Wingy wrote:Yeah, that's another one. Which I think as fine, and probably makes sense to stop debating at this point because I see those as viable options I wouldn't have protested strongly against (if at all). Zach on the other hand...now there's the rub. I also won't keep debating your opinion that current path was the least preferable. Maybe you're right, but my point is that I believe that even if it is less preferable - it's by such a minuscule amount that it's meaningless in any practical sense. Of course, neither of us will be able to prove our side objectively unless we can find some professional odds maker that predicts probability of an all star demanding a trade to Chicago under various permutations of team quality. Good luck to us on that one.
Not that it really matters much, right now, no one can prove their side objectively. If one of the bad case scenarios happens next year, then I think you very easily objectively say our path chosen was the wrong one. We traded long for short, and if we fail in the short term, then we know we screwed up.
If we make it to the 2nd round for 2 years and then have to rebuild, we can debate about whether that was a good path or not and whether the other path would have been better, but if we miss the playoffs and Zach leaves the case will be pretty open and shut.
The Vuc trade greatly mitigates that risk. Do you think trading for one of his all star game teammates makes him more, or less happy than making a pick in the upcoming draft, and hoping for the best? We know the answer. Every player wants proven players next to them.
It only mitigates the risk if the team is successful. I think we have very few paths to improve the roster from where we are by any notable margin, so if the existing roster fails, then the risk is higher, because you have nothing left to do. I do agree that Vuc should help with short term results, but whether he helps enough with short term results to make Zach think one way or the other is something that will be proven out over time.
Yes, there's always diminishing returns. Worth it to try the experiment IMO. Ainge was willing to give 2 firsts. Do we have reason to believe he, or some other GM has vastly changed their opinion based on the weird COVID season in Chicago w/Zach hurt & on the 'rona shelf? I highly doubt it.
Yes, there is absolutely huge reason to believe Vuc will be worth less:
1 - Time has diminished off his value contract, and you have 2 years instead of 3
2 - Vuc is another year older and closer to the ledge of falling off talent wise
Right here, you've codified the most simple summary of what has had me scratching my head in all of the Vuc talk. As I noted before - they've decreased since the team whimpered the season away, but there were so many strongly negative posts when the losses started piling up post-trade. Many a "we're screwed" type posts from some real long-time pillars of this community.
I just don't understand such a dire tone for what amounts to a 2-3 year experiment that has real upside compared to where we've been stuck. At very least even if it doesn't work - it's a start to change the seriously negative optics around the Bulls franchise. I just don't think players are attracted to teams that sit on their hands, and hope.
We're talking a couple years to try it. That's a blink of an eye for the NBA. I feel like the "we're screwed" doom and gloom kind of posts strike a tone as if we just signed current Vuc to a super max.
To me, that's like saying you're a future doctor, but instead of starting school right out of high school you want to work at walmart for three years as a cashier first just in case it pays as well as being a doctor and you don't need to bother. Well you can just start med school three years later and won't have lost anything by it, who knows, maybe Walmart cashiers would start making 200k a year, there's just no way to tell without trying it for three years right?
And certainly, I know I'm using hyperbole, and this isn't that cut and dry, but that's effectively what I feel about this "experiment". It is incredibly obvious to me that it will fail before watching it. It provides me no hope for the future, most likely a 1st round loss or two which I think we would have done even without this experiment.
Three years is not the blink of an eye. That's a massive amount of time, especially because the rebuild takes another two to three years. You're saying I might as well just tune out of the Bulls for five to six years then if this goes down as I expect it to.
I could be wrong, I'm wrong about all kinds of things all of the time. I set my bar for success for this move at one second round playoff appearance. I don't think that's a crazy high bar or anything. If this move fails to achieve that then I view it as an absolute disaster, and I'd be shocked if we achieved that goal.