RealGM

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/eastern-conference-offseason-grades-2025-part-1/id986901174?i=1000719509404
Skip to 44:17

Spoiler alert…
Danny: F
Nate: F+

The substance of the comments:

They like that the Bulls are holding firm with Giddey.

They do not like the Okoro trade b/c it didn't add an "asset" beyond Okoro. Lonzo is "useful" when he's healthy. Traded "a better player for a worse player, who also has a worse contract."

Traded down in the 2nd for cash.

Tre Jones contract good.

Essengue pick is potentially good, but turning down the Pelicans trade was bad.

Rated it as "incomplete" given Giddey is unresolved, but "preliminary grade" is an F, b/c the Bulls extended AK. Nate, as you noted, an F+ b/c of the couple things AK has done that he liked this offseason.

jnrjr79 wrote:The substance of the comments:

They like that the Bulls are holding firm with Giddey.

They do not like the Okoro trade b/c it didn't add an "asset" beyond Okoro. Lonzo is "useful" when he's healthy. Traded "a better player for a worse player, who also has a worse contract."

Traded down in the 2nd for cash.

Tre Jones contract good.

Essengue pick is potentially good, but turning down the Pelicans trade was bad.

Rated it as "incomplete" given Giddey is unresolved, but "preliminary grade" is an F, b/c the Bulls extended AK. Nate, as you noted, an F+ b/c of the couple things AK has done that he liked this offseason.

Hard to argue with many of those points. That said, if they can move on from Vuc via trade or buyout, I'm still grading the offseason as an A.

jnrjr79 wrote:The substance of the comments:

They like that the Bulls are holding firm with Giddey.

They do not like the Okoro trade b/c it didn't add an "asset" beyond Okoro. Lonzo is "useful" when he's healthy. Traded "a better player for a worse player, who also has a worse contract."

Traded down in the 2nd for cash.

Tre Jones contract good.

Essengue pick is potentially good, but turning down the Pelicans trade was bad.

Rated it as "incomplete" given Giddey is unresolved, but "preliminary grade" is an F, b/c the Bulls extended AK. Nate, as you noted, an F+ b/c of the couple things AK has done that he liked this offseason.

That's a pretty harsh grade related to the commentary. I agree with most of the commentary outside of the Lonzo/Okoro thing, I think that's a pretty neutral trade. Lonzo wasn't all that good last year, and played in very few games and ended the season hurt again. If you view Okoro as a negative, it's a poor trade, but I wouldn't view him as a negative.

I guess I normally wouldn't include extending AK as part of the criteria, and if you do, F makes sense given how bad he's been.

dougthonus wrote:

jnrjr79 wrote:The substance of the comments:

They like that the Bulls are holding firm with Giddey.

They do not like the Okoro trade b/c it didn't add an "asset" beyond Okoro. Lonzo is "useful" when he's healthy. Traded "a better player for a worse player, who also has a worse contract."

Traded down in the 2nd for cash.

Tre Jones contract good.

Essengue pick is potentially good, but turning down the Pelicans trade was bad.

Rated it as "incomplete" given Giddey is unresolved, but "preliminary grade" is an F, b/c the Bulls extended AK. Nate, as you noted, an F+ b/c of the couple things AK has done that he liked this offseason.

That's a pretty harsh grade related to the commentary. I agree with most of the commentary outside of the Lonzo/Okoro thing, I think that's a pretty neutral trade. Lonzo wasn't all that good last year, and played in very few games and ended the season hurt again. If you view Okoro as a negative, it's a poor trade, but I wouldn't view him as a negative.

I guess I normally wouldn't include extending AK as part of the criteria, and if you do, F makes sense given how bad he's been.

Lonzo was good last year. Not sure how you come to the conclusion he wasn't. Maybe the fact he is never going to be 100% healthy again (though he never really could play a full season before the big injury) is clouding your thinking.

dougthonus wrote:

jnrjr79 wrote:The substance of the comments:

They like that the Bulls are holding firm with Giddey.

They do not like the Okoro trade b/c it didn't add an "asset" beyond Okoro. Lonzo is "useful" when he's healthy. Traded "a better player for a worse player, who also has a worse contract."

Traded down in the 2nd for cash.

Tre Jones contract good.

Essengue pick is potentially good, but turning down the Pelicans trade was bad.

Rated it as "incomplete" given Giddey is unresolved, but "preliminary grade" is an F, b/c the Bulls extended AK. Nate, as you noted, an F+ b/c of the couple things AK has done that he liked this offseason.

That's a pretty harsh grade related to the commentary. I agree with most of the commentary outside of the Lonzo/Okoro thing, I think that's a pretty neutral trade. Lonzo wasn't all that good last year, and played in very few games and ended the season hurt again. If you view Okoro as a negative, it's a poor trade, but I wouldn't view him as a negative.

I guess I normally wouldn't include extending AK as part of the criteria, and if you do, F makes sense given how bad he's been.

Yeah, if you're grading the entire franchise, then sure, it can be an F for the AK extension. If you're grading AK's own performance, then that criterion does not make a lot of sense. But that did seem to be the reason the grades were what they were.

Jcool0 wrote:Lonzo was good last year. Not sure how you come to the conclusion he wasn't. Maybe the fact he is never going to be 100% healthy again (though he never really could play a full season before the big injury) is clouding your thinking.

He shot really poorly and looked really stiff and had even less ability to take guys off the dribble than normal. He still had a decent impact with his overall high BB IQ, but he was much less than he was in the past.

Also, the most important ability is still availability. None of your other abilities matter when on the bench, he gave the Bulls 777 minutes, so that's an average of 9.5 minutes a game of diminished play.

If you were going to get that version of Lonzo Ball, he's a vet min player.

dougthonus wrote:

Jcool0 wrote:Lonzo was good last year. Not sure how you come to the conclusion he wasn't. Maybe the fact he is never going to be 100% healthy again (though he never really could play a full season before the big injury) is clouding your thinking.

He shot really poorly and looked really stiff and had even less ability to take guys off the dribble than normal. He still had a decent impact with his overall high BB IQ, but he was much less than he was in the past.

Also, the most important ability is still availability. None of your other abilities matter when on the bench, he gave the Bulls 777 minutes, so that's an average of 9.5 minutes a game of diminished play.

If you were going to get that version of Lonzo Ball, he's a vet min player.

His last 117 3PA he shot 37% taking almost 7 a game. For not playing for two season that's not bad. As far as impact his on-off numbers he was #2 on the Bulls with a +9.7, Huerter was #1 with +13.4. The risk with Ball is what its always been healthy not ability.

Jcool0 wrote:

dougthonus wrote:

Jcool0 wrote:Lonzo was good last year. Not sure how you come to the conclusion he wasn't. Maybe the fact he is never going to be 100% healthy again (though he never really could play a full season before the big injury) is clouding your thinking.

He shot really poorly and looked really stiff and had even less ability to take guys off the dribble than normal. He still had a decent impact with his overall high BB IQ, but he was much less than he was in the past.

Also, the most important ability is still availability. None of your other abilities matter when on the bench, he gave the Bulls 777 minutes, so that's an average of 9.5 minutes a game of diminished play.

If you were going to get that version of Lonzo Ball, he's a vet min player.

His last 117 3PA he shot 37% taking almost 7 a game. For not playing for two season that's not bad.

Sure, and he may well return to his old shooting form, but overall he was 36% from the floor and 34% from 3. That's a bad shooting season. It's also funny how he basically refuses to shoot twos anymore.

jnrjr79 wrote:

Jcool0 wrote:

dougthonus wrote:
He shot really poorly and looked really stiff and had even less ability to take guys off the dribble than normal. He still had a decent impact with his overall high BB IQ, but he was much less than he was in the past.

Also, the most important ability is still availability. None of your other abilities matter when on the bench, he gave the Bulls 777 minutes, so that's an average of 9.5 minutes a game of diminished play.

If you were going to get that version of Lonzo Ball, he's a vet min player.

His last 117 3PA he shot 37% taking almost 7 a game. For not playing for two season that's not bad.

Sure, and he may well return to his old shooting form, but overall he was 36% from the floor and 34% from 3. That's a bad shooting season. It's also funny how he basically refuses to shoot twos anymore.

He didn't play for two seasons... Michael Jordan shot 41% after coming back mid season.

PER 36:

2021-22: 13.5 ppg 5.6 rebounds 5.3 assists 1.9 steals

2024-25: 12.4 ppg 5.5 rebounds 5.3 assists 2.2 steals

Jcool0 wrote:

jnrjr79 wrote:

Jcool0 wrote:
His last 117 3PA he shot 37% taking almost 7 a game. For not playing for two season that's not bad.

Sure, and he may well return to his old shooting form, but overall he was 36% from the floor and 34% from 3. That's a bad shooting season. It's also funny how he basically refuses to shoot twos anymore.

He didn't play for two seasons... Michael Jordan shot 41% after coming back mid season.

PER 36:

2021-22: 13.5 ppg 5.6 rebounds 5.3 assists 1.9 steals

2024-25: 12.4 ppg 5.5 rebounds 5.3 assists 2.2 steals

Yep, I think it's perfectly plausible his shooting will improve given how long he was out. He nevertheless had a poor year overall last year. I'm not really being critical of him for it. It's remarkable he came back at all.

jnrjr79 wrote:

Jcool0 wrote:

jnrjr79 wrote:
Sure, and he may well return to his old shooting form, but overall he was 36% from the floor and 34% from 3. That's a bad shooting season. It's also funny how he basically refuses to shoot twos anymore.

He didn't play for two seasons... Michael Jordan shot 41% after coming back mid season.

PER 36:

2021-22: 13.5 ppg 5.6 rebounds 5.3 assists 1.9 steals

2024-25: 12.4 ppg 5.5 rebounds 5.3 assists 2.2 steals

Yep, I think it's perfectly plausible his shooting will improve given how long he was out. He nevertheless had a poor year overall last year. I'm not really being critical of him for it. It's remarkable he came back at all.

I definitely expect his 3pt shot to return. That said, it's so hard to say that you can even expect him to play 50% of games (for more than 22 MPG) based on history...not all that different than saying what one might expect in terms of games played by Embiid.

Not sure how it can be an F given their options were incredibly limited but yeah they didn't do much.

A+ and an A for the Hawks is some high praise.

Traded a 1st and a 2nd for Porzingis who's expiring and played about half of games last year

Signed NAW and Kennard (redundant in my opinion)

Drafted Newell

That's an A+ off-season?

Haven't gotten to the Bulls part yet but was curious if our F grade was going to be due to them grading offseasons harsh, but they're starting out pretty generous

drosestruts wrote:A+ and an A for the Hawks is some high praise.

Traded a 1st and a 2nd for Porzingis who's expiring and played about half of games last year

Signed NAW and Kennard (redundant in my opinion)

Drafted Newell

That's an A+ off-season?

Haven't gotten to the Bulls part yet but was curious if our F grade was going to be due to them grading offseasons harsh, but they're starting out pretty generous

The Hawks also received a 2nd (2026) in the trade from Boston and the FRP they sent out was the 22nd overall pick in this last draft.

They also got an additional FRP next year unprotected from New Orleans whilst drafting Newell 23rd overall (it were rumoured they were looking to draft Newell at 13).

It's a bit better than you're making out.

But I agree it's not really an A+ offseason for them. I'd say an A- personally.

Muzbar wrote:

drosestruts wrote:A+ and an A for the Hawks is some high praise.

Traded a 1st and a 2nd for Porzingis who's expiring and played about half of games last year

Signed NAW and Kennard (redundant in my opinion)

Drafted Newell

That's an A+ off-season?

Haven't gotten to the Bulls part yet but was curious if our F grade was going to be due to them grading offseasons harsh, but they're starting out pretty generous

The Hawks also received a 2nd (2026) in the trade from Boston and the FRP they sent out was the 22nd overall pick in this last draft.

They also got an additional FRP next year unprotected from New Orleans whilst drafting Newell 23rd overall (it were rumoured they were looking to draft Newell at 13).

It's a bit better than you're making out.

But I agree it's not really an A+ offseason for them. I'd say an A- personally.

The Pelicans pick I'm guessing is a big part of the trade and is a good call out.

I just feel like they're very optimistic about Porzingis even playing.

Maybe as a Bulls fan I'm just growing more pessimistic about players returning after funky injuries without much explanation.

if Porzingis is out - they're floor spacing and effeciency is garbage.

I mean, yeah - it’s been an incredibly disappointing offseason so far.

drosestruts wrote:A+ and an A for the Hawks is some high praise.

Traded a 1st and a 2nd for Porzingis who's expiring and played about half of games last year

Signed NAW and Kennard (redundant in my opinion)

Drafted Newell

That's an A+ off-season?

Haven't gotten to the Bulls part yet but was curious if our F grade was going to be due to them grading offseasons harsh, but they're starting out pretty generous

Ironic given that the Hawks & Bulls have basically been same the same team and will be next year again.
Hawks Ws last 3 years: 39
Bulls Ws last 3 years: 39.3

But I kinda stopped taking these guys seriously when they stated Steph Curry is greater than Jordan. Curry doesn't even make the top 10 much less beat Jordan.

Jcool0 wrote:

dougthonus wrote:

jnrjr79 wrote:The substance of the comments:

They like that the Bulls are holding firm with Giddey.

They do not like the Okoro trade b/c it didn't add an "asset" beyond Okoro. Lonzo is "useful" when he's healthy. Traded "a better player for a worse player, who also has a worse contract."

Traded down in the 2nd for cash.

Tre Jones contract good.

Essengue pick is potentially good, but turning down the Pelicans trade was bad.

Rated it as "incomplete" given Giddey is unresolved, but "preliminary grade" is an F, b/c the Bulls extended AK. Nate, as you noted, an F+ b/c of the couple things AK has done that he liked this offseason.

That's a pretty harsh grade related to the commentary. I agree with most of the commentary outside of the Lonzo/Okoro thing, I think that's a pretty neutral trade. Lonzo wasn't all that good last year, and played in very few games and ended the season hurt again. If you view Okoro as a negative, it's a poor trade, but I wouldn't view him as a negative.

I guess I normally wouldn't include extending AK as part of the criteria, and if you do, F makes sense given how bad he's been.

Lonzo was good last year. Not sure how you come to the conclusion he wasn't. Maybe the fact he is never going to be 100% healthy again (though he never really could play a full season before the big injury) is clouding your thinking.

Lonzo shot poorly and struggled on ball defensively. He still plays great team offense and defense. He struggled and could not stay healthy.

Zo had good impact stats but the sample size was small. Okoro seemed to be a positive on the court for the Cavs from some of the posts I've seen on here. Zo simply gets hurt too much to keep the story/hope going, I'm good with that trade. POA defense needed to be addressed and I believe Donovan likes what Okoro can bring to help.

On the grading, it's harsh. Many so called arm chair GM's expected they would have overpaid Josh Giddey and were ready to criticize the moment the report came out, and that of course has not happened and does not look like it will. They seem to have had a good draft, though that can't be judged until a few years down the road, and so far they have not tried to throw future assets away just to compete for a 5 or 6 seed which has been a relief.