RealGM

Posted: **Mon Mar 29, 2021 8:55 pm**

Wingy wrote:
dice wrote:my plan was/is to trade lavine for as many young assets/picks you can find rather than overpaying him soon

Sounds like you're hoping for the very unlikely outcome of one, or more of those picks becoming as good as Zach Lavine, and Nik Vucevic. Having them turn out better than those guys becomes even more unlikely. Plus they need to stay healthy (hello, Derrick Rose...Grant Hill...Penny Hardaway, etc.).

Then the next idea for this plan becomes flipping these young asset/picks for a superstar, right? Also extremely unlikely because we are not LA, Miami, or even Brooklyn. The superstars dictate where they go. Why are they choosing a much worse version of this team, and franchise?

dice wrote:make quality moves. that's always the plan. trade bad value for good value. if you can't find good value, sign players to short-term "prove it" deals. rinse and repeat until you strike gold, or if you get to the point where the raptors were for several years pre-kawhi, being a fringe contender ain't a bad place to be

Quality moves and all the stuff you said in the first part there. Why can't that be done from the position we're in now? We have a FO with an eye for NBA talent. Continuing to tinker from where we are right now can land us in that Raptors-zone where you're looking for one lucky move, or pick to get you over the hump. Red L pointed out the Jazz as a great example of slowly building up over time from a similar position as us.

AK appears to have just made the kind of move that hits on both things you're suggesting. Throwing out what has been garbage to us for an upside player in TBJ. Of course there's no guarantees on TBJ, but that's the exact sort of "gold" opportunity we're hoping to strike. While also grabbing Theis who isn't shiny whatsoever, but just plays winning ball. We had no depth, now suddenly we have minutes battles throughout. I'm sure AK will continue to improve the roster up, and down so we get better and better. No more try hard plucky Arcidiaconos. No more Felicios.

Then look at the current elite teams:
- Lakers - Father Time is going to beat even Lebron, and AD is injury-prone.
- Nets - Durant/Kyrie are injury-prone, plus it's a pretty volatile mix that's also aging into their 30s
- Bucks - for all Giannis is, does he have the look of a guy who's going to dominate scoring late in the playoffs? He can get better, so maybe.
- Sixers - probably the toughest team for us, but can Embiid keep staying healthy w/deep post season runs, and w/o an elite offensive perimeter player to go w/him?

These teams are much better than us right now mind you, but they are heavily flawed. This is not the GSW/Cavs era we saw a few years ago. Keep getting better until you're that true pretender right behind those teams (AK's working on it), then you're hoping to get lucky. It's just a different attempt at being lucky than hoping for a drafted superstar, or a string of consecutive all star players drafted (e.g. - Warriors).

There is probably 1 prospect coming up that is in the can’t miss (LeBron, Durant,) category. That guy is Emoni Bates and he will probably be in the 2023 draft. If there is a guarantee that the Bulls can draft him then I would be willing to trade an established star like LaVine for him. Unfortunately there is no possible way to guarantee being able to draft him.

Posted: **Tue Mar 30, 2021 4:27 am**

You know, screw all this endless bullsh*t about tanking vs. competing, you know why I hate this?

It shows there is really no plan in the identity they want this team to have. What kind of team has ever done a damn thing with two B-list psuedo "stars" that are flat out defensive liabilities?

Posted: **Tue Mar 30, 2021 2:11 pm**

On a somewhat different note, I assume AK's plan is the fix attendance. And attendance would be a proxy for profitability for lack of better data. This year's attendance data is useless. The previous - Pax's last - wasn't pretty - the Bulls were 11th in the league:

http://www.espn.com/nba/attendance/_/year/2020

For comparison, the Bulls have been top 2 for virtually the entire post-Jordan era. They dropped twice. Both times were the *only* times GMs got fired. To Pax's credit, he fixed Krause's attendance problem quickly. 2 seasons. Keep attendance (and profits) high, and this ownership will give you a very long rope.

It didn't take that much in the past. Bulls fans have repeatedly come out in force for borderline playoff teams. But even they lose interest after a multi-year draught.

I don't think AK has the charter for an extended rebuild. He needs to fix attendance. Soon. From that perspective, the Vuc trade makes sense. The Bulls are in spitting distance of the playoffs. Make the push to get there. If they don't, the long term problems might not be AK's to solve anyway.

Posted: **Tue Mar 30, 2021 3:45 pm**

Leslie Forman wrote:You know, screw all this endless bullsh*t about tanking vs. competing, you know why I hate this?

It shows there is really no plan in the identity they want this team to have. What kind of team has ever done a damn thing with two B-list psuedo "stars" that are flat out defensive liabilities?

No team ever. What we have right now is never been enough in any year of the NBA. As for direction AK is showing win now, but I am not convinced that is his play long term either. With GarPax we knew what the plan was and it was to never be good and to never get better. So in theory this is still a huge upgrade. Everyone misses the VDN days when we were a perfect .500 team.

Posted: **Tue Mar 30, 2021 4:47 pm**

I think to plan is to win and flush the swamp of soft players inherited from garpax.

Posted: **Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:26 am**

My one concern with the “direction” after the trade is that it looks like the Bulls are going back towards lots of one-way players. Vuc and Lavine as well as Lauri, Theis, Brown and Green defensive. Where are the 2 way players.

I get a role player offensive or defensive player here or there, especially if they are exceptional, but a full team of one way players...

Posted: **Wed Mar 31, 2021 4:58 am**

Bulls are currently 9th in the lottery. They'll likely jump up to 5 or 6 in two weeks, and the schedule does not get much easier from there.

I'm thinking we should go all in for the top 4 pick. Say LaVine has an ankle contusion and shut him down. Start White for the remaining games. Guaranteed bottom 5 record.

I'm honestly not joking.

Sent from my SM-G960U using RealGM mobile app

Posted: **Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:21 pm**

MGB8 wrote:My one concern with the “direction” after the trade is that it looks like the Bulls are going back towards lots of one-way players. Vuc and Lavine as well as Lauri, Theis, Brown and Green defensive. Where are the 2 way players.

I get a role player offensive or defensive player here or there, especially if they are exceptional, but a full team of one way players...

Lauri’s probably on his way out. Bench demotion after 3.5+ years doesn’t bode well for his future as a Bull.

Green’s an end of the bench flyer in the long run.

Unfair to label Theis a 1 way player. He’s stronger on defense, but he’s not an offensive liability.

Brown I read from one Wiz fan isn’t as much of a defender as his highlights might suggest. We’re probably just taking a swing at upside, and not penning him into any long term plan.

I think it’s a concern that our stars are weak on D. I think it’s a non-concern that 1-way players are a new norm.

Posted: **Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:46 pm**

MGB8 wrote:My one concern with the “direction” after the trade is that it looks like the Bulls are going back towards lots of one-way players. Vuc and Lavine as well as Lauri, Theis, Brown and Green defensive. Where are the 2 way players.

I get a role player offensive or defensive player here or there, especially if they are exceptional, but a full team of one way players...

I really hope Karnisovas isn't just trying to recreate a homeless man's Denver here, because that's what it's looking like right now. That only works if you have, you know, the greatest offensive center in the history of the game. And if the goal is titles, that still has barely over 0 percentage of ever working. Jokic will always be a liability on the other end in a playoff series unless he drastically improves his defense, which he has not shown any signs of doing.

People are so concerned with the odds of tanking resulting in a title team being low…what are the odds of a team built around two such aggressively one-way players with a long history of losing working out? How are they any better? No team has ever won a title built around such a combo.

Posted: **Sun Apr 4, 2021 1:02 pm**

Leslie Forman wrote:People are so concerned with the odds of tanking resulting in a title team being low…what are the odds of a team built around two such aggressively one-way players with a long history of losing working out? How are they any better? No team has ever won a title built around such a combo.

I think most people are not thinking this trade will win a title. They're thinking this trade will make the team much better, more interesting, and maybe lead to future moves that will improve our chases, and who knows, maybe a miracle happens once you get there.

I think that's fine ,there was nothing that had any real chance of winning a title we were going to do. My fear is that what I just wrote above won't end up being true either. If this move ushered in an era of 2nd round playoff losses with no real chance at a title outside of a miracle like finding the next Jokic or Green in the 2nd round, then I'd be okay with it. It'd be fine to watch a low 50s win total team for the next few years rather than praying on lotto picks even if it wasn't ultimately going anywhere further.

I think instead though, we sold out hope to add 4-5 wins and finish in upper 30s low 40s, and that's no more fun to watch and a lot less hopeful. In that case, I'd rather hope for my miracle with lotto picks than 2nd rounders. That said, if we move up in the draft this year and get a top 4 pick, then this team might actually have the most hopeful outcome.

Posted: **Wed Apr 7, 2021 6:31 pm**

nomorezorro wrote:
NZB2323 wrote:We're like the 2007 Bulls who traded away Tyson Chandler and signed Ben Wallace. Our ceiling is losing in the 2nd round, unless some star decides he really wants to play with Lavine and Vuc in Chicago.

one thing about ben wallace on the bulls is that he sucked, and one thing about the 2007 bulls is that they didn't have anyone who's as good as zach lavine is right now

i'm getting really good at pointing out the difference between things

Ben Wallace did a great job of defending Shaq in the playoffs when the Bulls swept the Heat in 2007. The 2007 Bulls didn't have a scorer like Zach Lavine, but were a much better defensive team than the current Bulls.

The ceiling of the 2007 and 2021 Bulls is the same; losing in the 2nd round. We're not beating the Nets, Bucks, or 76ers. We might be able to pull off an upset like the 2007 Bulls and beat the Heat and make it to the 2nd round though.

Posted: **Sun Apr 11, 2021 11:41 pm**

Beating the 2007 heat wasn’t a upset

Posted: **Mon Apr 12, 2021 2:38 am**

The Bulls went from a rebuilding team to a rebuilding team without two first round picks in the next 3 years

Posted: **Mon Apr 12, 2021 2:52 am**

The Vuc trade is seriously trending towards disaster territory. We need to turn this ship around or land a top 4 pick. Otherwise, AK is off to a very poor start.

Posted: **Mon Apr 12, 2021 7:57 am**

We've been arguing on here incessantly for years about whether or not trying to move up in the lottery is worth it…

…and now we're basically just stuck praying for it anyways after a going all-in trade.

Posted: **Mon Apr 12, 2021 8:31 am**

People were complaining about how tanking doesn't work. Well what we've got going sure as hell doesn't work either and now we have less opportunity to improve our team without 1st round picks in 2/3 years. This must be what knick fans felt when they traded away future picks for Eddy Curry.

Posted: **Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:21 pm**

Horrible trade. I couldn’t believe we gave up 2 firsts and a recent lottery pick (although I’m not high on Wendell) for a center who will be 31 at start of next season and is not a good defender. Wow

Posted: **Mon Apr 12, 2021 1:41 pm**

can the plan be for our big man/ctr to get to the FT stripe more?

He's taken twice as many 3PA than FTA since he got here!!!

That guy needs to be living at the FT stripe, not the arc.
He's lethal from the charity stripe. Could be up in the 30 PPG if he worked harder to get there.

Would SLOW DOWN THEA GAME and let Zach rest a little so he can work harder on D
There is a reason players slap hands and lollygag around the FT stripe - they do this to get some extra rest.

Posted: **Mon Apr 12, 2021 3:32 pm**

I mean AK put our backs against the wall with this Vuc trade. And now he's going to have to pull a rabbit out of the hat this summer. Overpaying Lonzo Ball doesn't fix this.

The move is fine in a vacuum, but there doesn't seem to be any overarching vision for what we're doing. If there is, it's lazy/unimaginative.

Posted: **Mon Apr 12, 2021 6:35 pm**

ATRAIN53 wrote:can the plan be for our big man/ctr to get to the FT stripe more?

Not just Vuc, Zach himself also isn't a great FT getter considering his usage. It's probably part of the reason why we keep getting bad offensive stretches even if we have 2 highly efficient scorers.

I liked the trade after the deadline but now I'm having second thoughts. It's a fair deal in a vacuum but I now feel like AK panicked into the trade when our playoff hopes started spiraling out of control just before the deadline.

What we should've done was to wait for the off-season / lottery to make our move. KAT may become available soon and he's a younger and better version of Vuc still with defensive upside plus we know his connection with Lavine. Also, that ORL deal might still be there in the off-season if we can't get KAT.

RealGM

What exactly is the plan?

Re: What exactly is the plan?

Re: What exactly is the plan?

Re: What exactly is the plan?

Re: What exactly is the plan?

Re: What exactly is the plan?

Re: What exactly is the plan?

Re: What exactly is the plan?

Re: What exactly is the plan?

Re: What exactly is the plan?

Re: What exactly is the plan?

Re: What exactly is the plan?

Re: What exactly is the plan?

Re: What exactly is the plan?

Re: What exactly is the plan?

Re: What exactly is the plan?

Re: What exactly is the plan?

Re: What exactly is the plan?

Re: What exactly is the plan?

Re: What exactly is the plan?

Re: What exactly is the plan?