RealGM

dougthonus wrote:

TheJordanRule wrote:I believe you've been guided by the piss poor actions and beliefs by the last front office to come to these crazy conclusions. This probably isn't even you right now unless you happen to be John Paxson's parrot. John would frequently bump the false narrative about the greatness of "flexibility"-- which to most Bulls fans meant "we gotta forget about free agency, at least we signed a couple decent bums ERR I mean vet minimums off the scrap heap for half their market value". The days of a scarcity mentality are over. This new front office is on the "if you build it, they will come" path, and that's something worth buying into. Expect a quality starter in free agency this summer. There are going to be free agents out there who see the potential of playing with Zach and Vuc in one of the NBA's largest markets.

If that happens, then I will stand corrected, but there are two problems:

1: There are no good FAs next season
2: We can't even offer a max if there were
3: We don't really have trade assets to pay for a real star in trade

We 100% absolutely positively CAN offer a max, and do it quite easily - and we don't even need any help to do it.

If we waive and stretch Thad, Sato and Aminu, and don't pick up Arch's option, we'll have $36,945,603 in cap space. Next season's 30% max is $33,724,200. Simple enough.

The 35% max will be $39,344,900 - if we also waive and stretch Brown, we'll have $40,392,646 in cap space, so we could even do that without any help from anyone else.

I first mentioned the possibility of Vuc trade on here back on February 14, 2021 before anyone here mentioned it. Maybe 1-2 of you said something. Anyways, I wanted Vuc here because:
- He has a lot of trade value since he's a center who is a 2 time All Star with good stats on offense.
- Orlando Magic pissed away his best years. There's nothing left for Vucevic and Orlando Magic to continue the relationship.
- Orlando better get younger talent back before Vucevic heavily regress.
- Orlando trading away Vuc was long overdue. They should have done Vuc a solid and traded him away years ago to a team that has a good chance of truly going all the way. Orlando management believed that they had a potential contender with Vuc as the main piece, which is weird.

I knew that Vuc doesn't give a damn about defense a long time ago. I don't need to discuss that any further. So why did I really want him since he's not going help to produce more wins? Simple.

- I'm flipping Vuc during the Summer. For who? That's up to AKME. That's why I wanted Vooch here. He'll produce his stats on offense with us, but that doesn't translate to wins. Which is 100% evident currently. Also, he's on the wrong side of 30, which means he's a short term piece.

As for a couple of posters here talking down to us for criticizing Vuc, what would you prefer to happen?

We're. still. losers. even with Vuc getting those pretty numbers. We're getting blown out. We're still caught in melt downs.

I'm not blaming any player on the team. Definitely not doing that. But to offer Vuc a max deal seeing as how what is happening in front of our eyes right now? Laughable. I suppose that you want to remain losers. You want to protect Vuc's name while throwing away the "Chicago Bulls" name.

Building around star players, who don't try on defense, NEVER works. We have to HIDE their flaws by getting players who will do the dirty work? LOL. Why is that particular responsibility relegated to the rest of the team, but not the "superstars?" Wow. "Hiding" sounds wussy, soft, and weak. Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, and Dennis Rodman NEVER did that. They all loved competing on defense.

Look at Thib's New York Knicks right now. They turned that ship around very quickly. Their cornerstone, Julius Randle, is waxing dat *ss. He's not afraid to do the dirty work. He's not hiding. The Knicks are not hiding him either.

- Ask Denver Nuggets and New York Knicks about Carmelo Anthony. I'm so happy we didn't get Carmelo during his prime.
- Ask Phoenix Suns about Steve Nash, Joe Johnson, and Amare. They didn't get far.
- Ask the Clippers about Blake Griffin. He didn't help prime time Chris Paul.

Like I wrote before, there are people who just care about the names on the back of the jerseys instead of the ones on the front.

CobyWhite0 wrote:We 100% absolutely positively CAN offer a max, and do it quite easily - and we don't even need any help to do it.

If we waive and stretch Thad, Sato and Aminu, and don't pick up Arch's option, we'll have $36,945,603 in cap space. Next season's 30% max is $33,724,200. Simple enough.

The 35% max will be $39,344,900 - if we also waive and stretch Brown, we'll have $40,392,646 in cap space, so we could even do that without any help from anyone else.

Yeah, you're right, if you waive and stretch everyone you can get there, of course you're still stuck with two problems:
1: You have to decide on Thad/Sato before FA starts (their guarantee dates were 6/30, so will be before FA tips off)
2: There's still no one to make the offer to.

The Box Office wrote:I first mentioned the possibility of Vuc trade on here back on February 14, 2021 before anyone here mentioned it. Maybe 1-2 of you said something. Anyways, I wanted Vuc here because:
- He has a lot of trade value since he's a center who is a 2 time All Star with good stats on offense.
- Orlando Magic pissed away his best years. There's nothing left for Vucevic and Orlando Magic to continue the relationship.
- Orlando better get younger talent back before Vucevic heavily regress.
- Orlando trading away Vuc was long overdue. They should have done Vuc a solid and traded him away years ago to a team that has a good chance of truly going all the way. Orlando management believed that they had a potential contender with Vuc as the main piece, which is weird.

I knew that Vuc doesn't give a damn about defense a long time ago. I don't need to discuss that any further. So why did I really want him since he's not going help to produce more wins? Simple.

- I'm flipping Vuc during the Summer. For who? That's up to AKME. That's why I wanted Vooch here. He'll produce his stats on offense with us, but that doesn't translate to wins. Which is 100% evident currently. Also, he's on the wrong side of 30, which means he's a short term piece.

As for a couple of posters here talking down to us for criticizing Vuc, what would you prefer to happen?

We're. still. losers. even with Vuc getting those pretty numbers. We're getting blown out. We're still caught in melt downs.

I'm not blaming any player on the team. Definitely not doing that. But to offer Vuc a max deal seeing as how what is happening in front of our eyes right now? Laughable. I suppose that you want to remain losers. You want to protect Vuc's name while throwing away the "Chicago Bulls" name.

Building around star players, who don't try on defense, NEVER works. We have to HIDE their flaws by getting players who will do the dirty work? LOL. Why is that particular responsibility relegated to the rest of the team, but not the "superstars?" Wow. "Hiding" sounds wussy, soft, and weak. Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, and Dennis Rodman NEVER did that. They all loved competing on defense.

Look at Thib's New York Knicks right now. They turned that ship around very quickly. Their cornerstone, Julius Randle, is waxing dat *ss. He's not afraid to do the dirty work. He's not hiding. The Knicks are not hiding him either.

- Ask Denver Nuggets and New York Knicks about Carmelo Anthony. I'm so happy we didn't get Carmelo during his prime.
- Ask Phoenix Suns about Steve Nash, Joe Johnson, and Amare. They didn't get far.
- Ask the Clippers about Blake Griffin. He didn't help prime time Chris Paul.

Like I wrote before, there are people who just care about the names on the back of the jerseys instead of the ones on the front.

AK didn’t trade for Vuc to trade him again this summer. He is going to be on this team for the next few years at a minimum. And what are you talking about offering Vuc a max deal? He’s under contract through 2023. There is no contract extension coming up for him and he’s actually on a pretty good value contract for his production as is LaVine. Neither guy is on a max deal.

People are quick to criticize Vuc’s game but this team was going absolutely no where before that trade happened. If you remember the Bulls just lost to Cleveland the night before the trade deadline with their full complement of players. That had to be one of the most disappointing losses of the season.

You also have to look at what you gave up to get Vuc. 2 protected lottery picks, WCJ, and an expiring OPJ. If the Bulls don’t win the lottery I could care less about bringing in another low lottery pick. This team has enough low upside guys as it is. Vuc is better than anyone the Bulls would get in their draft spot. That’s a fact.

And by the way the Bulls name has been absolutely nothing since Jordan left. With the last FO there was no where to go but up.

There is no benefit to make the play in game at this point. The Bulls need a top 4 pick and every loss from here makes that more possible. AK himself said that his roster is not complete. This team doesn’t have a quality PG that can run the team and that can’t be addressed until the summer.

TheJordanRule wrote:

Stratmaster wrote:I am watching this guy put up 26/16/6 followed by 24/11, and carrying the lowly Bulls to a win over the majestic superstar untouchable Jimmy Butler led Miami Heat on the road.

Then I am reading the comments on this thread; and remembering going through the exact same BS when the Bulls acquired Lavine.

Lavine must be so glad to have another great player on the team Bulks fans can hate on instead of him.

You know who are more overrated than Vucevic? RealGM Bulls fans.

What a pitiful crock of ****.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

Wish I could agree with you. Lavine had much bigger questions to address when he first came here. He was fresh off an ACL tear and, after a year in which he only appeared in 47 games with the Wolves, Zach played 24 games for us, offering production that objectively placed him as an overall a net negative on both ends. That version of Zach had far more legitimate concerns than our current concerns about Vuc, which are more about the overall direction of the team than whether Vuc can play or not. There's no question that Vuc is a net positive on our roster.

I never questioned concerns about his recovery. Those aren't the concerns I am referring to, and those certainly weren't the only concerns then, and aren't the concerns now.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

dougthonus wrote:The same thing could randomly apply for us to take a player that would be an all-star that we would have avoided otherwise. Say we had it was Kawhi and Malik Monk, and we liked Monk more but thought he was a worse fit with Zach so took Kawhi. There's no reason to believe this influences the odds.

Good thought, it does work both ways.

I think I'm overselling the reverse scenario a heck of a lot less than people are overselling the current scenario. People constantly say we have two all-stars now which is technically true, but pick any two all-stars at random from this year's list and you have about a 98% chance of having a better core than we do.

Calling out that the label "all star" doesn't mean as much as people claim (which I agree, the context matters) also works to diminish the idea of having solid odds to get a needle-moving all star through the draft. A lot of guys on that list of 21 players don't mean a whole lot in that context. Our own Deng/Noah probably never make the game if not for the 1.7% chance of having Rose in tow w/Thibs. So considering the dart throw is even harder, and then the time to realize value, there's a lot that can and will go wrong.

Almost every team that is really good is built through the draft or had multiple superstars decide they want to sign there. We aren't in position to do either of those things now. We're in position to win 40ish games for two years then full rebuild with way less assets than we'd have had otherwise.

Anyway, we'll see how it goes. I see a few outcomes, but all of them are awful. I'll just sit back and hope I'm wrong, but I'd guess in three years we have a complete dead end team with a pretty bare cupboard.

At this point, I understand your views, and I get being down about it. As I recall, I started this thread up originally due to what I sensed as a regular and somewhat dramatic gloom, and doom tone that was somewhat pervasive to much of the board - and even coming from a lot of folks who usually present themselves as pretty even-keeled, and wise to the fact that no matter what we do, it's all very unlikely to lead to a championship w/o a whole ton of luck. I'd guess it's from a combo of the team being irrelevant for a long time...the continued losing...the pandemic...the hope of a new regime...and then disagreeing w/that new regime's early moves...then probably some more pandemic hitting the psyche. I think it has all wound into one big ball of frustration for a lot of fans. At this time, that tone has died down due to the fact that a lot of folks have just stopped posting as much.

In this whole thing, I saw 3 high-level paths:
1. Total blow up (your preferred path)
2. Blow it up except Zach (my preferred path)
3. Try to trade for an established talent (AKME's chosen path)

I took 1. off the table because I felt like it had been discussed in the "what exactly is the plan?" thread - and I wanted to frame this discussion closer to AKME's reality. Beyond the $$$ M.O., I also couldn't foresee the franchise kicking a young all star to the curb given what we saw w/Jimmy taking the Heat to the finals. I see the Jimmy/Heat run as an anomaly, but that perception is out there amongst the general fanbase, and the optics would be awful jettisoning Zach. Loss of money AND public outcry...now that's something ownership will avoid.

I think 2 has been discussed in this thread pretty well.

3. I think a lot more folks would've been ok with if it wasn't Vuc. Say if it were for Siakam at age 27, then I'm sure a lot more would be excited...or at least more optimistic. Tough thing is - when will those players come available, and would it cost even more? I think AKME, living under the premise that we can't lose Zach for picks...and then also - we can't lose him for peanuts, felt like he had to act on the opportunity that was there.

I'm also not as down for this reason. Prime Zach on a max isn't some unmoveable piece. If you believe Thad Young w/only 1 year left can get a 1st, why couldn't Vuc who's a much more productive player? Zach can probably grab you two if need be.

I saw Leslie noting how Vuc is like Demarcus Cousins. Even now...catastrophically injured, broken down Cousins has legit contenders looking to scoop him up year after year. Vuc isn't in that boat, so he's still an asset if the whole thing never gels.

Then our own presumably bad roster~3 years from now has us in perfect position to quickly tank w/the "double draft" looming soon during the years of our newfound badness...I don't think everything's as bleak as people think.

dougthonus wrote:

CobyWhite0 wrote:We 100% absolutely positively CAN offer a max, and do it quite easily - and we don't even need any help to do it.

If we waive and stretch Thad, Sato and Aminu, and don't pick up Arch's option, we'll have $36,945,603 in cap space. Next season's 30% max is $33,724,200. Simple enough.

The 35% max will be $39,344,900 - if we also waive and stretch Brown, we'll have $40,392,646 in cap space, so we could even do that without any help from anyone else.

Yeah, you're right, if you waive and stretch everyone you can get there, of course you're still stuck with two problems:
1: You have to decide on Thad/Sato before FA starts (their guarantee dates were 6/30, so will be before FA tips off)
2: There's still no one to make the offer to.

So how is timing impacted on 1) if we lined-up trades for them (presumably for non-guaranteed contracts)?

sco wrote:

dougthonus wrote:

CobyWhite0 wrote:We 100% absolutely positively CAN offer a max, and do it quite easily - and we don't even need any help to do it.

If we waive and stretch Thad, Sato and Aminu, and don't pick up Arch's option, we'll have $36,945,603 in cap space. Next season's 30% max is $33,724,200. Simple enough.

The 35% max will be $39,344,900 - if we also waive and stretch Brown, we'll have $40,392,646 in cap space, so we could even do that without any help from anyone else.

Yeah, you're right, if you waive and stretch everyone you can get there, of course you're still stuck with two problems:
1: You have to decide on Thad/Sato before FA starts (their guarantee dates were 6/30, so will be before FA tips off)
2: There's still no one to make the offer to.

So how is timing impacted on 1) if we lined-up trades for them (presumably for non-guaranteed contracts)?

I don't think there are many non-guaranteed contracts to trade Thad and Sato for.

And I don't see the logic for another team there.

For example, there's George Hill, who makes about the same as Sato, but who's guarantee for 21/22 is only $1.3M. So, yes, Philly could trade George Hill to us for Sato. At that point, instead of waiving Sato and paying him $5M to go play elsewhere, we would waive Hill and pay him $1.3M to go play elsewhere.

But... Philly would end up waiving Sato and paying him $5M. So from Philly's point of view, they've just spent and extra $3.7M with literally nothing to show for it.

There are no alternatives in free agency. We can all clearly see how barren it is.

The only argument that makes sense to me is the alternative to Vuc would be keeping the assets in the hopes that KAT becomes available...but really how much better is KAT than Vuc if we're being honest?

Guy is not a game changer-

but at 22, and 24 mil the next 2 years - he's still a bargain for a guaranteed 20/10 a night IMO

his problem is that he takes TWICE as many 3PA as he does FTA
He's 6'11 and supposed to be playing CTR

He's not down low pushing guys around and getting easy put backs - and those easy put backs where some guy is draped all over him and he gets the extra FT shot.

Vooch would get out worked by CARLOS BOOZER down there in the post.
that's kinda SAD


Remember when we traded Elton Brand who was only 21 and averaging 20/10 because he wasn't dominant enough to lead us to the playoffs....

Wingy wrote:Calling out that the label "all star" doesn't mean as much as people claim (which I agree, the context matters) also works to diminish the idea of having solid odds to get a needle-moving all star through the draft. A lot of guys on that list of 21 players don't mean a whole lot in that context. Our own Deng/Noah probably never make the game if not for the 1.7% chance of having Rose in tow w/Thibs. So considering the dart throw is even harder, and then the time to realize value, there's a lot that can and will go wrong.

Noah got MVP votes when Rose was basically out the whole season, so hard to pin his all star appearance on Rose. I think healthy Noah in his prime was a better player than Vuc is today. He was a guy you could build your whole defense around.

In this whole thing, I saw 3 high-level paths:
1. Total blow up (your preferred path)
2. Blow it up except Zach (my preferred path)
3. Try to trade for an established talent (AKME's chosen path)

I took 1. off the table because I felt like it had been discussed in the "what exactly is the plan?" thread - and I wanted to frame this discussion closer to AKME's reality. Beyond the $$$ M.O., I also couldn't foresee the franchise kicking a young all star to the curb given what we saw w/Jimmy taking the Heat to the finals. I see the Jimmy/Heat run as an anomaly, but that perception is out there amongst the general fanbase, and the optics would be awful jettisoning Zach. Loss of money AND public outcry...now that's something ownership will avoid.

I think 2 has been discussed in this thread pretty well.

3. I think a lot more folks would've been ok with if it wasn't Vuc. Say if it were for Siakam at age 27, then I'm sure a lot more would be excited...or at least more optimistic. Tough thing is - when will those players come available, and would it cost even more? I think AKME, living under the premise that we can't lose Zach for picks...and then also - we can't lose him for peanuts, felt like he had to act on the opportunity that was there.

To me I would add a fourth (sort of) path:
4: Continue to build with what we had

If I were to analyze all four of those paths, the one we choose, based on the talent we got and what it took to get him, I think it was the least preferable. I would have been happier standing pat, rebuilding around Zach, or completely blowing it up than what we did.

That said, the way the season is going, we'll have a 1 in 3 chance of keeping our pick, and this path may prove to be a real winner if that happens as it will now give us that star power (potentially at least) that we need to make that leap forward.

I'm also not as down for this reason. Prime Zach on a max isn't some unmoveable piece. If you believe Thad Young w/only 1 year left can get a 1st, why couldn't Vuc who's a much more productive player? Zach can probably grab you two if need be.

I thin prime Zach on a max should yield a good trade package, I'm not particularly concerned about paying Zach the max. I'm probably more concerned that he just walks for nothing vs signing the max here.

I saw Leslie noting how Vuc is like Demarcus Cousins. Even now...catastrophically injured, broken down Cousins has legit contenders looking to scoop him up year after year. Vuc isn't in that boat, so he's still an asset if the whole thing never gels.

You'll get less for him than you gave up to get him. Again, it isn't necessarily catastrophic if you get less than you gave if you have to pivot.

Then our own presumably bad roster~3 years from now has us in perfect position to quickly tank w/the "double draft" looming soon during the years of our newfound badness...I don't think everything's as bleak as people think.

Bleak is an interesting term. There's nothing irrecoverable about what we did, because in many ways there is nothing to recover from. We aren't anywhere. We'll just be set back a bit more from an already bad situation. It's not like we were sitting at a near title team and screwed it up, but I think this move ultimately delays whatever our next real chance at becoming a great team is by 2-3 years while giving us a very slim chance to do the same thing in a shorter term.

sco wrote:So how is timing impacted on 1) if we lined-up trades for them (presumably for non-guaranteed contracts)?

Are there any fully non guaranteed deals you even could trade them for? Doesn't seem like a reasonable thing to have happen, why does the other team do this? Money savings for the Bulls is really small in this case too vs a waive/stretch.

dougthonus wrote:Noah got MVP votes when Rose was basically out the whole season, so hard to pin his all star appearance on Rose. I think healthy Noah in his prime was a better player than Vuc is today. He was a guy you could build your whole defense around.

Does he have that season with any coach other than Thibs? You don't get that team overachieving success factor that's required for MVP votes without Thibs. That was a confluence of things going in Noah's favor there. Regardless, I agree that I underrated him in my tone/statement.

To me I would add a fourth (sort of) path:
4: Continue to build with what we had

If I were to analyze all four of those paths, the one we choose, based on the talent we got and what it took to get him, I think it was the least preferable. I would have been happier standing pat, rebuilding around Zach, or completely blowing it up than what we did.

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.

I thin prime Zach on a max should yield a good trade package, I'm not particularly concerned about paying Zach the max. I'm probably more concerned that he just walks for nothing vs signing the max here.

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.

You'll get less for him than you gave up to get him. Again, it isn't necessarily catastrophic if you get less than you gave if you have to pivot.

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.

Bleak is an interesting term. There's nothing irrecoverable about what we did, because in many ways there is nothing to recover from. We aren't anywhere. We'll just be set back a bit more from an already bad situation. It's not like we were sitting at a near title team and screwed it up, but I think this move ultimately delays whatever our next real chance at becoming a great team is by 2-3 years while giving us a very slim chance to do the same thing in a shorter term.

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.

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.

I stand by the idea that good FOs these days can build very good teams without needing top-5 picks. It’s just not gonna happen in 2-3 years. But nor will a tank job.

They made the Vuc trade with the macro decision that they don’t want to lose games for another 3 years (tank in 2023?). It really isn’t hard to start winning games; you replace your GLeague scrubs with “unattractive” but affordable, proven veterans.

dougthonus wrote: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.

Pretty much where we're at. Us fanatics will watch with great enthusiasm to see how it plays out.

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.

What are the alternatives though?

The alternatives are also prayers.

1. Pray that a pick is better than Vuc, AND can start producing that way just about right away. Huge odds against that.
2. Pray that a better star is going to be available, that star has us and our losing roster on their short list, and that the surely steeper price is going to be worth whatever increase in quality you get over Vuc. It's A LOT to ask for.

Both are complete Hail Marys in terms of being realistically achievable needle-movers...a lot like Vuc.

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

Yes, I acknowledged diminishing returns. To me, trying it is worth the price of a pick, and maybe a slightly lower 2nd pick. Surely he's still going to be worth a FRP, and could fetch some WCJ-esque disappointment.

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.

You're equating draft picks to the certainty of being a doctor, while equating Vuc outcomes to the Walmart increase. That goes beyond and crushes hyperbole like the 72-10 Bulls against this year's OKC. Compared to the Vuc trade, that degree of relative confidence in a draft-pick lead path makes absolutely zero sense to me, but to each their own.

We don't do the trade, and the 2021 pick is the next Stanley Johnson, Lauri Markkanen, Dante Exum, Steven Adams type. Highly possible, and more likely than drafting a star. It's what we've done basically for the last decade plus. Then what have we accomplished during the 2-3 year span it took us to find out said player is entirely mediocre (or worse)? Zach is more impressed with that than even an 8th seed w/Vuc?

...and fair enough on your expectations. We shall all see together.

Lol, wrong thread. Sorry.

Well, against the Nets there doesn't seem to be anything to like about in Vucevic, 3rd Q almost up.

Wingy wrote:What are the alternatives though?

The alternatives are also prayers.

1. Pray that a pick is better than Vuc, AND can start producing that way just about right away. Huge odds against that.
2. Pray that a better star is going to be available, that star has us and our losing roster on their short list, and that the surely steeper price is going to be worth whatever increase in quality you get over Vuc. It's A LOT to ask for.

Both are complete Hail Marys in terms of being realistically achievable needle-movers...a lot like Vuc.

Hence my original point that I would have heavily considered just trading Zach and starting over from scratch. This rebuild is likely just not going to work regardless of what you do. Granted, I would only do that depending on if I could get a massive offer for him.

Yes, I acknowledged diminishing returns. To me, trying it is worth the price of a pick, and maybe a slightly lower 2nd pick. Surely he's still going to be worth a FRP, and could fetch some WCJ-esque disappointment.

Fair chance we will give up two lotto picks, also fair chance that no one who wants him will have lotto picks to give up for him, and that we would only get back far worse picks. I agree he's probably worth a lotto pick still, but whether it's available or not because everything you need lines up correctly? Who knows.

Wingy wrote:You're equating draft picks to the certainty of being a doctor, while equating Vuc outcomes to the Walmart increase. That goes beyond and crushes hyperbole like the 72-10 Bulls against this year's OKC. Compared to the Vuc trade, that degree of relative confidence in a draft-pick lead path makes absolutely zero sense to me, but to each their own.

Ignore the certainty of the doctor.

I'm saying if you think a plan is really bad (being a Walmart Cashier) then you don't waste three years trying it and say after it fails for three years "well I would have just done this other thing three years earlier, so it is the same". If you are going to inevitably have to start rebuilding again, then doing so now is better than trying to make win now trades when you are a 30% win team.

If we are going to have to rebuild anyway, it is better to get on with it, and yes, the next rebuild attempt also had a good chance to fail, that's just how things go. If the current plan had a good chance of success or even what I viewed as a 50/50 chance at success then I'd be fine with it, but to me, it is obvious on the surface that it is almost certainly a loser and I don't want to waste 3 years on it.

We don't do the trade, and the 2021 pick is the next Stanley Johnson, Lauri Markkanen, Dante Exum, Steven Adams type. Highly possible, and more likely than drafting a star. It's what we've done basically for the last decade plus. Then what have we accomplished during the 2-3 year span it took us to find out said player is entirely mediocre (or worse)? Zach is more impressed with that than even an 8th seed w/Vuc?

Agreed, and again, this is why I said I'd consider trading Zach too, even though I think Zach is great. Odds are that what we have isn't going anywhere.

dougthonus wrote:
Agreed, and again, this is why I said I'd consider trading Zach too, even though I think Zach is great. Odds are that what we have isn't going anywhere.

Very true, but you can say that for most recent NBA Champions until they made a move or two that totally changed things.

2020 Lakers - they were going less than nowhere until LeBron signed as a free agent and (most importantly) they traded for AD. They went from 37 wins in 2019 to Champs in 2020 by trading for AD

2019 Raptors - they got swept in the 2nd round in 2017 and 2018, added Kawhi and won a Title.

2015, 2017 and 2018 Warriors - they went from 2nd round loss to 1st round loss to 2015 Champs mostly by changing coaches (as the roster was pretty much the same).

2016 Cavs - went from 3 straight non-playoff seasons to a Finals loss and a Title.

2012 and 2013 Heat - went from horrible to Champs because of The Decision

Only the 2011 Mavs and 2014 Spurs had been consistent contenders with basically the same stars to winning a Title.

Obviously, the Bulls are an All-Star away from contending, but I'll take that over being 2 All-Stars away all day long.

Are we a superstar away from serious contending? Hell yes, but so were the last 10 or so Champs.