Which front office would you rather have running this team?

[dougthonus]

GarPax was never going to succeed as they operated during that period. Between the political issues and the poor talent evaluation, they were just going to be a neverending series of 30-40 win seasons. It would just be 30-40 wins seasons with hope, instead of what we have now.

You've got this completely wrong.

17 years of GarPax:
4 years: 20-30 wins (intentionally gathering assets in this years)
1 year: 30-40 wins (hoped to be good and failed)
10 years: 41+ wins (playoffs all but once with a 42 win miss) while attempting to be good
2 years: 60+ wins (when they had a superstar like performance from someone)

5 years of AKME (projecting the rest of this year):
4 years: 30-40 wins (hoped to be good and failed)
1 year: 40-50 wins (playoffs)

GarPax most definitely was not giving you neverending 30-40 win seasons, they were giving you playoffs or high value draft assets every year. You could complain they were too conservative and refused to make big swings to go for it and had too many low 40 win totals, and you could also argue when gathering assets they weren't aggressive enough about getting bad, but they definitely weren't giving you non playoff / non asset teams.

[HearshotKDS]

In my opinion neither are good enough to reliably build a contender, but GarPax probably leave the team in a much better situation for the next GM. This is an easy decision for me.

[League Circles]

GarPax was never going to succeed as they operated during that period. Between the political issues and the poor talent evaluation, they were just going to be a neverending series of 30-40 win seasons. It would just be 30-40 wins seasons with hope, instead of what we have now.

You've got this completely wrong.

17 years of GarPax:
4 years: 20-30 wins (intentionally gathering assets in this years)
1 year: 30-40 wins (hoped to be good and failed)
10 years: 41+ wins (playoffs all but once with a 42 win miss) while attempting to be good
2 years: 60+ wins (when they had a superstar like performance from someone)

5 years of AKME (projecting the rest of this year):
4 years: 30-40 wins (hoped to be good and failed)
1 year: 40-50 wins (playoffs)

GarPax most definitely was not giving you neverending 30-40 win seasons, they were giving you playoffs or high value draft assets every year. You could complain they were too conservative and refused to make big swings to go for it and had too many low 40 win totals, and you could also argue when gathering assets they weren't aggressive enough about getting bad, but they definitely weren't giving you non playoff / non asset teams.

Your grouping here of "30-40" wins as being distinct from "41+ wins" is very arbitrary IMO. Paxson had 33 wins with a 16 win decrease over the previous year in his "30-40 wins" category, while AK had 39 and 40 wins with play-in appearances in both years despite extreme injury problems. Hard to argue AK was trying to be good either in 20-21 or this season IMO.

I give Paxson an edge as a talent evaluator and as a strategist, but not a large edge. I think they're both thoroughly mediocre and that the results basically prove that.

[dougthonus]

Your grouping here of "30-40" wins as being distinct from "41+ wins" is very arbitrary IMO.

It was a direct reply to someone else who set the boundaries, so to the extent it is arbitrary, it is not my arbitrary.

However again, "making playoffs" and "not making playoffs" is not arbitrary. This is a like getting the job or being the 2nd runner up that didn't get the job. It is an absolutely CRITICAL break point.

Paxson had 33 wins with a 16 win decrease over the previous year in his "30-40 wins" category, while AK had 39 and 40 wins with play-in appearances in both years despite extreme injury problems. Hard to argue AK was trying to be good either in 20-21 or this season IMO.

I mean sure, but that was 1 year in 17 years. That was 4 out of 5 years for AKME. If you want to say when things blew up for GarPax while they thought they might be good, they blew up worse, you won't get an argument from me, but they fired their coach mid season, shipped off Ben Wallace's cancerous ass, and made immediately resolved their problems. AKME just stewed in his crap for 3 years, and is still largely stewing in it today with no plan.

I give Paxson an edge as a talent evaluator and as a strategist, but not a large edge. I think they're both thoroughly mediocre and that the results basically prove that.

AKME has done nothing but show he is bad. I agree, GarPax were middle of the pack and nothing special. From a go-forward perspective, if AKME were fired today, his successor would be starting with a way worse hand than he was.

[League Circles]

Your grouping here of "30-40" wins as being distinct from "41+ wins" is very arbitrary IMO.

It was a direct reply to someone else who set the boundaries, so to the extent it is arbitrary, it is not my arbitrary.

However again, "making playoffs" and "not making playoffs" is not arbitrary. This is a like getting the job or being the 2nd runner up that didn't get the job. It is an absolutely CRITICAL break point.

Paxson had 33 wins with a 16 win decrease over the previous year in his "30-40 wins" category, while AK had 39 and 40 wins with play-in appearances in both years despite extreme injury problems. Hard to argue AK was trying to be good either in 20-21 or this season IMO.

I mean sure, but that was 1 year in 17 years. That was 4 out of 5 years for AKME. If you want to say when things blew up for GarPax while they thought they might be good, they blew up worse, you won't get an argument from me, but they fired their coach mid season, shipped off Ben Wallace's cancerous ass, and made immediately resolved their problems. AKME just stewed in his crap for 3 years, and is still largely stewing in it today with no plan.

I give Paxson an edge as a talent evaluator and as a strategist, but not a large edge. I think they're both thoroughly mediocre and that the results basically prove that.

AKME has done nothing but show he is bad. I agree, GarPax were middle of the pack and nothing special. From a go-forward perspective, if AKME were fired today, his successor would be starting with a way worse hand than he was.

Sorry sometimes I have the bad habit of replying to someone's reply to someone else without appreciating the specifics of what they were addressing.

Only thing I'd add is that in the "10 years of 41+ wins", it's notable that 5 of those ten years were "42 or less wins", and a whopping 4 seasons at . 500.

Another accurate way to frame Paxson's record is:

4 terrible seasons
6 average seasons
2 great seasons
5 kinda good seasons

[League Circles]

In paxson's 5 seasons where his team had 41 or 42 wins, he made the playoffs in 4 of them. All 5 seasons had a team SRS ranking worse than AK's 40-42 season, yet those Pax seasons will be perceived as more successful than AK's in a very debatable way IMO. Those are all the same, nearly perfectly average NBA team seasons.

[dougthonus]

Your grouping here of "30-40" wins as being distinct from "41+ wins" is very arbitrary IMO.

It was a direct reply to someone else who set the boundaries, so to the extent it is arbitrary, it is not my arbitrary.

However again, "making playoffs" and "not making playoffs" is not arbitrary. This is a like getting the job or being the 2nd runner up that didn't get the job. It is an absolutely CRITICAL break point.

Paxson had 33 wins with a 16 win decrease over the previous year in his "30-40 wins" category, while AK had 39 and 40 wins with play-in appearances in both years despite extreme injury problems. Hard to argue AK was trying to be good either in 20-21 or this season IMO.

I mean sure, but that was 1 year in 17 years. That was 4 out of 5 years for AKME. If you want to say when things blew up for GarPax while they thought they might be good, they blew up worse, you won't get an argument from me, but they fired their coach mid season, shipped off Ben Wallace's cancerous ass, and made immediately resolved their problems. AKME just stewed in his crap for 3 years, and is still largely stewing in it today with no plan.

I give Paxson an edge as a talent evaluator and as a strategist, but not a large edge. I think they're both thoroughly mediocre and that the results basically prove that.

AKME has done nothing but show he is bad. I agree, GarPax were middle of the pack and nothing special. From a go-forward perspective, if AKME were fired today, his successor would be starting with a way worse hand than he was.

Sorry sometimes I have the bad habit of replying to someone's reply to someone else without appreciating the specifics of what they were addressing.

Only thing I'd add is that in the "10 years of 41+ wins", it's notable that 5 of those ten years were "42 or less wins", and a whopping 4 seasons at . 500.

Another accurate way to frame Paxson's record is:

4 terrible seasons
6 average seasons
2 great seasons
5 kinda good seasons

I'm not that far off rom you there:

From an outcome perspective for me as a fan:
4 terrible seasons high upside assets collecting assets
1 bad season (42 wins, no playoffs)
5 average seasons (low rung playoff seasons, highly likely 1st round exits)
5 good seasons (reasonable shot to win a playoff series)
2 great seasons (reasonable contender status)

vs:
1 good season (it was sort of average in that by the time the playoffs hit you knew they were going to be a likely 1st round exit, but I'll give them good due to their record, they just absolutely collapsed in the important part of the season due to injuries, but I'll give them the injury card and overrate this one)

3 bad seasons, not collecting high value assets (missing the playoffs makes it a bad season)

1 season unknown (we could theoretically still make the playoffs or could theoretically slip into terrible land and get a high value pick, but I'd project that we end up in bad land (not a high value pick nor a playoff appearance), but it's far enough out that it is hard to say. I wouldn't be shocked with any outcome.

You may quibble that making the playoffs doesn't matter. I disagree. It's hugely important to me and most fans.

However, if you want to say:
4 terrible seasons collecting assets
1 bad season
6 average seasons
5 good seasons
2 great seasons

vs
1 good season
4 average seasons

then even though I think you are missing really critical components of this, I'd still say the first bucket is way the hell better than the second bucket as we are talking 41% good seasons vs 20% good seasons and 11% great seasons vs 0% great seasons.

[League Circles]

It was a direct reply to someone else who set the boundaries, so to the extent it is arbitrary, it is not my arbitrary.

However again, "making playoffs" and "not making playoffs" is not arbitrary. This is a like getting the job or being the 2nd runner up that didn't get the job. It is an absolutely CRITICAL break point.



I mean sure, but that was 1 year in 17 years. That was 4 out of 5 years for AKME. If you want to say when things blew up for GarPax while they thought they might be good, they blew up worse, you won't get an argument from me, but they fired their coach mid season, shipped off Ben Wallace's cancerous ass, and made immediately resolved their problems. AKME just stewed in his crap for 3 years, and is still largely stewing in it today with no plan.



AKME has done nothing but show he is bad. I agree, GarPax were middle of the pack and nothing special. From a go-forward perspective, if AKME were fired today, his successor would be starting with a way worse hand than he was.

Sorry sometimes I have the bad habit of replying to someone's reply to someone else without appreciating the specifics of what they were addressing.

Only thing I'd add is that in the "10 years of 41+ wins", it's notable that 5 of those ten years were "42 or less wins", and a whopping 4 seasons at . 500.

Another accurate way to frame Paxson's record is:

4 terrible seasons
6 average seasons
2 great seasons
5 kinda good seasons

I'm not that far off rom you there:

From an outcome perspective for me as a fan:
4 terrible seasons high upside assets collecting assets
1 bad season (42 wins, no playoffs)
5 average seasons (low rung playoff seasons, highly likely 1st round exits)
5 good seasons (reasonable shot to win a playoff series)
2 great seasons (reasonable contender status)

vs:
1 good season (it was sort of average in that by the time the playoffs hit you knew they were going to be a likely 1st round exit, but I'll give them good due to their record, they just absolutely collapsed in the important part of the season due to injuries, but I'll give them the injury card and overrate this one)

3 bad seasons, not collecting high value assets (missing the playoffs makes it a bad season)

1 season unknown (we could theoretically still make the playoffs or could theoretically slip into terrible land and get a high value pick, but I'd project that we end up in bad land (not a high value pick nor a playoff appearance), but it's far enough out that it is hard to say. I wouldn't be shocked with any outcome.

You may quibble that making the playoffs doesn't matter. I disagree. It's hugely important to me and most fans.

However, if you want to say:
4 terrible seasons collecting assets
1 bad season
6 average seasons
5 good seasons
2 great seasons

vs
1 good season
4 average seasons

then even though I think you are missing really critical components of this, I'd still say the first bucket is way the hell better than the second bucket as we are talking 41% good seasons vs 20% good seasons and 11% great seasons vs 0% great seasons.

It's hard to understand how you can believe these things simultaneously:

Being a .500 team that makes the playoffs with a team that doesn't deserve to be there (bad SRS) and thus eliminating a chance to get a top 4 pick is a good thing

Being one or two games worse with a better team (better SRS) while missing the playoffs and having at least a small chance of getting a top 4 pick is unambiguously worse than the above

#7 picks are "high value assets" (Paxson's outcome for 2 of his 4 "collecting high value assets pass for being terrible years") but #8 picks (current projection for our pick this summer) aren't

[boundbymusic]

A chimpanzee with 2 buttons:

Blow it up
Go for it

That's what I want.

[nitetrain8603]

Neither. Heck, Pax consulted on the new FO search and ended up with Arturas. Why do we have to settle for bad FOs. I initially was so excited about AK. But he's horrible when it comes to the draft (Matas looks like he might pan out), he's horrible at acquiring assets, he's horrible at asset management, and he's horrible when executing his stated direction which is "Get out of the middle".

Many of these things were fault with GarPax as well. They waited too late to cash in on folks like Luol Deng. They couldn't pivot off of Derrick Rose, even when they said they needed to. They could never land the big fish. They were horrible at asset management. The only thing I'll give them credit for, I guess, is valuing the draft a little bit more. They still ended up with Doug McDermott and Marquise Teague's of the world.

In the end, AK seemingly is always "laying the groundwork" for the next time period that we can make a trade or sign someone. I've heard that for 3 years now. Yesterday was more of the same - "oh, we are laying the groundwork for the summer". Then in the summer it's, "we think there are better deals to be had out there, but we will revisit during the season as there will be many opportunity." then it will go to next year's trade deadline "oh, we laid some good foundation for this offseason".

You would think they have enough foundation to have built a large city at this point. It's ridiculous. And the suckers who fall for this are dumb.

I'm okay with picking a lane and it not working out. But to me, you cannot say "we want to make the play in, that's valuable to us", but then also say "we need to get out of the middle". The play-in is absolute mediocrity. No team in that tournament will win an NBA championship. It's emptier than the play-in tournament.

[dougthonus]

It's hard to understand how you can believe these things simultaneously:

Being a .500 team that makes the playoffs with a team that doesn't deserve to be there (bad SRS) and thus eliminating a chance to get a top 4 pick is a good thing

Being one or two games worse with a better team (better SRS) while missing the playoffs and having at least a small chance of getting a top 4 pick is unambiguously worse than the above

Making the playoffs is just super important. It's like getting the job or not getting the job, getting a date or not getting a date. It's just a critical barrier. I don't think it's great to barely make the playoffs or anything, I just described it as average. If I'm not going to make the playoffs I'd ideally pick in the top 5.

#7 picks are "high value assets" (Paxson's outcome for 2 of his 4 "collecting high value assets pass for being terrible years") but #8 picks (current projection for our pick this summer) aren't

In a previous post I laid criticism that when they were bad, they weren't aggressive enough about being bad, and I think that's a fair criticism to have. It's a shame because they were literally like 1-2 games off from having much better odds a couple times.

Just holistically, at a very high level, just from a record perspective, if I don't make the playoffs, I want my win total to be in the 20s, not the 30s or 40s.

If I make the playoffs, it is its own reward, the size of that reward might be very small (the bad team sneaking in), but it is still its own reward.

This is only talking about records though and was only refuting the point made that GarPax would languish for ever as 30-40 win teams. I don't think this would be the primary point I would make about why they were vastly better. It's just a super macro level view.

They were better at getting value in trades
They were radically better at avoiding sunk cost theory and moving off guys
They were better at scouting the draft and making good draft picks
They were better at cohesively setting a strategy and sticking with it
They were much better at managing their cap / doing negotiations

The one area I would give AKME credit for was firing Boylen where Paxson was still fighting to keep him that year, but at the same time, it seems pretty clear to me that it is time for Donovan to go (even though I like him, it really seems like he's lost the team now), and we are sticking by him, so even in this area, it feels like he's hung up on sunk cost decision making and waiting too long and was only ever able to make an aggressive decision about a previous GM's choice.

[League Circles]

It's hard to understand how you can believe these things simultaneously:

Being a .500 team that makes the playoffs with a team that doesn't deserve to be there (bad SRS) and thus eliminating a chance to get a top 4 pick is a good thing

Being one or two games worse with a better team (better SRS) while missing the playoffs and having at least a small chance of getting a top 4 pick is unambiguously worse than the above

Making the playoffs is just super important. It's like getting the job or not getting the job, getting a date or not getting a date. It's just a critical barrier. I don't think it's great to barely make the playoffs or anything, I just described it as average. If I'm not going to make the playoffs I'd ideally pick in the top 5.

#7 picks are "high value assets" (Paxson's outcome for 2 of his 4 "collecting high value assets pass for being terrible years") but #8 picks (current projection for our pick this summer) aren't

In a previous post I laid criticism that when they were bad, they weren't aggressive enough about being bad, and I think that's a fair criticism to have. It's a shame because they were literally like 1-2 games off from having much better odds a couple times.

Just holistically, at a very high level, just from a record perspective, if I don't make the playoffs, I want my win total to be in the 20s, not the 30s or 40s.

If I make the playoffs, it is its own reward, the size of that reward might be very small (the bad team sneaking in), but it is still its own reward.

This is only talking about records though and was only refuting the point made that GarPax would languish for ever as 30-40 win teams. I don't think this would be the primary point I would make about why they were vastly better. It's just a super macro level view.

They were better at getting value in trades
They were radically better at avoiding sunk cost theory and moving off guys
They were better at scouting the draft and making good draft picks
They were better at cohesively setting a strategy and sticking with it
They were much better at managing their cap / doing negotiations

The one area I would give AKME credit for was firing Boylen where Paxson was still fighting to keep him that year, but at the same time, it seems pretty clear to me that it is time for Donovan to go (even though I like him, it really seems like he's lost the team now), and we are sticking by him, so even in this area, it feels like he's hung up on sunk cost decision making and waiting too long and was only ever able to make an aggressive decision about a previous GM's choice.

Interesting take on Billy losing the team. I probably haven't been paying close enough attention to that.

[dougthonus]

Interesting take on Billy losing the team. I probably haven't been paying close enough attention to that.

In one recent stretch, they lost like 5 of 6 games to teams you'd have thought they would be favorites against. Consistently poor effort has been pointed out by Stacey/Amin lately too.

That said, it could just be that the trade deadline has had everyone distracted because so many guys were being shopped (i mean really an unprecedented amount of the team was likely up for trade) and post deadline that will settle down, and we will see more effort / attention come back.

[Hold That]

Paxson by far.

AKME might be the worse front office in the league. They are horrible at drafting, trading, and roster construction. It’s almost as if the rest of the league knows the Bulls are the one front office group you can swindle.

[jnrjr79]

It's hard to understand how you can believe these things simultaneously:

Being a .500 team that makes the playoffs with a team that doesn't deserve to be there (bad SRS) and thus eliminating a chance to get a top 4 pick is a good thing

Being one or two games worse with a better team (better SRS) while missing the playoffs and having at least a small chance of getting a top 4 pick is unambiguously worse than the above

Making the playoffs is just super important. It's like getting the job or not getting the job, getting a date or not getting a date. It's just a critical barrier. I don't think it's great to barely make the playoffs or anything, I just described it as average. If I'm not going to make the playoffs I'd ideally pick in the top 5.

#7 picks are "high value assets" (Paxson's outcome for 2 of his 4 "collecting high value assets pass for being terrible years") but #8 picks (current projection for our pick this summer) aren't

In a previous post I laid criticism that when they were bad, they weren't aggressive enough about being bad, and I think that's a fair criticism to have. It's a shame because they were literally like 1-2 games off from having much better odds a couple times.

Just holistically, at a very high level, just from a record perspective, if I don't make the playoffs, I want my win total to be in the 20s, not the 30s or 40s.

If I make the playoffs, it is its own reward, the size of that reward might be very small (the bad team sneaking in), but it is still its own reward.

This is only talking about records though and was only refuting the point made that GarPax would languish for ever as 30-40 win teams. I don't think this would be the primary point I would make about why they were vastly better. It's just a super macro level view.

They were better at getting value in trades
They were radically better at avoiding sunk cost theory and moving off guys
They were better at scouting the draft and making good draft picks
They were better at cohesively setting a strategy and sticking with it
They were much better at managing their cap / doing negotiations

The one area I would give AKME credit for was firing Boylen where Paxson was still fighting to keep him that year, but at the same time, it seems pretty clear to me that it is time for Donovan to go (even though I like him, it really seems like he's lost the team now), and we are sticking by him, so even in this area, it feels like he's hung up on sunk cost decision making and waiting too long and was only ever able to make an aggressive decision about a previous GM's choice.

This is interesting - what makes you think Donovan has lost the team, as opposed to it just sort of playing to its actual talent level? Vooch looks detached at times, and I am admitted watching fewer games than in the past, but I haven't otherwise seen a lot of "quit" in the players.

EDIT - Never mind, I see this has been asked and answered.

[prolific passer]

Paxson from 03-08 due to his draft strategy outside of Aldridge for Tyrus.

[panthermark]

That is a tough question.
I'm going with option C: Crumbs!

[Jcool0]

There was a group of posters here that advocated for Haliburton at the time, but the Gar/Pax special was to take Obi Toppin.

I don't know if they'd have taken Haliburton, but he was their exact type of player, and that insanely close ties to Iowa St. Toppin was most definitely not their MO for player type. I would have pegged them as taking Haliburton, Vassell, or maybe Advija in terms of guys I think would have fit their pattern.

They just took Coby. They weren't taking Haliburton at 4. Obi Toppin was a PF and college player of the year. They love those high floor low ceiling prospects to minimize risk.

[jacoby1us]

Never in a million years did I think someone could do worse, well AKME grabbed their beers and said watch this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This isn't even close, I would much rather endure a tenure with GARPAX over this directionless team of "leaders."

[Mindcrime]

Paxson by far.

AKME might be the worse front office in the league. They are horrible at drafting, trading, and roster construction. It’s almost as if the rest of the league knows the Bulls are the one front office group you can swindle.

Totaly that.

The only thing AK did was sign Lonzo/Caruso draft Ayo, ME assist signing Demar.

Other than that it has been complete blunder, apart from Matas falling from the top prospect to 11.