RealGM

Over on the trade board there's a thread about Windhorst that suggests some teams would be willing to sell their late first round picks to raise money.

Is this an opportunity for the Bulls to get an extra pick or two?
Of the last 10 ? picks what's possible?

Could the Bulls just renounce Valentine and Dunn, to free up a pair of roster spots then offer cash for a pick. Or they could take less back in a trade for Young, Porter, Satoransky, Hutchison or Arcidiacono to make the deal because they bought a pick and the rookie they draft would be better than taking back a player in a trade. Or they deal with one of those late round teams, send a player and cash and they take back a pick instead of a player under contract

I know the old guard wouldn't even consider buying a pick but the new people might see an opening to make some moves when other teams are scared

Ha no offense to us, but it could be an opportunity for Reinsdorf to get some cash considerations.

Idk if this team can handle developing even more young rookie players...

Would love it, but won't happen with the Reinsdorfs obviously.

PaKii94 wrote:Idk if this team can handle developing even more young rookie players...

Because the infrastructure sucks?

I don't see why there would be a limit if you actually have a good basketball organization in place. Which is essentially what AK is brought in to do.

People vastly overrate the extent to which player development occurs in games. That's a piece of a puzzle, but a whole lot of development occurs outside of games. At least for the franchises that don't suck.

We don't really have many young, worthwhile players. The more the merrier I say.

ChettheJet wrote:Over on the trade board there's a thread about Windhorst that suggests some teams would be willing to sell their late first round picks to raise money.

Is this an opportunity for the Bulls to get an extra pick or two?

LOL I needed a good laugh. Thanks for brightening up my day.

It'll be late 1st round picks at the most.

/Shrug... We've bought numerous late picks and sold plenty of them.

TheSuzerain wrote:

PaKii94 wrote:Idk if this team can handle developing even more young rookie players...

Because the infrastructure sucks?

I don't see why there would be a limit if you actually have a good basketball organization in place. Which is essentially what AK is brought in to do.

People vastly overrate the extent to which player development occurs in games. That's a piece of a puzzle, but a whole lot of development occurs outside of games. At least for the franchises that don't suck.

We don't really have many young, worthwhile players. The more the merrier I say.

You need vets around them to show them how to win and approach the game otherwise you have an endless cycle of mediocre development and players "underperforming"/dissapointing. A la Knicks/magic/suns (and now the bulls)

PaKii94 wrote:

TheSuzerain wrote:

PaKii94 wrote:Idk if this team can handle developing even more young rookie players...

Because the infrastructure sucks?

I don't see why there would be a limit if you actually have a good basketball organization in place. Which is essentially what AK is brought in to do.

People vastly overrate the extent to which player development occurs in games. That's a piece of a puzzle, but a whole lot of development occurs outside of games. At least for the franchises that don't suck.

We don't really have many young, worthwhile players. The more the merrier I say.

You need vets around them to show them how to win and approach the game otherwise you have an endless cycle of mediocre development and players "underperforming"/dissapointing. A la Knicks/magic/suns (and now the bulls)

Vets like Thad Young and Sato?

How's that working out

TheSuzerain wrote:

PaKii94 wrote:

TheSuzerain wrote:Because the infrastructure sucks?

I don't see why there would be a limit if you actually have a good basketball organization in place. Which is essentially what AK is brought in to do.

People vastly overrate the extent to which player development occurs in games. That's a piece of a puzzle, but a whole lot of development occurs outside of games. At least for the franchises that don't suck.

We don't really have many young, worthwhile players. The more the merrier I say.

You need vets around them to show them how to win and approach the game otherwise you have an endless cycle of mediocre development and players "underperforming"/dissapointing. A la Knicks/magic/suns (and now the bulls)

Vets like Thad Young and Sato?

How's that working out

Thad's the only legit vet. Sato had only played 3 years in the league (and not a lot of minutes) when they signed him.

As far as Thad goes. That was an epic failure. New system that goes the opposite of his game, and in a spot where we knew Lauri should be getting heavy minutes. He ended up "turning it around" by forcing the issue.

A good example of vet leadership is OPJ even tho he isn't that much of a vet either. Problem with him is he can't stay on the floor.

I'm not asking for end of the bench roleplayer vets, that would be a waste but someone who can hang with the young ones and show them the ropes. CP3's contract is killer but I feel like he would be perfect to mentor Lavine and Coby. Or someone like Pau when he was on the bulls for the big men

Yeah, my fear is that we could end up being the sellers. That said, AK seems to be able to get hits outside of the lottery, so if there was ever a time to buy it's now.

Cash considerations is coming to Chicago for sure.

TheSuzerain wrote:Because the infrastructure sucks?

I don't see why there would be a limit if you actually have a good basketball organization in place. Which is essentially what AK is brought in to do.

People vastly overrate the extent to which player development occurs in games. That's a piece of a puzzle, but a whole lot of development occurs outside of games. At least for the franchises that don't suck.

We don't really have many young, worthwhile players. The more the merrier I say.

Typically you need enough vets in place to help establish a culture and know what they're doing for developing players to thrive better. Granted the greats will do that on their own, but the guys that really need the environment to help them go from fringe player to rotation player need that. They need enough quality and stability and coaching in place to maximize their skills.

That said, a young guy in a bad environment is still worth more to me as a fan than money in the owners pockets, so clearly I'd take the picks if given the possibility.

Given that this is expected to be a really weak draft, I'm not sure how much picks will cost. In the recent past, the rate people have charged for picks is really pretty nuts, often like 25M for a pick in the low 20s. Just insane value proposition to pay that for a guy who will most likely be useless.

HomoSapien wrote:Yeah, my fear is that we could end up being the sellers. That said, AK seems to be able to get hits outside of the lottery, so if there was ever a time to buy it's now.

Our previous regime had a lot of hits out of the lottery too.

That said, this draft is said to be crap on a stick. On the other hand, often in bad drafts, you have more surprise players. A bad draft usually means it isn't top heavy and its hard to figure out who will emerge which means some of the valuable players will be deep sleepers.

Why did they have to go and encourage Jerry? *facepalm*

dougthonus wrote:

HomoSapien wrote:Yeah, my fear is that we could end up being the sellers. That said, AK seems to be able to get hits outside of the lottery, so if there was ever a time to buy it's now.

Our previous regime had a lot of hits out of the lottery too.

That said, this draft is said to be crap on a stick. On the other hand, often in bad drafts, you have more surprise players. A bad draft usually means it isn't top heavy and its hard to figure out who will emerge which means some of the valuable players will be deep sleepers.

The previous regime's last bonafide hit was 9 years ago. AK's picks of late, IMO, have had more upside.

I definitely agree that this draft is awful and for the longest time was advocating trading out of it. That said, everyone's scouting is going to be messed up/subpar due to Covid so I wouldn't be surprised to see more hits outside of the lottery than usual.

C'mon, not even this ownership is going to sell the 7th pick for $5M. There's a hard and low cap on cash transactions which is why only bottom 1st rounders / 2nd rounders go for cash.

If the ownership is going to force a serious financial move, it will be dumping Otto's $27M contract or Thad's $13M. Selling a pick really doesn't move the needle.

kodo wrote:C'mon, not even this ownership is going to sell the 7th pick for $5M. There's a hard and low cap on cash transactions which is why only bottom 1st rounders / 2nd rounders go for cash.

If the ownership is going to force a serious financial move, it will be dumping Otto's $27M contract or Thad's $13M. Selling a pick really doesn't move the needle.

Selling the pick is usually not through cash but to a team with cap space to take a contract. Like porter plus our pick for a 2nd rounder would be selling the pick for 27m. I agree that we won't do that though.

dougthonus wrote:Given that this is expected to be a really weak draft, I'm not sure how much picks will cost. In the recent past, the rate people have charged for picks is really pretty nuts, often like 25M for a pick in the low 20s. Just insane value proposition to pay that for a guy who will most likely be useless.

I think you mean 2.5M. 25 million is not an amount that an NBA team is allowed to pay in a trade.