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.