Image ImageImage Image

You don't like the Vuc? What were the alternatives?

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

Wingy
General Manager
Posts: 9,714
And1: 1,473
Joined: Feb 15, 2007

Re: You don't like the Vuc? What were the alternatives? 

Post#41 » by Wingy » Sat Apr 24, 2021 12:46 am

dougthonus wrote:I get what you are saying, and I agree with these points.

If the point though is, "Well, you can't do the best thing, we're taking that off the table, which of these lesser things would you do instead" then sure, I can pick one, then my next choice would be trading Thad at the deadline for the most we could get (I'm sure at least a 1st), Lauri for the most we could get (even if it was 2nds), and Sato if we could find a 1st for him (unlikely) would have been my plan.


So we're basically aligned here. Your response above quoted me saying "I'd prefer to ditch everything but Zach, but I do get the more extreme plan."

I really, really seriously doubt we were getting a 1st for Thad, but that's beside the point. Tear it down except for Zach...yes, I could've easily gotten on board for that given how none of the 7s took a step forward. Again though, I think that's more fanatic fantasy realm, and not what the franchise would've done given The Business.

You're also pushing the Zach flight risk to the extreme by doing this. If the FO/ownership talked w/Zach, sold him on a vision, and he was down...heck yeah. But even in the highly unlikely event ownership would follow the strartegy of almost completely tearing it down again - would Zach really buy it? Maybe...I would at least ask him, but there's a lot of doubt there.

If our pick is in the 7-14 range, that's saying about 1 in 8 players in that range will be an all-star, I may have missed some, but here is the list from 2000-2017:

...(cut out for brevity)

That means the odds are actually closer to 30% by my top of he head math of drafting an all-star than 20%.


This is why I'm finding some of your opinions on this topic a little disingenuous. Mind you, I don't think you're consciously doing it with some malicious intent, or trying to be a jackass, etc. I just think you strongly believe what you believe (and with legit reasons), and that's clouding your objectivity when comparing the current situation vs. the theoretical situation. You're going to pretty great lengths to prop up the alternate reality...and this draft pick odds thing is Exhibit A.

I'll concede an All Star is around 20-30% of the time in the 7-14...15...16ish range every year. That does not mean the odds of the Bulls drafting an All Star with our pick are 20-30%. We don't get 9 picks to cash in on that 20-30% chance...we get 1 pick. Depending on where that pick falls, tons of guys on the list aren't even a possibility for us.

Then there's the matter of your team context. Let's say you've got a shot at Devin Booker, and heck you like Devin Booker. He's your BPA even, and you rate him 87 in some madeup ratings system. However, you have Zach Lavine at SG already, and there's also say....Justice Winslow available who you're also very high on - and rate him only a tiny bit lower at 85. You could easily, and understandably take Winslow (I'm imagining there's no PWill for sake of example) in this scenario, and miss on your All Star.

Then there's the time cost. Vuc in year 8 hits All Star...as I mentioned Zach/Randle year 7. Team reward All Star Deng..year 8. Noah - year 6. There are plenty of guys on the list who flash, and hit star status much earlier...but even if you're lucky, or good enough to get one...it could also be quite awhile, and by then Zach's older, and out of his prime.

I don't think the alternative was guaranteed success.

I'm not sure why you feel my take is "disingenuous based on not liking the move". It's a genuine take based on not liking the move. Not sure why you don't think these things are related. I don't like the move because I think it was a bad move for the reasons I have stated. How could I have not liked the move, but thought it was really good?

If I was gauging it purely on the short term results, and I liked it then 3 weeks later panicked because didn't have initial success then that would be one thing, but that isn't the case. I said right away it was too much to give up and didn't like it for all the reasons I stated, none of which were based on short term record.

If we don't have significant improvement by end of next season (ie, squarely in the 1st round of the playoffs with a competitive series) then this move is a pure loser.


I don't find your general opinion of the move to be disingenuous, not at all. I think your assessment of the current results from said move comes off as disingenuous because it largely ignores the current context, and the laundry list of things stacked up against the newly constructed team (that's also obviously still incomplete). You noted in a later post to Strat you expect a lot of those things to flip, but yet it's unclear if we're going to get better? Especially on defense where it takes communication, and everyone to be aligned, and on the same page. I mean...apparently they've literally never held a practice w/the "new" team. Yes, in a binary sense, I won't disagree - we're not better in this very moment. But everything this year, and in this moment is atypical, and in any regular climate - any team given a chance to actually play, and practice together is going to get better if you have talent, and guys willing to work together. I don't think we have any bad apples to sabotage that process, so I expect we'll see a much improved Bulls team next season.
HOTCARL_o
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,405
And1: 48
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Las Vegas but still a Chicagoan
     

Re: You don't like the Vuc? What were the alternatives? 

Post#42 » by HOTCARL_o » Sat Apr 24, 2021 2:08 am

kodo wrote:In some ways, the Vuc path and the non-Vuc path are the still the same.
Best case for this season without Vuc: win the lotto and get a top 4 pick.
Best case for this season with Vuc: win the lotto and get a top 4 pick.

Vuc is almost more insurance so we walk out of this season with something if we don't get a high pick.

Failure is doing what we've always done under Paxson & Foreman: trying to build a contender out of #7 and #8 picks. The best BPA mocked to fall to us is Corey Kispert, who has been most often compared to Joe Harris. I don't see Joe Harris 2.0 who enters the league at 23 being a Finals MVP for Chicago. Detroit tried to rebuild by getting #8 every year, this is not a model to emulate.

Get me off the Wendell Carter / Coby White / Lauri Markkanen train, in either direction. If we get a top 4 pick instead, wonderful. If we don't get a top 4 pick, yes I prefer a vet all-star like Vuc.

And some of this is more than just odds of winning the title. Basketball at the end of the day is nothing but entertainment, and for me the product on the floor when the heart of the team was Lavine/Coby/Markkanen/Wendell was just awful to watch. The Bulls have been a better product for me this year, even if the Ws aren't there. And a lot of this has to do with these recent draft picks being de-emphasized in favor of guys who know how to play basketball.

There's something to be said for just playing basketball the right way for the fans. People were talking about how Utah should break it up last season (only keeping Donovan) after 4 years of being a 1st/2nd round exit. They've never went into a tank or "youth movement." They just kept playing the right way. The Heat pre Butler were the same. Toronto pre Kawhi.


Agree, think this is the first season in awhile where I’ve actually watched most of the games this season. They’ve been so unwatchable the past few seasons at least now it looks like there’s promise in the future.
User avatar
DuckIII
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 63,465
And1: 26,334
Joined: Nov 25, 2003
Location: On my high horse.
     

Re: You don't like the Vuc? What were the alternatives? 

Post#43 » by DuckIII » Sat Apr 24, 2021 3:14 am

I like Vuc AND prefer the alternatives. Ijustblewyourmind.
Once a pickle, never a cucumber again.
Stratmaster
RealGM
Posts: 16,647
And1: 6,285
Joined: Oct 02, 2010
       

Re: You don't like the Vuc? What were the alternatives? 

Post#44 » by Stratmaster » Sat Apr 24, 2021 1:03 pm

DuckIII wrote:I like Vuc AND prefer the alternatives. Ijustblewyourmind.
Is "The Alternatives" a cover band name? Can they play defense like Prince?

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app
User avatar
DuckIII
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 63,465
And1: 26,334
Joined: Nov 25, 2003
Location: On my high horse.
     

Re: You don't like the Vuc? What were the alternatives? 

Post#45 » by DuckIII » Sat Apr 24, 2021 1:22 pm

Stratmaster wrote:
DuckIII wrote:I like Vuc AND prefer the alternatives. Ijustblewyourmind.
Is "The Alternatives" a cover band name? Can they play defense like Prince?

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app


It’s just that I’ve explained my criticisms of the Vuc trade and my preferred strategy so many times that I don’t feel like writing it again. Cliff’s Notes version: trade some vets for young players and draft assets and focus on the draft one last time and THEN look to deal future assets for immediate help and make the big postseason push for 21-22. With what we did, we are boxed in with a razor narrow path to make it all work.

P.S. Game, blouses.
Once a pickle, never a cucumber again.
sco
RealGM
Posts: 16,885
And1: 4,736
Joined: Sep 22, 2003
Location: Virtually Everywhere!

Re: You don't like the Vuc? What were the alternatives? 

Post#46 » by sco » Sat Apr 24, 2021 3:06 pm

DuckIII wrote:
Stratmaster wrote:
DuckIII wrote:I like Vuc AND prefer the alternatives. Ijustblewyourmind.
Is "The Alternatives" a cover band name? Can they play defense like Prince?

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app


It’s just that I’ve explained my criticisms of the Vuc trade and my preferred strategy so many times that I don’t feel like writing it again. Cliff’s Notes version: trade some vets for young players and draft assets and focus on the draft one last time and THEN look to deal future assets for immediate help and make the big postseason push for 21-22. With what we did, we are boxed in with a razor narrow path to make it all work.

P.S. Game, blouses.

I have a different view. Those picks, especially the second one would be pretty worthless (ie in the 20's) if we become half-decent, which you have to believe. Carter was going to be pretty worthless too (not that he's terrible, but he's not likely going to be a top 15 C). So really, we traded our 1st that was top 4 protected (which are likely the only guys who are allstars) for a top quartile C. We also got a near-perfect guy to play alongside Vuc to shore-up our rim protection and add rebounding when Vuc goes outside. I view Brown for Gafford/Hutch a good move in that Gafford wasn't a good fit, where Brown has value as a young, defensive wing with starter upside if he works on his shot. The only failing at the deadline wasn't trading Lauri for a useful asset, but his RFA rights may have value (unlikely).

That leaves us our path to success finding a good PG, but mainly counting on PWill to become a stud 2-way player. While I wouldn't call either a statistical probability at this point, they are both feasible.
:clap:
User avatar
DuckIII
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 63,465
And1: 26,334
Joined: Nov 25, 2003
Location: On my high horse.
     

Re: You don't like the Vuc? What were the alternatives? 

Post#47 » by DuckIII » Sat Apr 24, 2021 3:11 pm

I’m not saying you can’t trade Carter or future firsts. I’m saying we should have waited until after this particular draft to start down that road.

I know, top 4 protection. But I don’t consider this a 5 player draft. We jumped the gun.
Once a pickle, never a cucumber again.
ChettheJet
Analyst
Posts: 3,306
And1: 827
Joined: Jul 02, 2014
       

Re: You don't like the Vuc? What were the alternatives? 

Post#48 » by ChettheJet » Sat Apr 24, 2021 3:19 pm

The two alternatives to getting an all star center would be keeping Wendell and maybe Gafford, or trading for potential. That would be trading less than what Vuc cost for Mo Bamba, Zach Collins, Mitchell Robinson, Thomas Bryant, Ivica Zubac. Signing some veteran in free agency would be more expensive that Vuc and whoever you're going to suggest, wouldn't be an all star.
MrSparkle
RealGM
Posts: 17,504
And1: 6,690
Joined: Jul 31, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: You don't like the Vuc? What were the alternatives? 

Post#49 » by MrSparkle » Sat Apr 24, 2021 3:55 pm

In the big picture, the other side of the move was getting out of the FA rat race (Otto’s expiring). It became a terrible FA class, and in some ways it was predictable as the superstars had already paired up, and we were obviously in no place to recruit Giannis or Kawhi.

Let’s face it: “mad scientists” GarPax planned for a 2021 FA splash with their cap strategy, and as usual (2014 & 16), they would’ve had max cap space for B/C/wash-ups on the board... or simply resigned Otto and Lauri, who sadly are two of the top-10 FAs. I’d imagine Pax would offer DeRozan 70/2 offer after a Sato buyout or something stupid.

Obviously cap flexibility is important, and you need to keep plus-value salaries on the books, but I’ve long thought creating 1 max slot without a back-channel guarantee was fool’s gold. I’m positive LA had a pulse on Shaq in ORL; GS had a pulse on Durant; BRK’s Kyrie/Durant plans were rumored for over a year.

Otherwise every good team has operated with no cap-space; Riley’s big-3 (and Lebron/Durant’s hopping in general) were anomalies and not the norm. When they had no cap, GS got Iguodala; Miami got Jimmy; Houston got Harden.

It was wise to be proactive with this cap. Options will dwindle further, and the only guys worth pursuing were gonna be S&Ts anyway. Otherwise you’re stuck burning it on garbage players.
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 49,420
And1: 9,233
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:
 

Re: You don't like the Vuc? What were the alternatives? 

Post#50 » by dougthonus » Sat Apr 24, 2021 4:41 pm

Stratmaster wrote:Worse on defense? With Theis and Brown? Vuc is no worse than Carter was defensively, and better on the boards.You don't think the Bulls have been playing their best defense of the year in the last few games (with one obvious exception game)?


Vuc is absolutely MUCH worse than Carter defensively. I don't even think that's a question at all.

Theis and Brown may be upgrades, but again, Theis likely won't be here next year. Brown's solid.

They are playing much better basketball. The exceptions were the first few games after the trade. They have beaten 2 winning teams. When Zach gets back this team is as good as the 6 through 10 seeds.


We beat the Nets without their two best players, and the Celtics without four rotation players. We lost to the Cavs, Magic, Timberwolves.... Three of the worst teams in the league.

Again, I don't put much on the short term record at all, but if I were to put emphasis on it, they have been worse overall since the trade so far (again for lots of logical reasons you named that shouldn't be long term concerns).

To be clear, I'm not bringing up the micro-short term record as a significant negative. I'm only saying this was a short term trade and until the Bulls actually prove it works out in the short term (2 year window) then we haven't achieved anything whatsoever. That may or may not happen, to date it hasn't happened and we shouldn't just assume it's a given that it will happen. Sometimes teams make crushing mistakes, and this absolutely could be one, and is presently on that path just not far enough down it yet to be too scared.
http://linktr.ee/bullsbeat - links to the bullsbeat podcast
@doug_thonus on twitter
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 49,420
And1: 9,233
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:
 

Re: You don't like the Vuc? What were the alternatives? 

Post#51 » by dougthonus » Sat Apr 24, 2021 4:50 pm

Wingy wrote:So we're basically aligned here. Your response above quoted me saying "I'd prefer to ditch everything but Zach, but I do get the more extreme plan."


Maybe. I would also consider the ditching Zach plan, but you said I can't pick that plan. I'm not sure why ditch everything but Zach is more reasonable than ditching everything, but I would start completely over, if not, I'd ditch everything but Zach.

I really, really seriously doubt we were getting a 1st for Thad, but that's beside the point.


Not sure why you feel that way, but ok. There was lots of rumors prior to the trade deadline that Thad was highly sought after but the Bulls shut everyone down.

Tear it down except for Zach...yes, I could've easily gotten on board for that given how none of the 7s took a step forward. Again though, I think that's more fanatic fantasy realm, and not what the franchise would've done given The Business.


I agree it isn't what the franchise would do, given that they did not do it. Are we only allowed to talk about what the franchise would do? If so, then there are no options except the ones taken.

You're also pushing the Zach flight risk to the extreme by doing this. If the FO/ownership talked w/Zach, sold him on a vision, and he was down...heck yeah. But even in the highly unlikely event ownership would follow the strartegy of almost completely tearing it down again - would Zach really buy it? Maybe...I would at least ask him, but there's a lot of doubt there.


Well given my plan was also to potentially also move Zach, that flight risk isn't such a big deal to me, but I agree it is there.

This is why I'm finding some of your opinions on this topic a little disingenuous. Mind you, I don't think you're consciously doing it with some malicious intent, or trying to be a jackass, etc. I just think you strongly believe what you believe (and with legit reasons), and that's clouding your objectivity when comparing the current situation vs. the theoretical situation. You're going to pretty great lengths to prop up the alternate reality...and this draft pick odds thing is Exhibit A.

I'll concede an All Star is around 20-30% of the time in the 7-14...15...16ish range every year. That does not mean the odds of the Bulls drafting an All Star with our pick are 20-30%. We don't get 9 picks to cash in on that 20-30% chance...we get 1 pick. Depending on where that pick falls, tons of guys on the list aren't even a possibility for us.

Then there's the matter of your team context. Let's say you've got a shot at Devin Booker, and heck you like Devin Booker. He's your BPA even, and you rate him 87 in some madeup ratings system. However, you have Zach Lavine at SG already, and there's also say....Justice Winslow available who you're also very high on - and rate him only a tiny bit lower at 85. You could easily, and understandably take Winslow (I'm imagining there's no PWill for sake of example) in this scenario, and miss on your All Star.

Then there's the time cost. Vuc in year 8 hits All Star...as I mentioned Zach/Randle year 7. Team reward All Star Deng..year 8. Noah - year 6. There are plenty of guys on the list who flash, and hit star status much earlier...but even if you're lucky, or good enough to get one...it could also be quite awhile, and by then Zach's older, and out of his prime.


We traded two picks not one, so we get two shots at it, not one.

I'm not sure why you think I'm being disingenuous when I used straight objective math over a 18 year sample size, and you created a bunch of random hypothetical reasons why the Bulls will do less than random chance over that sample size. Apparently, you think believe the Bulls odds are worse than random selection, and I ignored whether they will or won't draft well and just used a random selection backed up by 18 years of data.

However, I'm the one that is disingenuous unintentionally? I don't think you're disingenuous (because that actually does imply intent and can't be unintentional), but I think you are wrong in assuming the Bulls would perform worse than a random number generator.

I don't find your general opinion of the move to be disingenuous, not at all. I think your assessment of the current results from said move comes off as disingenuous because it largely ignores the current context, and the laundry list of things stacked up against the newly constructed team (that's also obviously still incomplete). You noted in a later post to Strat you expect a lot of those things to flip, but yet it's unclear if we're going to get better? Especially on defense where it takes communication, and everyone to be aligned, and on the same page. I mean...apparently they've literally never held a practice w/the "new" team. Yes, in a binary sense, I won't disagree - we're not better in this very moment. But everything this year, and in this moment is atypical, and in any regular climate - any team given a chance to actually play, and practice together is going to get better if you have talent, and guys willing to work together. I don't think we have any bad apples to sabotage that process, so I expect we'll see a much improved Bulls team next season.


My opinion on current results is that they are poor.

I expect them to get better, but that isn't proven yet. They very well may not be better. Even if they are better, they need to get significantly better for it to make the trade good.

As I have said, my bar for success of this move is roughly whether the Bulls make the 2nd round of the playoffs in the next two seasons. Less than that and it's probably a loser to me, there could be exceptions (like 48 win season 7 game playoff lost in a 4/5 seed or something with injuries or something like that).

I think we were a 1st round playoff loser next year without this trade though and would have way more upside with our picks still.
http://linktr.ee/bullsbeat - links to the bullsbeat podcast
@doug_thonus on twitter
ZOMG
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,312
And1: 3,187
Joined: Dec 31, 2013

Re: You don't like the Vuc? What were the alternatives? 

Post#52 » by ZOMG » Sat Apr 24, 2021 4:58 pm

dougthonus wrote:
Wingy wrote:I really, really seriously doubt we were getting a 1st for Thad, but that's beside the point.


Not sure why you feel that way, but ok. There was lots of rumors prior to the trade deadline that Thad was highly sought after but the Bulls shut everyone down.


There was never any talk about FRP's. It was something like, "teams have been calling about Thad". That might mean a million things.

It's just as likely that the "demand" was just s**t being hurled at a wall, with teams offering all kinds of pu pu platters. The FRP was a message board narrative that took on a life of its own.
Current status: ACTIVE
Former status: BANNED FOR DERAILING DISCUSSION
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 49,420
And1: 9,233
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:
 

Re: You don't like the Vuc? What were the alternatives? 

Post#53 » by dougthonus » Sat Apr 24, 2021 7:34 pm

ZOMG wrote:There was never any talk about FRP's. It was something like, "teams have been calling about Thad". That might mean a million things.

It's just as likely that the "demand" was just s**t being hurled at a wall, with teams offering all kinds or pu pu platters. The FRP was a message board narrative that took on a life of its own.


:dontknow:

If you don't think you could get a pick in the 20s for Thad, then not sure what to tell you, but I think you're wrong. No, trade offers weren't posted, because the Bulls shut everyone down and it didn't get that far. I don't think anyone was offering multiple unprotected 1sts for Thad Young, but a pick in the 16-25 range? Yeah, I think that was on the table if the Bulls wanted it.
http://linktr.ee/bullsbeat - links to the bullsbeat podcast
@doug_thonus on twitter
dice
RealGM
Posts: 37,926
And1: 10,382
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: You don't like the Vuc? What were the alternatives? 

Post#54 » by dice » Sat Apr 24, 2021 8:05 pm

Wingy wrote:I'll also add that the Zach walking risk is not equal to what it was before the trade.

The Bulls basically said - we believe in you, and want to build around you. Zach knows the weirdness of the season, and he also knows he wasn't at his best as soon as the trade happened w/the ankle- and now COVID protocols.

Maybe he blames that all on the Bulls? I doubt it.

Of course the risk is still there if it doesn't work out, but I'm quite sure Zach's going to take responsibility for trying to make it work after a proper offseason/training camp. I think he knows they bet on him, and his ability to keep ascending. Grabbing Vuc was a huge risk mitigation.

mitigating the risk of losing a maxed out zach? oh no!

i find it VERY hard to believe that zach lavine would turn down what the bulls are likely to offer in favor of less money elsewhere. and i doubt that there's anyone dumb enough to sign and trade for a maxed out lavine. AK is as dumb as a brick if placating zach lavine is a factor in his roster decisions
peter pumpkinhead told the truth
dice
RealGM
Posts: 37,926
And1: 10,382
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: You don't like the Vuc? What were the alternatives? 

Post#55 » by dice » Sat Apr 24, 2021 8:06 pm

dougthonus wrote:
ZOMG wrote:There was never any talk about FRP's. It was something like, "teams have been calling about Thad". That might mean a million things.

It's just as likely that the "demand" was just s**t being hurled at a wall, with teams offering all kinds or pu pu platters. The FRP was a message board narrative that took on a life of its own.


:dontknow:

If you don't think you could get a pick in the 20s for Thad, then not sure what to tell you, but I think you're wrong. No, trade offers weren't posted, because the Bulls shut everyone down and it didn't get that far. I don't think anyone was offering multiple unprotected 1sts for Thad Young, but a pick in the 16-25 range? Yeah, I think that was on the table if the Bulls wanted it.

if a 1st rounder was on the table it was likely from a contending team, so probably a late 1st unless years out
peter pumpkinhead told the truth
dice
RealGM
Posts: 37,926
And1: 10,382
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Location: chicago

Re: You don't like the Vuc? What were the alternatives? 

Post#56 » by dice » Sat Apr 24, 2021 8:10 pm

HOTCARL_o wrote:
kodo wrote:In some ways, the Vuc path and the non-Vuc path are the still the same.
Best case for this season without Vuc: win the lotto and get a top 4 pick.
Best case for this season with Vuc: win the lotto and get a top 4 pick.

Vuc is almost more insurance so we walk out of this season with something if we don't get a high pick.

Failure is doing what we've always done under Paxson & Foreman: trying to build a contender out of #7 and #8 picks. The best BPA mocked to fall to us is Corey Kispert, who has been most often compared to Joe Harris. I don't see Joe Harris 2.0 who enters the league at 23 being a Finals MVP for Chicago. Detroit tried to rebuild by getting #8 every year, this is not a model to emulate.

Get me off the Wendell Carter / Coby White / Lauri Markkanen train, in either direction. If we get a top 4 pick instead, wonderful. If we don't get a top 4 pick, yes I prefer a vet all-star like Vuc.

And some of this is more than just odds of winning the title. Basketball at the end of the day is nothing but entertainment, and for me the product on the floor when the heart of the team was Lavine/Coby/Markkanen/Wendell was just awful to watch. The Bulls have been a better product for me this year, even if the Ws aren't there. And a lot of this has to do with these recent draft picks being de-emphasized in favor of guys who know how to play basketball.

There's something to be said for just playing basketball the right way for the fans. People were talking about how Utah should break it up last season (only keeping Donovan) after 4 years of being a 1st/2nd round exit. They've never went into a tank or "youth movement." They just kept playing the right way. The Heat pre Butler were the same. Toronto pre Kawhi.


Agree, think this is the first season in awhile where I’ve actually watched most of the games this season. They’ve been so unwatchable the past few seasons at least now it looks like there’s promise in the future.

just what management wants to sell people on. but vucevic's probably only gonna get worse going forward. and lavine (who will be hard-pressed to match this season as a scorer going forward) is only gonna be making a lot more money
peter pumpkinhead told the truth
Stratmaster
RealGM
Posts: 16,647
And1: 6,285
Joined: Oct 02, 2010
       

Re: You don't like the Vuc? What were the alternatives? 

Post#57 » by Stratmaster » Sat Apr 24, 2021 11:25 pm

DuckIII wrote:
Stratmaster wrote:
DuckIII wrote:I like Vuc AND prefer the alternatives. Ijustblewyourmind.
Is "The Alternatives" a cover band name? Can they play defense like Prince?

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app


It’s just that I’ve explained my criticisms of the Vuc trade and my preferred strategy so many times that I don’t feel like writing it again. Cliff’s Notes version: trade some vets for young players and draft assets and focus on the draft one last time and THEN look to deal future assets for immediate help and make the big postseason push for 21-22. With what we did, we are boxed in with a razor narrow path to make it all work.

P.S. Game, blouses.
Plus 1 on the blouses

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app
Stratmaster
RealGM
Posts: 16,647
And1: 6,285
Joined: Oct 02, 2010
       

Re: You don't like the Vuc? What were the alternatives? 

Post#58 » by Stratmaster » Sat Apr 24, 2021 11:29 pm

dougthonus wrote:
Stratmaster wrote:Worse on defense? With Theis and Brown? Vuc is no worse than Carter was defensively, and better on the boards.You don't think the Bulls have been playing their best defense of the year in the last few games (with one obvious exception game)?


Vuc is absolutely MUCH worse than Carter defensively. I don't even think that's a question at all.

Theis and Brown may be upgrades, but again, Theis likely won't be here next year. Brown's solid.

They are playing much better basketball. The exceptions were the first few games after the trade. They have beaten 2 winning teams. When Zach gets back this team is as good as the 6 through 10 seeds.


We beat the Nets without their two best players, and the Celtics without four rotation players. We lost to the Cavs, Magic, Timberwolves.... Three of the worst teams in the league.

Again, I don't put much on the short term record at all, but if I were to put emphasis on it, they have been worse overall since the trade so far (again for lots of logical reasons you named that shouldn't be long term concerns).

To be clear, I'm not bringing up the micro-short term record as a significant negative. I'm only saying this was a short term trade and until the Bulls actually prove it works out in the short term (2 year window) then we haven't achieved anything whatsoever. That may or may not happen, to date it hasn't happened and we shouldn't just assume it's a given that it will happen. Sometimes teams make crushing mistakes, and this absolutely could be one, and is presently on that path just not far enough down it yet to be too scared.
There is a difference between skeptically waiting to see how it flushes out, and condemning it as a failure because it didn't immediately show an end result. Likely where we are at with our different views.

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app
User avatar
dougthonus
Senior Mod - Bulls
Senior Mod - Bulls
Posts: 49,420
And1: 9,233
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Contact:
 

Re: You don't like the Vuc? What were the alternatives? 

Post#59 » by dougthonus » Sat Apr 24, 2021 11:33 pm

Stratmaster wrote:There is a difference between skeptically waiting to see how it flushes out, and condemning it as a failure because it didn't immediately show an end result. Likely where we are at with our different views.


I'm not condemning it as a failure due to it not having immediate results. I'm condemning it as a failure based on my evaluations of the players moved, picks moved, value of all of those assets and what I project those values to be in short / long term.

I think this is a short term move where we gave up long term benefits except our ceiling after this move is too low for it to be meaningful. I don't think we will get out of the 1st round or even be competitive in the 1st round of the playoffs with this team.
http://linktr.ee/bullsbeat - links to the bullsbeat podcast
@doug_thonus on twitter
KL78192020
General Manager
Posts: 7,800
And1: 6,503
Joined: Apr 19, 2009

Re: You don't like the Vuc? What were the alternatives? 

Post#60 » by KL78192020 » Sun Apr 25, 2021 1:01 am

dougthonus wrote:
Stratmaster wrote:There is a difference between skeptically waiting to see how it flushes out, and condemning it as a failure because it didn't immediately show an end result. Likely where we are at with our different views.


I'm not condemning it as a failure due to it not having immediate results. I'm condemning it as a failure based on my evaluations of the players moved, picks moved, value of all of those assets and what I project those values to be in short / long term.

I think this is a short term move where we gave up long term benefits except our ceiling after this move is too low for it to be meaningful. I don't think we will get out of the 1st round or even be competitive in the 1st round of the playoffs with this team.


Its a shame they couldn't get better protection on the picks like top 10. That would've made it somewhat reasonable.

Return to Chicago Bulls