Bulls Biggest Need this Off-season: 3 and D players OR big man who can rebound and defend?

[jnrjr79]

Let's say for the sake of argument that this would be the correct role for Vooch. Do you think he's up for it? Particularly in a contract year?

IMO if you think this is his correct role, you have to trade him now.

I would say these general points to that:
1: I have no reason to believe Vuc would become a bad attitude player

2: If I'm wrong, and he did, he'd likely get sent home, and his value would likely go down not up given his last year (ie, this would also likely be a very bad decision for him finanically)

3: You make trades based on whether you are better off or not, not based on if the player is better off. You might take into account his feelings in the case of someone who did a ton for your franchise that it is time to part ways with or in the case where it is neutral for you and better for them and makes you look better in the league, but those circumstances don't seem applicable here.

In short, I think Vuc would probably fine with 12 shots a game, getting them out of the pick and roll on the move and less spot up / iso attempts, but I can only guess. I'm neutral on trading Vuc, because his current value is low, and I don't think you'd get something great back for him, but if you did find someone wanting to buy on him and willing to make an offer based on his value the previous season then I would take it.

1) Vooch seems like a good guy, but asking a 2-time All-Star, who has already voiced his difficulties transitioning to a third-banana role this season, to take on an even smaller road in the last season before what is likely to be his last big contract could be a bridge too far. The idea that you would have "no reason" to assume he might not respond to that request well seems a bit much. At best, you could say he seems like a good guy and you hope he'd keep up a positive mindset about it. But there is obviously plenty of reason to believe he might not respond well to that.

2). I don't really agree. I'm not saying the guy is going to act terribly, just that he may keep taking shots even if you ask him to defer more. That's not going to get him sent home, and probably won't cause his value to go down. He'd be doing that b/c he believed his value would go *up*.

3). I agree you make trades to make your team better off as a general matter, but you also sometimes do it to be kind to a player (both b/c you may want to be kind for its own sake, or b/c it's good for PR). I am already of a "trade Vooch for a better-fitting big" mindset this offseason, but if your attitude is you're going to ask Vooch to take a role cut next year, then it seems all the more likely that you should trade him now. I don't see much of a point in letting him play it out and then letting him walk if you're not going to let the guy shoot and try to improve his percentages.

[ATRAIN53]

Vooch is fine. One of the only guys I think showed up all 5 nights for that playoff shellacking.

My issue with him is that he has fallen in love with the 3 when we need him to score down low.
He took 42 3 pointers over 5 games and made only 5 trips to the FT line and those were all in game 1 .

Not a singe FT attempt in game 2, 3, 4 and 5

Guy should have a few easy put back dunks in every game and some of those could turn into AND ONES
and more important maybe, just maybe he gets Giannas in Foul Trouble

You're not beating Gianns on the floor - but he can't beast you from the bench......

The guy thinks he's a 6'10" Steph Curry.
He's decent out there but he can't LIVE out there......

[dougthonus]

1) Vooch seems like a good guy, but asking a 2-time All-Star, who has already voiced his difficulties transitioning to a third-banana role this season, to take on an even smaller road in the last season before what is likely to be his last big contract could be a bridge too far. The idea that you would have "no reason" to assume he might not respond to that request well seems a bit much. At best, you could say he seems like a good guy and you hope he'd keep up a positive mindset about it. But there is obviously plenty of reason to believe he might not respond well to that.

To think Vuc would become a problematic player and not go along with the coach's desires also makes some pretty broad assumptions. I'm not suggesting that Vuc would be thrilled by this outcome, but there is a difference between him not thinking this is ideal and him feeling so badly about it that he conducts himself in a way that it creates a negative atmosphere or outcome for the team. I don't think he would do that, but again, I'm only guessing. I agree he wouldn't like the scenario though, but going from there to being a disruptive ahole is a pretty big leap IMO.

2). I don't really agree. I'm not saying the guy is going to act terribly, just that he may keep taking shots even if you ask him to defer more. That's not going to get him sent home, and probably won't cause his value to go down. He'd be doing that b/c he believed his value would go *up*.

You change the offense to not give him shots in those positions. Obviously Vuc should take shots when given good opportunities and where he feels his shots make sense.

3). I agree you make trades to make your team better off as a general matter, but you also sometimes do it to be kind to a player (both b/c you may want to be kind for its own sake, or b/c it's good for PR). I am already of a "trade Vooch for a better-fitting big" mindset this offseason, but if your attitude is you're going to ask Vooch to take a role cut next year, then it seems all the more likely that you should trade him now. I don't see much of a point in letting him play it out and then letting him walk if you're not going to let the guy shoot and try to improve his percentages.

Vuc has done nothing for the Bulls deserving kindness above their own self-interest. I mean we shouldn't be malicious towards him, but we should view him as any other player where we make the best decisions for the franchise.

It might be that you should trade Vuc now, it just depends on the return. If you can literally get nothing for him then you don't trade him.

[coldfish]

Personally, I just don't think the existing group works as is. Outside of a superstar PF, I don't see anyone coming in who even could move the needle a ton. I would be shopping virtually everyone on the roster and if they can get a good value in trade, move them. I say this in particular for Demar (who I think has a good bit of value) and Vuc (who is on the last year of his deal). Coby also can go but I suspect he is worth about a bag of socks.

[jnrjr79]

1) Vooch seems like a good guy, but asking a 2-time All-Star, who has already voiced his difficulties transitioning to a third-banana role this season, to take on an even smaller road in the last season before what is likely to be his last big contract could be a bridge too far. The idea that you would have "no reason" to assume he might not respond to that request well seems a bit much. At best, you could say he seems like a good guy and you hope he'd keep up a positive mindset about it. But there is obviously plenty of reason to believe he might not respond well to that.

To think Vuc would become a problematic player and not go along with the coach's desires also makes some pretty broad assumptions. I'm not suggesting that Vuc would be thrilled by this outcome, but there is a difference between him not thinking this is ideal and him feeling so badly about it that he conducts himself in a way that it creates a negative atmosphere or outcome for the team. I don't think he would do that, but again, I'm only guessing. I agree he wouldn't like the scenario though, but going from there to being a disruptive ahole is a pretty big leap IMO.

Yes, to be clear, my concern here is a general scenario one, not anything based on Vooch's specific personality. But, IMO, as a general matter, if you asked any 32 year-old, two-time All-Star in his last big contract year to take a step back on offense, after you just did that last year and he had a hard time adjusting to it, you are being naive if you think there isn't a risk that the request will be tuned out. It's not like I'm making some novel observation here that players in contract years generally are looking to increase their statistical production. I assume Vooch, in the offseason, is going to be looking to fix his three-point shot and then continue shooting them at a decent clip next year. But further, if you think he should not proceed in that fashion, then you should trade him if you can. In some sense, the Bulls need Vooch to be that guy in order for his presence on the team to make sense, because he's not bringing you what a more limited defensive/rim-running center brings you. I'm ok having a more limited guy around and trying to develop Pat as the "stretch the floor" big, but I don't think Vooch really makes sense in a role where he's being asked not to shoot threes.

[dougthonus]

Yes, to be clear, my concern here is a general scenario one, not anything based on Vooch's specific personality. But, IMO, as a general matter, if you asked any 32 year-old, two-time All-Star in his last big contract year to take a step back on offense, after you just did that last year and he had a hard time adjusting to it, you are being naive if you think there isn't a risk that the request will be tuned out. It's not like I'm making some novel observation here that players in contract years generally are looking to increase their statistical production. I assume Vooch, in the offseason, is going to be looking to fix his three-point shot and then continue shooting them at a decent clip next year. But further, if you think he should not proceed in that fashion, then you should trade him if you can. In some sense, the Bulls need Vooch to be that guy in order for his presence on the team to make sense, because he's not bringing you what a more limited defensive/rim-running center brings you. I'm ok having a more limited guy around and trying to develop Pat as the "stretch the floor" big, but I don't think Vooch really makes sense in a role where he's being asked not to shoot threes.

Sure, but hard conversations sometimes have to be made.

Vuc wasn't good on offense last year. He wasn't hitting these types of shots. He failed in his role.

Maybe it means we have to trade him, maybe we can work out a different role, maybe he can make adjustments that fix the problems he had to better fit in this role.

If he can resolve his own issues, great. Run it back and watch him hit 40% from three and that's good for Chicago. However, at 32 years old, you shouldn't be banking on that happening as a general rule. If you can trade him and improve your team with the assumption he gives you something similar this year as he gave last and you get something better than what he gave last year, then you make that trade. If you can't get something that helps you from what he gave you last year (which should be your decision baseline), then you alter his role to best fit the team this year.

If he can outperform last year, be open to changing that role to give him more looks.

[KissedByaRose1]

I want Jakob Poeltl on this team very bad, think he'd fit perfect and i'd prefer to finish games with him over Vooch. Only trade i can think SAT would take is 18th pick this year/Coby but that's probably too much to give up with how AK drafts IMO.

[jnrjr79]

Yes, to be clear, my concern here is a general scenario one, not anything based on Vooch's specific personality. But, IMO, as a general matter, if you asked any 32 year-old, two-time All-Star in his last big contract year to take a step back on offense, after you just did that last year and he had a hard time adjusting to it, you are being naive if you think there isn't a risk that the request will be tuned out. It's not like I'm making some novel observation here that players in contract years generally are looking to increase their statistical production. I assume Vooch, in the offseason, is going to be looking to fix his three-point shot and then continue shooting them at a decent clip next year. But further, if you think he should not proceed in that fashion, then you should trade him if you can. In some sense, the Bulls need Vooch to be that guy in order for his presence on the team to make sense, because he's not bringing you what a more limited defensive/rim-running center brings you. I'm ok having a more limited guy around and trying to develop Pat as the "stretch the floor" big, but I don't think Vooch really makes sense in a role where he's being asked not to shoot threes.

Sure, but hard conversations sometimes have to be made.

I mean, ok? The idea that NBA players would stop trying to up their stats in contract years as long as you had a "hard conversation" seems not so realistic.

Vuc wasn't good on offense last year. He wasn't hitting these types of shots. He failed in his role.

He shot ~40% from 3 in 2020. I'm not saying he'll regain that form, but you have to assume he thinks he will and isn't just going to say "ok, fine, I'll stop shooting threes." Nor should he, really, because he probably needs to hit them to be effective.

Maybe it means we have to trade him, maybe we can work out a different role, maybe he can make adjustments that fix the problems he had to better fit in this role.

My issue here is "work out a different role" seems, to me, a non-option, mostly because I don't think he has the skill set for that, unless you're talking about something really dramatic like making him a bench player.

If he can resolve his own issues, great. Run it back and watch him hit 40% from three and that's good for Chicago. However, at 32 years old, you shouldn't be banking on that happening as a general rule. If you can trade him and improve your team with the assumption he gives you something similar this year as he gave last and you get something better than what he gave last year, then you make that trade. If you can't get something that helps you from what he gave you last year (which should be your decision baseline), then you alter his role to best fit the team this year.

If he can outperform last year, be open to changing that role to give him more looks.

Sure, I think it's obvious that "you should trade him if you think it makes you better" is the baseline rule here. My concern is a non-three-point-shooting Vooch may not be a guy you can fix by simply saying "we have a new role for you."

The Bulls got Vooch to be a stretch big. Stretch bigs need to...stretch. I don't really see a scenario where Vooch is going to be a good fit in a starting five with DeMar and Pat if he can't knock 'em down from outside, given his other limitations.

[MrSparkle]

Our “big 3” was very helpless and incompetent for a solid half of the season.

That’s my biggest concern. Sure - role-players make a world of difference, but 3 “all-stars” is a hell of a lot of point production and “gravity” to be routinely losing by 20+ blowouts to good teams. If they can’t compete at all without Lonzo and Caruso, then that’s a problem.

And again, we’re not talking about simply losing. It’d be fine if we lost the same number of games but just had a lot of close losses. If anything we had tremendous clutch luck with Demar, bagging multiple games we probably should’ve/would’ve lost without his unconscious/difficult shot making.

We’re talking about being competitive. Way many games where we looked like the Generals playing the Globetrotters.

I do think it’d be advantageous to get a leg up and atleast move 1 guy (probably Vuc). Very concerned heading into a full season with the stink carrying over.

[sco]

Yes, to be clear, my concern here is a general scenario one, not anything based on Vooch's specific personality. But, IMO, as a general matter, if you asked any 32 year-old, two-time All-Star in his last big contract year to take a step back on offense, after you just did that last year and he had a hard time adjusting to it, you are being naive if you think there isn't a risk that the request will be tuned out. It's not like I'm making some novel observation here that players in contract years generally are looking to increase their statistical production. I assume Vooch, in the offseason, is going to be looking to fix his three-point shot and then continue shooting them at a decent clip next year. But further, if you think he should not proceed in that fashion, then you should trade him if you can. In some sense, the Bulls need Vooch to be that guy in order for his presence on the team to make sense, because he's not bringing you what a more limited defensive/rim-running center brings you. I'm ok having a more limited guy around and trying to develop Pat as the "stretch the floor" big, but I don't think Vooch really makes sense in a role where he's being asked not to shoot threes.

Sure, but hard conversations sometimes have to be made.

I mean, ok? The idea that NBA players would stop trying to up their stats in contract years as long as you had a "hard conversation" seems not so realistic.

Vuc wasn't good on offense last year. He wasn't hitting these types of shots. He failed in his role.

He shot ~40% from 3 in 2020. I'm not saying he'll regain that form, but you have to assume he thinks he will and isn't just going to say "ok, fine, I'll stop shooting threes." Nor should he, really, because he probably needs to hit them to be effective.

Maybe it means we have to trade him, maybe we can work out a different role, maybe he can make adjustments that fix the problems he had to better fit in this role.

My issue here is "work out a different role" seems, to me, a non-option, mostly because I don't think he has the skill set for that, unless you're talking about something really dramatic like making him a bench player.

If he can resolve his own issues, great. Run it back and watch him hit 40% from three and that's good for Chicago. However, at 32 years old, you shouldn't be banking on that happening as a general rule. If you can trade him and improve your team with the assumption he gives you something similar this year as he gave last and you get something better than what he gave last year, then you make that trade. If you can't get something that helps you from what he gave you last year (which should be your decision baseline), then you alter his role to best fit the team this year.

If he can outperform last year, be open to changing that role to give him more looks.

Sure, I think it's obvious that "you should trade him if you think it makes you better" is the baseline rule here. My concern is a non-three-point-shooting Vooch may not be a guy you can fix by simply saying "we have a new role for you."

The Bulls got Vooch to be a stretch big. Stretch bigs need to...stretch. I don't really see a scenario where Vooch is going to be a good fit in a starting five with DeMar and Pat if he can't knock 'em down from outside, given his other limitations.

Great points!

Billy's system seems to require a perimeter playmaking C. Add DeRozan into the mix, and our offense doesn't work well without a 3pt shooting C. I think they're stuck with Vuc next season, and will have to just hope that another year in the system improves Vuc's 3pt shooting (which isn't too much of a stretch).

[chitownsports4ever]

Sure, I think it's obvious that "you should trade him if you think it makes you better" is the baseline rule here. My concern is a non-three-point-shooting Vooch may not be a guy you can fix by simply saying "we have a new role for you."

The Bulls got Vooch to be a stretch big. Stretch bigs need to...stretch. I don't really see a scenario where Vooch is going to be a good fit in a starting five with DeMar and Pat if he can't knock 'em down from outside, given his other limitations.

The Bulls did not get Vuc to be a stretch big I dont recall anyone running around last season after the trade talking about him as some stretch big . The three point shot was a weapon in his arsenal but most believed him to be a good inside presence who can step outside .

The biggest issue this team really has besides health is finding a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th big that can play and contribute consistently.

[dougthonus]

I mean, ok? The idea that NBA players would stop trying to up their stats in contract years as long as you had a "hard conversation" seems not so realistic.

You set up the offense and the roles in the offense to do what you want Vuc to do. If he doesn't do what is being asked, you reduce his minutes/role more.

He shot ~40% from 3 in 2020. I'm not saying he'll regain that form, but you have to assume he thinks he will and isn't just going to say "ok, fine, I'll stop shooting threes." Nor should he, really, because he probably needs to hit them to be effective.

You don't need to design the offense in such a way that this is a common or primary shot opportunity.

My issue here is "work out a different role" seems, to me, a non-option, mostly because I don't think he has the skill set for that, unless you're talking about something really dramatic like making him a bench player.

I wouldn't put him on the bench unless we got someone vastly better at center on the roster than we have now. He's still clearly the best center by a wide margin. Putting him in pick and rolls and getting him shots at the basket though, I would aim to do that rather than using him as a floor spacer. That's how most teams use their centers, it wouldn't be some crazy thing you have to figure out how to do.

Sure, I think it's obvious that "you should trade him if you think it makes you better" is the baseline rule here. My concern is a non-three-point-shooting Vooch may not be a guy you can fix by simply saying "we have a new role for you."

The Bulls got Vooch to be a stretch big. Stretch bigs need to...stretch. I don't really see a scenario where Vooch is going to be a good fit in a starting five with DeMar and Pat if he can't knock 'em down from outside, given his other limitations.

Again, it isn't that complicated to use him differently, as noted by many, he's only been a volume three point shooter for three or so seasons. If Vuc can't do anything other than take lots of threes, you should absolutely trade him, but I see no reason to think that's true given it hasn't been true most of his career.

[chefo]

Think how much better the ball moved and the O looked the first half of the previous year when Thad was the hub and rolled every effin' P&R with Zach. Teams that didn't respect his drive got scored on at a 60%+ TS. Teams that did and packed the paint got picked apart by Lauri bombing at a 60%+ TS. Teams that refused to double Zach got picked apart by him at a 60%+ TS.

Vuc then replaced Thad as the high-touch hub and the wheels fell off because:
* He almost always popped, which means the D could now pack and just make him shoot, which helped contains Zach's drives
* He's not as intuitive finding shooters on the wings
* He's slow so teams did not respect him rolling, which led to 1.) above
* His assists in Orlando almost always came from passing out of a double in the low/mid post, not from swinging the ball around

Before the trades last year and Thad's and Lauri's demotions, the Bulls had:
* Zach
* Lauri
* Thad
* Gafford
* Sato

All scoring at a 60%+ TS. Five rotation guys.

Post trade, Thad's advanced numbers cratered as he was replaced by Vuc as the 'hub', Lauri's raw numbers fell off a cliff because his minutes got cut in half, Gafford (a 19 PER guy that shot at a 70% TS locked for cheap) was shipped out. 4 of these guys are no longer on the Bulls. They were rendered pretty useless by the presence of Vuc, at least in managements' heads. They thought Vuc would be the best of Lauri and Thad rolled into one high-minute player. It turned out he's a much worse hub than Thad because of how he's used to playing, and he doesn't space like Lauri either. Fast forward a season, and you have a 70-touch a game C (that's first option touches) that's scoring at a TS% lower than what got Coby hated on by most of the fanbase.

All of the above tells me without doubt that the Bulls management values 'names' (Vuc, Lonzo, DD) and raw stats (DD, Vuc pre-trade) much more than they value surrounding their star(s) with super-efficient, low-error role-players. Or, they can't tell when a player is one, even when they have him on the roster, which would be even worse. Quality role players usually cost a pretty penny because teams have to overpay for them as the missing pieces, and the Bulls had half-a-team worth of them. AKME straight up did not want them around. Stars need specialists to surround them--that much LeBron has right. Have to be able and willing to shoot, or rim-run, or defend, or preferably both, but these last are difficult to find.

I said at the time of the trades last year that if Vuc replaced Thad and Lauri, instead of stealing touches from the likes of Val, Coby and Temple, the Bulls O would be worse off for it, no matter what their basketball minds tell them. Fast-forward and that's exactly what happened. It was simple math. The Bulls scored 7 fewer points per game on the same amount of FGA. Some of that was covid-Zach, but still, the drop-off was pretty meaningful.

Vuc was fine if you needed a name to make a splash and sell tickets (it worked in that sense), and raw stats last year. Vuc, who's never been a good rim-protector or being able to guard in space is a waste of $20M of cap space, given that the Bulls now have 2 high touch wings that like pounding the ball in DD and Zach. It doesn't matter if he gets back to shooting better. The Bulls need somebody to roll hard to make teams pay for doubling Zach and DD. Think Thad as the hub. Otherwise, teams would just pack the paint while staying home on the shooters and let Vuc launch a bunch of long 2s and some 3s, most of which he'll miss... and you're a happy defensive coordinator because 3 of the other Bulls players barely get to touch the ball or get in rhythm. Without rolling, or the threat of rolling, you need a savant play-maker and the Bulls don't have one on the roster, just to keep the shooters from getting iced out.

[dukeespn]

Our “big 3” was very helpless and incompetent for a solid half of the season.

That’s my biggest concern. Sure - role-players make a world of difference, but 3 “all-stars” is a hell of a lot of point production and “gravity” to be routinely losing by 20+ blowouts to good teams. If they can’t compete at all without Lonzo and Caruso, then that’s a problem.

And again, we’re not talking about simply losing. It’d be fine if we lost the same number of games but just had a lot of close losses. If anything we had tremendous clutch luck with Demar, bagging multiple games we probably should’ve/would’ve lost without his unconscious/difficult shot making.

We’re talking about being competitive. Way many games where we looked like the Generals playing the Globetrotters.

I do think it’d be advantageous to get a leg up and atleast move 1 guy (probably Vuc). Very concerned heading into a full season with the stink carrying over.

Great point.

Nobody denies that our role players are very bad (And Bulls' bench scoring ranked at dead last - 30th in the league this season) but you should wonder if this "Big 3" can lead the team to higher stage with their own plays. We already know those 3 players have been bad-to-mediocre defenders through their career so they got picked on especially in the playoffs.

The worse part is their offensive performance in the series was also bad.

DDR : 13.2 PER with 48.1 TS%
Zach : 13.6 PER with 55.3 TS%
Vuc : 17.4 PER with 52.0 TS%

I don't think you can rely on this version of "Big 3" who can't defend well AND can't score easily in the playoffs against good-to-great defensive teams.

I also want the Bulls to try to move Vuc but I don't think trade market for him is good for now after he went through disapponiting season. And I want the Bulls to explore trade for DDR before his contract gets done. He can't be THE guy.

[chitownsports4ever]

Think how much better the ball moved and the O looked the first half of the previous year when Thad was the hub and rolled every effin' P&R with Zach. Teams that didn't respect his drive got scored on at a 60%+ TS. Teams that did and packed the paint got picked apart by Lauri bombing at a 60%+ TS. Teams that refused to double Zach got picked apart by him at a 60%+ TS.

Vuc then replaced Thad as the high-touch hub and the wheels fell off because:
* He almost always popped, which means the D could now pack and just make him shoot, which helped contains Zach's drives
* He's not as intuitive finding shooters on the wings
* He's slow so teams did not respect him rolling, which led to 1.) above
* His assists in Orlando almost always came from passing out of a double in the low/mid post, not from swinging the ball around

Before the trades last year and Thad's and Lauri's demotions, the Bulls had:
* Zach
* Lauri
* Thad
* Gafford
* Sato

All scoring at a 60%+ TS. Five rotation guys.

Post trade, Thad's advanced numbers cratered as he was replaced by Vuc as the 'hub', Lauri's raw numbers fell off a cliff because his minutes got cut in half, Gafford (a 19 PER guy that shot at a 70% TS locked for cheap) was shipped out. 4 of these guys are no longer on the Bulls. They were rendered pretty useless by the presence of Vuc, at least in managements' heads. They thought Vuc would be the best of Lauri and Thad rolled into one high-minute player. It turned out he's a much worse hub than Thad because of how he's used to playing, and he doesn't space like Lauri either. Fast forward a season, and you have a 70-touch a game C (that's first option touches) that's scoring at a TS% lower than what got Coby hated on by most of the fanbase.

All of the above tells me without doubt that the Bulls management values 'names' (Vuc, Lonzo, DD) and raw stats (DD, Vuc pre-trade) much more than they value surrounding their star(s) with super-efficient, low-error role-players. Or, they can't tell when a player is one, even when they have him on the roster, which would be even worse. Quality role players usually cost a pretty penny because teams have to overpay for them as the missing pieces, and the Bulls had half-a-team worth of them. AKME straight up did not want them around. Stars need specialists to surround them--that much LeBron has right. Have to be able and willing to shoot, or rim-run, or defend, or preferably both, but these last are difficult to find.

I said at the time of the trades last year that if Vuc replaced Thad and Lauri, instead of stealing touches from the likes of Val, Coby and Temple, the Bulls O would be worse off for it, no matter what their basketball minds tell them. Fast-forward and that's exactly what happened. It was simple math. The Bulls scored 7 fewer points per game on the same amount of FGA. Some of that was covid-Zach, but still, the drop-off was pretty meaningful.

Vuc was fine if you needed a name to make a splash and sell tickets (it worked in that sense), and raw stats last year. Vuc, who's never been a good rim-protector or being able to guard in space is a waste of $20M of cap space, given that the Bulls now have 2 high touch wings that like pounding the ball in DD and Zach. It doesn't matter if he gets back to shooting better. The Bulls need somebody to roll hard to make teams pay for doubling Zach and DD. Think Thad as the hub. Otherwise, teams would just pack the paint while staying home on the shooters and let Vuc launch a bunch of long 2s and some 3s, most of which he'll miss... and you're a happy defensive coordinator because 3 of the other Bulls players barely get to touch the ball or get in rhythm. Without rolling, or the threat of rolling, you need a savant play-maker and the Bulls don't have one on the roster, just to keep the shooters from getting iced out.

You are basically writing fanfiction here .

So you blame Vuc for the presence of Daniel Theis because thats who took Lauri's and Thad's minutes but its oh so convenient that you left him out with how many games he actually started in placed of those guys .

Most here know that the Bulls scored less points after the trade because Zach was out with Covid for a large portion of those post trade games but you keep writing that fiction .

[chefo]

Think how much better the ball moved and the O looked the first half of the previous year when Thad was the hub and rolled every effin' P&R with Zach. Teams that didn't respect his drive got scored on at a 60%+ TS. Teams that did and packed the paint got picked apart by Lauri bombing at a 60%+ TS. Teams that refused to double Zach got picked apart by him at a 60%+ TS.

Vuc then replaced Thad as the high-touch hub and the wheels fell off because:
* He almost always popped, which means the D could now pack and just make him shoot, which helped contains Zach's drives
* He's not as intuitive finding shooters on the wings
* He's slow so teams did not respect him rolling, which led to 1.) above
* His assists in Orlando almost always came from passing out of a double in the low/mid post, not from swinging the ball around

Before the trades last year and Thad's and Lauri's demotions, the Bulls had:
* Zach
* Lauri
* Thad
* Gafford
* Sato

All scoring at a 60%+ TS. Five rotation guys.

Post trade, Thad's advanced numbers cratered as he was replaced by Vuc as the 'hub', Lauri's raw numbers fell off a cliff because his minutes got cut in half, Gafford (a 19 PER guy that shot at a 70% TS locked for cheap) was shipped out. 4 of these guys are no longer on the Bulls. They were rendered pretty useless by the presence of Vuc, at least in managements' heads. They thought Vuc would be the best of Lauri and Thad rolled into one high-minute player. It turned out he's a much worse hub than Thad because of how he's used to playing, and he doesn't space like Lauri either. Fast forward a season, and you have a 70-touch a game C (that's first option touches) that's scoring at a TS% lower than what got Coby hated on by most of the fanbase.

All of the above tells me without doubt that the Bulls management values 'names' (Vuc, Lonzo, DD) and raw stats (DD, Vuc pre-trade) much more than they value surrounding their star(s) with super-efficient, low-error role-players. Or, they can't tell when a player is one, even when they have him on the roster, which would be even worse. Quality role players usually cost a pretty penny because teams have to overpay for them as the missing pieces, and the Bulls had half-a-team worth of them. AKME straight up did not want them around. Stars need specialists to surround them--that much LeBron has right. Have to be able and willing to shoot, or rim-run, or defend, or preferably both, but these last are difficult to find.

I said at the time of the trades last year that if Vuc replaced Thad and Lauri, instead of stealing touches from the likes of Val, Coby and Temple, the Bulls O would be worse off for it, no matter what their basketball minds tell them. Fast-forward and that's exactly what happened. It was simple math. The Bulls scored 7 fewer points per game on the same amount of FGA. Some of that was covid-Zach, but still, the drop-off was pretty meaningful.

Vuc was fine if you needed a name to make a splash and sell tickets (it worked in that sense), and raw stats last year. Vuc, who's never been a good rim-protector or being able to guard in space is a waste of $20M of cap space, given that the Bulls now have 2 high touch wings that like pounding the ball in DD and Zach. It doesn't matter if he gets back to shooting better. The Bulls need somebody to roll hard to make teams pay for doubling Zach and DD. Think Thad as the hub. Otherwise, teams would just pack the paint while staying home on the shooters and let Vuc launch a bunch of long 2s and some 3s, most of which he'll miss... and you're a happy defensive coordinator because 3 of the other Bulls players barely get to touch the ball or get in rhythm. Without rolling, or the threat of rolling, you need a savant play-maker and the Bulls don't have one on the roster, just to keep the shooters from getting iced out.

You are basically writing fanfiction here .

So you blame Vuc for the presence of Daniel Theis because thats who took Lauri's and Thad's minutes but its oh so convenient that you left him out with how many games he actually started in placed of those guys .

Most here know that the Bulls scored less points after the trade because Zach was out with Covid for a large portion of those post trade games but you keep writing that fiction .

Call it whatever you like. To you it's fan fiction. To me it's recorded history.

True or false:

Thad played hub on O pre-trade (57 touches per game in only 25 min / game)? True
Theis was not the main hub on O. Theis was a rim-runner (34 touches per game; 5th option-level touches) who replaced WCJ and Gafford in that functional role. True.
Vuc was a hub post trade (79 touches per game). True
Lauri was a spacing big all year. True
Guess who was also the main pop target (spacing big), apart from being the main hub. Yep, that was Vuc.

So, let's distribute touches pre- and post trade:
Pre:
Thad: 57
WCJ: 52 (which includes the first 10 where they tried to make him a hub)
Lauri: 44
Gafford: 19

Total: 172

Post:
Vuc: 79
Thad: 52
Theis: 34
Lauri: 32

Total: 197

So, let's examine what's the effect of giving 80 touches and 20 shots / game to Vuc (and scraps to Theis, to be fair), operating in the exact same functional spaces where Thad and Lauri formerly roamed with great success pre-trade?

Lauri was a 62% TS player last year. Pre-trade, Thad was also at 62%. That plummeted to 55% post-trade. His +/- and net rating also plummeted post ASB. Vuc, while getting absolutely gargantuan usage was at less than 55%. Let's do some mental gymnastics here.

Is your team better or worse on O, if you replace 30 pts / game at 62% TS (Lauri + Thad pre-trade), 5 at 70% TS (Gafford) and 10 at 58% TS with 34 pts / game at 55% TS (Vuc and Thad), 10 pts at 58% TS (Theis) and 10 pts / game at 62% TS (Lauri), with some of that coming from SF?

In the first case, your bigs scored at a 62% TS as a group, adjusted for volume. In the second case, it's 57% TS on higher usage, and that's with Lauri dragging the number up. Vuc was at an 55%. I don't think you realize how huge of a difference 60%+ to 55% is, especially given Vuc's usage.

To sum up, the Bulls bigs scored meaningfully less efficiently post trade on a meaningfully larger volume. Does that make the team O better or worse?

Zach missing some games was probably part of that, but then again the Bulls completely changed how they played schematically to incorporate Vuc in the O.

Call it whatever you like. The Bulls de-emphasized or traded away three of their most efficient players in order to give superstar touches and shots to a guy that ended up scoring at a below-league average TS%.

[WindyCityBorn]

Definitely interior defense because we have none. Shooting is 1b though. Perimeter defense is 2.

[chitownsports4ever]

Think how much better the ball moved and the O looked the first half of the previous year when Thad was the hub and rolled every effin' P&R with Zach. Teams that didn't respect his drive got scored on at a 60%+ TS. Teams that did and packed the paint got picked apart by Lauri bombing at a 60%+ TS. Teams that refused to double Zach got picked apart by him at a 60%+ TS.

Vuc then replaced Thad as the high-touch hub and the wheels fell off because:
* He almost always popped, which means the D could now pack and just make him shoot, which helped contains Zach's drives
* He's not as intuitive finding shooters on the wings
* He's slow so teams did not respect him rolling, which led to 1.) above
* His assists in Orlando almost always came from passing out of a double in the low/mid post, not from swinging the ball around

Before the trades last year and Thad's and Lauri's demotions, the Bulls had:
* Zach
* Lauri
* Thad
* Gafford
* Sato

All scoring at a 60%+ TS. Five rotation guys.

Post trade, Thad's advanced numbers cratered as he was replaced by Vuc as the 'hub', Lauri's raw numbers fell off a cliff because his minutes got cut in half, Gafford (a 19 PER guy that shot at a 70% TS locked for cheap) was shipped out. 4 of these guys are no longer on the Bulls. They were rendered pretty useless by the presence of Vuc, at least in managements' heads. They thought Vuc would be the best of Lauri and Thad rolled into one high-minute player. It turned out he's a much worse hub than Thad because of how he's used to playing, and he doesn't space like Lauri either. Fast forward a season, and you have a 70-touch a game C (that's first option touches) that's scoring at a TS% lower than what got Coby hated on by most of the fanbase.

All of the above tells me without doubt that the Bulls management values 'names' (Vuc, Lonzo, DD) and raw stats (DD, Vuc pre-trade) much more than they value surrounding their star(s) with super-efficient, low-error role-players. Or, they can't tell when a player is one, even when they have him on the roster, which would be even worse. Quality role players usually cost a pretty penny because teams have to overpay for them as the missing pieces, and the Bulls had half-a-team worth of them. AKME straight up did not want them around. Stars need specialists to surround them--that much LeBron has right. Have to be able and willing to shoot, or rim-run, or defend, or preferably both, but these last are difficult to find.

I said at the time of the trades last year that if Vuc replaced Thad and Lauri, instead of stealing touches from the likes of Val, Coby and Temple, the Bulls O would be worse off for it, no matter what their basketball minds tell them. Fast-forward and that's exactly what happened. It was simple math. The Bulls scored 7 fewer points per game on the same amount of FGA. Some of that was covid-Zach, but still, the drop-off was pretty meaningful.

Vuc was fine if you needed a name to make a splash and sell tickets (it worked in that sense), and raw stats last year. Vuc, who's never been a good rim-protector or being able to guard in space is a waste of $20M of cap space, given that the Bulls now have 2 high touch wings that like pounding the ball in DD and Zach. It doesn't matter if he gets back to shooting better. The Bulls need somebody to roll hard to make teams pay for doubling Zach and DD. Think Thad as the hub. Otherwise, teams would just pack the paint while staying home on the shooters and let Vuc launch a bunch of long 2s and some 3s, most of which he'll miss... and you're a happy defensive coordinator because 3 of the other Bulls players barely get to touch the ball or get in rhythm. Without rolling, or the threat of rolling, you need a savant play-maker and the Bulls don't have one on the roster, just to keep the shooters from getting iced out.

You are basically writing fanfiction here .

So you blame Vuc for the presence of Daniel Theis because thats who took Lauri's and Thad's minutes but its oh so convenient that you left him out with how many games he actually started in placed of those guys .

Most here know that the Bulls scored less points after the trade because Zach was out with Covid for a large portion of those post trade games but you keep writing that fiction .

Call it whatever you like. To you it's fan fiction. To me it's recorded history.

True or false:

Thad played hub on O pre-trade (57 touches per game in only 25 min / game)? True
Theis was not the main hub on O. Theis was a rim-runner (34 touches per game; 5th option-level touches) who replaced WCJ and Gafford in that functional role. True.
Vuc was a hub post trade (79 touches per game). True
Lauri was a spacing big all year. True
Guess who was also the main pop target (spacing big), apart from being the main hub. Yep, that was Vuc.

So, let's distribute touches pre- and post trade:
Pre:
Thad: 57
WCJ: 52 (which includes the first 10 where they tried to make him a hub)
Lauri: 44
Gafford: 19

Total: 172

Post:
Vuc: 79
Thad: 52
Theis: 34
Lauri: 32

Total: 197

So, let's examine what's the effect of giving 80 touches and 20 shots / game to Vuc (and scraps to Theis, to be fair), operating in the exact same functional spaces where Thad and Lauri formerly roamed with great success pre-trade?

Lauri was a 62% TS player last year. Pre-trade, Thad was also at 62%. That plummeted to 55% post-trade. His +/- and net rating also plummeted post ASB. Vuc, while getting absolutely gargantuan usage was at less than 55%. Let's do some mental gymnastics here.

Is your team better or worse on O, if you replace 30 pts / game at 62% TS (Lauri + Thad pre-trade), 5 at 70% TS (Gafford) and 10 at 58% TS with 34 pts / game at 55% TS (Vuc and Thad), 10 pts at 58% TS (Theis) and 10 pts / game at 62% TS (Lauri), with some of that coming from SF?

In the first case, your bigs scored at a 62% TS as a group, adjusted for volume. In the second case, it's 57% TS on higher usage, and that's with Lauri dragging the number up. Vuc was at an 55%. I don't think you realize how huge of a difference 60%+ to 55% is, especially given Vuc's usage.

To sum up, the Bulls bigs scored meaningfully less efficiently post trade on a meaningfully larger volume. Does that make the team O better or worse?

Zach missing some games was probably part of that, but then again the Bulls completely changed how they played schematically to incorporate Vuc in the O.

Call it whatever you like. The Bulls de-emphasized or traded away three of their most efficient players in order to give superstar touches and shots to a guy that ended up scoring at a below-league average TS%.

You are talking in circles

The Bulls traded for a starting center who could score and then Zach got injured of course he was gonna take more shots .

You keep trying to dance around a lot ofsemantics but the offense was bad period because we had no PG it worse after the trade with NO PG but also NO Zach

The fact your argument boils down to the ridiculous notion that somehow simply a higher TS% makes player A better than B .

[MikeDC]

The Bulls traded for a starting center who could score and then Zach got injured of course he was gonna take more shots .

You keep trying to dance around a lot ofsemantics but the offense was bad period because we had no PG it worse after the trade with NO PG but also NO Zach

The fact your argument boils down to the ridiculous notion that somehow simply a higher TS% makes player A better than B .

Without getting into all the points here, when I look at the NetRtg tool for 20-21 Zach and Vuc still played a fair amount together
Vuc/Coby 23 G, 549 Min, -3.5 Net Rtg
Vuc/Zach 15 G, 378 Min, -3.7 NetRtg
Zach/Thad 54 G, 943 Min, +6.2 NetRtg
Zach/Gafford 29 G, 227 Min, +3.2 NetRtg
Zach/Theis 11 G, 190 Min, +0.3 NetRtg

For 2021-2022
Vuc/Coby 54 G, 969 Min, +0.1 NetRtg / +2.5 up till March 1 / -13.1 after March 1
Vuc/Zach 59 G, 1792 Min, -1.6 NetRtg /+2.4 / -8.8
Vuc/DeRozan 59 G. 1682 Min +0.2 NetRtg / +4.4 /-12.2

I know there's overlap and everything, but I find this pretty interesting. Generally speaking, there's a trend that the Vuc/Zach paring doesn't seem to work as well as Vuc with anyone else, or as well as Zach and anyone else.