The Chicago Bulls Are Stuck in NBA Hell

[chefo]

No, the Bulls are not in NBA hell... not yet anyways. They are in purgatory. Problem is, they had been setup, without too much hindsight, to be knocking on the gates upstairs and AKME kind of blew it.

I've discussed this before, but magnitude of good moves and mistakes matters much more than the list of good and bad moves on its own.

Ideally, you'd want every player to be a net plus at their salary slot. That would have you mathematically in a very good spot.

I don't care for the 'WCJ or Vuc' discussion, for example. Why? Because Vuc is a net negative for his salary and WCJ may be a wash at best. I'd want neither of them as my starting C unless I have no other choice. I'd much rather have Gafford at his $ than either of these 2. And we had him under contract for $1M per for 2.5 more years when we shipped him out. At $1M, he could have been a perfectly serviceable 20-25 min starter, just like he is in DC. Gafford was better at the things that matter for a modern-day C than either WCJ or Vuc. And he cost nothing. That's what I mean by being a plus at the $ you're getting paid.

Caruso is a plus at his $. Zach was a major plus at his old $ but is a minus at his new $. DD is a small plus to a wash, only because he takes a lot of possessions off on D. Pat was a minus at his $ his years as a Bull. Same for Coby. Green, when healthy was a major plus at his $, especially the year before.

Current Lauri is the best production per $ probably in the entire NBA, and he was a Bull just like Gafford. The Bulls frontcourt should have been Lauri and Daniel, and it would have cost $30M total for the next 3-4 years. One of them is near All-NBA level, and the other is one of the best role-playing Cs in the entire league. And they would have cost very little, leaving a ton to spend elsewhere to plug in holes on the roster. That's the cardinal mistake GarPax made as well, when they had Niko, Lauri, and Bobby tied up for peanuts, who were insanely productive when on the court separately and as a unit. When you have good players that you can tie up long-term for not a lot of $, that creates the opportunity to build a competitive team for half-a-decade.

I think NBA hell is when franchises are straight up bad for an entire decade plus. Think Kings, or Hornets. The Bulls have a competent team that if things break right may sneak into the playoffs. Maybe for next year at least. Once DD and Vuc get older, if the Bulls extend DD as well, then they may head for NBA hell because they'll have $50M plus tied up in old, washed-up vets that nobody will want because they are major net negatives at their $.

[Bulliever2020]

[Ctownbulls]

Didn't know Bill Simons was still a thing.

NBA hell is a figment of the imagination of desperate "writers".

We have what, like half the cap committed to after next season? Yeah, totally "stuck" lol.

But, but, but we don't have "future assets" to improve with!

(Looks around at great players selected with picks anyone could have in Jokic, Butler, Giannis, Kawhi, etc)

I don't disagree but the "future assets" argument is key. All of the bottom dwellers have even assembled a massive amount of young talent and we really don't have anyone outside of Pat and Coby. Look at Houston, OKC, Orlando, Detroit, Portland, Utah, etc. I would trade rosters/future pick status with all of those rosters. The Bulls have a roster built to be a 5-10 seed and no future upside. That is NBA hell and the Bulls have been stuck in it for the better part of 25 years.

[chitownsports4ever]

Didn't know Bill Simons was still a thing.

NBA hell is a figment of the imagination of desperate "writers".

We have what, like half the cap committed to after next season? Yeah, totally "stuck" lol.

But, but, but we don't have "future assets" to improve with!

(Looks around at great players selected with picks anyone could have in Jokic, Butler, Giannis, Kawhi, etc)

I don't disagree but the "future assets" argument is key. All of the bottom dwellers have even assembled a massive amount of young talent and we really don't have anyone outside of Pat and Coby. Look at Houston, OKC, Orlando, Detroit, Portland, Utah, etc. I would trade rosters/future pick status with all of those rosters. The Bulls have a roster built to be a 5-10 seed and no future upside. That is NBA hell and the Bulls have been stuck in it for the better part of 25 years.

Well you just listed the Boonies of the NBA and we are not those markets and so all the Bulls need to is what other big market teams have done for a while which is develop relationships and position themselves as preferred destinations so that after all those picks are seasoned in 2-3 years in the boonies you can step in and pick them up via free agency or trades.

[Ctownbulls]

Didn't know Bill Simons was still a thing.

NBA hell is a figment of the imagination of desperate "writers".

We have what, like half the cap committed to after next season? Yeah, totally "stuck" lol.

But, but, but we don't have "future assets" to improve with!

(Looks around at great players selected with picks anyone could have in Jokic, Butler, Giannis, Kawhi, etc)

I don't disagree but the "future assets" argument is key. All of the bottom dwellers have even assembled a massive amount of young talent and we really don't have anyone outside of Pat and Coby. Look at Houston, OKC, Orlando, Detroit, Portland, Utah, etc. I would trade rosters/future pick status with all of those rosters. The Bulls have a roster built to be a 5-10 seed and no future upside. That is NBA hell and the Bulls have been stuck in it for the better part of 25 years.

Well you just listed the Boonies of the NBA and we are not those markets and so all the Bulls need to is what other big market teams have done for a while which is develop relationships and position themselves as preferred destinations so that after all those picks are seasoned in 2-3 years in the boonies you can step in and pick them up via free agency or trades.

That will never happen. If it is so easy then how come it hasn't already?

[bad knees]

NBA Hell for me is tanking and playing meaningless basketball for 4-6 years. So, no, I would not say that the Bulls are in NBA Hell.

[Wingy]

I can’t listen to these two dudes for 35 minutes regardless of who they are. But if you are right you are right. I don’t know their rationale, but their conclusion is correct by my definition of “NBA Hell.”

The important thing to remember here is that we absolutely do not have to be and it is completely within the organization’s power to change that any time they want. There’s a difference between being in hell and being stuck there. We aren’t stuck. We just appear to be okay with it.

The fact you can say this means we’re not actually in it. I see hell as being stuck.

Are things good? Nope.

Could we have a much better FO? Sadly, that answer still appears to be ‘yes.’

Could ownership help by paying the tax? Yup, but we know they won’t.

But our picks situation isn’t so dire. We owe one, and we’re owed one. Our cap is not comprised like say the Clippers whose stars don’t even play.

Now if we resign DeMar to a max extension? That would seal our cap doom.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to sound optimistic. I just don’t think it’s as dire as the level of drama we see on the board.

I save all my drama for slamming AK and ownership. I think it’s more about the people in charge that should be considered hell. Not the deck that they have…even though imperfect, it isn’t as bad as people make it out to be.

[_txchilibowl_]

Yeah, no.

Give me mediocrity over bad any day of the week. Let the mediocrity run out and reset. But don't cast yourself into the pits of NBA bottom feeders.

This notion that you have to get bad before you can get good is wrong.

[Mbrahv0528]

Didn't know Bill Simons was still a thing.

NBA hell is a figment of the imagination of desperate "writers".

We have what, like half the cap committed to after next season? Yeah, totally "stuck" lol.

But, but, but we don't have "future assets" to improve with!

(Looks around at great players selected with picks anyone could have in Jokic, Butler, Giannis, Kawhi, etc)

He still has one of the most popular sports podcasts.

And an entire website (which is massively popular) that he founded. But yeah he's not a thing.

Sent from my SM-S918U using RealGM mobile app

[dougthonus]

Didn't know Bill Simons was still a thing.

NBA hell is a figment of the imagination of desperate "writers".

We have what, like half the cap committed to after next season? Yeah, totally "stuck" lol.

But, but, but we don't have "future assets" to improve with!

(Looks around at great players selected with picks anyone could have in Jokic, Butler, Giannis, Kawhi, etc)

He still has one of the most popular sports podcasts.

That's a great accomplishment for someone so unlikable.

What don't you like about Simmons? I think he's pretty fantastic, I love his podcast.

[Axl Rose]

We really are in basketball hell because not only are we mediocre with no chance of improving but we are quite miserable to watch aswell. We're like the Joe Johnson Atlanta Hawks.

[League Circles]

He still has one of the most popular sports podcasts.

That's a great accomplishment for someone so unlikable.

What don't you like about Simmons? I think he's pretty fantastic, I love his podcast.

In fairness I was exaggerating a bit. I can't adequately answer your question. I used to like him a lot before he became famous, then he rubbed me the wrong way after he became famous. Didn't like the vibe he gave off, how he leaned on Boston and celebrity connections that I didn't perceive as reciprocal, and he just came across as unlikable with his espn show, which I thought was quickly cancelled, so I assumed he was kind of done as a celebrity. I don't listen to any sports podcasts. I wouldn't be surprised if his was good.

Basically I don't have a great reason other than being a hater tbh. It's natural to have more conviction in your opinions the more prominent you get at expressing them, but I prefer a more modest approach where guys still don't have irrational confidence in their foggy conclusions.

[dougthonus]

In fairness I was exaggerating a bit. I can't adequately answer your question. I used to like him a lot before he became famous, then he rubbed me the wrong way after he became famous. Didn't like the vibe he gave off, how he leaned on Boston and celebrity connections that I didn't perceive as reciprocal, and he just came across as unlikable with his espn show, which I thought was quickly cancelled, so I assumed he was kind of done as a celebrity. I don't listen to any sports podcasts. I wouldn't be surprised if his was good.

Basically I don't have a great reason other than being a hater tbh. It's natural to have more conviction in your opinions the more prominent you get at expressing them, but I prefer a more modest approach where guys still don't have irrational confidence in their foggy conclusions.

I generally listen to:
Nate Duncan + either Danny or Hollinger depending on the show
Zack Lowe
Bill Simmons
and occasionally local guys, usually Cash Considerations or Bulls Talk

They're all kind of different, but I enjoy them all quite a bit. Of those 3 national guys, Simmons is the most entertaining and the least analytical, but he definitely knows what he's talking about generally speaking but approaches it with the least amount of seriousness and the most amount of jokes.

I loved his book, there's really no reason for him to write a new version of it because the new content would be relatively small with a ton of minor edits, but I wish there was an updated version of it. Probably the best basketball book I've read, and I've read at least 50 of them.

Not trying to convince you to go like Bill Simmons or anything, I just think he's good. I should try the Woj podcast some time. I tried Windhorst and it was pretty awful. I'd probably also like Ryan Russillo, but never have given his show a shot either.

[League Circles]

In fairness I was exaggerating a bit. I can't adequately answer your question. I used to like him a lot before he became famous, then he rubbed me the wrong way after he became famous. Didn't like the vibe he gave off, how he leaned on Boston and celebrity connections that I didn't perceive as reciprocal, and he just came across as unlikable with his espn show, which I thought was quickly cancelled, so I assumed he was kind of done as a celebrity. I don't listen to any sports podcasts. I wouldn't be surprised if his was good.

Basically I don't have a great reason other than being a hater tbh. It's natural to have more conviction in your opinions the more prominent you get at expressing them, but I prefer a more modest approach where guys still don't have irrational confidence in their foggy conclusions.

I generally listen to:
Nate Duncan + either Danny or Hollinger depending on the show
Zack Lowe
Bill Simmons
and occasionally local guys, usually Cash Considerations or Bulls Talk

They're all kind of different, but I enjoy them all quite a bit. Of those 3 national guys, Simmons is the most entertaining and the least analytical, but he definitely knows what he's talking about generally speaking but approaches it with the least amount of seriousness and the most amount of jokes.

I loved his book, there's really no reason for him to write a new version of it because the new content would be relatively small with a ton of minor edits, but I wish there was an updated version of it. Probably the best basketball book I've read, and I've read at least 50 of them.

Not trying to convince you to go like Bill Simmons or anything, I just think he's good. I should try the Woj podcast some time. I tried Windhorst and it was pretty awful. I'd probably also like Ryan Russillo, but never have given his show a shot either.

Your post jogged my memory a bit. Not sure why or when he changed, but I like casual, fun, funny Simmons, and for whatever reason get turned off by the serious, conviction having Simmons. I agree he knows his stuff and is a good writer. If he's reverted to more of the funny Simmons, I'd probably like him again.

[Dan Z]

Some short memories Bulls fans. Are you already longing for the days of winning 22 games like 2017 - 2020.

I'll never understand why other teams' young players have unlimited untapped potential, but our young players are what they are.

I see people on this board clamoring for Jalen Suggs or RJ Hampton, then in the next breath dismissing Patrick Williams, Dalen Terry, or even Julian Phillips before he's every stepped foot on an NBA court.

Debbie-downers through and through. Seems to be a Chicago sports fan thing in general, not limited to just the Bulls.

If you look at the league most teams have young players who have shown more potential than the one's on the Bulls.

Orlando: Banchero, Wagner, WCJ (?) and as you mention Suggs. They also get to add whoever they drafted.
Toronto: Scottie Barnes. Plus OG might improve.
Portland: Scoot, Sharpe and Simons. Little is okay.
Pacers: Mathurin, Haliburton (already an all-star) and Andrew Nembhard.
OKC: SGA, Giddey, Jaylen Williams, Jaylin Williams, Chet plus whoever they drafted.
Rockets: Jalen Green, Senguin, Tari Eason, Jabari Smith and Amen Thompson
Spurs: Devin Vassell, Keldon Johnson and Victor.
Utah: Walker Kessler, Lauri (is he still considered a young player?), plus lots of future picks to work with.

That's off the top of my head and I could go on, but you get my point.

You could argue that those teams haven't won anything in recent years, but the Bulls haven't either (finished 10th place). Also, I bet many of those players have more value around the league than Coby, Patrick and Ayo (definitely more than Phillips, Dalen and Marko).

[The Box Office]

We're in it ever since we missed the playoffs.

[MikeDC]

In fairness I was exaggerating a bit. I can't adequately answer your question. I used to like him a lot before he became famous, then he rubbed me the wrong way after he became famous. Didn't like the vibe he gave off, how he leaned on Boston and celebrity connections that I didn't perceive as reciprocal, and he just came across as unlikable with his espn show, which I thought was quickly cancelled, so I assumed he was kind of done as a celebrity. I don't listen to any sports podcasts. I wouldn't be surprised if his was good.

Basically I don't have a great reason other than being a hater tbh. It's natural to have more conviction in your opinions the more prominent you get at expressing them, but I prefer a more modest approach where guys still don't have irrational confidence in their foggy conclusions.

I generally listen to:
Nate Duncan + either Danny or Hollinger depending on the show
Zack Lowe
Bill Simmons
and occasionally local guys, usually Cash Considerations or Bulls Talk

They're all kind of different, but I enjoy them all quite a bit. Of those 3 national guys, Simmons is the most entertaining and the least analytical, but he definitely knows what he's talking about generally speaking but approaches it with the least amount of seriousness and the most amount of jokes.

I loved his book, there's really no reason for him to write a new version of it because the new content would be relatively small with a ton of minor edits, but I wish there was an updated version of it. Probably the best basketball book I've read, and I've read at least 50 of them.

Not trying to convince you to go like Bill Simmons or anything, I just think he's good. I should try the Woj podcast some time. I tried Windhorst and it was pretty awful. I'd probably also like Ryan Russillo, but never have given his show a shot either.

Duncan and his cohosts are the best by a country mile. I'm sometimes tempted to actually subscribe to get all the stuff that's not on the free pods. They're totally awesome. I listen to Lowe too sometimes, but he's like a lesser version of Duncan et al.

The Real Ones (which is primarily Raja Bell) is my second favorite. It's totally different, and giving a more player/fan perspective, and Bell's usually got a lot of interesting stuff to say. Austin Rivers has a good one too (also through the Wringer) but I can only listen to so much most of the time.

[Dan Z]

NBA Hell for me is tanking and playing meaningless basketball for 4-6 years. So, no, I would not say that the Bulls are in NBA Hell.

The Bulls just finished in 10th place. Was that "meaningful" basketball?

[nomorezorro]

it’s a bummer to not be able to even realistically fantasize about the team becoming good in the near future, but most bad teams who have the ~assets~ and ~prospects~ to fantasize about a brighter tomorrow end up never panning out, so there’s plenty of misery to go around

if i have to follow a doomed team, which the odds suggest is more likely than not, i’d rather watch demar derozan and zach lavine be good at basketball than a crop of rookies who mostly suck but sometimes show flashes. gotta find something worthwhile to focus on and appreciate it while you can

[greenl]

if i have to follow a doomed team, which the odds suggest is more likely than not, i’d rather watch demar derozan and zach lavine be good at basketball than a crop of rookies who mostly suck but sometimes show flashes. gotta find something worthwhile to focus on and appreciate it while you can

This is an interesting thought- and where I think Bulls management landed- the "dinner theatre" aspect that will put fans in the seats and keep the sponsors happy is the strategy they are, clearly, pursuing.