO is worst solution for Niko. If he doesn't want Bull's offer, I think he'd be better off asking them to withdraw it and let him go - they probably would.

Why on earth would the Bulls do that?

I wouldn't, but the reasoning would be to develop Portis and Lauri, which would be defensible reasoning.

[Dan Z]

I'm not a fan of Mirotic, but if the Bulls sign him for a reasonable deal (10-12 million per year) I'd be fine with that. It's not a big enough deal that it will hinder the Bulls going forward and if he does well then the team has him on a good deal.

But I'll add....I'm surprised at how low his trade value seemed to be this past year (didn't the Bulls try to trade him and had no success?).

[Proven_Winner]

I'm not a fan of Mirotic, but if the Bulls sign him for a reasonable deal (10-12 million per year) I'd be fine with that. It's not a big enough deal that it will hinder the Bulls going forward and if he does well then the team has him on a good deal.

But I'll add....I'm surprised at how low his trade value seemed to be this past year (didn't the Bulls try to trade him and had no success?).

The trade value I get because he was expiring but I haven't seen a rumor of interest or offer from any team. Im shocked no one at least wants him on a bench role.