How Bad Was That Dallas Win?

[WindyCityBorn]

I can understand the losers who didn't get to bask in the dynasty glory, but I've seen 180 years worth of championships in 30 years of time, so I know I'm up BIG on the ultimate prize, and will be for the rest of my life. Thus, I just want the competition.

It really all comes down to this: wise fans treat all seasons equally, so a season 3 years from now is worth equal to a current season, or maybe slightly less just in case one dies in the interim.

The loser's mentality is that future seasons are always more valuable than the current one unless you look like the favorite to win a title in the current season. What that anounts to is just a fan of imaginary teams over real teams. It's being a fan of hypothetical teams over real ones. Just a difference in entertainment preferences. For me, my imagination is way, way doper than getting off on draft picks of 18 year olds. Sports are for now.

We are 100 percent in agreement. I have no interest in a organization that tanks. OKC is trash to me and unless they win a championship they will remain trash forever. Same for the 76ers. Their window is just about closed after being the most notorious tankers(losers) in sports history.

LMFAO are you aware of the fact that OKC has the same winning record with the Bulls and they even did sweep the Bulls this season?

You root for the team that was crushed by the trash team?

And OKC got their best player named SGA by trading their all star which was an excellent move. They didn't get their best player by losing tons of games on purpose.

On the other hand Bulls' best player is a 33-year-old offensive player and their second best player is a max player who doesn't contribute on winning like a max player does.

SGA gonna make the ALL-NBA 1st team while your max player didn't even manage to make the all-star selection. And yet you called OKC trash.

And didn't you post that you would not watch Bulls games for some time few months ago? Did you actually watch the Bulls' games?

I haven’t watched a single Bulls game all season, but because I wanted them to tank. I just new it was over before it began with the Ball situation. LaVine has been excellent since he fully recovered from that surgery. He obviously was not 100 percent when the season started. His stats for the entire season are great. We’ll see how next season goes.

[dukeespn]

We are 100 percent in agreement. I have no interest in a organization that tanks. OKC is trash to me and unless they win a championship they will remain trash forever. Same for the 76ers. Their window is just about closed after being the most notorious tankers(losers) in sports history.

LMFAO are you aware of the fact that OKC has the same winning record with the Bulls and they even did sweep the Bulls this season?

You root for the team that was crushed by the trash team?

And OKC got their best player named SGA by trading their all star which was an excellent move. They didn't get their best player by losing tons of games on purpose.

On the other hand Bulls' best player is a 33-year-old offensive player and their second best player is a max player who doesn't contribute on winning like a max player does.

SGA gonna make the ALL-NBA 1st team while your max player didn't even manage to make the all-star selection. And yet you called OKC trash.

And didn't you post that you would not watch Bulls games for some time few months ago? Did you actually watch the Bulls' games?

I haven’t watched a single Bulls game all season, but because I wanted them to tank. I just new it was over before it began with the Ball situation. LaVine has been excellent since he fully recovered from that surgery. He obviously was not 100 percent when the season started. His stats for the entire season are great. We’ll see how next season goes.

Oh yeah another injury excuses as expected. And another wasted Bulls' season to build around a limited max player.

And please watch the full games first if you want to argue with people.

You clearly said you stop watching Bulls games few months ago and now you pretend to know something about the Bulls this season? Are you kiddig me?

And please go find analytic stats. It takes only few seconds to find out every single analytic stats for the entire season still indicates LaVine didn't contribute on winning like the other max players did.

[Lunartic]

I support the least amount of losing necessary to promote the maximum amount of winning

So yeah, they should have played pure scrubs these last two games.

I don't support some Philly process style garbage that results in a headcase bust and some overrated ogre that gets bounced in the 2nd round against Butler like clockwork. Tanking for 18 years to lose in the 2nd round isn't worth it. The Bulls likely could make the second round with a competent PG like Lonzo or FVV, so why endure losing season after losing season to draft some player that is likely a bust?

That said - losing pointless games in order to give yourself a better chance at a pick which can always be traded for a better player or future draft compensation is the smart move and the Bulls aren't very smart.

[Wingy]

I support the least amount of losing necessary to promote the maximum amount of winning

So yeah, they should have played pure scrubs these last two games.

I don't support some Philly process style garbage that results in a headcase bust and some overrated ogre that gets bounced in the 2nd round against Butler like clockwork. Tanking for 18 years to lose in the 2nd round isn't worth it. The Bulls likely could make the second round with a competent PG like Lonzo or FVV, so why endure losing season after losing season to draft some player that is likely a bust?

That said - losing pointless games in order to give yourself a better chance at a pick which can always be traded for a better player or future draft compensation is the smart move and the Bulls aren't very smart.

Think this is a good, balanced take. You tank when it makes sense. You shouldn’t always tank.

You make a good point that a high pick is an asset. You don’t have to roll the dice on a young kid which is what some anti-tankers hinge their whole world view on. The higher the pick, the more ammo you have for a trade if you don’t see a prospect you like.

Based on talent available this draft, and team circumstances, IMO this was a clear season to tank once we got to the break and couldn’t upgrade via trade.

“The Process” is largely killed by the new lotto odds, and quite frankly, the play in. Ownership and fans have bought into that gimmick hook, line, and sinker.

[jnrjr79]

Tanking was never on the table for this front office and was especially off the table once we signed Beverly.

This is broadly true, but given before these past two games the Bulls were locked into the 10th seed no matter what they did, it would have made sense to "rest the starters" for the play-in and do a mini-tank.

IMO, that sort of move would get less scrutiny than what Dallas just did, b/c Dallas could still have made the play-in. Given the Bulls were making it no matter what and couldn't improve their seed, the league may not have cared if they styled it as resting the vets.

I've accepted, though, that this just isn't what this team is going to do.

[ChicagoStrong]

It's crazy how fast things fell apart for this team after Lonzo's injury.

It's crazy that no direction was taken when it was clear Lonzo wouldn't be the same.

[PJSteven22]

It was good to win the game because winning is good and losing is for losers and the draft and lottery suck ass as something to aspire to.

And you’re going to be sitting here a few years from now wondering why this team is so mediocre

Rather be mediocre than intentionally terrible. That worked so well for first decade of this century right? If the Bulls never win another championship in my lifetime I still saw 6. Most people will never get that.

I will NEVER support a full season of intentional sucking.

AK had a good situation until the Ball injury. I still believe in his no tank mentality.

You’re kicking the can down the road. If you want to win 35-40 games be my guest. You probably going to end up like the Wizards, Bears pre-2021, or Atlanta Falcons. I want the best chance to win. You need talent to win so I would invest heavily in scouting and the draft because that’s the best way to get great talent. Plus Demar and Vuc are going to be 34 and 33 years old respectively they should trade both for younger better fitting players. They also had great health besides Lonzo. Lonzo shouldn’t be that important to our success.

[PJSteven22]

So if it's absolutely ridiculous that a #4 pick could hurt us, you would argue that it's absolutely ridiculous that any draft pick could hurt a team, right? So the 60th pick in the draft will always help a team relative to alternatives? That's nonsense. Every player acquisition can be a pro or con.

This is terrible logic the 4th pick isn’t equal to Mr. Irrelevant

Not sure what this means. I wasn't comparing anyone. It's just a matter of fact that a top 4 pick can be a terrible bust on a 10 million/year contract. Happens pretty regularly.

It also depends on the situation. Your logic is still flawed. It’s a less of a probability that pick doesn’t pan out.

[League Circles]

This is terrible logic the 4th pick isn’t equal to Mr. Irrelevant

Not sure what this means. I wasn't comparing anyone. It's just a matter of fact that a top 4 pick can be a terrible bust on a 10 million/year contract. Happens pretty regularly.

It also depends on the situation. Your logic is still flawed. It’s a less of a probability that pick doesn’t pan out.

Of course the higher the pick the lower the probability that the player doesn't pan out. But this exchange started because someone said it was ridiculous to suggest that a #4 pick MIGHT be bad for us. Besides the fact that even #1 overall players can outright suck, their contract values are not negligible.

[dougthonus]

LMFAO are you aware of the fact that OKC has the same winning record with the Bulls and they even did sweep the Bulls this season?

I mean OKC didn't go on a 76ers "process" like tanking plan, but they definitely weren't trying to win for a couple years there. They spent a couple years in asset collection mode using their cap space as grease to buy low and sell high and gain tons of draft assets in the process and not being attached to anyone on their roster or attempting to win games and moving anyone they had worth picks for picks.

Granted, I love what OKC did overall, if I were a GM in the NBA, I'd be Sam Presti. Not to say every move he's made has been great, but his process is the best model you can put together for an undesirable location and small market team.

What it's left OKC with is a star player a bunch of good young talent and enough draft picks to trade for any star that hits the market and is willing to go there. Not sure if they'll win a title or even be consistently good, but they have a warchest of assets and a good young base.

For a team without a top 10 player on it, they're in the best position you could hope for and got there by doing nothing special and not having any particular luck in their favor (which is unlike most good teams that have a massive stroke of luck). OKC's position is entirely self-earned with no lucky lotto results, no crazy fluky draft results (SGA vastly overachieved, but with their number of picks, it was highly likely one of them would overachieve).

[PJSteven22]

Not sure what this means. I wasn't comparing anyone. It's just a matter of fact that a top 4 pick can be a terrible bust on a 10 million/year contract. Happens pretty regularly.

It also depends on the situation. Your logic is still flawed. It’s a less of a probability that pick doesn’t pan out.

Of course the higher the pick the lower the probability that the player doesn't pan out. But this exchange started because someone said it was ridiculous to suggest that a #4 pick MIGHT be bad for us. Besides the fact that even #1 overall players can outright suck, their contract values are not negligible.

It’s still flawed because it’s still an asset. Even if the player doesn’t pan out, some team will take him as a project. On average top 5 picks get a second contract. The only way it’s a detriment is if you have poor scouting.

[HomoSapien]

Tanking was never on the table for this front office and was especially off the table once we signed Beverly.

This is broadly true, but given before these past two games the Bulls were locked into the 10th seed no matter what they did, it would have made sense to "rest the starters" for the play-in and do a mini-tank.

IMO, that sort of move would get less scrutiny than what Dallas just did, b/c Dallas could still have made the play-in. Given the Bulls were making it no matter what and couldn't improve their seed, the league may not have cared if they styled it as resting the vets.

I've accepted, though, that this just isn't what this team is going to do.

I totally agree, I just think it's playoff or bust for them and for that reason they wanted to keep their main guys in a rhythm heading into the play-in.

[League Circles]

It also depends on the situation. Your logic is still flawed. It’s a less of a probability that pick doesn’t pan out.

Of course the higher the pick the lower the probability that the player doesn't pan out. But this exchange started because someone said it was ridiculous to suggest that a #4 pick MIGHT be bad for us. Besides the fact that even #1 overall players can outright suck, their contract values are not negligible.

It’s still flawed because it’s still an asset. Even if the player doesn’t pan out, some team will take him as a project. On average top 5 picks get a second contract. The only way it’s a detriment is if you have poor scouting.

Yeah, some team will take him as a project after you release him, or make you take an undesirable contract back in matching for the undesirable contract of the guy you're giving up on. The idea that there are any sure things in the NBA is nonsense. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that it's undesirable to have a #4 pick. Just saying it's possible that it has a negative outcome, like any player contract.

[League Circles]

What it's left OKC with is a star player a bunch of good young talent and enough draft picks to trade for any star that hits the market and is willing to go there. Not sure if they'll win a title or even be consistently good, but they have a warchest of assets and a good young base.

Since when is quantity of draft picks sufficient to trade for any star? You have to have the best package, and it's pretty trivial to come up with plausible examples of best packages for any star that include as few as one pick.

For a team without a top 10 player on it, they're in the best position you could hope for and got there by doing nothing special and not having any particular luck in their favor (which is unlike most good teams that have a massive stroke of luck). OKC's position is entirely self-earned with no lucky lotto results, no crazy fluky draft results (SGA vastly overachieved, but with their number of picks, it was highly likely one of them would overachieve).

I mean, probably 2-3 teams have actually won NBA championships in the last 20 years without having a top 10 player.

[PJSteven22]

Of course the higher the pick the lower the probability that the player doesn't pan out. But this exchange started because someone said it was ridiculous to suggest that a #4 pick MIGHT be bad for us. Besides the fact that even #1 overall players can outright suck, their contract values are not negligible.

It’s still flawed because it’s still an asset. Even if the player doesn’t pan out, some team will take him as a project. On average top 5 picks get a second contract. The only way it’s a detriment is if you have poor scouting.

Yeah, some team will take him as a project after you release him, or make you take an undesirable contract back in matching for the undesirable contract of the guy you're giving up on. The idea that there are any sure things in the NBA is nonsense. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that it's undesirable to have a #4 pick. Just saying it's possible that it has a negative outcome, like any player contract.

Like I said you will hit more than you miss if you have good scouting. The only only you can build a sustainable winner is through the draft but you refuse to acknowledge that. Josh Jackson is as much of an outlier as Chris Paul. You only accept the negatives and ignore the positives which leads to comments with proper nuance and context. Look at OKC and Memphis for example both teams are set up to be playoff teams for the foreseeable future even if some of the picks don’t pan out. But obviously you still refuse to acknowledge any of that. Having a conversation with a wall is more productive. Peace.

[dougthonus]

Since when is quantity of draft picks sufficient to trade for any star? You have to have the best package, and it's pretty trivial to come up with plausible examples of best packages for any star that include as few as one pick.

Name the last time a superstar under contract got traded for as little as 1 pick?

But beyond that, OKC has lots of good young players, which are the other things that go into that package.

I mean, probably 2-3 teams have actually won NBA championships in the last 20 years without having a top 10 player.

Sure, but there's no way to magically acquire one. The best you can do is have a great cap situation, good young talent, and a crap ton of draft picks. OKC has all of that.

[League Circles]

Since when is quantity of draft picks sufficient to trade for any star? You have to have the best package, and it's pretty trivial to come up with plausible examples of best packages for any star that include as few as one pick.

Name the last time a superstar under contract got traded for as little as 1 pick?

Well, you said star, now it's superstar. I won't think too hard about this because it should be easy to imagine that a team offering a #1 overall pick (plus whatever) easily trumps three #10 picks. Maybe I misunderstood you or you misspoke. To me it sounded like you were suggesting that OKC is the favorite or even a lock to trade for the next star that "becomes available". We traded Jimmy Butler for one #7 pick.

But beyond that, OKC has lots of good young players, which are the other things that go into that package.

Sure, they'll quite well positioned for a mediocre team. They're just not "set" for long term contention, because practically no team ever is (rare exceptions).

Sure, but there's no way to magically acquire one. The best you can do is have a great cap situation, good young talent, and a crap ton of draft picks. OKC has all of that.

My point is that the best position you can be in without a top 10 player is obviously being the best team in the NBA, not a losing team with potential.

[dougthonus]

Well, you said star, now it's superstar. I won't think too hard about this because it should be easy to imagine that a team offering a #1 overall pick (plus whatever) easily trumps three #10 picks. Maybe I misunderstood you or you misspoke. To me it sounded like you were suggesting that OKC is the favorite or even a lock to trade for the next star that "becomes available". We traded Jimmy Butler for one #7 pick.

Along with the previous season's #4 pick and another young breakout player that was 21, and the problem with the Butler trade as an example is no one in the league believed in or wanted to pay Butler. It's why he was traded for a big old pile of nothing by two teams that were trying to win in each of the next two years. The 76ers decided to trade him for Josh Richardson rather than simply pay him even though Jimmy's preference was to stay.

But if you want me to name real examples in recent history:
Stars:
Anthony Davis
Paul George
Rudy Gobert
Kevin Durant
James Harden (to Brk)
Donovan Mitchell

Quazi stars still worth multiple 1sts
James Harden (to Phi)
Jrue Holiday
Nikola Vucevic
Russell Westbrook (to Houston for Paul + 2 1sts )
Kevin Love (previous year #1 who was a bust but maybe viewed as potential, Wiggins (viewed as a star that year), and Thad Young (starter level rotation guy)

Guys that went for low value:
Kawhi - Wouldn't agree to extension and on one year deal only got one 1st and DeRozan
Butler - Not widely wanted in the league, Celtics were unwilling to offer 2 1sts for him
Kyrie (to Bos) - Forced his way to Boston, they gave up the Nets pick which was anticipated to be high but was only 8 (and role players)

I'm not saying that you always win by having the most picks, but basically since the Anthony Davis deal went down, every star player afterward has moved for 3+ 1sts and swaps.

Sure, they'll quite well positioned for a mediocre team. They're just not "set" for long term contention, because practically no team ever is (rare exceptions).

Agreed. I just said they have done as much as you reasonably can to without getting lucky. They have positioned themselves in every way possible to get lucky.

My point is that the best position you can be in without a top 10 player is obviously being the best team in the NBA, not a losing team with potential.

[/quote][/quote]

OKC is probably on the verge of being a 2nd round team with tons of assets and flexibility. That's about as good as you can be without getting lucky and manufacturing your own luck.

[League Circles]

OKC is probably on the verge of being a 2nd round team with tons of assets and flexibility. That's about as good as you can be without winning the superstar lottery. The last exception to that is probably the 2004 Detroit Pistons.

Personally I also include the 2011 Mavs and I think it was the 2014ish Spurs as great title winning teams without a top 10 player. People retroactively labeled Dirk that, and maybe super old Duncan or emerging Kawhi as top 10 guys, but I disagree. Dirk spent his entire career up to that point being like the 3rd-6th best PF in the league, went on a tear in the playoffs and was annoited.

[Axl Rose]

Well it's only really bad if 9th moves up, forgettable if not. But yeah it wasn't played smart to win a meaningless game that hurts your odds at keeping your pick.