RealGM

So before this recent run, there was a thought, and I shared it, that this team might make it to near .500.

We had played one of the toughest schedules in the league, and we even had more wins against good teams than most squads. We were about to have a bunch of cream puff matchups coming up and the schedule as a whole would be easier down the back end.

So over the past 11 games:
1 and 1 vs the Wizards
1 and 1 vs Charlotte
Loss to the Hawks missing Young
Loss to the Blazers

That was 5 games against teams that are effectively in the sag for Flagg challenge and one with a team that the roster they brought to the table should have put them at that level, and we went 2-4.

The Bulls are now 14th in SOS remaining based on record (ie, nearly exactly in the middle of the league).

Average teams play up to their competition and down to their competition and the Bulls are an average team.

Good I want us to be worst than all those teams, Give me Cooper Flagg or another top tier rookies from this class on this team. And Whatever gets the Blazer into the playoffs so we can get their draft pick too.

JimmyButler21 wrote:Average teams play up to their competition and down to their competition and the Bulls are an average team.

I think everyone at this point wishes for an average team. But this is clearly not an average team.

Jcool0 wrote:

JimmyButler21 wrote:Average teams play up to their competition and down to their competition and the Bulls are an average team.

I think everyone at this point wishes for an average team. But this is clearly not an average team.

I think many people would be okay with an average team. I think many people would be okay with a team driving towards asset accumulation.

Instead we're below the average team level and above the asset accumulation level.

I'd argue that the Bulls were overperforming for the first two months. Vucevic went from one of the NBA's least efficient players to one of the most efficient. Even Zach could regress a bit. 45% from 3 on 7+ attempts per game doesn't happen often. They've made drastic changes offensively despite most of the roster being the same. Teams don't normally go from a bottom 10 shooting team to a top 10 shooting team with the same roster.

The margin for error with this team was always small, IMO. Vuc is still effective, but he's seen a slight regression in performance and Pat and Giddey have turned into pumpkins this month.

Jcool0 wrote:

JimmyButler21 wrote:Average teams play up to their competition and down to their competition and the Bulls are an average team.

I think everyone at this point wishes for an average team. But this is clearly not an average team.

Agreed, we're much worse than an average team vs bad teams. Assuming average = play-in type teams.

Play-In teams vs below .500 opponents:
Hawks: 10-6
Magic: 13-3
Miami: 11-2
Pistons: 9-5
Chicago: 8-8
Philly: 11-2

We're a lot worse than our peers vs bad teams. I mean San Antonio is in 12th place not even really a play-in team, and even they still can put away bad teams more often than not (9-4).

We can't beat bad teams because we're one of them.

kodo wrote:Agreed, we're much worse than an average team vs bad teams. Assuming average = play-in type teams.

Yeah, I think it's a bit worse because we're in the easier conference, like we have the 22nd best record, I'd say 11-20th is probably bar for average (middle 3rd of the league), we're actually not in the middle 3rd, but we are a play-in team due to conference inbalance.

Not that his changes your point any, just semantical note I suppose.

Play-In teams vs below .500 opponents:
Hawks: 10-6
Magic: 13-3
Miami: 11-2
Pistons: 9-5
Chicago: 8-8
Philly: 11-2

We're a lot worse than our peers vs bad teams. I mean San Antonio is in 12th place not even really a play-in team, and even they still can put away bad teams more often than not (9-4).

Yeah, this is probably the difference between us and the higher seeds for the most part. We're probably a tiny bit better against good teams, but mostly these teams are ahead of us because they're beating up bad teams and we aren't.

dougthonus wrote:

Jcool0 wrote:

JimmyButler21 wrote:Average teams play up to their competition and down to their competition and the Bulls are an average team.

I think everyone at this point wishes for an average team. But this is clearly not an average team.

I think many people would be okay with an average team. I think many people would be okay with a team driving towards asset accumulation.

Instead we're below the average team level and above the asset accumulation level.

I'd be ok with this exact roster....IF...it felt like there was momentum going up. I don't think they are impossibly off in terms of talent. I like a lot of the pieces....but they are not going up...they are stagnant if not worse....

As I said I'd be happy if next year was Lavine-Buz-top 10 pick-Rim running C and friends. That and friends could be any number of the guys on the roster currently or none of them. There isn't a piece I am certain needs to be gone....it's just that pieces need to be gone to ensure we get the top 10 pick.

Guru wrote:I'd be ok with this exact roster....IF...it felt like there was momentum going up. I don't think they are impossibly off in terms of talent. I like a lot of the pieces....but they are not going up...they are stagnant if not worse....

As I said I'd be happy if next year was Lavine-Buz-top 10 pick-Rim running C and friends. That and friends could be any number of the guys on the roster currently or none of them. There isn't a piece I am certain needs to be gone....it's just that pieces need to be gone to ensure we get the top 10 pick.

I think my challenge with them is that you look at where they are at and what assets they have that are declining vs improving.

Vuc has given us a good lift this year, but it does not seem like something we can count on going forward. Ditto to an extent with Zach (though Zach might give us this for two more years, who knows). Lonzo Ball has been a good lift, but is expiring, and dicey whether you want to go in on with another deal.

What would have been ideal is to have this same record, but have Coby, Ayo, Pat, Giddey, and Matas be the guys carrying the team to it, because you could then feel like these guys with longer runways might be the start of the next big thing, but Matas has been really raw (and certainly shows some potential but far away from prime time), Pat looks like a bad deal already and it seems like we're trying to offload him, Coby has declined from last year, Ayo has declined from last year and not stayed healthy, and Giddey has probably declined from last year but the situations are so uncomparable that it's hard to say but certainly hasn't answered any of the question marks around him.

When you go out into the future, Coby/Ayo are going to demand big raises or they'll leave, and we don't really have any meaningful way to replace them. We're already at the luxury tax so probably can only keep one of Giddey/Lonzo going forward, and we're out at least one future 1st (unless we're just disappointingly bad for the next 3 years), and so when you look at building on top of what we presently have, it feels very shaky in terms of our ability to add to it.

dougthonus wrote:

Guru wrote:I'd be ok with this exact roster....IF...it felt like there was momentum going up. I don't think they are impossibly off in terms of talent. I like a lot of the pieces....but they are not going up...they are stagnant if not worse....

As I said I'd be happy if next year was Lavine-Buz-top 10 pick-Rim running C and friends. That and friends could be any number of the guys on the roster currently or none of them. There isn't a piece I am certain needs to be gone....it's just that pieces need to be gone to ensure we get the top 10 pick.

I think my challenge with them is that you look at where they are at and what assets they have that are declining vs improving.

Vuc has given us a good lift this year, but it does not seem like something we can count on going forward. Ditto to an extent with Zach (though Zach might give us this for two more years, who knows). Lonzo Ball has been a good lift, but is expiring, and dicey whether you want to go in on with another deal.

What would have been ideal is to have this same record, but have Coby, Ayo, Pat, Giddey, and Matas be the guys carrying the team to it, because you could then feel like these guys with longer runways might be the start of the next big thing, but Matas has been really raw (and certainly shows some potential but far away from prime time), Pat looks like a bad deal already and it seems like we're trying to offload him, Coby has declined from last year, Ayo has declined from last year and not stayed healthy, and Giddey has probably declined from last year but the situations are so uncomparable that it's hard to say but certainly hasn't answered any of the question marks around him.

When you go out into the future, Coby/Ayo are going to demand big raises or they'll leave, and we don't really have any meaningful way to replace them. We're already at the luxury tax so probably can only keep one of Giddey/Lonzo going forward, and we're out at least one future 1st (unless we're just disappointingly bad for the next 3 years), and so when you look at building on top of what we presently have, it feels very shaky in terms of our ability to add to it.

I wonder what deals have been discussed for Zach and Vucevic. It's possible that AK is holding out for better assets than teams are willing to give up, but sometimes it's a good idea just to move on.

I think it's a combination of some players looking at who they're up against and the guy who usually matches up with them is out or having a bad year and they relax. Some guy think if they get an early lead they can put these guys away and the bench can pay the 4th. Mostly both are some players being lazy and instead of game management they just coast early and the down team gets some confidence and the decide to play hard.

This is why tanking is done by the front office not the coach and players. The players on that tanking team don't want to get branded as LOSERS and they don't care about draft position on a team they're going to get traded or released from . So every few games they find these games in front of them and they just win, and the tank fans get all upset on their board

Because we suck as well.

I said it in the other thread, but I feel like if Zach/Vuc were the leaders of the Globetrotters, and they played the Washington Generals, they would lose more than once.

I don't feel like statistically looking up or backing up this statement, but these 2 have to be the most losing/long-term "ALL-STAR" tandem in NBA history. So here are my stipulations:

(Two) Atleast 2x All-Stars
4+ years of continuity
Neither missed an entire season (I guess Zach did only play 23 games last year, otherwise I would've said "majority" of a season)

1 playoff-game win/appearance (in an overall weak East conference) is just wild to me. Especially since Demar was more responsible for that lone playoff. They've routinely been a net negative line-up.

I think this is why we blow games to bad teams. An Embiid on one leg (aside for this year where he's probably really hurting), prime Westbrick, pre-SuperMax Wall & Beal, these guys routinely made 1st rounds and competed even if their teams weren't good.

This tandem is a whole new league of fake all-star. Might as well have been the Korver and Hibbert show. But the thing is , sure - you had some disappointing 1-2y stints (Howard/Nash Lakers, these current Suns), but like... The (a) Bulls have had a pretty solid depth chart despite the injuries, and (b) it's been 4Y of the same core!! That's wild. Most smart GMs escape after the 2nd or 3rd disappointment. To keep this core for a 4.5 seasons is wild.

Dan Z wrote:I wonder what deals have been discussed for Zach and Vucevic. It's possible that AK is holding out for better assets than teams are willing to give up, but sometimes it's a good idea just to move on.

The only deal rumored for Zach has been bad salaries that last longer and worse players with no assets attached. I'm not sure anything has really been rumored for Vuc at all. He's been attached to places, but no real trade options I've seen.

dougthonus wrote:

Dan Z wrote:I wonder what deals have been discussed for Zach and Vucevic. It's possible that AK is holding out for better assets than teams are willing to give up, but sometimes it's a good idea just to move on.

The only deal rumored for Zach has been bad salaries that last longer and worse players with no assets attached. I'm not sure anything has really been rumored for Vuc at all. He's been attached to places, but no real trade options I've seen.

I wouldn't be surprised if AK isn't shopping Vucevic. He's having a career year and was a big reason for the Bulls decent start (which fell off). Realistically he should be shopped because he's not a long term option.