Image ImageImage Image

What exactly is the plan?

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

User avatar
Brothaman33
Junior
Posts: 326
And1: 217
Joined: Feb 25, 2009

Re: What exactly is the plan? 

Post#261 » by Brothaman33 » Mon Mar 29, 2021 3:40 pm

Leslie Forman wrote:
Red Larrivee wrote:Better question: Let's say for some crazy reason Luka Doncic becomes available. Why would he want to go to a stripped down, losing Bulls team that's building for the future? Why would any all-star want to go there? I'm not saying LaVine and Vucevic are some recruiting juggernaut, but I sure as hell would be more interested in playing there especially if I'm seeing the front office isn't scared to make moves to compete.

This is like asking where you're going to store your future collection of Lamborghinis when you have 50 bucks in your bank account.

Red Larrivee wrote:Rookie contracts are valuable, but they're more valuable when they are contributing to a competitive team. Brooklyn had Russell, LeVert, and Allen all playing well and pushing the team into the playoffs before Irving and Durant. That allowed them to move those players in deals for superstars. When the Bulls had Hinrich, Gordon, Deng and others on rookie deals and they were winning games, they were in trade talks for each disgruntled star.

All that winning Jeff Green, Al Jefferson, Andrew Wiggins, etc., etc. did sure was vital to their trade value.

Red Larrivee wrote:Tanking is a viable strategy to building a team; however, the issue is that now more than ever so much that's out of your control has to go right for it to even get running. There's a 60% chance that the worst team in the league doesn't pick in the Top 3. There's almost a 50% chance the second and third worst team in the league doesn't pick in the Top 4.

It's by far the most hands-off route possible. You need to win the lottery just to get to the point where you enter the low odds of winning a championship with a #1 overall pick. Again, only three of the last 30 #1 overall picks have won a title with their original team. So, unless you get one of the 10 greatest players ever, you are virtually SOL.

You are still completely ignoring the entire point I was trying to make.

It's not about drafting a superstar. If you do end up drafting a superstar? Well that's a just a real nice little surprise.

It's about quantitatively maximizing your asset portfolio, which then gives you a qualitatively better warchest to work with. Lauri and Wendell after their first couple years were putting up completely empty numbers on an awful team and yet they were seen as incredibly valuable trade assets. Picks and young prospects that are showing any sort of a pulse (they don't even actually have to be good) are what really matter as assets.

This is exactly what Hinkie and Presti have done/are doing and it's pretty much what every single baseball team that isn't dumb as rocks tries to do nowadays.


I agree with alot of this, but the baseball example doesn't work IMO.

In baseball you have seen examples of teams getting bad, gathering assests and the slowly developing a team and then winning a championship.

That is so rare in the NBA because 1 player can ruin your "come up" because he is just better then you. Its 5 players not 25 and a minor league system.

If this worked in the NBA the Timberwolves, Kings and Pelicans would show some sort of improvement. They don't and probably wont ever because no one wants to play or stay there, even if they got a generational talent....and on top of that they wont ever gather enough assests to beat a team with one of those guys anyways.

Team building through assests rarely works because LeBron has broughr his friend with him and is just better then you, no matter what you do.
"Thibs and Deng make Skiles and Duhon look like a one night stand" - Red Larrivee
IamSam
Senior
Posts: 521
And1: 114
Joined: Oct 29, 2009

Re: What exactly is the plan? 

Post#262 » by IamSam » Mon Mar 29, 2021 3:41 pm

I hope part of the plan at this point is raising the floor at the PG position. What's the point of having an all-star big man without the foundation including a reasonably competent PG situation?
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 49,213
And1: 9,041
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:
 

Re: What exactly is the plan? 

Post#263 » by dougthonus » Mon Mar 29, 2021 4:01 pm

Brothaman33 wrote:Yes, but pick #9 generally isn't going to be very good. Over the last 5 years the bust rate of the top 10 picks is like 80%.

This idea that it's "dangerous" to give up pick #9 in ANY draft is just not true.

Frank Kaminsky
Jakob Poltl
Dennis Smith Jr.
Kevin Knox
Rui Hachimura
Deni Avdija

The last six #9 picks.

Now what people mostly do is say, "Well you just have to be better the everyone and get your Donovon Mitchell"

There isn't enough TALENT at picks 5 -30 to make a difference anyways, no matter who your picking. And even then you have to be lucky enough to get one of those guys, you need multiple years to pair them up, all while at the sametime still losing, even though you hope those guys are developing enough to get some wins.


If you get the Magic get next Donovan Mitchell, then you immediately lost the trade. Not even close. You got completely and utterly and totally screwed. I mean blown out of the water, will be a god awful trainwreck, complete and utter total disaster of a move.

Even if you do need multiples of those guys, that's one guy that's better than Vuc, will be cheaper than Vuc and will have 9 years of control instead of 2 good years left. It's not even close.

I agree the odds of landing such a player aren't that great, but trying to pretend that it wouldn't matter if you did because you need multiple years to pair them up is completely false. Star players are often making star impact in their second year.

I agree with you. The Bulls probably screwed themselves in 3 or 4 years. It doesn't matter. They won't be winning a championship with this move, and they won't be winning a championship tanking and they won't be winning a championship trying to get lucky in the draft. Because you are not beating LeBron and Davis and you are not beating KD, Harden and Kyrie.


The irony if this is that by time, 3-4 years is when those super teams will both certainly be done. Actually priming yourself for that time would avoid those teams. Maybe new super teams around Giannis, Doncic, or Zion will form of course, but 3-4 years and LeBron is nothing, and if the Nets are still together, they will be eminently beatable. It's actually crazier from that perspective to go 'all in' on two B list stars today and think you're going to beat those teams.

That said, I don't think that's an important factor to me, if it was, I would be 100% on the opposite side of this argument, but I think you just try to figure out how to acquire a huge amount of talent and go from there and not worry about who is in your way. There will always be someone in your way.

I would rather watch them try to be good, then be awful for 30 years trying to get lucky getting a generational talent. Thats just the way the NBA works


So would I. However, I don't think that sentiment is relevant to this argument. I think they will try to be good, then be MUCH worse for a much longer period of time because the attempt to be good gave up way too many assets for the quality and length of window it provided.
http://linktr.ee/bullsbeat - links to the bullsbeat podcast
@doug_thonus on twitter
User avatar
Leslie Forman
General Manager
Posts: 9,626
And1: 5,523
Joined: Apr 21, 2006
Location: 1700 Center Dr, Ames, IA 50011

Re: What exactly is the plan? 

Post#264 » by Leslie Forman » Mon Mar 29, 2021 4:03 pm

Brothaman33 wrote:I agree with alot of this, but the baseball example doesn't work IMO.

In baseball you have seen examples of teams getting bad, gathering assests and the slowly developing a team and then winning a championship.

That is so rare in the NBA because 1 player can ruin your "come up" because he is just better then you. Its 5 players not 25 and a minor league system.

Of course it's not 1 to 1, it's a completely different sport. But this has actually happened plenty in basketball. It's how the vast majority of title winners used to be built, before LeGM happened. Even then, Golden State and San Antonio beat him.

Brothaman33 wrote:If this worked in the NBA the Timberwolves, Kings and Pelicans would show some sort of improvement. They don't and probably wont ever because no one wants to play or stay there, even if they got a generational talent....and on top of that they wont ever gather enough assests to beat a team with one of those guys anyways.

It literally doesn't matter what your strategy is if you have incompetent people in charge. Tank, sign every vet you can get, trade for someone, none of it matters when Glen Taylor unzips, whips it out on the table, and tells you he just gave Andrew Wiggins a max contract.

Brothaman33 wrote:Team building through assests rarely works because LeBron has broughr his friend with him and is just better then you, no matter what you do.

Again, I'm not sure how this matters. You might as well give up no matter what your strategy is if you're so scared of LeBron.
User avatar
Brothaman33
Junior
Posts: 326
And1: 217
Joined: Feb 25, 2009

Re: What exactly is the plan? 

Post#265 » by Brothaman33 » Mon Mar 29, 2021 4:22 pm

dougthonus wrote:
Brothaman33 wrote:Yes, but pick #9 generally isn't going to be very good. Over the last 5 years the bust rate of the top 10 picks is like 80%.

This idea that it's "dangerous" to give up pick #9 in ANY draft is just not true.

Frank Kaminsky
Jakob Poltl
Dennis Smith Jr.
Kevin Knox
Rui Hachimura
Deni Avdija

The last six #9 picks.

Now what people mostly do is say, "Well you just have to be better the everyone and get your Donovon Mitchell"

There isn't enough TALENT at picks 5 -30 to make a difference anyways, no matter who your picking. And even then you have to be lucky enough to get one of those guys, you need multiple years to pair them up, all while at the sametime still losing, even though you hope those guys are developing enough to get some wins.


If you get the Magic get next Donovan Mitchell, then you immediately lost the trade. Not even close. You got completely and utterly and totally screwed. I mean blown out of the water, will be a god awful trainwreck, complete and utter total disaster of a move.

Even if you do need multiples of those guys, that's one guy that's better than Vuc, will be cheaper than Vuc and will have 9 years of control instead of 2 good years left. It's not even close.

I agree the odds of landing such a player aren't that great, but trying to pretend that it wouldn't matter if you did because you need multiple years to pair them up is completely false. Star players are often making star impact in their second year.

I agree with you. The Bulls probably screwed themselves in 3 or 4 years. It doesn't matter. They won't be winning a championship with this move, and they won't be winning a championship tanking and they won't be winning a championship trying to get lucky in the draft. Because you are not beating LeBron and Davis and you are not beating KD, Harden and Kyrie.


The irony if this is that by time, 3-4 years is when those super teams will both certainly be done. Actually priming yourself for that time would avoid those teams. Maybe new super teams around Giannis, Doncic, or Zion will form of course, but 3-4 years and LeBron is nothing, and if the Nets are still together, they will be eminently beatable. It's actually crazier from that perspective to go 'all in' on two B list stars today and think you're going to beat those teams.

That said, I don't think that's an important factor to me, if it was, I would be 100% on the opposite side of this argument, but I think you just try to figure out how to acquire a huge amount of talent and go from there and not worry about who is in your way. There will always be someone in your way.

I would rather watch them try to be good, then be awful for 30 years trying to get lucky getting a generational talent. Thats just the way the NBA works


So would I. However, I don't think that sentiment is relevant to this argument. I think they will try to be good, then be MUCH worse for a much longer period of time because the attempt to be good gave up way too many assets for the quality and length of window it provided.


So already under the assumption that the picks we traded out turn into a star player, pick who you want, my comment that it won't matter is based on that player, on the Magic, leads them to a championship...the odds of that are so low that I don't give it thought. Thats why I was OK with the trade. If one of our picks leads the Magic down a road to where they make the playoffs a few years and come close a few times...which is still low,but more realistic, then it still won't matter.

What do I care if we just got blown out of the water on trade to help a team be on the same treadmill we are on? There are also so many variables that I don't know if said player stays on the team for 9 years. Maybe they don't wanna be in Orlando for that long. Maybe the front office continues to suck.

I get worrying about the future, but there is little evidence that a trade like this will make a difference in getting to a championship. The evidence points to star players, more or less, picking where they want to go and who they play with and you praying its your city.
"Thibs and Deng make Skiles and Duhon look like a one night stand" - Red Larrivee
User avatar
Brothaman33
Junior
Posts: 326
And1: 217
Joined: Feb 25, 2009

Re: What exactly is the plan? 

Post#266 » by Brothaman33 » Mon Mar 29, 2021 4:25 pm

Leslie Forman wrote:
Brothaman33 wrote:I agree with alot of this, but the baseball example doesn't work IMO.

In baseball you have seen examples of teams getting bad, gathering assests and the slowly developing a team and then winning a championship.

That is so rare in the NBA because 1 player can ruin your "come up" because he is just better then you. Its 5 players not 25 and a minor league system.

Of course it's not 1 to 1, it's a completely different sport. But this has actually happened plenty in basketball. It's how the vast majority of title winners used to be built, before LeGM happened. Even then, Golden State and San Antonio beat him.

Brothaman33 wrote:If this worked in the NBA the Timberwolves, Kings and Pelicans would show some sort of improvement. They don't and probably wont ever because no one wants to play or stay there, even if they got a generational talent....and on top of that they wont ever gather enough assests to beat a team with one of those guys anyways.

It literally doesn't matter what your strategy is if you have incompetent people in charge. Tank, sign every vet you can get, trade for someone, none of it matters when Glen Taylor unzips, whips it out on the table, and tells you he just gave Andrew Wiggins a max contract.

Brothaman33 wrote:Team building through assests rarely works because LeBron has broughr his friend with him and is just better then you, no matter what you do.

Again, I'm not sure how this matters. You might as well give up no matter what your strategy is if you're so scared of LeBron.


I agree with all of this.

IMO the league more and more points to players playing "LeGM". Which is the problem. We can talk team building til we're blue in the face, but the fact that players feel empowered and have the ability to force their way out and link up with who they want makes a home grown team seem less and less likely to actually win a championship.
"Thibs and Deng make Skiles and Duhon look like a one night stand" - Red Larrivee
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 49,213
And1: 9,041
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:
 

Re: What exactly is the plan? 

Post#267 » by dougthonus » Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:11 pm

Brothaman33 wrote:So already under the assumption that the picks we traded out turn into a star player, pick who you want, my comment that it won't matter is based on that player, on the Magic, leads them to a championship...the odds of that are so low that I don't give it thought. Thats why I was OK with the trade. If one of our picks leads the Magic down a road to where they make the playoffs a few years and come close a few times...which is still low,but more realistic, then it still won't matter.


It isn't necessarily about winning a championship. It is that a star player in the draft would lead us to a much longer team window to compete and enjoy the team. I agree the odds aren't that great that you will get such a player in the draft. Your original argument dismissed the impact if we did. If we did, it would be much better.

What do I care if we just got blown out of the water on trade to help a team be on the same treadmill we are on? There are also so many variables that I don't know if said player stays on the team for 9 years. Maybe they don't wanna be in Orlando for that long. Maybe the front office continues to suck.


I don't care what happens to the Magic either. I care that we gave up what I feel to be a lot of long term possibilities for a very short window of being mediocre. I'd have been content being near mediocre with opportunity, than mediocre without much opportunity.

I get worrying about the future, but there is little evidence that a trade like this will make a difference in getting to a championship. The evidence points to star players, more or less, picking where they want to go and who they play with and you praying its your city.


I don't think this will make the difference in a championship. If it does, it almost certainly prevents us from getting one rather than helping, because it's far more likely we draft a generational talent than get one any other way, but I agree that is extremely small chance.

What I care about is the viability of the team putting together a good product for an extended period of time. If you want to go all in and trade all your future assets for short term guys that htelp you then you can be slightly better for 2-3 years and then be a god awful mess.

This was a move in that vein. If I thought this move even made us a top 10 team in the NBA that was one dream move away from being a top 5 team that has a punchers chance at a title, then I'd be more excited about it. Instead we moved from maybe the 20th best team in the league to maybe the 15th best team in the league and are a huge move away from being the 10th best team in the league that will still get its ass kicked in the 2nd round.

That would still not be a problem to me, jumping from 20th-ish to 15th-ish is huge. The problem is the window is about two years to make 3 more jumps to get to 5ish.
http://linktr.ee/bullsbeat - links to the bullsbeat podcast
@doug_thonus on twitter
User avatar
Red Larrivee
RealGM
Posts: 41,934
And1: 18,721
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Location: Hogging Microphone Time From Tom Dore

Re: What exactly is the plan? 

Post#268 » by Red Larrivee » Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:21 pm

Leslie Forman wrote:This is like asking where you're going to store your future collection of Lamborghinis when you have 50 bucks in your bank account.


I don't get how you can present a theoretical scenario of Doncic being available without factoring in that Doncic would not want to go to a team that's stripped down and prioritizing future assets and production. That's the downside of your path. Excluding the anomaly of the Lakers, If you tank, you are removing yourself as a destination for stars until you actually have on-court reason for a player to go there.

All that winning Jeff Green, Al Jefferson, Andrew Wiggins, etc., etc. did sure was vital to their trade value.


If a team has their choice between young players who are winning games and young players who are not, why would they take the latter? You referenced players who were traded as actual draft picks. Draft picks are very valuable, but a successful draft pick is more valuable.

You are still completely ignoring the entire point I was trying to make.

It's not about drafting a superstar. If you do end up drafting a superstar? Well that's a just a real nice little surprise.

It's about quantitatively maximizing your asset portfolio, which then gives you a qualitatively better warchest to work with. Lauri and Wendell after their first couple years were putting up completely empty numbers on an awful team and yet they were seen as incredibly valuable trade assets. Picks and young prospects that are showing any sort of a pulse (they don't even actually have to be good) are what really matter as assets.

This is exactly what Hinkie and Presti have done/are doing and it's pretty much what every single baseball team that isn't dumb as rocks tries to do nowadays.


I'm not ignoring that, because I've already told you twice that tanking and trading players for assets, while risky, is a viable way to build a good team. However, Karnisovas correctly reasoned that it's not the correct path to build this team.

If Zach hadn't taken another step in development or regressed, then I think tanking would've made more sense, but bailing on a 26-year-old all-star guard just wouldn't have been practical. At least try building with him.
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 49,213
And1: 9,041
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:
 

Re: What exactly is the plan? 

Post#269 » by dougthonus » Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:43 pm

Red Larrivee wrote: However, Karnisovas correctly reasoned that it's not the correct path to build this team.


Short term moves always feel good in the short term. You won't know this is correct for awhile yet.

If Zach hadn't taken another step in development or regressed, then I think tanking would've made more sense, but bailing on a 26-year-old all-star guard just wouldn't have been practical. At least try building with him.


I agree Zach's ascension added pressure to ensure he wants to stay here, but it wasn't yet at critical mass. I'd have used my cap room to offer him a five year max this summer and try to lock him in. If he says no, then I'm on the clock to make something happen and can decide if I want that pressure to move me towards trading Zach or building around him.
http://linktr.ee/bullsbeat - links to the bullsbeat podcast
@doug_thonus on twitter
Wingy
General Manager
Posts: 9,583
And1: 1,382
Joined: Feb 15, 2007

Re: What exactly is the plan? 

Post#270 » by Wingy » Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:12 pm

dougthonus wrote:
Red Larrivee wrote: However, Karnisovas correctly reasoned that it's not the correct path to build this team.


Short term moves always feel good in the short term. You won't know this is correct for awhile yet.

If Zach hadn't taken another step in development or regressed, then I think tanking would've made more sense, but bailing on a 26-year-old all-star guard just wouldn't have been practical. At least try building with him.


I agree Zach's ascension added pressure to ensure he wants to stay here, but it wasn't yet at critical mass. I'd have used my cap room to offer him a five year max this summer and try to lock him in. If he says no, then I'm on the clock to make something happen and can decide if I want that pressure to move me towards trading Zach or building around him.


But with that, the Celtics have Vucevic, and you missed the opportunity to bring in that high-caliber player that fits how you're trying to play, and is on a relatively team-friendly contract. Which, I understand you and others don't care much about given your view of Vuc's potential to impact the team. Passing on the opportunity for a very questionable chance of locking Zach in is pretty risky since those types of players/contracts don't become available very often. Players today want as much power, and options available as possible. What Giannis did is a huge exception. It would be very surprising if Zach reupped given the "talent" of our roster prior to the deadline.

In general, I'm surely overconfident in AK's ability to make the right moves. I have a positive outlook on his ability to keep incrementally improving us, and gathering assets even w/o the picks in our current state. I also would've been ok pursuing the mini-tank (keep Zach/PWill only), and believing in his ability to hit on our draft picks. My hope springs eternal w/the new FO. I'm also not as down on the risks of the deal since I think AK can easily pivot back to a draft-lead strategy in 2024, or even before if it's just a disaster, and he wants to shed Zach and/or Vuc for assets.
User avatar
Michael Jackson
RealGM
Posts: 15,794
And1: 2,199
Joined: Jun 15, 2001

Re: What exactly is the plan? 

Post#271 » by Michael Jackson » Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:27 pm

Wingy wrote:
dougthonus wrote:
Red Larrivee wrote: However, Karnisovas correctly reasoned that it's not the correct path to build this team.


Short term moves always feel good in the short term. You won't know this is correct for awhile yet.

If Zach hadn't taken another step in development or regressed, then I think tanking would've made more sense, but bailing on a 26-year-old all-star guard just wouldn't have been practical. At least try building with him.


I agree Zach's ascension added pressure to ensure he wants to stay here, but it wasn't yet at critical mass. I'd have used my cap room to offer him a five year max this summer and try to lock him in. If he says no, then I'm on the clock to make something happen and can decide if I want that pressure to move me towards trading Zach or building around him.


But with that, the Celtics have Vucevic, and you missed the opportunity to bring in that high-caliber player that fits how you're trying to play, and is on a relatively team-friendly contract. Which, I understand you and others don't care much about given your view of Vuc's potential to impact the team. Passing on the opportunity for a very questionable chance of locking Zach in is pretty risky since those types of players/contracts don't become available very often. Players today want as much power, and options available as possible. What Giannis did is a huge exception. It would be very surprising if Zach reupped given the "talent" of our roster prior to the deadline.

In general, I'm surely overconfident in AK's ability to make the right moves. I have a positive outlook on his ability to keep incrementally improving us, and gathering assets even w/o the picks in our current state. I also would've been ok pursuing the mini-tank (keep Zach/PWill only), and believing in his ability to hit on our draft picks. My hope springs eternal w/the new FO. I'm also not as down on the risks of the deal since I think AK can easily pivot back to a draft-lead strategy in 2024, or even before if it's just a disaster, and he wants to shed Zach and/or Vuc for assets.


I have no choice in the matter of AK, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt at this point that he is going to continue to make moves in an attempt to improve. I have no evidence one way or the other to validate this, it is just something I chose to believe, because I would like few moments of being a Bulls fan that are not misery...
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 49,213
And1: 9,041
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:
 

Re: What exactly is the plan? 

Post#272 » by dougthonus » Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:29 pm

Wingy wrote:But with that, the Celtics have Vucevic, and you missed the opportunity to bring in that high-caliber player that fits how you're trying to play, and is on a relatively team-friendly contract.


:dontknow:

Giving up two 1sts (one presently projected as #9 in a very strong draft) and a former #7 that still has some potential for a 30 year old one-way fringe all-star isn't some special value that you wouldn't be able to replicate at a later date IMO.

Which, I understand you and others don't care much about given your view of Vuc's potential to impact the team.


It does depend a lot on both the quantity and longevity of his impact on the team. If this team falls apart the rest of this season, we're actually in an even worse position to keep Zach. There is an assumption right now that this will improve the team considerably. A reasonable assumption, but we'll have to see it play out. There is very significant short term downward risk that is relatively low probability along with the extraordinarily high probability long term downward risk.

Passing on the opportunity for a very questionable chance of locking Zach in is pretty risky since those types of players/contracts don't become available very often.


I'm not passing to lock in Zach. I'm passing with the hope of drafting a better player or using my ammunition to acquire a better player later or a similar player that is 3 years younger and better matches the timeframe of my other players. The only thing potentially rare about Vuc is his contact. We've seen tons of _better_ players than him move around the league in the last couple years, and his contract, while team friendly, doesn't seem set to allow us to do a whole lot than if he was paid 15M more and was a considerably better player.

Players today want as much power, and options available as possible. What Giannis did is a huge exception. It would be very surprising if Zach reupped given the "talent" of our roster prior to the deadline.


I don't think it'd be too surprising if Zach just took 150M dollars and demanded a trade if things didn't work out. That's also really common that players take the money then force their way out if they don't like where it goes.

In general, I'm surely overconfident in AK's ability to make the right moves. I have a positive outlook on his ability to keep incrementally improving us, and gathering assets even w/o the picks in our current state.


I don't have any reason to believe in AK vs anyone else. The position he is in to make significant improvements to this team with the assets he has is extremely difficult. He also has a very short time frame to make those improvements with this group.

I also would've been ok pursuing the mini-tank (keep Zach/PWill only), and believing in his ability to hit on our draft picks. My hope springs eternal w/the new FO. I'm also not as down on the risks of the deal since I think AK can easily pivot back to a draft-lead strategy in 2024, or even before if it's just a disaster, and he wants to shed Zach and/or Vuc for assets.


Vuc's value asset wise is going to continue to decline. You won't get nearly as much for him even in one year. Zach may or may not be at his peak value right now. We'll see what happens with him.
http://linktr.ee/bullsbeat - links to the bullsbeat podcast
@doug_thonus on twitter
League Circles
RealGM
Posts: 31,069
And1: 8,097
Joined: Dec 04, 2001
       

Re: What exactly is the plan? 

Post#273 » by League Circles » Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:36 pm

dougthonus wrote:
Brothaman33 wrote:So already under the assumption that the picks we traded out turn into a star player, pick who you want, my comment that it won't matter is based on that player, on the Magic, leads them to a championship...the odds of that are so low that I don't give it thought. Thats why I was OK with the trade. If one of our picks leads the Magic down a road to where they make the playoffs a few years and come close a few times...which is still low,but more realistic, then it still won't matter.


It isn't necessarily about winning a championship. It is that a star player in the draft would lead us to a much longer team window to compete and enjoy the team. I agree the odds aren't that great that you will get such a player in the draft. Your original argument dismissed the impact if we did. If we did, it would be much better.

What do I care if we just got blown out of the water on trade to help a team be on the same treadmill we are on? There are also so many variables that I don't know if said player stays on the team for 9 years. Maybe they don't wanna be in Orlando for that long. Maybe the front office continues to suck.


I don't care what happens to the Magic either. I care that we gave up what I feel to be a lot of long term possibilities for a very short window of being mediocre. I'd have been content being near mediocre with opportunity, than mediocre without much opportunity.

I get worrying about the future, but there is little evidence that a trade like this will make a difference in getting to a championship. The evidence points to star players, more or less, picking where they want to go and who they play with and you praying its your city.


I don't think this will make the difference in a championship. If it does, it almost certainly prevents us from getting one rather than helping, because it's far more likely we draft a generational talent than get one any other way, but I agree that is extremely small chance.

What I care about is the viability of the team putting together a good product for an extended period of time. If you want to go all in and trade all your future assets for short term guys that htelp you then you can be slightly better for 2-3 years and then be a god awful mess.

This was a move in that vein. If I thought this move even made us a top 10 team in the NBA that was one dream move away from being a top 5 team that has a punchers chance at a title, then I'd be more excited about it. Instead we moved from maybe the 20th best team in the league to maybe the 15th best team in the league and are a huge move away from being the 10th best team in the league that will still get its ass kicked in the 2nd round.

That would still not be a problem to me, jumping from 20th-ish to 15th-ish is huge. The problem is the window is about two years to make 3 more jumps to get to 5ish.

I think this perspective relies on the premise that draft picks are inherently needed to maintain high level team performance long term. I fundamentally reject that. In my opinion the top few markets in the league which we are on the brink of should perpetually be looking to trade their so-called future assets by duping the recipients of those draft picks into thinking that they'll fall off the proverbial Cliff that you envision as inevitable.
https://august-shop.com/ streetwear & sneakers
Wingy
General Manager
Posts: 9,583
And1: 1,382
Joined: Feb 15, 2007

Re: What exactly is the plan? 

Post#274 » by Wingy » Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:43 pm

Michael Jackson wrote:I have no choice in the matter of AK, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt at this point that he is going to continue to make moves in an attempt to improve. I have no evidence one way or the other to validate this, it is just something I chose to believe, because I would like few moments of being a Bulls fan that are not misery...


I'm just going off of what they built in Denver, which of course largely lies on the back of the Jokic pick, which in turn is unlikely to happen again. They weren't perfect (and had the huge Mitchell miss), but they did hit on a lot of players w/o employing a "safe" type of early-Paxson strategy grabbing mostly Final Four upper classmen.
User avatar
Michael Jackson
RealGM
Posts: 15,794
And1: 2,199
Joined: Jun 15, 2001

Re: What exactly is the plan? 

Post#275 » by Michael Jackson » Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:48 pm

League Circles wrote:
dougthonus wrote:
Brothaman33 wrote:So already under the assumption that the picks we traded out turn into a star player, pick who you want, my comment that it won't matter is based on that player, on the Magic, leads them to a championship...the odds of that are so low that I don't give it thought. Thats why I was OK with the trade. If one of our picks leads the Magic down a road to where they make the playoffs a few years and come close a few times...which is still low,but more realistic, then it still won't matter.


It isn't necessarily about winning a championship. It is that a star player in the draft would lead us to a much longer team window to compete and enjoy the team. I agree the odds aren't that great that you will get such a player in the draft. Your original argument dismissed the impact if we did. If we did, it would be much better.

What do I care if we just got blown out of the water on trade to help a team be on the same treadmill we are on? There are also so many variables that I don't know if said player stays on the team for 9 years. Maybe they don't wanna be in Orlando for that long. Maybe the front office continues to suck.


I don't care what happens to the Magic either. I care that we gave up what I feel to be a lot of long term possibilities for a very short window of being mediocre. I'd have been content being near mediocre with opportunity, than mediocre without much opportunity.

I get worrying about the future, but there is little evidence that a trade like this will make a difference in getting to a championship. The evidence points to star players, more or less, picking where they want to go and who they play with and you praying its your city.


I don't think this will make the difference in a championship. If it does, it almost certainly prevents us from getting one rather than helping, because it's far more likely we draft a generational talent than get one any other way, but I agree that is extremely small chance.

What I care about is the viability of the team putting together a good product for an extended period of time. If you want to go all in and trade all your future assets for short term guys that htelp you then you can be slightly better for 2-3 years and then be a god awful mess.

This was a move in that vein. If I thought this move even made us a top 10 team in the NBA that was one dream move away from being a top 5 team that has a punchers chance at a title, then I'd be more excited about it. Instead we moved from maybe the 20th best team in the league to maybe the 15th best team in the league and are a huge move away from being the 10th best team in the league that will still get its ass kicked in the 2nd round.

That would still not be a problem to me, jumping from 20th-ish to 15th-ish is huge. The problem is the window is about two years to make 3 more jumps to get to 5ish.

I think this perspective relies on the premise that draft picks are inherently needed to maintain high level team performance long term. I fundamentally reject that. In my opinion the top few markets in the league which we are on the brink of should perpetually be looking to trade their so-called future assets by duping the recipients of those draft picks into thinking that they'll fall off the proverbial Cliff that you envision as inevitable.



In theory aren’t high draft picks just handicapping for poorly run organizations?
MrSparkle
RealGM
Posts: 17,411
And1: 6,635
Joined: Jul 31, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: What exactly is the plan? 

Post#276 » by MrSparkle » Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:48 pm

I'm not fundamentally against a planned tank. It just has to be a strong, justifiable scenario for me to do it.

- Superstar wants out; broken relationship. Even then, my 2c would be try everything possible to repair it and prevent the looming UFA walk scenario from happening. The Bucks did a good job doing their best to convince Giannis to sign that extension; some bad contracts passed around, but what a relief to lock Giannis. Other situations, I can't even tell if the trade return were even worth the moves. I would've tried and convinced AD to stay in NOP with Zion.

- Stars at declines in their careers with no help in sight (Garnett/Pierce, Paul/Griffin, Westbrook/George)

- Brutal wave of injuries (Magic, 12-14 Bulls, 97 Spurs, 19-21 Warriors)

Reasons not to tank:

- "B-stars." Thinking is: "We have nice players but they're not the best, so let's blow it up." Actual solution: Keep adding talent at every opportunity and wait for good sell-high/buy-low trade opportunities. Don't sell just to sell (like Jimmy). Warriors had plenty of reasons to sell young Curry or Klay for picks, or the post-sweep Mavs (08), or the pre-Kawhi Raptors. You just don't know what will happen. Staying relevant with good management and scouting has 9x out of 10 been better than nuking the operation.

- "We have a superstar but we can't get him help, so let's blow it up." Solution: Fire your management and coach immediately and start building a better roster on the back-end. Kudos to Philadelphia for not selling Simmons or Embiid for a truck of Fritos after last year's disappointment. I'm not entirely sure that NOP "won" by moving Davis for Ingram and froth. Jrue, Zion and Davis could've been pretty fun to watch.

There was no justifiable position for tanking the past year. There were already 12 young players on the roster. What do you do, trade Zach for 4 more kids and repeat the cycle? Then overpay the loser RFA since the cap is clean? Zach might've hit his peak, or maybe it's just begun. I don't expect him to shoot any better (in fact i expect the % to drop), but I see his intangibles improving as he enters his later prime.

When you tank in the East, unfortunately you must put all your resources into being as bad as possible. On top of that, you need to go further and destroy any culture and winning habits, because there are always 5 teams in a dead-end who are already intentionally putting out line-ups to lose. You need to dump your bum-slayers as well (Lauri, Thad, Sato, WCJ). Even then, Felicio, Arci and Valentine might be good enough to steal a game each week against bums, because nobody bothers preparing against them.

It's easier to tank in the West; generally there are 9 playoff teams so you have a shot at a Zion even with Davis and Jrue on your roster. OKC would be in the playoff race if they were in the East, and it'd be more a question of whether to dump Shai for picks, cause that guy alone could make the play-in if he was on the Cavs.

Rebuilding with the Bulls would've meant 100% roster turnover with no end in sight; not even one player to build around. I just don't think we were in position to compete with the Cavs and Magic. They have over $50m+ each tied into complete deadweight (ACL tears, Kevin Love, Mozgov still getting stretch/buyout compensation). It's kind of inexcusable if you already have wide-open cap space and tons of rookie salaries.
User avatar
Brothaman33
Junior
Posts: 326
And1: 217
Joined: Feb 25, 2009

Re: What exactly is the plan? 

Post#277 » by Brothaman33 » Mon Mar 29, 2021 7:05 pm

League Circles wrote:
dougthonus wrote:
Brothaman33 wrote:So already under the assumption that the picks we traded out turn into a star player, pick who you want, my comment that it won't matter is based on that player, on the Magic, leads them to a championship...the odds of that are so low that I don't give it thought. Thats why I was OK with the trade. If one of our picks leads the Magic down a road to where they make the playoffs a few years and come close a few times...which is still low,but more realistic, then it still won't matter.


It isn't necessarily about winning a championship. It is that a star player in the draft would lead us to a much longer team window to compete and enjoy the team. I agree the odds aren't that great that you will get such a player in the draft. Your original argument dismissed the impact if we did. If we did, it would be much better.

What do I care if we just got blown out of the water on trade to help a team be on the same treadmill we are on? There are also so many variables that I don't know if said player stays on the team for 9 years. Maybe they don't wanna be in Orlando for that long. Maybe the front office continues to suck.


I don't care what happens to the Magic either. I care that we gave up what I feel to be a lot of long term possibilities for a very short window of being mediocre. I'd have been content being near mediocre with opportunity, than mediocre without much opportunity.

I get worrying about the future, but there is little evidence that a trade like this will make a difference in getting to a championship. The evidence points to star players, more or less, picking where they want to go and who they play with and you praying its your city.


I don't think this will make the difference in a championship. If it does, it almost certainly prevents us from getting one rather than helping, because it's far more likely we draft a generational talent than get one any other way, but I agree that is extremely small chance.

What I care about is the viability of the team putting together a good product for an extended period of time. If you want to go all in and trade all your future assets for short term guys that htelp you then you can be slightly better for 2-3 years and then be a god awful mess.

This was a move in that vein. If I thought this move even made us a top 10 team in the NBA that was one dream move away from being a top 5 team that has a punchers chance at a title, then I'd be more excited about it. Instead we moved from maybe the 20th best team in the league to maybe the 15th best team in the league and are a huge move away from being the 10th best team in the league that will still get its ass kicked in the 2nd round.

That would still not be a problem to me, jumping from 20th-ish to 15th-ish is huge. The problem is the window is about two years to make 3 more jumps to get to 5ish.

I think this perspective relies on the premise that draft picks are inherently needed to maintain high level team performance long term. I fundamentally reject that. In my opinion the top few markets in the league which we are on the brink of should perpetually be looking to trade their so-called future assets by duping the recipients of those draft picks into thinking that they'll fall off the proverbial Cliff that you envision as inevitable.


This is more or less where I stand.

There's an idea that gaining as many draft picks as you can equals sustained winning or championships. Theres is little evidence that it equals sustained winning and almost zero evidence that equals championships.

Theres also a notion that you can package said draft picks in a trade to get even higher picks. There is little evidence of that working as well.

The NBA draft, outside if the top 3 to 5 picks has become a wasteland of imagination with some clinging onto a few hits that they think their team can hit everytime. We can all go back a look.

By percentages...the trade we probably made is:

Jakob Poltl, Wendell Carter Jr., Wesley Johnson and Otto Porter Jr. for Vuc and Aminu.

I could be hilariously wrong and we could have given them Donovon Mitchell, right. But I'm saying based on the draft records and the bust rate of these picks...we probably didn't give them a whole lot.
"Thibs and Deng make Skiles and Duhon look like a one night stand" - Red Larrivee
MrSparkle
RealGM
Posts: 17,411
And1: 6,635
Joined: Jul 31, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: What exactly is the plan? 

Post#278 » by MrSparkle » Mon Mar 29, 2021 7:37 pm

Brothaman33 wrote:
League Circles wrote:
dougthonus wrote:
It isn't necessarily about winning a championship. It is that a star player in the draft would lead us to a much longer team window to compete and enjoy the team. I agree the odds aren't that great that you will get such a player in the draft. Your original argument dismissed the impact if we did. If we did, it would be much better.



I don't care what happens to the Magic either. I care that we gave up what I feel to be a lot of long term possibilities for a very short window of being mediocre. I'd have been content being near mediocre with opportunity, than mediocre without much opportunity.



I don't think this will make the difference in a championship. If it does, it almost certainly prevents us from getting one rather than helping, because it's far more likely we draft a generational talent than get one any other way, but I agree that is extremely small chance.

What I care about is the viability of the team putting together a good product for an extended period of time. If you want to go all in and trade all your future assets for short term guys that htelp you then you can be slightly better for 2-3 years and then be a god awful mess.

This was a move in that vein. If I thought this move even made us a top 10 team in the NBA that was one dream move away from being a top 5 team that has a punchers chance at a title, then I'd be more excited about it. Instead we moved from maybe the 20th best team in the league to maybe the 15th best team in the league and are a huge move away from being the 10th best team in the league that will still get its ass kicked in the 2nd round.

That would still not be a problem to me, jumping from 20th-ish to 15th-ish is huge. The problem is the window is about two years to make 3 more jumps to get to 5ish.

I think this perspective relies on the premise that draft picks are inherently needed to maintain high level team performance long term. I fundamentally reject that. In my opinion the top few markets in the league which we are on the brink of should perpetually be looking to trade their so-called future assets by duping the recipients of those draft picks into thinking that they'll fall off the proverbial Cliff that you envision as inevitable.


This is more or less where I stand.

There's an idea that gaining as many draft picks as you can equals sustained winning or championships. Theres is little evidence that it equals sustained winning and almost zero evidence that equals championships.

Theres also a notion that you can package said draft picks in a trade to get even higher picks. There is little evidence of that working as well.

The NBA draft, outside if the top 3 to 5 picks has become a wasteland of imagination with some clinging onto a few hits that they think their team can hit everytime. We can all go back a look.

By percentages...the trade we probably made is:

Jakob Poltl, Wendell Carter Jr., Wesley Johnson and Otto Porter Jr. for Vuc and Aminu.

I could be hilariously wrong and we could have given them Donovon Mitchell, right. But I'm saying based on the draft records and the bust rate of these picks...we probably didn't give them a whole lot.


Yeah. The fact remains this was a low-risk trade. If Vucevic totally ****s the bed for the next 2 years, you convert the plan to 2023 cap space. He’s on the most friendly salary in the NBA, short of superstars who can’t earn more than their max or rookie salary.

Anything’s possible- we might remain a .400 win team for 2 more years and give ORL two all-star lotto picks outside the top-4, but it seems like a preposterous scenario. About as unlikely as tanking for three years straight and lucking into 2 superstar prospects.

I think the idea is to plug holes until there aren’t any. Went from worst front-court in league to a very good rotation. Makes the off-season easy and focused. The PG/SF rotations are still amongst the worst. There are more than enough assets to address those two spots, without giving up any more future FRPs.
chefo
Pro Prospect
Posts: 963
And1: 1,827
Joined: Apr 29, 2009

Re: What exactly is the plan? 

Post#279 » by chefo » Mon Mar 29, 2021 8:28 pm

There's no one formula for building a winner (forget about a contender) in the NBA. This is not money-ball. Basketball is infinitely more difficult to "quantify" than baseball.

Some models are more skill, some are more luck. The tanking one (draft-heavy) is BY FAR tied to most luck. Getting prime players who've shown they can play and tinkering with the cap and $ is the one that requires the least luck, and is more reliant on skillful execution. The best teams usually follow a variation of the second version.

So, if you want to be members of 'gamblers anonymous', sure--tank away and come away with Bagley, not Doncic. Because tanking not only involves luck in what position you end up to pick, but also requires that you get lucky with what players you get to choose from, lucky that they develop well, lucky that neither of the teams picking before you grabs them, and lucky that they don't leave your sorry excuse of a franchise the first chance they get because they're tired of losing. That's a ton to get lucky on.

If Embiid, for example, goes first to Minny, which many predicted him to, the Sixers are left with Wiggins or Jabari and right now would be a joke of a franchise and everybody would tell you that even under the old odds, tanking didn't do squat. Sacramento did not tank, and if Vlade was not a chain-smoking dude who didn't do his homework, the Kings would now have Doncic or Trae and would happily sit in the Western PO with the best young talent in the NBA.

The point being, unless you're tanking for a straight-up, can't miss generational talent... that has already performed like a generational talent at some level, you're simply hoping/praying things go your way. Hope /Pray in business or building any organization, for that matter, is about as poor of a strategy as you'll ever find.
CobyWhite0
Junior
Posts: 431
And1: 347
Joined: Dec 28, 2020
 

Re: What exactly is the plan? 

Post#280 » by CobyWhite0 » Mon Mar 29, 2021 8:33 pm

MrSparkle wrote:
Yeah. The fact remains this was a low-risk trade. If Vucevic totally ****s the bed for the next 2 years, you convert the plan to 2023 cap space. He’s on the most friendly salary in the NBA, short of superstars who can’t earn more than their max or rookie salary.

Anything’s possible- we might remain a .400 win team for 2 more years and give ORL two all-star lotto picks outside the top-4, but it seems like a preposterous scenario. About as unlikely as tanking for three years straight and lucking into 2 superstar prospects.

I think the idea is to plug holes until there aren’t any. Went from worst front-court in league to a very good rotation. Makes the off-season easy and focused. The PG/SF rotations are still amongst the worst. There are more than enough assets to address those two spots, without giving up any more future FRPs.


This. Exactly this.

If we suck the rest of the season and are #9 in the lottery, we have a 1 in 5 chance of keeping it. If we suck and can move down to #7 in the lottery with some late season tanking, we have a 1 in 3 chance of keeping the pick.

At 9 we have close to a 5% chance of getting the #1 pick - Orlando's chances of drafting a superstar at #9 are certainly less than 5%

If we add nothing this summer and still suck next season, we can easily get rid of Zach and Vuc and tank for the 2022 draft. We still have two quite young top-7 picks to develop

There is in reality such little risk to this deal compared to the upside that AKME had to do it. Because even if we don't land the two-way all-star we need, we can hit the reset button next summer.

Return to Chicago Bulls