1st in pace, top few in 3PA, 3PTr, etc, 28th in offense LOL

[Infinity2152]

I know a lot of guys have given up on Williams and Giddey, but they're still great prospects.

I define "great prospect" as "a young player who will someday become good enough to be a Top 3 player on a title contender." By that standard, Pat isn't a prospect, period. Giddey at least makes the cut as a long shot, as he's 15 months younger and has some elite offensive tools, but given his physical/defensive limitations, plus his shooting struggles, he has maybe a 10% chance (!) to reach that level.

I'm not a tank person normally, not at all, but in this case ... yes. Our cupboard is very bare.

Yeah, I didn't mean Pat's a great prospect to be a star, but a solid NBA starter with good defense is a great return to me. Most NBA players get 4 years, I think Pat will be a productive starter for 8+ years, and that's more than enough at $18 mill to me. Giddey is already putting up near star numbers at a very young age, defensive liabilities aside. 90% of the players in the NBA can't do what he does nightly or they would do it. Average age in the NBA is 26. That means when Giddey's defense, efficiency, shooting, etc. is rated among league players, etc, it's against players whose average age is 26. You pay for youth, because you get their most productive years. He literally could have been in college most of his NBA career, and people want to use those stats. Aren't there rookies in THIS draft older than him? If this was his rookie year, wouldn't he make the All-Rookie team this year? A lot of guys his age in the league right now are way more athletic and aren't doing nearly as well. I refuse to believe he's peaked at 22.

[jnrjr79]

Everything you are describing is based on hoping for luck. Neither hope, nor luck, are strategies.

This is maybe the silliest thing I've read on the board in a while. All strategies require luck, but they are still strategies. If anyone seems to be relying on a team-building framework that's hope-based without identifying an actual strategy, it's you. Your whole thing seems to be "keep everyone around knowing we can't contend, but hope something good eventually happens."

If you are saying you are sick of Vuc and Zach and it's time for something different, those are your feelings and are, of course, perfectly valid. But that in no way indicates it is the best way to build a quality team from where the Bulls sit right now.

I am not "sick" of them and think Zach is really good. I'm just accepting of the reality that the Bulls tried, it didn't work, and they are trapped until they move on to the next phase of the team.

I said nothing like that. I was saying the Bulls need to trade some of the young assets they have already accumulated to fill a position of need and improve the team.

It depends on what "young assets" you're talking about, but given the quality of the team's young assets, any trades of them (Ayo, Coby, PWill, etc.) for immediate contributors are likely to be a step backward, not forward, in the scheme of things. It obviously depends on the specifics and we're just talking in the abstract here, but I struggle to see what kinds of players you could acquire for those guys that would improve the team in the short-term.

What you are saying about all strategies relying on luck is what is silly. Strategies can fail due to bad luck but all strategies don't RELY on luck to be successful. I'm not sure what you do for a living, but in my career if I had suggested a strategy that is entirely reliant on luck, followed by failing miserably for at least 3 years I would have been fired on the spot.

What I do for a living and what you do for a living have zero bearing on this discussion, unless you're in an NBA front office. I'm not saying all jobs in the world require luck, but the idea that GM-ing a pro sports franchise does not depend hugely on luck is so obviously nuts that I am not sure how anyone could even respond to that. It's like trying to respond to someone saying the sky is green.

All an NBA front office can do it implement a smart plan and hope it works out. But there is luck involved in every free agent signing, every trade, and every draft pick - will young players develop, will the front office select the right prospect, will people stay healthy, etc.

We root for a team that had massive setbacks because Jay Williams decided to engage in reckless motorcycle riding, because the team got lucky with a 1.7% chance of getting the #1 pick, yet got it anyway, Derrick Rose suffered an early-career catastrophic injury, Lonzo Ball had one of the most unique and serious knee injuries the league has seen, etc. etc. How any Bulls fan could say that luck doesn't have a massive impact on whether a GM succeeds is really wild to me.

Luck probably matters more than any other thing in terms of NBA success. People don't like to believe that because they like the illusion of control. But a GM can make correct decisions for years, and it still may not pan out. Conversely, a GM can actually be untalented, but luck their way into a transformational player that turns them into a contender despite themselves.

All the Bulls can do is make good decisions and put themselves in the best position possible to improve the team. They can only control what they can control, and we can evaluate them for those decisions. But there are no guaranteed outcomes regardless of the decision-making. Just improving or reducing your odds.

It should be the same for an NBA GM. It's only pie in the sky fans of tanking that allow the ownership and GM of pro sports teams to get away with this crap. "It's now OK to be horrible for a few seasons. We will sell the gullible on the promise of an unknown player who will be the savior"

Nobody makes anybody watch a particular sports team. I'm certainly not arguing that tanking (whether a short-term mini-tank or a prolonged stretch of horribleness) is the right move in all situations. I'm arguing that right now, given the moves that have gotten the Bulls here, the best shot at future success is trying to keep the draft pick this season, and maybe next, while getting value for the veteran players who you already know can't take you to contender status. If you prefer another path, it seems incumbent on you to identify how it would be possible to get a #1 option on this team that would work with the existing vets and take you to contender status. I don't see you doing that; you seem to be arguing to sell off some of the younger guys for a short-term boost that doesn't have any viable path to going anywhere notable, then just sort of grinding it out for the foreseeable future hoping some later opportunity happens to pop up. And my impression is that preference is informed by the fact that you find it really unappealing to take a step back and suck for a while. I get that. I just disagree that it's a good idea.

[jnrjr79]

I know a lot of guys have given up on Williams and Giddey, but they're still great prospects.

I define "great prospect" as "a young player who will someday become good enough to be a Top 3 player on a title contender." By that standard, Pat isn't a prospect, period. Giddey at least makes the cut as a long shot, as he's 15 months younger and has some elite offensive tools, but given his physical/defensive limitations, plus his shooting struggles, he has maybe a 10% chance (!) to reach that level.

I'm not a tank person normally, not at all, but in this case ... yes. Our cupboard is very bare.

Yeah, I didn't mean Pat's a great prospect to be a star, but a solid NBA starter with good defense is a great return to me. Most NBA players get 4 years, I think Pat will be a productive starter for 8+ years, and that's more than enough at $18 mill to me. Giddey is already putting up near star numbers at a very young age, defensive liabilities aside. 90% of the players in the NBA can't do what he does nightly or they would do it. Average age in the NBA is 26. That means when Giddey's defense, efficiency, shooting, etc. is rated among league players, etc, it's against players whose average age is 26. You pay for youth, because you get their most productive years. He literally could have been in college most of his NBA career, and people want to use those stats. Aren't there rookies in THIS draft older than him? If this was his rookie year, wouldn't he make the All-Rookie team this year? A lot of guys his age in the league right now are way more athletic and aren't doing nearly as well. I refuse to believe he's peaked at 22.

Does anybody argue that Giddey has peaked? Seems like sort of a red herring to me. I feel like there's a broad consensus that he's a young player with some unique elite skills and some glaring defects. Most of the people who are down on him seem to hold the view that he's a problematic prospect because 1) you might have to pay him more than you'd like now, limiting your flexibility for other moves, and 2) he is unlikely to ever develop enough defensively to not be targeted on that end of the floor.

And while I concede he's young and you have to consider it, you don't get to make an apples-to-apples comparison of a guy who has spent several years in the league with current college players. He should rightly be more developed than those guys.

[Stratmaster]

This is maybe the silliest thing I've read on the board in a while. All strategies require luck, but they are still strategies. If anyone seems to be relying on a team-building framework that's hope-based without identifying an actual strategy, it's you. Your whole thing seems to be "keep everyone around knowing we can't contend, but hope something good eventually happens."



I am not "sick" of them and think Zach is really good. I'm just accepting of the reality that the Bulls tried, it didn't work, and they are trapped until they move on to the next phase of the team.

I said nothing like that. I was saying the Bulls need to trade some of the young assets they have already accumulated to fill a position of need and improve the team.

It depends on what "young assets" you're talking about, but given the quality of the team's young assets, any trades of them (Ayo, Coby, PWill, etc.) for immediate contributors are likely to be a step backward, not forward, in the scheme of things. It obviously depends on the specifics and we're just talking in the abstract here, but I struggle to see what kinds of players you could acquire for those guys that would improve the team in the short-term.

What you are saying about all strategies relying on luck is what is silly. Strategies can fail due to bad luck but all strategies don't RELY on luck to be successful. I'm not sure what you do for a living, but in my career if I had suggested a strategy that is entirely reliant on luck, followed by failing miserably for at least 3 years I would have been fired on the spot.

What I do for a living and what you do for a living have zero bearing on this discussion, unless you're in an NBA front office. I'm not saying all jobs in the world require luck, but the idea that GM-ing a pro sports franchise does not depend hugely on luck is so obviously nuts that I am not sure how anyone could even respond to that. It's like trying to respond to someone saying the sky is green.

All an NBA front office can do it implement a smart plan and hope it works out. But there is luck involved in every free agent signing, every trade, and every draft pick - will young players develop, will the front office select the right prospect, will people stay healthy, etc.

We root for a team that had massive setbacks because Jay Williams decided to engage in reckless motorcycle riding, because the team got lucky with a 1.7% chance of getting the #1 pick, yet got it anyway, Derrick Rose suffered an early-career catastrophic injury, Lonzo Ball had one of the most unique and serious knee injuries the league has seen, etc. etc. How any Bulls fan could say that luck doesn't have a massive impact on whether a GM succeeds is really wild to me.

Luck probably matters more than any other thing in terms of NBA success. People don't like to believe that because they like the illusion of control. But a GM can make correct decisions for years, and it still may not pan out. Conversely, a GM can actually be untalented, but luck their way into a transformational player that turns them into a contender despite themselves.

All the Bulls can do is make good decisions and put themselves in the best position possible to improve the team. They can only control what they can control, and we can evaluate them for those decisions. But there are no guaranteed outcomes regardless of the decision-making. Just improving or reducing your odds.

It should be the same for an NBA GM. It's only pie in the sky fans of tanking that allow the ownership and GM of pro sports teams to get away with this crap. "It's now OK to be horrible for a few seasons. We will sell the gullible on the promise of an unknown player who will be the savior"

Nobody makes anybody watch a particular sports team. I'm certainly not arguing that tanking (whether a short-term mini-tank or a prolonged stretch of horribleness) is the right move in all situations. I'm arguing that right now, given the moves that have gotten the Bulls here, the best shot at future success is trying to keep the draft pick this season, and maybe next, while getting value for the veteran players who you already know can't take you to contender status. If you prefer another path, it seems incumbent on you to identify how it would be possible to get a #1 option on this team that would work with the existing vets and take you to contender status. I don't see you doing that; you seem to be arguing to sell off some of the younger guys for a short-term boost that doesn't have any viable path to going anywhere notable, then just sort of grinding it out for the foreseeable future hoping some later opportunity happens to pop up. And my impression is that preference is informed by the fact that you find it really unappealing to take a step back and suck for a while. I get that. I just disagree that it's a good idea.

I stopped after the first paragraph about luck as you insist on attributing comments, beliefs and thoughts to me that are not mine and using them to belittle. We all need less **** in our lives, not more. Have a good day.

[DuckIII]

At the #8 slot, you have a 26.2% chance of leaping into the top 4. At #9, it’s 20.2%.

In the top 4, you have a 34-65% chance of landing an All-Star, depending on position. If you stay at 8 or 9, you have a 20-24% chance, historically, of nabbing an All-Star.

Do you believe Coby, Pat, Terry, or Phillips is likely to become an All-Star?

https://hoopshype.com/lists/nba-draft-history-how-likely-are-you-to-land-a-star-at-each-pick/

https://www.tankathon.com/pick_odds

Wait. I thought we needed a franchise player? So you want to tank for a 26% chance at a 34% chance of getting an all-star. I expect those all-star numbers include guys who made 1 all-star game, right?

Yes, that's what I want to do. I don't think I was being unclear.

I would also like to do that.

[Infinity2152]

I define "great prospect" as "a young player who will someday become good enough to be a Top 3 player on a title contender." By that standard, Pat isn't a prospect, period. Giddey at least makes the cut as a long shot, as he's 15 months younger and has some elite offensive tools, but given his physical/defensive limitations, plus his shooting struggles, he has maybe a 10% chance (!) to reach that level.

I'm not a tank person normally, not at all, but in this case ... yes. Our cupboard is very bare.

Yeah, I didn't mean Pat's a great prospect to be a star, but a solid NBA starter with good defense is a great return to me. Most NBA players get 4 years, I think Pat will be a productive starter for 8+ years, and that's more than enough at $18 mill to me. Giddey is already putting up near star numbers at a very young age, defensive liabilities aside. 90% of the players in the NBA can't do what he does nightly or they would do it. Average age in the NBA is 26. That means when Giddey's defense, efficiency, shooting, etc. is rated among league players, etc, it's against players whose average age is 26. You pay for youth, because you get their most productive years. He literally could have been in college most of his NBA career, and people want to use those stats. Aren't there rookies in THIS draft older than him? If this was his rookie year, wouldn't he make the All-Rookie team this year? A lot of guys his age in the league right now are way more athletic and aren't doing nearly as well. I refuse to believe he's peaked at 22.

Does anybody argue that Giddey has peaked? Seems like sort of a red herring to me. I feel like there's a broad consensus that he's a young player with some unique elite skills and some glaring defects. Most of the people who are down on him seem to hold the view that he's a problematic prospect because 1) you might have to pay him more than you'd like now, limiting your flexibility for other moves, and 2) he is unlikely to ever develop enough defensively to not be targeted on that end of the floor.

And while I concede he's young and you have to consider it, you don't get to make an apples-to-apples comparison of a guy who has spent several years in the league with current college players. He should rightly be more developed than those guys.

Is there any actual evidence jumping straight into the league helps player development? Are players with one year of college generally more skillful than players with 3 or 4 years? I don't think so, players that make it into the league after 3-4 years are usually fundamentally sound. Could be an extremely high percentage of guys who skip college are out of the league quickly. And those are usually outstanding athletes. If you're not an outstanding athlete, like Giddey, skill development is even more important. How long did it take Lebron to get good basketball fundamentals? Most guys who get in Giddey's age, the Lebrons, Kobe's, Garnett's, Dwight Howard's, are stupendous athletes who can succeed their early years thru physicality.

You're saying you didn't say he's peaked. Ok, but you gave him like a 10% to ever reach top three player on a contender. That's not even that special, and he's 22. So best case realistic scenario, what does 26 year old Giddey look like to you? The same as now, a little better, or much better? Not saying he's going to be an All-Star, but he has some special traits if he can minimize his weaknesses. I think Pat Will will be a serviceable NBA player, just think Giddey still has a high ceiling. He already looks better defensively than he did at the start of the season, though his shooting has declined.

I'd keep Ball, and have him coaching Giddey up, don't think Ball is particularly athletic, and he's a great defender.

[DASMACKDOWN]

So when do we hit the panic button for the tank?

[HomoSapien]

So when do we hit the panic button for the tank?

Don't bother. Tank's been canceled. AK has already reserved Grant Park.

[DuckIII]

So when do we hit the panic button for the tank?

There never was a tank. What we are seeing now - an insignificant bottom half team winning enough games in a terrible conference to kill their top 10 pick - was always a very strong possibility.

[CROBulls]

Tank is only what true hardcore Bulls want because they wanna see another championship in their life. Rest of "fans" grow up watching average nowhere to go teams and got used to Bulls being that franchise. And they like it very much. They like their Coby Whites and their Vucs. And they like their 35-39 wins.

[cocktailswith_2short]

Coby white is what happens when you tank lol you want us to suck all year to grab another coby ? Cause that's what your going to get with this amazing pick we just can't stand to lose .

[DASMACKDOWN]

So when do we hit the panic button for the tank?

There never was a tank. What we are seeing now - an insignificant bottom half team winning enough games in a terrible conference to kill their top 10 pick - was always a very strong possibility.

The issue I have is constant mixed messages. Getting off Demar and Caruso was a change in direction. Saying they are looking for first rounders for Vooch and Lonzo is saying we are trying to sell assets.

Look I get it, teams dont openly say they are tanking. And the franchise has to say the right things like we are looking to get better.

But its Front Office malpractice to see and opportunity to improve your core talent and ignore it to be stuck where we are.

I think it would be unforgivable to have us make the playin, and lose our pick on the backs of Vooch and Zach.

[Stratmaster]

So when do we hit the panic button for the tank?

There never was a tank. What we are seeing now - an insignificant bottom half team winning enough games in a terrible conference to kill their top 10 pick - was always a very strong possibility.

The issue I have is constant mixed messages. Getting off Demar and Caruso was a change in direction. Saying they are looking for first rounders for Vooch and Lonzo is saying we are trying to sell assets.

Look I get it, teams dont openly say they are tanking. And the franchise has to say the right things like we are looking to get better.

But its Front Office malpractice to see and opportunity to improve your core talent and ignore it to be stuck where we are.

I think it would be unforgivable to have us make the playin, and lose our pick on the backs of Vooch and Zach.

The Bulls have a playoff caliber team. They are the 10th youngest team in the league and Carter/Craig don't even play.

From my perspective what would be unforgivable would be to not do everything possible to improve the team and give yourself the best chance to compete during the playoffs. What would be criminal is to purposely try to sabotage the team for a draft pick that will likely never be as good as multiple members of the team you have.

That doesn't mean standing pat. It means trading Pat. And Coby. And Craig. And Vuc if you get a quality return for him. Improve at the 4. Improve the defense.

[cocktailswith_2short]

5-2 in December . Long ways to go but making hay for now through this brutal stretch . By the end of the month this team will be battle hardened . Hopefully that leads to a lot of mop up wins on the tankers making a free for all at the end of the season .