KC: Bulls starting preliminary talk on Niko and Rolo trades; Pg 16: Niko would ok a trade to a contender

[ArizonaBullsFan]

People are ALL like "as long as we pick top-4, we'll have a guaranteed multiple All-Star"... which could not possibly be further from the truth.

THAT was my point, quit worrying about picking #7 or #8 or something, we got lucky getting Lauri instead of Fultz because we were at 7.

Even though almost everyone hated the pick at the time.

These are prospects, teenagers, it's pretty hit and miss, all the mock drafts and guarantees of getting a 10-time all-star be damned. We might just get that guy in the 2nd round, Draymond and Isaiah Thomas and DeAndre and Dennis Rodman and too many others say "hi".

http://www.82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm

http://www.nba.com/magic/gallery/cohen-8ball-history-picking-1-8-nba-draft-percentage-all-stars-1980/

https://scout.com/nba/mavericks/Board/103445/Contents/Odds-of-career-all-star-selections-by-draft-position-102419898

The actual odds don't agree with you. Cherry picking couple of examples is nice and all, but you see how being out of the top 3-5 lowers the odds of landing an all-star.

There is no such thing as a guarantee, but the point is the odds go down the lower you pick in the draft. I'd prefer the Bulls have the best odds of getting a star instead of holding onto easily replaceable role players that could cost us a few spots in the draft order.

Gotta agree here. Just ask the Knicks what it was like to have #8 istead of #7 in 09. It was the difference between Steph Curry and Jordan Hill, who im not even sure is still in the league

But who knows if the Knicks take Curry instead of Hill? Stuff like that happens all the time.

Hell, the Bucks took Dirk and traded DOWN for Tractor Traylor.

We took LMA and traded DOWN for Tyrus.

We traded Brand for #2 and took Tyson instead of Pau.



I appreciate the research from RedBulls, really, thanks.

Having said THAT...

Beech's research is pretty flimsy (as he admits, pts/game + reb/game + ast/game totally ingnores defense, turnovers, efficiency, attitude... but I could even live with that.

The problem I have is that the research is 10 years old. The difference between drafting from 1989-1998 and drafting from 2009-2017. Completely different animals, not only in different ballparks, but different sports, different countries, different religions...

After KG in 1995 and Kobe in 1996, the age of top picks began dropping rapidly. 89-98, most draftees had 2 years of college, and at least close to an equal number had 3.

Nowadays, it's a crap shoot.

I'll bet my left one that the NBA success rates of top-3 or top-5 picks from 89-98 is significantly higher than from 09-17.

You used to tank for a superstar at #1, and you knew going in that lots of these guys were going to be superstars. Shaq, Duncan, Magic, Akeem, hell go back to Alcindor, Walton, Robertson... hell, even LeBron was a pretty sure bet.

It's a crap shoot this year, there's not even a clear-cut #1, and there's no LeBron. There's no AD.

I showed the last 20 drafts of guys no longer on rookie contracts, and each and every year, one of the top 2 picks is a bust. (I left out the last 4, because guys like Ball and Wiggins have quite a bit of growing to do. Who knows, KAT might someday cease being one of the absolutely most horrible defenders in the entire league?

Don't get me wrong, I'd never deny that a team has a better chance of getting a star the higher they pick, it's simple math, they have more players to choose from. But as every year passes, #1 to #5 picks have lower odds of being a superstar, just because they don't have enough of a history.

25 years ago, Giannis doesn't go #15, he's probably #1 overall because he has dominated college ball for 2-3 years.

Give me success from the first 3 players in the rebuild (the Jimmy boys) this year so we know they're good (with plenty of upside) and a #8 pick over those guys not showing much and getting the #4 pick (which is the most statistically probable, even if we lose our last 56 games).

[dice]

Don't they need these guys salary to meet the league minumum?

Is it even worth taking back a bad contract for one of them to have space?

I'd keep RoLo, he seems to be a team leader and our 'vet' presence. Of course that might be the exact reason to trade him so we stop winning games.

No, but don't sweat it, it seems as if at least 50% of this board thinks that.

The ONLY punishment for being under the league minimum?

You give the difference to the guys on your team.

(These are fake numbers)

League min: $100 million
Bulls payroll: $85 million

The 15 guys on the roster each get a $1 million end of year bonus.

Or however they choose to split it up, the exact method isn't written in stone it's up to the team.

ah...I was thinking that the next step in the evolution (devolution?) of tanking might be to sign absolute bums to sizeable 1 yr contracts to get to the salary floor. guess that's not even necessary, huh?

[Phu317]

The team decided on a route this past summer for the future. They should go all in. You can’t be reluctant moving forward with your decision. Trade whomever to make sure you are getting the best chances to pick 1st this summer. The only guys on this team that I think we should be kept are Lauri, Dunn, and Levine.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Alcatraz17]

and what happens when he eventually leaves the team? did his making the game easier for them actually develop them as basketball players? will it make them more productive down the road when they're playing with with someone who DOESN'T make the game as easy for them?

making things easier for someone doesn't necessarily aid their development. oftentimes quite the opposite

There are tangible qualities that don't go on spread sheets printable from bballref, Robez is an amazing mentor for young players and he has those qualities in spades.

again, how is he mentoring backcourt players? and who says that he does that well?

there are plenty of vet min players that can effectively mentor. bring kurt thomas out of retirement for god's sake

Ive read it all now...

The idea that trading Lopez will impede the development of Dunn and Lauri is ridiculous. I am a Rolo fan, but I haven't read one person (well now, one) connect the idea of worrying about player development as a result of trading Lopez. Yes, hes a good guy to have around, plays consistent, but getting something in return and thinning out the possibilities of winning 20 plus games this season is a far greater priority then keeping Robin Lopez around for Dunn and Lauri's development for half a season.

I could argue the opposite...that with Lopez out, and Lauri with Niko/Bobby on the floor, this opens up the lane for both Dunn and Lauri to do work inside. There have been plenty of strong moments from both players with Lopez on the bench. I just don't see the case at all.

[dice]

I'll bet my left one that the NBA success rates of top-3 or top-5 picks from 89-98 is significantly higher than from 09-17.

give me two groups of years to compare and i'll do some light analysis. but bear in mind that you can't include the most recent drafts (lower performance numbers due to being early in their careers)

[Peelboy]

and what happens when he eventually leaves the team? did his making the game easier for them actually develop them as basketball players? will it make them more productive down the road when they're playing with with someone who DOESN'T make the game as easy for them?

making things easier for someone doesn't necessarily aid their development. oftentimes quite the opposite

Sometimes (IMO often), allowing youngsters to walk before they run helps them run better in the long run. So allowing them to adjust to game speed/physicality while making it easier on them (limiting their role, getting them easier opportunities, not throwing the entire playbook at them, playing them against subs first) lets them settle into the NBA, develop some confidence and good habits, etc. Then when that is set, upping the ante by starting them, running more varied plays, playing them against 1s, and in your example, working with lower quality screens lets them build on that initial base.

So it ABSOLUTELY helps development to play with guys like RoLo. Now is that incremental development worth the loss of whatever you can trade RoLo for or whatever incremental wins he brings? That's debatable and hard to tell because we don't know much about what he's worth on the trade market. But it's clearly an aid to young players development to have experienced, high character vets who do a lot of the little things to make the game easier for them in their early years.

that makes sense, but it's basically saying that having teammates that are quality nba players helps young guys develop. and if the FO was in the business of providing such teammates right now the team would be much better. if you're trying to help player development via on-court synergy AND you really don't want to overachieve/win meaningless games, the objectives are kind of at cross purposes

Well it's not really binary, it's degrees. It's not like not having Lopez makes the guys flop just like it's not like having him makes them turn out great. Similarly it's not like having v not having him means wins/losses.

Question is what the value of RoLo v whoever else would be in that slot is in terms of development and in terms of wins (and trade value). My only point is that it's not straightforward to say he's got no value in aiding development. I do think that given he is known as a particularly strong screen setter and fundamentally sound player, it's likely that the next guy you'd get is worse at those. I can't say if that's worse enough to make a difference or if that dropoff is enough to add Ls. Personaly, if I got a valuable pick (late first), I'd take it but I wouldn't be dumping him for the first available return whatever that is.

[Stratmaster]

Package Rolo, Portis, Holiday for a short term bad contract and a 2019 first. Get your top 2018 draft pick from tanking this season. Get a top free agent with your cap space in the off season. No need to keep tanking next season. Package the 2019 first you traded for and your own 2019 first to move up into the top 6- 8 in the 2019 draft so you still get your 2 seasons of top draft picks.

Dunn, Lavine, Lauri, Niko, Nwaba, top free agent, and two top draft picks going into 2020. One season tank completed.

Sent from my SM-G920V using RealGM mobile app

[Rerisen]

Are Bulls going to trade LaVine too?

Because if protecting the tank at all costs is the plan, he will definitely be a detriment to it.

Unless they think he is the guy that is going to become the franchise superstar we are going to need.

[GimmeDat]

Are Bulls going to trade LaVine too?

Because if protecting the tank at all costs is the plan, he will definitely be a detriment to it.

Unless they think he is the guy that is going to become the franchise superstar we are going to need.

Lavine was most definitely a play for the future, I don't see that happening, but the way we're built right now, I do think guys like RoLo are more important impact wise right now. He brings an element that would be sorely missing otherwise, with Felicio of all people being the replacement.

I'm with Mark in that it'll hurt the other guys play to move RoLo, but if it's what it takes not to win too many games, you have to do it.

But yeah, Lavine's definitely going to help us when he comes back, so we need to create a bit of a buffer now.

[Dominator83]

http://www.82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm

http://www.nba.com/magic/gallery/cohen-8ball-history-picking-1-8-nba-draft-percentage-all-stars-1980/

https://scout.com/nba/mavericks/Board/103445/Contents/Odds-of-career-all-star-selections-by-draft-position-102419898

The actual odds don't agree with you. Cherry picking couple of examples is nice and all, but you see how being out of the top 3-5 lowers the odds of landing an all-star.

There is no such thing as a guarantee, but the point is the odds go down the lower you pick in the draft. I'd prefer the Bulls have the best odds of getting a star instead of holding onto easily replaceable role players that could cost us a few spots in the draft order.

Gotta agree here. Just ask the Knicks what it was like to have #8 istead of #7 in 09. It was the difference between Steph Curry and Jordan Hill, who im not even sure is still in the league

But who knows if the Knicks take Curry instead of Hill? Stuff like that happens all the time.

Hell, the Bucks took Dirk and traded DOWN for Tractor Traylor.

We took LMA and traded DOWN for Tyrus.

We traded Brand for #2 and took Tyson instead of Pau.



I appreciate the research from RedBulls, really, thanks.

Having said THAT...

Beech's research is pretty flimsy (as he admits, pts/game + reb/game + ast/game totally ingnores defense, turnovers, efficiency, attitude... but I could even live with that.

The problem I have is that the research is 10 years old. The difference between drafting from 1989-1998 and drafting from 2009-2017. Completely different animals, not only in different ballparks, but different sports, different countries, different religions...

After KG in 1995 and Kobe in 1996, the age of top picks began dropping rapidly. 89-98, most draftees had 2 years of college, and at least close to an equal number had 3.

Nowadays, it's a crap shoot.

I'll bet my left one that the NBA success rates of top-3 or top-5 picks from 89-98 is significantly higher than from 09-17.

You used to tank for a superstar at #1, and you knew going in that lots of these guys were going to be superstars. Shaq, Duncan, Magic, Akeem, hell go back to Alcindor, Walton, Robertson... hell, even LeBron was a pretty sure bet.

It's a crap shoot this year, there's not even a clear-cut #1, and there's no LeBron. There's no AD.

I showed the last 20 drafts of guys no longer on rookie contracts, and each and every year, one of the top 2 picks is a bust. (I left out the last 4, because guys like Ball and Wiggins have quite a bit of growing to do. Who knows, KAT might someday cease being one of the absolutely most horrible defenders in the entire league?

Don't get me wrong, I'd never deny that a team has a better chance of getting a star the higher they pick, it's simple math, they have more players to choose from. But as every year passes, #1 to #5 picks have lower odds of being a superstar, just because they don't have enough of a history.

25 years ago, Giannis doesn't go #15, he's probably #1 overall because he has dominated college ball for 2-3 years.

Give me success from the first 3 players in the rebuild (the Jimmy boys) this year so we know they're good (with plenty of upside) and a #8 pick over those guys not showing much and getting the #4 pick (which is the most statistically probable, even if we lose our last 56 games).

I would actually put Wiggins closer to your bust category now. He's an OK player, but was #1 overall and now has a $30 + million a year contract. $30 million for a non all-star I know its hard to consider him "bust", but I would bet that if he were to get put on the trade market today, he would not fetch much for being the type of player he is at that kind of salary.

Somebody earlier in the thread mentioned Bulls Jalen Rose, and to me thats Wiggins. An OK player that doesn't impact winning much and has an albatross contract. We had to give Donyell Marshall on a bargain deal as a sweetener just to get someone to take him on, while also taking on less than stellar deals ourselves (though atleast Antonio and JYD were Pax/Skiles type blue collar players). That's Wiggins in a year or 2. Same impact, and nobody's gonna take him for that kind of $$ without Thibs adding a sweetner

[nomorezorro]

Are Bulls going to trade LaVine too?

Because if protecting the tank at all costs is the plan, he will definitely be a detriment to it.

Unless they think he is the guy that is going to become the franchise superstar we are going to need.

i think it's kind of silly to say "oh, because the bulls are trading worthwhile pieces that obviously don't line up with this team's window of future contention, are they going to trade everyone who doesn't suck at basketball???". there's obviously a line between sensibly building for the future and jettisoning everyone you can to bottom out, and i think most indications suggest the bulls are doing the former

but i am kind of worried the front office will approach this in a facile, binary sort of way -- "these players are older, so we should trade them. these players are younger, so we could keep them."

they shouldn't be trying to dump lavine, but they should be getting feelers on his value league-wide. there are compelling roster-building reasons for trading lavine, if the price is right. there are compelling reasons to trade everyone on our roster if the price is right.

the goal, at this point in the process, isn't building around the pieces we have. it's turning the pieces we have into a winning roster. other than lauri, i have a hard time designating anyone a long-term fixture on this roster.

all that said, i think it's pretty unlikely that lavine or dunn or nwaba command a return that outweighs their value to this team. but the deal could be out there, so the fo has to be seeking it out.

it's easy to trade away the guys you should obviously trade away. if you do it right, though, the real home runs can happen when you trade away the guys you don't want to

[WindyCityBorn]

Are Bulls going to trade LaVine too?

Because if protecting the tank at all costs is the plan, he will definitely be a detriment to it.

Unless they think he is the guy that is going to become the franchise superstar we are going to need.

Absolutely not. LaVine, Dunn, and Markkanen are the core. If they play well it's great for us regardless of the effect on wins. We have to mitigate their performance by gutting the rest of the team.

[ArizonaBullsFan]

Are Bulls going to trade LaVine too?

Because if protecting the tank at all costs is the plan, he will definitely be a detriment to it.

Unless they think he is the guy that is going to become the franchise superstar we are going to need.

i think it's kind of silly to say "oh, because the bulls are trading worthwhile pieces that obviously don't line up with this team's window of future contention, are they going to trade everyone who doesn't suck at basketball???". there's obviously a line between sensibly building for the future and jettisoning everyone you can to bottom out, and i think most indications suggest the bulls are doing the former

but i am kind of worried the front office will approach this in a facile, binary sort of way -- "these players are older, so we should trade them. these players are younger, so we could keep them."

they shouldn't be trying to dump lavine, but they should be getting feelers on his value league-wide. there are compelling roster-building reasons for trading lavine, if the price is right. there are compelling reasons to trade everyone on our roster if the price is right.

the goal, at this point in the process, isn't building around the pieces we have. it's turning the pieces we have into a winning roster. other than lauri, i have a hard time designating anyone a long-term fixture on this roster.

all that said, i think it's pretty unlikely that lavine or dunn or nwaba command a return that outweighs their value to this team. but the deal could be out there, so the fo has to be seeking it out.

it's easy to trade away the guys you should obviously trade away. if you do it right, though, the real home runs can happen when you trade away the guys you don't want to

Lavine, hell yeah he's tradeable for the right package.

There have only been about 10 completely, 100% untradeable players in league history. Just because theoretically, even if you have the 2nd best player in the league, you'd trade him for the best.

The exact number would depend on how many different guys have been the blatantly #1 player in the league. Most of them are untradeable for several years, pretty much until another really special player comes along (someone was #1 in the NBA before MJ) or a young guy passes the aging vet for #1.

Basketball-wise, MJ on the Wiz was pretty damn tradeable.

[ArizonaBullsFan]

I'll bet my left one that the NBA success rates of top-3 or top-5 picks from 89-98 is significantly higher than from 09-17.

give me two groups of years to compare and i'll do some light analysis. but bear in mind that you can't include the most recent drafts (lower performance numbers due to being early in their careers)

Thanks, and no doubt.

In my list of the #1 and #2 picks of the last 20 years where one of them is a bust in all 20 years, I started with the 2013 draft, because anyone drafted after that is still on their rookie deal, presumably still with a good amount of upside. Because they were all drafted as Freshmen or 19-year-old foreign players.

[ArizonaBullsFan]

Don't they need these guys salary to meet the league minumum?

Is it even worth taking back a bad contract for one of them to have space?

I'd keep RoLo, he seems to be a team leader and our 'vet' presence. Of course that might be the exact reason to trade him so we stop winning games.

No, but don't sweat it, it seems as if at least 50% of this board thinks that.

The ONLY punishment for being under the league minimum?

You give the difference to the guys on your team.

(These are fake numbers)

League min: $100 million
Bulls payroll: $85 million

The 15 guys on the roster each get a $1 million end of year bonus.

Or however they choose to split it up, the exact method isn't written in stone it's up to the team.

ah...I was thinking that the next step in the evolution (devolution?) of tanking might be to sign absolute bums to sizeable 1 yr contracts to get to the salary floor. guess that's not even necessary, huh?

Yeah, used to be you had to meet the floor or pay the differnce to the league (where IIRC, the other 29 teams split it up). The change is quite recent, maybe even new to the latest CBA.

[Dan Z]

Very true.

I'd only say that I'm not even sure screwing with Niko's minutes big-time at this point hurts his value much. Teams have had 250 NBA games and several years in Europe to watch Niko, they know what he's all about.

I say the same thing about Noel, he's had lots of NBA minutes, it probably drops slightly because he's played less NBA minutes, but teams know who he is. They can see through DAL screwing with him this season because he didn't sign their 4/70 extension last summer.

If anything, the fact that they were willing to pay him double the MLE last summer tells GMs who aren't brain dead that the Mavs think Noel is pretty good.

Do the Mavs think Noel is pretty good? If they did they'd play him. Right now he's not playing and it's looking like he'll move on to a new team in the offseason.

[GimmeDat]

Yeah, I'm not sure if I agree with the Noel comparison.

Value fluctuates at a very rapid pace in the NBA. There's definitely the angle of Dallas shafting him, but then there's also the talk about his sub-par play, bad attitude and lazy tendencies. How much of it is situation? That's the (multi) million dollar question, but I definitely think teams have soured their views on him because of this whole situation.

Remember, a year ago Noel's value was Justin Anderson and a 2nd. There wasn't much of a market for him. With that baseline he's value would be zilch right now and I have no clue what teams are going to offer him.

He was on my 'throw money at' shortlist before this season, now I'm thinking 'if we draft a big, he could be an affordable and suitable 3rd big option.

[ArizonaBullsFan]

Very true.

I'd only say that I'm not even sure screwing with Niko's minutes big-time at this point hurts his value much. Teams have had 250 NBA games and several years in Europe to watch Niko, they know what he's all about.

I say the same thing about Noel, he's had lots of NBA minutes, it probably drops slightly because he's played less NBA minutes, but teams know who he is. They can see through DAL screwing with him this season because he didn't sign their 4/70 extension last summer.

If anything, the fact that they were willing to pay him double the MLE last summer tells GMs who aren't brain dead that the Mavs think Noel is pretty good.

Do the Mavs think Noel is pretty good? If they did they'd play him. Right now he's not playing and it's looking like he'll move on to a new team in the offseason.

They tried to pay him $70 million over 4 years just 5 months ago, so at least then they thought he was pretty good.

You don't sign a guy for that thinking "we can trade him", because if you think he's isn't good, that's a big contract on your cap.

They have a few reasons to not play him:

- They are tanking, so playing good players can be counter-productive

- If you don't think you can sign him, why bother playing him, develop one of the other 6 C/PF on the roster

- If you're so pissed you know longer want to sign him, develop someone else

- If you still want to sign him, why play him to build up his value

And from what I read on Dallas websites/newspapers

- They are going to give Dirk his 20-25 minutes out of respect, that doesn't leave many C minutes when you have 4 or 5 other centers on the roster

- More than one player has been in Carlisle's doghouse in the past, only to get out of the doghouse and be a major contributor not long afterwards

[Dan Z]

Do the Mavs think Noel is pretty good? If they did they'd play him. Right now he's not playing and it's looking like he'll move on to a new team in the offseason.

They tried to pay him $70 million over 4 years just 5 months ago, so at least then they thought he was pretty good.

You don't sign a guy for that thinking "we can trade him", because if you think he's isn't good, that's a big contract on your cap.

They have a few reasons to not play him:

- They are tanking, so playing good players can be counter-productive

- If you don't think you can sign him, why bother playing him, develop one of the other 6 C/PF on the roster

- If you're so pissed you know longer want to sign him, develop someone else

- If you still want to sign him, why play him to build up his value

And from what I read on Dallas websites/newspapers

- They are going to give Dirk his 20-25 minutes out of respect, that doesn't leave many C minutes when you have 4 or 5 other centers on the roster

- More than one player has been in Carlisle's doghouse in the past, only to get out of the doghouse and be a major contributor not long afterwards

My point is that by not playing him he'll most likely leave in the offseason. Why would he stay? It means that despite the fact that they offered him a 70 million contract at one point that it appears that they no longer want him.

[ArizonaBullsFan]

Do the Mavs think Noel is pretty good? If they did they'd play him. Right now he's not playing and it's looking like he'll move on to a new team in the offseason.

They tried to pay him $70 million over 4 years just 5 months ago, so at least then they thought he was pretty good.

You don't sign a guy for that thinking "we can trade him", because if you think he's isn't good, that's a big contract on your cap.

They have a few reasons to not play him:

- They are tanking, so playing good players can be counter-productive

- If you don't think you can sign him, why bother playing him, develop one of the other 6 C/PF on the roster

- If you're so pissed you know longer want to sign him, develop someone else

- If you still want to sign him, why play him to build up his value

And from what I read on Dallas websites/newspapers

- They are going to give Dirk his 20-25 minutes out of respect, that doesn't leave many C minutes when you have 4 or 5 other centers on the roster

- More than one player has been in Carlisle's doghouse in the past, only to get out of the doghouse and be a major contributor not long afterwards

My point is that by not playing him he'll most likely leave in the offseason. Why would he stay? It means that despite the fact that they offered him a 70 million contract at one point that it appears that they no longer want him.

Cool, yeah I have no doubt he's gone. I just misunderstood your point.

I was thinking your main point was that "Do the Mavs think Noel is pretty good? If they did they'd play him", so I was responding with why they wouldn't play him, even if they think he's pretty good.

It seems as if they think he's pretty good, hence the contract offer last summer, but they don't care to pay him a penny more, hence the DNP-CDs he's racking up this year.