Jvaughn wrote: dougthonus wrote:
Jvaughn wrote:Good points. Can't disagree with anything here. I think I'm just more optimistic of where I think Zach will ultimately peak as a player. He hasn't had a chance to play on a good team with a good coach here yet, so we really haven't had a chance to evaluate him. Instead of trading him away for a player we hope will one day be as good as he is today, I'd like to build around him and see what he can become.
I think we're getting closer on the PG side, and can bolster that in the draft this year depending on where we land. I don't see any scenario where all 5 of the top PGs are gone before we pick. We also need to address the other wing spot. I love Otto when he's healthy, but we haven't had that consistently yet.
We also have got to get some consistency out of Lauri. I'm almost at the point where I just want to jettison him. We don't need 20ppg, but he has got to knock down his open shots, and rebound at least at an average level. Wendell just needs to stay healthy. He seems to always start improving and then gets hurt. All in all it someone offers a FRP for either one of them, I'm good letting them go.
Zach's had 6 years in the league, granted, more like 5 due to the ACL. He's played massive minutes and as a lead dog the last two years as the #1 option more or less completely controlling everything. I'd struggle to find any example in the NBA where a guy had as much time and opportunity as Zach to change considerably moving forward.
I think he's a good player, but his odds of being a great player are very low at this point IMO. Like I said, I'm fine keeping him. I just don't expect him to be more than what he is now (or at least not much more) and don't think I'll probably want to pay him market value next contract.
Fair enough. Just comes down to your faith in a player.
Sidenote, I just looked at this season comparison for Beal, Lavine, and Booker and the numbers are all very close. Wish I could embed the chart, but here's the link: http://bkref.com/tiny/M69zK
To make it fair, on a per minute basis, Beal/Booker are better passers. Lavine is a better rebounder. Zach surprisingly has the most steals and blocks (not saying he's a great defender).
Most agree that Beal/Booker can be built around, but statements that Lavine can only be your 3rd best player on a successful team come up. I'm not saying he's ready yet, but I don't think he's that far away, and I think he can still be a big impact player on a good team. We just haven't given him the chance to compete on a good team yet.
I don't really think you can build around those guys. They've both led tank jobs. I do think those two are more skilled than Zach (with the ball), which counts for something. Although Zach is more athletic. Beal is a better ball-handler IMO than the other two, where you can kind of run your offense through him. That doesn't really show up on the stat sheet.
I agree the Bulls have something to work with in a Coby-Zach 2-man punch, but it is a fact that Wendell and Lauri are after-thoughts in that direction. And I realize the hard truth might be that they were both wastes of #7 picks, but on the other hand, I'm not entirely ready to give up on either guy, let alone both. I'm entirely not willing to pay Zach $30m+ (on the low hopeful side) as the veteran alpha.
But that's also coupled with the premise that I have not seen one game with Zach where the Bulls' offensive flow looked good.
If you're building defensively (i.e. the Thibs Bulls concept), that's fine. You're not going for Showtime or Nash buckets. It's like a classic Italian soccer defense with a super-talented striker; boring as hell to watch but you do put yourself in position to win. But nothing in the Bulls' roster has suggested a move in that direction (besides I suppose Wendell), and AK's past GM'ing and statements absolutely don't make it seem like he wants a defensive team that keeps the ball between 1 or 2 scorers to generate baskets.
All this said, a coaching change (or at least a Boylen re-design) could make it work. I know in 1 week of sample size, Zach-Otto-Lauri looked functional last February. That said, I put *very* little stock in trade deadline honey-moons. If you go by that metric, then the 02/03 Bulls should've been a deep playoff team with superstar Jalen, along with the 09/10 super-loaded Salmons/Gordon/D-Rose 3-headed monster. But it doesn't work out that way- a team shows their true colors in November. Not to say they can't improve and squeeze in a late post-season push (which would happen often with those GarPax's 41-41 rosters between 05-16), but it's a bad sign if you come in from training camp and look like a Pinto with cubes for wheels. Your ceiling is pretty low. IMO it was demonstrated with last year's Celtics, the Nash/Dwight Lakers, the Butler T-Wolves.
Totally different to Jimmy. I dunno why people had the pitch-forks out for him, but he led an epically bad team with an epically bad coach to a playoff appearance. Very few players who can do that - pretty much just elite two-way wings, or manically talented scoring guards (i.e. prime Westbrook).
So yeah. I'm OK kicking the board with Zach and taking a chance on someone in the top-4, if we were to acquire the Knicks' pick. (Not to mention another chance with the Bulls' own pick) Given this draft, it wouldn't be a 2-star aspiration, but rather a "2 shots at 1 star" kind of a deal. Which, assuming we hired the right VP and GM, then you like those odds. I've ragged LaMelo and Deni, but I dunno- maybe they are the answer. Maybe it's Haliburton or Hayes. Maybe it's Wisemen. I don't know, but our FO should. A good thing to do is remove all positional expectations and just imagine which of these guys can be the Mitchell, Bam, Pascal, Shai or Brogdon of the draft. When you get a player like that, you don't really worry if they'll conflict with anyone's minutes, because they'll be able to play alongside anybody good.
The nice thing about Coby is he'll be able to play alongside a tall PG (LaMelo, Haliburton, Hayes), or compliment a SG (Edwards). Nice thing about the big men prospects is that we don't have a star big man, so we shouldn't be worried about moving Wendell/Lauri/Gafford to the trade-market. If Wiseman or Ogonkwu look like Bam+ as prospects, then I take them. Their combo
of athleticism, length and skill is far and beyond WCJ and Gafford.