RealGM

?

Can't believe an NBA GM said this. what a Clown. This is why the Bulls suck and always will.

Has any team in NBA history ever had 9-10 "very good players" on the roster, unless we're stretching the definition of "very good" to include 80% of the league?

I'm not sure if that's some Magic Johnson level insight or if he misspoke.

"you can build it as 9-10 very good players."
Well, we don't have any. There isn't a single Bulls player that I wouldn't trade on the spot for Derrick White or Harstentein or Mikal Bridges (you know, very good players)

I can"t believe I'm saying this but I miss GarPax.

You can win a championship with Pistons 2004 or Spurs 2014 type of roster, but considering these were anomalies in the long history of NBA driven by stars and superstars - I don't predict a bright future for Bulls with such brilliant minds at the helm. Even Celtics last year had literally two all-stars, Porzingis, who had all-star level impact when he was healthy, and Holiday with White both having ~All-NBA D performances -- and no one was thinking they're necessarily the best example of stars-driven team.

NBA is very deep now and you need several "very good players", but basically every NBA champion also has Superstar power.

I think you can stretch this definition out with Boston Celtics, if you believe Tatum and Brown aren't THAT good. That was the team that took out superior superstars with their superior depth. Maybe he aspires to be that team, but you aren't winning with Zach Lavine, Lonzo Ball and Vucevic, even if you have 9 of those guys. Thats how Euro teams are built, not NBA teams. The whole Karnisovas tenure was very disappointing, he really was one of those guys who bought into Vucevic hype and he really tried to build a winner team around several guys, none of whom were regular all stars.

Karnisovas man, great former player, suspect manager, just another of that type. I always gave him benefit of the doubt, because I know how tied his hands really were by that ownership, they didn't even allow Arturas to use exit clause from Lonzo contract, because insurance was saving owner the money, but more and more time passes, it appears it is not just ownership, but entire management philosophy is pretty bad.

When Arturas was signed, he said he wants to act like Chicago is huge market they are, dream big, but big markets go after biggest players, they aint trading half their assets for Nikola Vucevic... Before this season he claimed Chicago is going to host play off series and they won't hurt integrity of the game by tanking, sk there is also a lot of snake oil salesmanship going on there too.

Well then.. how many very good players do the Bulls have?

zimpy27 wrote:Well then.. how many very good players do the Bulls have?

Kind of sad that a reporter basically isn't allowed to ask that question because if they did, their press credentials just get revoked and they're out of a job. The only people who can ask that question are guys like us or independent bloggers doing this as a hobby.

The Master wrote:You can win a championship with Pistons 2004 or Spurs 2014 type of roster, but considering these were anomalies in the long history of NBA driven by stars and superstars - I don't predict a bright future for Bulls with such brilliant minds at the helm. Even Celtics last year had literally two all-stars, Porzingis, who had all-star level impact when he was healthy, and Holiday with White both having ~All-NBA D performances -- and no one was thinking they're necessarily the best example of stars-driven team.

A Spurs roster with four future HOF players (led by a HOF coach), with five elite role players (Splitter, Diaw, Green, Mills, Belinelli). Or a Pistons roster with 3 HOF players, one of the most physically gifted two-way bigs who is also considered an underachiever (Rasheed Wallace) and 6 more elite role guys (Prince, Okur, Lindsey Hunter, Elden Campbell, Chucky Atkins, Corliss Williamson).

Building teams like that is damn near possible unless you nail literally every draft pick and trade for a good 4-6 year period. Karnisovas is literally talking crazy.

Not in the modern NBA. Sorry but there aren't really any good examples of a team like that. Closest would be the 2004 pistons and its been 20 years since that team. Safe to say that even a starting 5 and the bench they had has been hard to replicate. Keep in mind also that they had some of the best defense ever.

For a big market GM to be saying this is rather silly too. Bulls are so mismanaged. They are truly the new Knicks.

Chuck Everett wrote:A Spurs roster with four future HOF players (led by a HOF coach), with five elite role players (Splitter, Diaw, Green, Mills, Belinelli). Or a Pistons roster with 3 HOF players, one of the most physically gifted two-way bigs who is also considered an underachiever (Rasheed Wallace) and more 6 elite role guys (Prince, Okur, Lindsey Hunter, Elden Campbell, Chucky Atkins, Corliss Williamson).

Building teams like that is damn near possible unless you nail literally every draft pick and trade for a good 4-6 year period. Karnisovas is literally talking crazy.

I mean, yeah, to win a championship you have to have great players after all - but they didn't have a clear first option on offense and were more depth than star driven, so MAYBE you can point them as examples to the point that Karnisovas tried to make, Kawhi or Billups weren't even once an allstar before they won FMVP. Obviously, Duncan definitely had allstar-level impact that year (the same with Ben-Rasheed duo), Parker was an allstar that year as well, Manu was still an elite role player with multiple championship runs of experience and Kawhi in his prime was a true superstar, Billups soon after was recognized as an All-NBA level player too -- and these teams were still an anomaly rather than any regularly occurring event.

So yeah, I agree that you can't purposely build a team in such way and Karnisovas isn't too bright in this remark, lol, this is what I said as well.

what's the equivalent of those pistons today? maybe something like...
brunson
bane
OG
JJJ
gobert
+ decent bench and wiseman (as darko)
is that enough to win?

The Master wrote:You can win a championship with Pistons 2004 or Spurs 2014 type of roster, but considering these were anomalies in the long history of NBA driven by stars and superstars - I don't predict a bright future for Bulls with such brilliant minds at the helm. Even Celtics last year had literally two all-stars, Porzingis, who had all-star level impact when he was healthy, and Holiday with White both having ~All-NBA D performances -- and no one was thinking they're necessarily the best example of stars-driven team.

Pistons are just a misconception because of how limited Ben Wallace was on the offensive end (very unconventional for a star player) but big Ben was more than a "very good player" that season, he was great. while true he was scoring 10 ppg, he also had like 3 blocks and 2 steals, 12.5 rebounds and was 7th in MVP voting and 2nd in DPOY. Artest winning DPOY over him was ridicilous as well, in today's tools of analysis he'd easily had been the DPOY

if u have a guy that's top 7 (and honestly merited a higher spot) in MVP voting then it doesn't fit this alleged "model" Karnisovas is suggesting

as for the Spurs, Duncan was 37 but he's a top 5-10 ATG player, Manu was 36 and KL (another player whose more than "very good") was 22. that Spurs team is def kind on an outlier because neither of their great players were in their primes but they had 3 of those, plus a prime Tony Parker. a little similar to the Dubs last ring, with an aging (but still much better than "very good" Curry as their best player

in summation. no team in NBA history has won a chip without a player whose better than "very good". Bulls are just sad...

turnaroundJ wrote:what's the equivalent of those pistons today? maybe something like...
brunson
bane
OG
JJJ
gobert
+ decent bench and wiseman (as darko)
is that enough to win?

Brunson - 25 million
Bane - 34 million
OG - 36 million
JJJ - 25 million
Gobert - 43 million

Your starters cost 163 million dollars. How the heck can you fill out the roster if they cost that much? The cap is 140 million. The tax level is 170 million. You'd need someone drastically cheaper than Bane and Gobert for sure. Like excellent rookie contract players (Tayshaun/Kawhi style).

He phrased it weirdly, but I assume he means basically the Memphis model, where you have around 9-10 players playing 20-30 minutes each night, not rellying completely on their star players. So to speak more the European model, where you rely less on 1 or 2 players getting big numbers every night and rely more on the collective.

Chuck Everett wrote:

The Master wrote:You can win a championship with Pistons 2004 or Spurs 2014 type of roster, but considering these were anomalies in the long history of NBA driven by stars and superstars - I don't predict a bright future for Bulls with such brilliant minds at the helm. Even Celtics last year had literally two all-stars, Porzingis, who had all-star level impact when he was healthy, and Holiday with White both having ~All-NBA D performances -- and no one was thinking they're necessarily the best example of stars-driven team.

A Spurs roster with four future HOF players (led by a HOF coach), with five elite role players (Splitter, Diaw, Green, Mills, Belinelli). Or a Pistons roster with 3 HOF players, one of the most physically gifted two-way bigs who is also considered an underachiever (Rasheed Wallace) and more 6 elite role guys (Prince, Okur, Lindsey Hunter, Elden Campbell, Chucky Atkins, Corliss Williamson).

Building teams like that is damn near possible unless you nail literally every draft pick and trade for a good 4-6 year period. Karnisovas is literally talking crazy.

Yea i get why the 04 pistons tend to get that stereotype, but they had 4 All-star level players in their starting lineup.

14 Spurs definitely a better example, but they had Kawhi freakin Leonard pre-injury prone. Parker still had some gas left in the tank too.

bkkrh wrote:He phrased it weirdly, but I assume he means basically the Memphis model, where you have around 9-10 players playing 20-30 minutes each night, not rellying completely on their star players. So to speak more the European model, where you rely less on 1 or 2 players getting big numbers every night and rely more on the collective.

Probably. The problem is, he doesn't have many, if any, players like that lol. Certainly no JA, Bane or JJJ level guys that's for sure.

The reason most teams go for the former is that it is much harder to do the latter.

There's a salary cap. Very good players still get paid a lot.

Most of the time when a team pulls it off, there's a lot of luck that goes into play.

Bargain contracts, unexpected high producers, cap changes, etc

Naturally it's just harder with a salary cap to build a team like that. It's not that no one else ever figured out that having a lot of very good players could work.

turnaroundJ wrote:what's the equivalent of those pistons today? maybe something like...
brunson
bane
OG
JJJ
gobert
+ decent bench and wiseman (as darko)
is that enough to win?

Brunson has been a top 10 player for a while

Sounds like the GM is pushing a model that implies his roster is filled with players Bulls consider potential championship pieces.

So this is not a particularly motivated seller.

He is showcasing his roster at inflated values when the truth is, the Bulls roster is 100% role players running on a treadmill. No one player moves the needle towards a championship. None carry 1st round value, but he won't take 2nds for his precious championship pieces.

So how do you downgrade your way into a top pick when buyers won't overpay for your very good (role) players?

The Celtics who just won the championahip last year are exactly this kind of team.