Image ImageImage Image

Marks: Dunn to receive higher QO because he was deemed a starter

Moderators: HomoSapien, dougthonus, kulaz3000, fleet, RedBulls23, Ice Man, Tommy Udo 6 , AshyLarrysDiaper, GimmeDat, DASMACKDOWN, Payt10

User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 46,615
And1: 6,819
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:

Re: Marks: Dunn to receive higher QO because he was deemed a starter 

Post#41 » by dougthonus » Wed Jun 24, 2020 6:40 pm

TeamMan wrote:You've ignored the possibility that they could refuse to give him the QO.

That's 7 Mil that would not be added to the cap.


So? That doesn't do anything for us. We aren't under the cap. We can't take advantage of it. Yes, we might do that, or we might not, but it won't change anything materially with the extra money he'll get.

As far as Dunn's play is concerned, he was a poor SF. I'm not a stats freak but I would guess that he was at least in the bottom 3rd of the league.

If you believe that the Bulls were trying to win games this season, then I have to strongly disagree.


Go ahead and strongly disagree, Dunn had a pretty big net positive impact in on/off numbers and that matched the eye test of him being the most disruptive perimeter defender on the team.

The Gar/Pax FO had made decisions about how the players were going to fit into the Lux Tax projections for the future. In their wildest fantasies they may have also believed that it would help them win games.

But the "Puppet" (AKA Boylen) was clearly being "influenced" to play the players, in the positions, that fit into the Gar/Pax plan.

Boylen made no experiments as coach that did not fit into the Gar/Pax plan. And the end effect was another year of tanking (planned or not).


I literally have no idea what your point is?

Dunn was still a reasonably young player, they tried to move him for a second rounder in the off-season and couldn't, so his value was really, really low. He earned his spot in the rotation by playing better than expected and now looks like a viable role player for a team.

He may stay here or may not stay here, and it probably isn't a big deal one way or the other which way that goes. I'm not sure what you think the Bulls should have Dunn instead. Just played him less so we could keep him for 3M instead of 7M? Doesn't sound like you want to keep him anyway, so why not let him go for zero in either case then?

It's a one year deal that has no cap consequences, because there is no opportunity cost on the cap. The number moves slightly one way or the other but not enough to give us room or push us into the tax, so not sure why anyone would have a strong stance on this unless they're just stuck in some other agenda.
User avatar
TheSuzerain
RealGM
Posts: 12,883
And1: 8,062
Joined: Mar 29, 2012

Re: Marks: Dunn to receive higher QO because he was deemed a starter 

Post#42 » by TheSuzerain » Wed Jun 24, 2020 6:54 pm

Bulls FO would have deserved heat if Dunn averaged 42 starts over two full seasons. That would have been foolish.

But the reduction of the threshold amount to 36.5 obviously couldn't have been foreseen. That's not on them.
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 46,615
And1: 6,819
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:

Re: Marks: Dunn to receive higher QO because he was deemed a starter 

Post#43 » by dougthonus » Wed Jun 24, 2020 7:14 pm

TheSuzerain wrote:Bulls FO would have deserved heat if Dunn averaged 42 starts over two full seasons. That would have been foolish.

But the reduction of the threshold amount to 36.5 obviously couldn't have been foreseen. That's not on them.


Worth noting that had it not been for injuries, he'd have been well above this number either way, but so what? He deserved to start, especially with all the injuries to other players.

I mean I don't know what people think the Bulls should have done? Screw with a guys starts just so you can get a lower QO number on a guy that you probably don't want to keep anyway? It seems like this odd mix to think he's so bad he doesn't deserve the extra money but at the same he's good enough that the difference in this number may make it more likely he leaves. I mean we already tried to trade him and couldn't get a 2nd rounder, so you know that's not happening.

Also, for all the people who are pissed that the FO has a poor reputation, purposefully screwing with a guy to lower his contract value by not starting/playing him so he misses incentives is a great way to ruin your reputation around the league with players. Not sure why anyone would want to screw with guys in the margins in this way, especially when there is no practical impact to the team whatsoever.

Not saying you are doing this at all (you're not), but the complaints seem either agenda driven or out of ignorance of the actual ramifications.
User avatar
TheFinishSniper
Veteran
Posts: 2,930
And1: 2,328
Joined: Feb 02, 2018
Location: Earth
   

Re: Marks: Dunn to receive higher QO because he was deemed a starter 

Post#44 » by TheFinishSniper » Wed Jun 24, 2020 8:37 pm

Doesnt matter AK will not resign him. This gives them even better excuse. We are not in position to give hands out contracts. We first need new coach, new philosophy, we need focus what's the core and who needs to be removed from team and then focus on resigning 12th bench player on good team.
“If you were grading rebuilds and dropped in on the United Center on Wednesday night, you saw one team flying up the court, launching 3-pointers, sharing the ball and generally looking like it was having a lot of fun. And then you saw the Bulls.”
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 46,615
And1: 6,819
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:

Re: Marks: Dunn to receive higher QO because he was deemed a starter 

Post#45 » by dougthonus » Wed Jun 24, 2020 9:11 pm

sco wrote:When is the QO deadline? Oct?


With this off season being all wonky, the dates might not be known, but effectively something like:

Bulls choose to offer the QO whenever FA starts.
Bulls can revoke at any time.
Player has until the season begins to accept.
User avatar
erlim
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,228
And1: 1,457
Joined: Feb 10, 2009
 

Re: Marks: Dunn to receive higher QO because he was deemed a starter 

Post#46 » by erlim » Wed Jun 24, 2020 9:30 pm

Please, let him walk.
Image
TeamMan
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,214
And1: 397
Joined: Dec 11, 2002

Re: Marks: Dunn to receive higher QO because he was deemed a starter 

Post#47 » by TeamMan » Thu Jun 25, 2020 1:10 pm

dougthonus wrote:I literally have no idea what your point is?

As the quote goes "I can't understand why you don't understand".

Gar/Pax wanted desperately to get rid of Dunn, but everything that they tried failed.

They are gone, but there is no way that the Bulls are going to cramp their cap space for him.
dougthonus wrote:Dunn was still a reasonably young player, they tried to move him for a second rounder in the off-season and couldn't, so his value was really, really low.

There was nothing reasonable about him. He was a PG that couldn't shoot in a league that is being driven by PGs who can shoot.

From the second that Coby White was drafted Dunn had no future with the Bulls, but they wanted to try and salvage something of value, but the rest of the league could also see the problems.
dougthonus wrote:He earned his spot in the rotation by playing better than expected and now looks like a viable role player for a team.

He didn't earn it. After both OPJ and Hutch went out with injuries they still wanted to try to showcase him in one last desperate effort before the trade deadline.

IMHO the correct roster change would have been to move Thad Young to SF, bring Gafford off the bench for 10-15 minutes a game and play WCJ for 10-15 minutes a game at PF.

Then (at most) Dunn would have come off the bench as backup SF.
dougthonus wrote:He may stay here or may not stay here, and it probably isn't a big deal one way or the other which way that goes. I'm not sure what you think the Bulls should have Dunn instead. Just played him less so we could keep him for 3M instead of 7M? Doesn't sound like you want to keep him anyway, so why not let him go for zero in either case then?

It's my expectation that the Bulls will draft a SF during the draft. Even if Dunn stayed with the team he would hardly ever get off the bench. Coby will get all of the extra minutes at PG.

If they don't get lucky in the lotto, then maybe Dunn could be put into a package for a trade-up in the draft as filler with a S&T. But they would 1st have to make the QO. And unless there is a deal already on the table, I can't see it happening.
dougthonus wrote:It's a one year deal that has no cap consequences, because there is no opportunity cost on the cap. The number moves slightly one way or the other but not enough to give us room or push us into the tax, so not sure why anyone would have a strong stance on this unless they're just stuck in some other agenda.

7 mil. for a player that will have trouble getting off the bench makes no sense even it the Bulls had extra cap space.

He won't be needed at PG (his defense does not make up for his poor shooting, not for 7 mil.) and actually Archi-D is a better 3rd option because of 3P shooting (and he also has a better A/TO than Dunn).

Meanwhile, the Bulls had to be happy with Adam Mokoka (after the defense that he played against Doncic in the Dallas game) and he comes at a fraction of the cost.

So, no matter how you look at it, Dunn will not be back with the Bulls.
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 46,615
And1: 6,819
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:

Re: Marks: Dunn to receive higher QO because he was deemed a starter 

Post#48 » by dougthonus » Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:14 pm

TeamMan wrote:As the quote goes "I can't understand why you don't understand".


No, literally, I have no idea what you meant. I wasn't trying to be insulting or argumentative. I have no idea what point you were driving at one way or the other.

Gar/Pax wanted desperately to get rid of Dunn, but everything that they tried failed.


They clearly didn't desperately want to get rid of him or they would have. They didn't think he was valuable, they were shopping him for a second rounder. When they couldn't get that, they figured he was more valuable than swapping for dead space and were likely correct.

They are gone, but there is no way that the Bulls are going to cramp their cap space for him.


They aren't losing space. They don't have space. I mean, yeah, they might not keep him, and I'm not saying they should or should not. He's a role player and will be paid a role player salary next year either way. Maybe he's an okay guy to have or maybe not.

There was nothing reasonable about him. He was a PG that couldn't shoot in a league that is being driven by PGs who can shoot.


He was the best perimeter defender on the team by far. Your quote is thinking of him as a starter instead of a niche player.

From the second that Coby White was drafted Dunn had no future with the Bulls, but they wanted to try and salvage something of value, but the rest of the league could also see the problems.


Dunn doesn't have a future as a starting PG anywhere in the league. He won't be paid a starter salary. If Coby White is a starter, the fact that Dunn is or is not here isn't relevant. They aren't competing for the same space, because Dunn isn't good enough. If they are competing for the same space it means White isn't all that successful either and is also just fighting for backup minutes.

He didn't earn it. After both OPJ and Hutch went out with injuries they still wanted to try to showcase him in one last desperate effort before the trade deadline.


Yes, maybe I should be more specific, relative to the options we had to start, Dunn was most deserving and playing the best. I agree that if Porter was healthy all year that Dunn wouldn't start. I do think he pretty clearly outplayed Hutchison though.

IMHO the correct roster change would have been to move Thad Young to SF, bring Gafford off the bench for 10-15 minutes a game and play WCJ for 10-15 minutes a game at PF.


Young can't defend the SF position anymore, he's too slow now, and would have been killed there. That said, I wouldn't have hated this plan either, because it's not like what we did was great and getting Gafford more playing time would be nice.

Then (at most) Dunn would have come off the bench as backup SF.


Which would have been fine (or as backup PG/SG as well).

It's my expectation that the Bulls will draft a SF during the draft. Even if Dunn stayed with the team he would hardly ever get off the bench. Coby will get all of the extra minutes at PG.


Maybe, depends on health, on the roster as it exists today, I think he's better than Hutchison and Arci (though Arci might fill a more valuable niche because of his shooting). I agree Coby, Sato, LaVine, and Porter would all be ahead of him if they remain healthy. Dunn certainly doesn't look to command any significant playing time on the Bulls next year without injuries and for the 7M on the QO is probably pretty expensive relative to his role.

If they don't get lucky in the lotto, then maybe Dunn could be put into a package for a trade-up in the draft as filler with a S&T. But they would 1st have to make the QO. And unless there is a deal already on the table, I can't see it happening.


You can't trade Dunn because he isn't under contract and can't sign a new contract prior to FA starting.

However, this statement underlines your overall contradictory view that Dunn sucks, but maybe someone else values him or Dunn sucks, but now we screwed up by allowing his QO to be higher.

7 mil. for a player that will have trouble getting off the bench makes no sense even it the Bulls had extra cap space.

He won't be needed at PG (his defense does not make up for his poor shooting, not for 7 mil.) and actually Archi-D is a better 3rd option because of 3P shooting (and he also has a better A/TO than Dunn).

Meanwhile, the Bulls had to be happy with Adam Mokoka (after the defense that he played against Doncic in the Dallas game) and he comes at a fraction of the cost.

So, no matter how you look at it, Dunn will not be back with the Bulls.


Again, you don't seem to understand the cap space argument, from a cap space perspective, Dunn at one price vs the next is completely irrelevant. It would be more relevant if the Bulls had space, because then it would count against that space.

I agree, 7M for Dunn is expensive, you'd only do it because he doesn't require an exception and the room won't hurt you. If you let Dunn leave, then you will replace him with a vet min player. Dunn is probably better than the vet min guy that would agree to come here (given the good vet min guys sign on at contenders generally).

Not saying we should definitely keep him, just that hammering away at the 7M number is an irrelevant part of the argument. It doesn't change anything we can do other than save the Bulls cash they can pay out to investors but can't legally put back into the roster. The comparison on court talent wise is Dunn vs a vet min roster spot.

Agree that he probably won't be back, they didn't seem to want him last year, and he's expensive for what he is. It's only a matter of whether or not you like him more than the vet min guy who will replace him enough to spend the extra money or whether you want to save cash. I think it's highly unlikely that Dunn is worse than whomever the last guy to take up a roster spot on a vet min deal is, but I agree that the Bulls may not think he's worth paying 6M in cash to have instead of that guy.
User avatar
rtblues
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,504
And1: 2,278
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Re: Marks: Dunn to receive higher QO because he was deemed a starter 

Post#49 » by rtblues » Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:44 pm

dougthonus wrote:
TeamMan wrote:As the quote goes "I can't understand why you don't understand".


No, literally, I have no idea what you meant. I wasn't trying to be insulting or argumentative. I have no idea what point you were driving at one way or the other.

Gar/Pax wanted desperately to get rid of Dunn, but everything that they tried failed.


They clearly didn't desperately want to get rid of him or they would have. They didn't think he was valuable, they were shopping him for a second rounder. When they couldn't get that, they figured he was more valuable than swapping for dead space and were likely correct.

They are gone, but there is no way that the Bulls are going to cramp their cap space for him.


They aren't losing space. They don't have space. I mean, yeah, they might not keep him, and I'm not saying they should or should not. He's a role player and will be paid a role player salary next year either way. Maybe he's an okay guy to have or maybe not.

There was nothing reasonable about him. He was a PG that couldn't shoot in a league that is being driven by PGs who can shoot.


He was the best perimeter defender on the team by far. Your quote is thinking of him as a starter instead of a niche player.

From the second that Coby White was drafted Dunn had no future with the Bulls, but they wanted to try and salvage something of value, but the rest of the league could also see the problems.


Dunn doesn't have a future as a starting PG anywhere in the league. He won't be paid a starter salary. If Coby White is a starter, the fact that Dunn is or is not here isn't relevant. They aren't competing for the same space, because Dunn isn't good enough. If they are competing for the same space it means White isn't all that successful either and is also just fighting for backup minutes.

He didn't earn it. After both OPJ and Hutch went out with injuries they still wanted to try to showcase him in one last desperate effort before the trade deadline.


Yes, maybe I should be more specific, relative to the options we had to start, Dunn was most deserving and playing the best. I agree that if Porter was healthy all year that Dunn wouldn't start. I do think he pretty clearly outplayed Hutchison though.

IMHO the correct roster change would have been to move Thad Young to SF, bring Gafford off the bench for 10-15 minutes a game and play WCJ for 10-15 minutes a game at PF.


Young can't defend the SF position anymore, he's too slow now, and would have been killed there. That said, I wouldn't have hated this plan either, because it's not like what we did was great and getting Gafford more playing time would be nice.

Then (at most) Dunn would have come off the bench as backup SF.


Which would have been fine (or as backup PG/SG as well).

It's my expectation that the Bulls will draft a SF during the draft. Even if Dunn stayed with the team he would hardly ever get off the bench. Coby will get all of the extra minutes at PG.


Maybe, depends on health, on the roster as it exists today, I think he's better than Hutchison and Arci (though Arci might fill a more valuable niche because of his shooting). I agree Coby, Sato, LaVine, and Porter would all be ahead of him if they remain healthy. Dunn certainly doesn't look to command any significant playing time on the Bulls next year without injuries and for the 7M on the QO is probably pretty expensive relative to his role.

If they don't get lucky in the lotto, then maybe Dunn could be put into a package for a trade-up in the draft as filler with a S&T. But they would 1st have to make the QO. And unless there is a deal already on the table, I can't see it happening.


You can't trade Dunn because he isn't under contract and can't sign a new contract prior to FA starting.

However, this statement underlines your overall contradictory view that Dunn sucks, but maybe someone else values him or Dunn sucks, but now we screwed up by allowing his QO to be higher.

7 mil. for a player that will have trouble getting off the bench makes no sense even it the Bulls had extra cap space.

He won't be needed at PG (his defense does not make up for his poor shooting, not for 7 mil.) and actually Archi-D is a better 3rd option because of 3P shooting (and he also has a better A/TO than Dunn).

Meanwhile, the Bulls had to be happy with Adam Mokoka (after the defense that he played against Doncic in the Dallas game) and he comes at a fraction of the cost.

So, no matter how you look at it, Dunn will not be back with the Bulls.


Again, you don't seem to understand the cap space argument, from a cap space perspective, Dunn at one price vs the next is completely irrelevant. It would be more relevant if the Bulls had space, because then it would count against that space.

I agree, 7M for Dunn is expensive, you'd only do it because he doesn't require an exception and the room won't hurt you. If you let Dunn leave, then you will replace him with a vet min player. Dunn is probably better than the vet min guy that would agree to come here (given the good vet min guys sign on at contenders generally).

Not saying we should definitely keep him, just that hammering away at the 7M number is an irrelevant part of the argument. It doesn't change anything we can do other than save the Bulls cash they can pay out to investors but can't legally put back into the roster. The comparison on court talent wise is Dunn vs a vet min roster spot.

Agree that he probably won't be back, they didn't seem to want him last year, and he's expensive for what he is. It's only a matter of whether or not you like him more than the vet min guy who will replace him enough to spend the extra money or whether you want to save cash. I think it's highly unlikely that Dunn is worse than whomever the last guy to take up a roster spot on a vet min deal is, but I agree that the Bulls may not think he's worth paying 6M in cash to have instead of that guy.

You've got the patience of a saint Doug! ;-)
I think the point is, as you mention, it won't affect them really either way, or the CAP, so....
"I wouldn’t call it a rebuild; more of a retool.” - Gar Forman, June 2016
SfBull
Analyst
Posts: 3,315
And1: 625
Joined: Jan 17, 2011

Re: Marks: Dunn to receive higher QO because he was deemed a starter 

Post#50 » by SfBull » Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:11 pm

I still don´t like his game.Could he improve his offensive game with a better coach?A draft night trade including him could be a good option too.
Little Nathan
Head Coach
Posts: 6,044
And1: 3,626
Joined: Mar 11, 2013
Location: Germany
   

Re: Marks: Dunn to receive higher QO because he was deemed a starter 

Post#51 » by Little Nathan » Thu Jun 25, 2020 6:43 pm

SfBull wrote:I still don´t like his game.Could he improve his offensive game with a better coach?A draft night trade including him could be a good option too.

Not an option since he's a (restricted) free agent.
User avatar
MrFortune3
Head Coach
Posts: 6,145
And1: 1,833
Joined: Jul 03, 2010
         

Re: Marks: Dunn to receive higher QO because he was deemed a starter 

Post#52 » by MrFortune3 » Thu Jun 25, 2020 7:55 pm

It will be interesting to watch his progression this year. If he can step it up on offense, he would be well worth the QO and a potential extension.
Pax for Prez
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,854
And1: 98
Joined: Oct 02, 2005
Location: avoiding the WIFE

Re: Marks: Dunn to receive higher QO because he was deemed a starter 

Post#53 » by Pax for Prez » Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:11 pm

I am not interested in offering the QO to Dunn for 1 main reason ......minutes.

Starter Minutes: Lavine, White, Carter, Markkanen & Porter

Main Backups Minutes: Sato, Young & 1st round pick (TBD)

Remaining Backup Minutes: Gafford, Hutchison then the rest of the bench players.

I would only offer the QO, if you know you can sign and trade Dunn for a future 2nd rd pick (like the Sato trade)

Pax
TeamMan
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,214
And1: 397
Joined: Dec 11, 2002

Re: Marks: Dunn to receive higher QO because he was deemed a starter 

Post#54 » by TeamMan » Thu Jun 25, 2020 10:53 pm

rtblues wrote:You've got the patience of a saint Doug! ;-)
I think the point is, as you mention, it won't affect them really either way, or the CAP, so....

I'll answer you 1st because it's simpler.

His answers are impressive and thorough, but hardly patient.

It's a demonstration of his basketball aptitude, so it requires no patience at all, just the above mentioned qualities and the determination to prove a point.

And of course, the board is watching.
TeamMan
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,214
And1: 397
Joined: Dec 11, 2002

Re: Marks: Dunn to receive higher QO because he was deemed a starter 

Post#55 » by TeamMan » Thu Jun 25, 2020 11:08 pm

dougthonus wrote:
TeamMan wrote:As the quote goes "I can't understand why you don't understand".


No, literally, I have no idea what you meant. I wasn't trying to be insulting or argumentative. I have no idea what point you were driving at one way or the other.

Gar/Pax wanted desperately to get rid of Dunn, but everything that they tried failed.


They clearly didn't desperately want to get rid of him or they would have. They didn't think he was valuable, they were shopping him for a second rounder. When they couldn't get that, they figured he was more valuable than swapping for dead space and were likely correct.

They are gone, but there is no way that the Bulls are going to cramp their cap space for him.


They aren't losing space. They don't have space. I mean, yeah, they might not keep him, and I'm not saying they should or should not. He's a role player and will be paid a role player salary next year either way. Maybe he's an okay guy to have or maybe not.

There was nothing reasonable about him. He was a PG that couldn't shoot in a league that is being driven by PGs who can shoot.


He was the best perimeter defender on the team by far. Your quote is thinking of him as a starter instead of a niche player.

From the second that Coby White was drafted Dunn had no future with the Bulls, but they wanted to try and salvage something of value, but the rest of the league could also see the problems.


Dunn doesn't have a future as a starting PG anywhere in the league. He won't be paid a starter salary. If Coby White is a starter, the fact that Dunn is or is not here isn't relevant. They aren't competing for the same space, because Dunn isn't good enough. If they are competing for the same space it means White isn't all that successful either and is also just fighting for backup minutes.

He didn't earn it. After both OPJ and Hutch went out with injuries they still wanted to try to showcase him in one last desperate effort before the trade deadline.


Yes, maybe I should be more specific, relative to the options we had to start, Dunn was most deserving and playing the best. I agree that if Porter was healthy all year that Dunn wouldn't start. I do think he pretty clearly outplayed Hutchison though.

IMHO the correct roster change would have been to move Thad Young to SF, bring Gafford off the bench for 10-15 minutes a game and play WCJ for 10-15 minutes a game at PF.


Young can't defend the SF position anymore, he's too slow now, and would have been killed there. That said, I wouldn't have hated this plan either, because it's not like what we did was great and getting Gafford more playing time would be nice.

Then (at most) Dunn would have come off the bench as backup SF.


Which would have been fine (or as backup PG/SG as well).

It's my expectation that the Bulls will draft a SF during the draft. Even if Dunn stayed with the team he would hardly ever get off the bench. Coby will get all of the extra minutes at PG.


Maybe, depends on health, on the roster as it exists today, I think he's better than Hutchison and Arci (though Arci might fill a more valuable niche because of his shooting). I agree Coby, Sato, LaVine, and Porter would all be ahead of him if they remain healthy. Dunn certainly doesn't look to command any significant playing time on the Bulls next year without injuries and for the 7M on the QO is probably pretty expensive relative to his role.

If they don't get lucky in the lotto, then maybe Dunn could be put into a package for a trade-up in the draft as filler with a S&T. But they would 1st have to make the QO. And unless there is a deal already on the table, I can't see it happening.


You can't trade Dunn because he isn't under contract and can't sign a new contract prior to FA starting.

However, this statement underlines your overall contradictory view that Dunn sucks, but maybe someone else values him or Dunn sucks, but now we screwed up by allowing his QO to be higher.

7 mil. for a player that will have trouble getting off the bench makes no sense even it the Bulls had extra cap space.

He won't be needed at PG (his defense does not make up for his poor shooting, not for 7 mil.) and actually Archi-D is a better 3rd option because of 3P shooting (and he also has a better A/TO than Dunn).

Meanwhile, the Bulls had to be happy with Adam Mokoka (after the defense that he played against Doncic in the Dallas game) and he comes at a fraction of the cost.

So, no matter how you look at it, Dunn will not be back with the Bulls.


Again, you don't seem to understand the cap space argument, from a cap space perspective, Dunn at one price vs the next is completely irrelevant. It would be more relevant if the Bulls had space, because then it would count against that space.

I agree, 7M for Dunn is expensive, you'd only do it because he doesn't require an exception and the room won't hurt you. If you let Dunn leave, then you will replace him with a vet min player. Dunn is probably better than the vet min guy that would agree to come here (given the good vet min guys sign on at contenders generally).

Not saying we should definitely keep him, just that hammering away at the 7M number is an irrelevant part of the argument. It doesn't change anything we can do other than save the Bulls cash they can pay out to investors but can't legally put back into the roster. The comparison on court talent wise is Dunn vs a vet min roster spot.

Agree that he probably won't be back, they didn't seem to want him last year, and he's expensive for what he is. It's only a matter of whether or not you like him more than the vet min guy who will replace him enough to spend the extra money or whether you want to save cash. I think it's highly unlikely that Dunn is worse than whomever the last guy to take up a roster spot on a vet min deal is, but I agree that the Bulls may not think he's worth paying 6M in cash to have instead of that guy.

I've gone through all of your arguments but will sum up my point that I started out with.

Last season Dunn would have rarely gotten off of the bench except for injuries.

IMO this year the new FO will adjust the roster so that it does not happen again.

So, does it make sense to bring back a player after you've made moves to avoid having him play?

Again IMO, no.

As far as filling the roster spot is concerned, 1st there will be the draft (possibly two new players), and next a decision has to made about Adam Mokoka. Then there could also be un-drafted FAs that the team will look at. In any case, there will be no problem filling Dunn's spot on the roster.

So, I predict that Dunn will not be on the team at the start of the season.

We can talk about cap space, we can talk about his questionable value as a backup player, but I still predict that he won't be on the roster next season.

That is my point.

And time will tell if that is an accurate prediction.
User avatar
Showtime23
Veteran
Posts: 2,993
And1: 914
Joined: Oct 12, 2018

Re: Marks: Dunn to receive higher QO because he was deemed a starter 

Post#56 » by Showtime23 » Thu Jun 25, 2020 11:09 pm

Pax for Prez wrote:I am not interested in offering the QO to Dunn for 1 main reason ......minutes.

Starter Minutes: Lavine, White, Carter, Markkanen & Porter

Main Backups Minutes: Sato, Young & 1st round pick (TBD)

Remaining Backup Minutes: Gafford, Hutchison then the rest of the bench players.

I would only offer the QO, if you know you can sign and trade Dunn for a future 2nd rd pick (like the Sato trade)

Pax



How would you know he will get a 2nd round pick unless you had a crystal ball? Like i said, the only way to guarantee value is signing him to a multi yr preferably less than the qo each yr.

MrFortune3 wrote:It will be interesting to watch his progression this year. If he can step it up on offense, he would be well worth the QO and a potential extension.


Why do you assume he can step it up on offense? The Dunn stans want him to resign for last yr performance for his defense, but his offense actually plummeted in terms of production and efficiency. His offense is so bad even a DPOY level defense is kinda meh.
He is just basically anti AK signing the Bulls should never sign unless they want to get value out of him or if Pax/owner pressures him again to sign him to cover their past failures and have their guy in the roster so AK doesnt get full power.
User avatar
Leslie Forman
General Manager
Posts: 8,288
And1: 3,620
Joined: Apr 21, 2006
Location: 1700 Center Dr, Ames, IA 50011

Re: Marks: Dunn to receive higher QO because he was deemed a starter 

Post#57 » by Leslie Forman » Thu Jun 25, 2020 11:12 pm

If you don't think Boylen's hyperaggressive gambling defensive strategy is sustainable then you shouldn't want Dunn for any price. He's really not a plus in any other situation. I mean, you could have just signed Luguentz Dort to do the same job for next to nothing.
Onibuh
Senior
Posts: 578
And1: 168
Joined: Jun 23, 2017
       

Re: Marks: Dunn to receive higher QO because he was deemed a starter 

Post#58 » by Onibuh » Fri Jun 26, 2020 6:26 am

Ccwatercraft wrote:
Onibuh wrote:I don't think there will be a better PG available for next Season at that price tag. Just Keep him next Season and after that Season, everything goes back to normal (schedules and no more pandemic reasons).

Hire a new Coach, let them evaluate the Players they got from GarPax and go from there. If you can add a valueable piece or two you obviously do it, but with a new FO and Coach after this Situation it's best to just continue the rebuild the way it started.


I hear you but the current roster obviously wasnt a winner. Even 99% healthy i have doubts for .500.

In the end, could we spend that 7mil better? Or does it really matter with our cap situation?

Ps, any valentine rumors or harrison rumors?

same Team =/= same results. This goes both ways.

New FO, new Coach and another Top10 Pick will be added. Let them evaluate the Team and Players, hope for internal growth and I don't think you will get better Players to sign here with that Price tag.

If you trade Lauri, you will get a boost. It did not work and was more a distraction with Boylen.
Wouldn't the Bulls have plenty of Cap Space in the summer of 21 in that case? No Lauri Extension with the end of OPJ-Dunn-Thad-Felicio contracts?
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 46,615
And1: 6,819
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:

Re: Marks: Dunn to receive higher QO because he was deemed a starter 

Post#59 » by dougthonus » Fri Jun 26, 2020 12:41 pm

TeamMan wrote:I've gone through all of your arguments but will sum up my point that I started out with.

Last season Dunn would have rarely gotten off of the bench except for injuries.

IMO this year the new FO will adjust the roster so that it does not happen again.

So, does it make sense to bring back a player after you've made moves to avoid having him play?

Again IMO, no.

As far as filling the roster spot is concerned, 1st there will be the draft (possibly two new players), and next a decision has to made about Adam Mokoka. Then there could also be un-drafted FAs that the team will look at. In any case, there will be no problem filling Dunn's spot on the roster.

So, I predict that Dunn will not be on the team at the start of the season.

We can talk about cap space, we can talk about his questionable value as a backup player, but I still predict that he won't be on the roster next season.

That is my point.

And time will tell if that is an accurate prediction.


If your only point is that the Bulls won't keep Dunn, I agree there's a good chance that's true and haven't really argued otherwise, nor do I think they should or shouldn't necessarily.

There are reasons they might consider keeping Dunn, but none are particularly compelling.

Pros for keeping him:
1: He will almost certainly be better than the player who replaces him
2: Keeping him doesn't prevent you from making any other moves
3: There is no long term commitment, so no future moves are hampered
4: Tiny chance you might be able to move him for something (even if he's just salary filler in a trade)

Cons for keeping him:
1: He will cost 6M more than his replacement in cash (not meaningful in cap room)
2: if you have adequate depth being better than his replacement is irrelevant, because there's no guarantee he's a rotation player anyway and 6M to improve your deep bench is a lot of money
3: His style of game doesn't fit much other than in a deep bench role (presuming he didn't jack up 20,000 threes this off-season and improve his shooting)

I'd agree that it's more likely than not the Bulls will opt to just save the money on Dunn.
sco
RealGM
Posts: 14,803
And1: 3,769
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Location: Virtually Everywhere!

Re: Marks: Dunn to receive higher QO because he was deemed a starter 

Post#60 » by sco » Fri Jun 26, 2020 1:37 pm

IMO, Shaq and Mokoka are resignable on vet min or near vet min deals. Can someone explain what Dunn gives us that those guys don't? Also, I don't think either of those two would belly ache about sitting on the bench, where Dunn is more likely to make noise.

Looking at the roster next season, barring trades, we have

White/Arci
Zach/Sato
Otto/Hutch
Lauri/Thad
WCJ/Gafford/Kornet/Felicio

Plus our picks. That's 14. I could them doing a draft and stash with our 2nd rounder. So I would think they only keep one of Shaq, Mokoka, Dunn or Valentine and try to bring in a decent vet min forward.
:clap:

Return to Chicago Bulls