AKME stands pat

[SfBull]

Mk0 pointed out that maybe the Bulls could've traded Vucevic in a deal for Nurkic (who went to Charlotte for Micic and Martin...Suns gave up a first round pick too).

I was referring to the Warriors.

Suns couldn't trade Nurkic for Vuc due to bring over the apron, they can't take back more than the send out and they can't aggregate their own players in a trade.

Nurkic for Vuc was not possible.


Suns attached a 1st to move Nurkic

Pelicans attached a 2nd to move Theis

Valancunias was traded for cap space and a 2nd round pick (makes $11m less then Vuc)

These are the three comparable trades to Vuc in my opinion.

1. I'm not attaching value to send out Vuc

2. I'm not taking on contracts longer than Vuc's

3. Vuc is a net negative. He's been a negative player in each of the past 4 years. If you're worried about Vuc "ruining a tank" don't be, we have 4 years of evidence showing we're plenty capable of losing the minutes in which Vuc is on the floor.

If you wanted expiring contracts or draft assets for Vuc, the other trades made today for big men show that was highly unlikely given his skill and contract size.

The biggest mistake was extending Vuc ,he should have been traded before that.

[ChiTownHero1992]

Read on Twitter

I guess mediocrity it is

I suppose he's talking about the 04 Detroit Pistons model. The only issue is, how many very good players do we currently have?

If the Pistons is the model, then we have FLAT OUT 0 "very good players" on roster. There is no a single player on our current team that would've started on that team. Giddey, Lonzo, Coby, Vuc all "above average", Ayo, Smith, Jones, Huerter, Williams are all "average role players", Buz is an unknown still (could end up being on that "very good" end), the rest is crap.

[lostonbase]

9-10 Julian Phillips and this team is a contender!! AKME makes GARPAX look like Jerry West.

[CROBulls]

Another confirmation we have idiot in FO.

[ChiefILL53]

Read on Twitter

I guess mediocrity it is

I suppose he's talking about the 04 Detroit Pistons model. The only issue is, how many very good players do we currently have?

That pistons team has 2 HoF in the starting five and the other 3 were great players. I wouldnt even say it was 9-10 players on that team, really like 6-7.

To answer your question, we have MAYBE two really good players depending on views on Vooch and Coby? It's depressing as a fan when you realize your favorite team is run, seemingly top down, by idiots. After Virginia passed away I saw people asking how old Jerry is lmfao.

[League Circles]

No, they didn’t stand pat. They moved the arrest contract that we had and regained control of our 2025 pick. I thought they would have moved Vuc as well. But it’s possible that they decided to take a calculated gamble on the idea that his value will be higher this summer as an expiring. Same applies to Coby.

Just because we’re tearing down doesn’t mean that we’re obligated to cave to other teams so that they can get better.

After sunday's trade, we were told "they're far from done yet". Turns out, yes they were. And Vuc should have been moved 2 months ago when warriors were calling about him. He does us zero favors by continuing to start and soak up 35 minutes a night

Vuc helps us lose games due to his as-bad-as-it-gets defense at the defensively critical center position.

[League Circles]

I always reference the 04 Pistons as the correct generic model description for the most plausible way to build a title team without crazy luck. But it most definitely was never a "9-10 very good players model". It was a "best fitting starting 5 with the 3rd, 4th and 5th best players all better than their counterparts on opposing teams" model. If we get lucky with several current or future guys we could maybe emulate that. At the moment, the only guys I see that I can imagine in that scenario are Ball, Matas and Smith. I don't see Coby, Ayo, Giddey, Patrick etc as "advantage" guys.

[boundbymusic]

I honestly cannot believe he said that you can win a title without a star. Does he think he’s in a baseball FO? What an absolute joke.

The last team to win a championship without a bonafide superstar was the Ben Wallace/Rip Hamilton/Chauncey Billup's Detroit Pistons team or am I missing another team?

The Bulls FO one job in life is to continue to stoke the fire of the Bulls fan civil war. Which admittedly is more entertaining than the product on the court.

Do better Bulls FO.

And they had a probable HOF (Billups), possible HOF (B Wallace) and 2 multi time All Stars (Rasheed and Rip).

He let slip what he actually meant though when he was talking. He brought up the 9-10 very good players to win a title but then when he was explaining that he said you can weather injuries...so what he really meant was he can keep Reinsdorf happy and make the playoffs every year. Not contend.

[jc23]

what a garbage era of Bulls basketball these guys have produced.

[Chi town]

Billy alluded to this after Lavine trade in his pre game when he emphasized he wants the rebuild and to develop players…

And also added… we need to figure out what we will be doing. Paraphrased.

Billy sees the incompetence. I’d love to know how much of a part he plays or does he know he won’t get another nba gig for him and his son?

[drosestruts]

I was referring to the Warriors.

Suns couldn't trade Nurkic for Vuc due to bring over the apron, they can't take back more than the send out and they can't aggregate their own players in a trade.

Nurkic for Vuc was not possible.


Suns attached a 1st to move Nurkic

Pelicans attached a 2nd to move Theis

Valancunias was traded for cap space and a 2nd round pick (makes $11m less then Vuc)

These are the three comparable trades to Vuc in my opinion.

1. I'm not attaching value to send out Vuc

2. I'm not taking on contracts longer than Vuc's

3. Vuc is a net negative. He's been a negative player in each of the past 4 years. If you're worried about Vuc "ruining a tank" don't be, we have 4 years of evidence showing we're plenty capable of losing the minutes in which Vuc is on the floor.

If you wanted expiring contracts or draft assets for Vuc, the other trades made today for big men show that was highly unlikely given his skill and contract size.

The biggest mistake was extending Vuc ,he should have been traded before that.

The trade for Vuc and extension of Vuc are in my mind, the two worst moves we've made.

And that doesn't even get into the periphery moves made because of the Vuc trade, which only make it worse.

[jnrjr79]

I always reference the 04 Pistons as the correct generic model description for the most plausible way to build a title team without crazy luck. But it most definitely was never a "9-10 very good players model". It was a "best fitting starting 5 with the 3rd, 4th and 5th best players all better than their counterparts on opposing teams" model. If we get lucky with several current or future guys we could maybe emulate that. At the moment, the only guys I see that I can imagine in that scenario are Ball, Matas and Smith. I don't see Coby, Ayo, Giddey, Patrick etc as "advantage" guys.

Also, IMO, the fact people always reference a team that won this way more than twenty years ago as an example of a viable alternative model of team-building is not very persuasive. Ok, great, it happens once in a blue moon, but it sure as heck isn't the most likely way to get there and not the model you should aspire to if you want to maximize your chances of winning. Even if you build it this way, you're most likely not getting over the top unless you do something like Toronto, who had one of these kinds of teams, but couldn't get the chip until they traded for Leonard.

[Lexluthor]

So do the bulls have full control of the 2026 pick or is it still top 8 protected ?

[League Circles]

I always reference the 04 Pistons as the correct generic model description for the most plausible way to build a title team without crazy luck. But it most definitely was never a "9-10 very good players model". It was a "best fitting starting 5 with the 3rd, 4th and 5th best players all better than their counterparts on opposing teams" model. If we get lucky with several current or future guys we could maybe emulate that. At the moment, the only guys I see that I can imagine in that scenario are Ball, Matas and Smith. I don't see Coby, Ayo, Giddey, Patrick etc as "advantage" guys.

Also, IMO, the fact people always reference a team that won this way more than twenty years ago as an example of a viable alternative model of team-building is not very persuasive. Ok, great, it happens once in a blue moon, but it sure as heck isn't the most likely way to get there and not the model you should aspire to if you want to maximize your chances of winning. Even if you build it this way, you're most likely not getting over the top unless you do something like Toronto, who had one of these kinds of teams, but couldn't get the chip until they traded for Leonard.

I always argued that the 2014 Spurs and 2010 Mavs also met this team archetype. So I'd say it's worked 3 times in the last 20 years, and every other title winner involved enormous luck of getting a generational talent. That's why I think it's the most viable model - because you can actually kind of will it into being, versus relying on unique luck.

[boundbymusic]

I always reference the 04 Pistons as the correct generic model description for the most plausible way to build a title team without crazy luck. But it most definitely was never a "9-10 very good players model". It was a "best fitting starting 5 with the 3rd, 4th and 5th best players all better than their counterparts on opposing teams" model. If we get lucky with several current or future guys we could maybe emulate that. At the moment, the only guys I see that I can imagine in that scenario are Ball, Matas and Smith. I don't see Coby, Ayo, Giddey, Patrick etc as "advantage" guys.

Also, IMO, the fact people always reference a team that won this way more than twenty years ago as an example of a viable alternative model of team-building is not very persuasive. Ok, great, it happens once in a blue moon, but it sure as heck isn't the most likely way to get there and not the model you should aspire to if you want to maximize your chances of winning. Even if you build it this way, you're most likely not getting over the top unless you do something like Toronto, who had one of these kinds of teams, but couldn't get the chip until they traded for Leonard.

I always argued that the 2014 Spurs and 2010 Mavs also met this team archetype. So I'd say it's worked 3 times in the last 20 years, and every other title winner involved enormous luck of getting a generational talent. That's why I think it's the most viable model - because you can actually kind of will it into being, versus relying on unique luck.

The 2014 Spurs with 3 future HOF or the 2010 Mavs with 2?

[jnrjr79]

I always reference the 04 Pistons as the correct generic model description for the most plausible way to build a title team without crazy luck. But it most definitely was never a "9-10 very good players model". It was a "best fitting starting 5 with the 3rd, 4th and 5th best players all better than their counterparts on opposing teams" model. If we get lucky with several current or future guys we could maybe emulate that. At the moment, the only guys I see that I can imagine in that scenario are Ball, Matas and Smith. I don't see Coby, Ayo, Giddey, Patrick etc as "advantage" guys.

Also, IMO, the fact people always reference a team that won this way more than twenty years ago as an example of a viable alternative model of team-building is not very persuasive. Ok, great, it happens once in a blue moon, but it sure as heck isn't the most likely way to get there and not the model you should aspire to if you want to maximize your chances of winning. Even if you build it this way, you're most likely not getting over the top unless you do something like Toronto, who had one of these kinds of teams, but couldn't get the chip until they traded for Leonard.

I always argued that the 2014 Spurs and 2010 Mavs also met this team archetype. So I'd say it's worked 3 times in the last 20 years, and every other title winner involved enormous luck of getting a generational talent. That's why I think it's the most viable model - because you can actually kind of will it into being, versus relying on unique luck.

IMO, the Spurs still qualify as "enormous luck of getting a generational talent" insofar as they needed David Robinson to get hurt for one year so they could tank and draft Duncan. I know in 2014 he wasn't in his prime, but they're still not winning it without him and he was very productive and durable. That was a very balanced team of quality players, though.

[jnrjr79]

Also, IMO, the fact people always reference a team that won this way more than twenty years ago as an example of a viable alternative model of team-building is not very persuasive. Ok, great, it happens once in a blue moon, but it sure as heck isn't the most likely way to get there and not the model you should aspire to if you want to maximize your chances of winning. Even if you build it this way, you're most likely not getting over the top unless you do something like Toronto, who had one of these kinds of teams, but couldn't get the chip until they traded for Leonard.

I always argued that the 2014 Spurs and 2010 Mavs also met this team archetype. So I'd say it's worked 3 times in the last 20 years, and every other title winner involved enormous luck of getting a generational talent. That's why I think it's the most viable model - because you can actually kind of will it into being, versus relying on unique luck.

The 2014 Spurs with 3 future HOF or the 2010 Mavs with 2?

Some of this is probably semantics. No team is going to win anything without some future Hall of Famers. The 2004 Pistons had the DPOY/HOF Wallace in his prime and HOFer Billups as well. But I think you could say it was a rare example of a team winning without a top 10 player in the league.

[prolific passer]

We all believed that the bulls finally had a direction but we were fooled for the billionth year in a row.

[jnrjr79]

We all believed that the bulls finally had a direction but we were fooled for the billionth year in a row.

The Bulls have traded away their three best players between the offseason and this season. They definitely have a direction.

Whether they are pursuing the direction aggressively enough or had other moves available they should have taken is another question, but setting aside AK's dumb press conference comments, this is a team deliberately making itself worse in the short-term.

[Jeffster81]

I honestly cannot believe he said that you can win a title without a star. Does he think he’s in a baseball FO? What an absolute joke.

The last team to win a championship without a bonafide superstar was the Ben Wallace/Rip Hamilton/Chauncey Billup's Detroit Pistons team or am I missing another team?

The Bulls FO one job in life is to continue to stoke the fire of the Bulls fan civil war. Which admittedly is more entertaining than the product on the court.

Do better Bulls FO.

The Rasheed Wallace and Tayshaun Prince disrespect!

No disrespect.