Building around Coby-Giddey-Matas

[Jcool0]

The line was shorter for a bit, though, right? Anyway, different era - I’m sure he’d be a plus (but not elite) 3 pt shooter in today’s game, a la LeBron (at 38% this year) or Luka (36%).

Anyway, different era also impacts the importance of 3 pt percentage. In Giddey’s case, he needs to be a plus 3 pt guy on mid to high volume to offset his lack of elite physical traits - though note that I think his D has moved from bad to “passable” (a la Coby) when played at the 3/4 (defensively) instead of at a guard spot.

For Matas, I also think he needs to be a plus, maybe even near elite, 3 pt shooter to become a true superstar. And starting as a room at a passable 34/35% is a great sign. I think he needs it because:

(1) I expect him to lose a half a step as he gets stronger and goes into his prime, so the shot from range will be more key to keeping lanes open for him (and “gravity), and
(2) while a tall, bouncy freak, he isn’t a freight train freak like LeBron, Zion, to a lesser extent Banchero and Barnes, nor does he have the size of a Giannis or Mobley or even JJJ, nor quite the Gazelle movement, much less natural offensive talent, of a Kevin Durant.

I still really like the AK47 and Tyrus (better offense, not quite same length or explosion on D) comps for him in terms of “type of player” - a defensive combo forward who is versatile offensively (though Tyrus never developed). And I think the modern era play that doesn’t ask nominal 4’s to do too much in the low post helps him - but the key to maximizing him on offense will be whether the shooting gets there. He doesn’t quite move like a Banchero (who is the only 6’9 guy who, offensively, consistently plays with guard-esque bend) though he is a lot closer than I thought he was pre-draft.

I would say a peak Matas on his current development track is in the range of 20/6/4. If things go south more 15/4/2 stat line.

Does that peak include all-defense team?

With his block numbers its a possibility

[Chi town]

The more I think about it I can see a contender with these 3 if we got a DPOY type of Center that could play at our pace. Don’t know that the NBA has ever seen a player like that. Maybe Draymond but he’s not a normal C or true rim protector.

Buz would have to become our #1 and develop into a Tatum type on ball.

Coby would have to improve his 3, clean up heat checks and dumb turnovers while also becoming average on D.

Giddey would have to continue developing his 3 ball in volume and his handle to create more offense for himself and others.

We’d then need a scorer off the bench and an elite shut down wing. Maybe Zo if he’s finally healthy and the 3 ball goes down.

[Hangtime84]

If we only played capture the Flagg. Might already have him on the roster opportunities are low cause we have Vuc as a featured player here

[Infinity2152]

Yea a cautionary tale would be 2003. The 3 C's all finished the year strong and looked like they were starting something good. Then fell right back to being awful in 03-04.

That was the year that the end of year meaningless wins took them out of a chance to draft in the top 5 where 4 out of the top 5 picks ended up having Hall of Fame Careers. I guess those end of season wins really must have been worth it.

That's why I'll never understand the people who cry about fans that want loses/tanking so we can get better draft position. Are they so short sighted that they can't see the benefit to getting a better draft spot? It's crazy to me.

It's pretty simple.

One, it's cheating. Deliberately losing and/or making your team worse is the opposite of what the NBA wants and horrible for sports. Like those people who bowl bad when they join a league so they can get more pins. Some people don't think shady moves pay off. Worst part of the season is the end, when teams are fighting to lose more games rather than win.

Two. You're not guaranteed a higher pick anyway, especially if you're not a bottom 3 team. The year we drafted Derrick Rose we had a 1.7% chance. Most teams in the lottery will not draft at their predicted position.

Three: People watch basketball for different reasons. Many for love of the game, not championship aspirations. If it's all about championships, you guys can stop watching and following the Bulls for the next 3-4 years. Many people would much prefer to watch their team win 42 games than 20. Not about short-sighted. Much easier to go from a 42 win team to a 50-55 win team than a 20-win team.

Four: The old superstars in the league are still here every draft. If you draft the next Ja Morant or Paulo Banchero, you're still not winning for a very long time while Giannis, Luka, Tatum, Jokic, Wemby, etc are in the league.

Five: It's completely unfair and bad for young players already on the team. Wastes a year of their development, a year of them being on a cheap contract, for a slightly higher chance to move up in the draft and maybe avoid drafting Greg Oden or Patrick Williams.

Six: You can add a star in free agency. Lebron's moved several times, KD has, Harden has, Kyrie has, Brandon Ingram, Derozan has, Zach has, SGA added through trade. Lakers just got Luka, we've been talking about Zion and Ja.

Most recent championship superstars over the last decade include Giannis (late 1st), Jimmy Butler (late 1st), Steph Curry (#7 pick), Jokic (second round pick), SGA (#11, not there yet but MVP level), Jayson Tatum (#3 pick). Tatum's drafted the highest and is the worst of the bunch, needs a fully loaded All Star. team to win.

Maybe focus on building your team the right way, Draft well at your positions like SA usually does, add rising young players like OKC did with the Paul George trade, find second round free agents gems, overseas players like Yabusele, castoffs like Patty Mills. Develop your own young players. Trade veteran players for picks from other teams, so you don't have to suck to get a high draft pick. Like the reigning champs did.

So many ways to improve your team without tanking, yet people keep wanting to focus on the worst, lowest probability way to add a star. You damn near have to be a bottom 3-4 team to significantly improve your draft odds at a top pick. Sad when people claiming to be fans are the people rooting for the team to lose. Who's going to root for our young guys to win then? Who's standing behind Coby, Ball, Giddey, Matas, Zach, Vucevic, Smith, Ayo, guys who play their hearts out for us and represent this team with honor and no problems, if not their own fans?

The fact that most years there are star drafted 5 and later makes it even worse. The 8th worst team has a 32% chance of getting a top 4 pick. The worst team has a 14% chance of getting the number 1 pick. And guys are pinning their dreams on Cooper Flagg. Not a single one of these draftees looks like they'll be the number 1 on a championship team, though one or two could surprise.

[DuckIII]

It's pretty simple.

It really is. Some fans have no patience and don't want to watch games when the team is projected to lose. So they advocate against that strategy because the short term enjoyment of individual games means more to them than long term sustained success. Not worth the uncertainty or time to many fans to endure the longer term losing that comes with a strong, ground up rebuild.

And that's fine. But that's all it is.

The rest of your post is the same tired talking points that do not in any way undo the fact - yes, fact - that the more and higher draft picks you have, the higher your chances are of landing a franchise player in either draft or trade.

Totally fine to not want to tank for a wide variety of subjective reasons related to your entertainment dollar and time. But there is no objective argument to be made that its poor strategy when you find yourself in the situation the Bulls did. That's the only issue I have with this perpetual "debate."

[mj234eva]

This is a losing strategy. The Bulls need a real #1 option, preferably a wing (6'5" or above) player. "Building" around these 3 will lead to perennial play-in level seeding.

[Infinity2152]

It's pretty simple.

It really is. Some fans have no patience and don't want to watch games when the team is projected to lose. So they advocate against that strategy because the short term enjoyment of individual games means more to them than long term sustained success. Not worth the uncertainty or time to many fans to endure the longer term losing that comes with a strong, ground up rebuild.

And that's fine. But that's all it is.

The rest of your post is the same tired talking points that do not in any way undo the fact - yes, fact - that the more and higher draft picks you have, the higher your chances are of landing a franchise player in either draft or trade.

Totally fine to not want to tank for a wide variety of subjective reasons related to your entertainment dollar and time. But there is no objective argument to be made that its poor strategy when you find yourself in the situation the Bulls did. That's the only issue I have with this perpetual "debate."

And what makes the fans that want to enjoy the games now more "shortsighted" than those who want to tank? What proof is there that tanking leads to long term success? None of the top teams got there by tanking. So these same tired talking points about having a slightly better chance of a higher draft pick leads to long term success don't undo that fact.

Three simple facts: tanking does not guarantee a higher draft pick. The 12th worst team can draft higher than the 5th.
Fact two: Even with that higher draft pick, you can pick wrong (Pat Williams).
Fact 3: You can usually get a better player in free agency or by trade than 95% of any draft, even if you do get the high pick and guess correctly.

Then it's just stupid to think the only way to get a high draft pick is by tanking. Boston basically built their whole team of draft picks from the Nets.

The debate is not who's view is right or wrong here. My point is, why are people short-sighted because they see a different way of teambuilding? That seems more probable to lead to long term success than drafting a rookie to one of the worst teams in the league, then trying to build a good team around him for the next 4 years? I disagree with tanking, but I understand why some people would want to do it. To me, that seems short-sighted, hoping for immediate luck with little to no long-term plan. But I'm not going to say you're short-sighted or want the Bulls to suck in the long-term because we disagree how to get there.

Like the way you frame people who don't want to tank as people with no patience. That's BS. Doesn't make you more patient because you think praying to the draft fairy will get you your star. Because you think we can't do a "strong, from the floor buildup" without tanking, even already having like 10 players 25 and under and a ton of projected cap space in 2026. Only hope for the future is tanking for anybody who cares about the long-term. Working out well for Philly and Detroit? 30 teams in the league, best player on OKC came from a trade, where's this proof tanking for years is leading teams to championships? Not Denver, Boston, Lakers, Phoenix, Knicks, Cavs, Dallas, Bucks, no top teams. You might get the Rockets, but I don't think they tanked for years, they were just bad.

[jump]

That was the year that the end of year meaningless wins took them out of a chance to draft in the top 5 where 4 out of the top 5 picks ended up having Hall of Fame Careers. I guess those end of season wins really must have been worth it.

That's why I'll never understand the people who cry about fans that want loses/tanking so we can get better draft position. Are they so short sighted that they can't see the benefit to getting a better draft spot? It's crazy to me.

It's pretty simple.

One, it's cheating. Deliberately losing and/or making your team worse is the opposite of what the NBA wants and horrible for sports. Like those people who bowl bad when they join a league so they can get more pins. Some people don't think shady moves pay off. Worst part of the season is the end, when teams are fighting to lose more games rather than win.

Two. You're not guaranteed a higher pick anyway, especially if you're not a bottom 3 team. The year we drafted Derrick Rose we had a 1.7% chance. Most teams in the lottery will not draft at their predicted position.

Three: People watch basketball for different reasons. Many for love of the game, not championship aspirations. If it's all about championships, you guys can stop watching and following the Bulls for the next 3-4 years. Many people would much prefer to watch their team win 42 games than 20. Not about short-sighted. Much easier to go from a 42 win team to a 50-55 win team than a 20-win team.

Four: The old superstars in the league are still here every draft. If you draft the next Ja Morant or Paulo Banchero, you're still not winning for a very long time while Giannis, Luka, Tatum, Jokic, Wemby, etc are in the league.

Five: It's completely unfair and bad for young players already on the team. Wastes a year of their development, a year of them being on a cheap contract, for a slightly higher chance to move up in the draft and maybe avoid drafting Greg Oden or Patrick Williams.

Six: You can add a star in free agency. Lebron's moved several times, KD has, Harden has, Kyrie has, Brandon Ingram, Derozan has, Zach has, SGA added through trade. Lakers just got Luka, we've been talking about Zion and Ja.

Most recent championship superstars over the last decade include Giannis (late 1st), Jimmy Butler (late 1st), Steph Curry (#7 pick), Jokic (second round pick), SGA (#11, not there yet but MVP level), Jayson Tatum (#3 pick). Tatum's drafted the highest and is the worst of the bunch, needs a fully loaded All Star. team to win.

Maybe focus on building your team the right way, Draft well at your positions like SA usually does, add rising young players like OKC did with the Paul George trade, find second round free agents gems, overseas players like Yabusele, castoffs like Patty Mills. Develop your own young players. Trade veteran players for picks from other teams, so you don't have to suck to get a high draft pick. Like the reigning champs did.

So many ways to improve your team without tanking, yet people keep wanting to focus on the worst, lowest probability way to add a star. You damn near have to be a bottom 3-4 team to significantly improve your draft odds at a top pick. Sad when people claiming to be fans are the people rooting for the team to lose. Who's going to root for our young guys to win then? Who's standing behind Coby, Ball, Giddey, Matas, Zach, Vucevic, Smith, Ayo, guys who play their hearts out for us and represent this team with honor and no problems, if not their own fans?

The fact that most years there are star drafted 5 and later makes it even worse. The 8th worst team has a 32% chance of getting a top 4 pick. The worst team has a 14% chance of getting the number 1 pick. And guys are pinning their dreams on Cooper Flagg. Not a single one of these draftees looks like they'll be the number 1 on a championship team, though one or two could surprise.

This is the greatest post of all time regarding the desire to tank. Thank you. Please post this every day.

[Infinity2152]

That's why I'll never understand the people who cry about fans that want loses/tanking so we can get better draft position. Are they so short sighted that they can't see the benefit to getting a better draft spot? It's crazy to me.

It's pretty simple.

One, it's cheating. Deliberately losing and/or making your team worse is the opposite of what the NBA wants and horrible for sports. Like those people who bowl bad when they join a league so they can get more pins. Some people don't think shady moves pay off. Worst part of the season is the end, when teams are fighting to lose more games rather than win.

Two. You're not guaranteed a higher pick anyway, especially if you're not a bottom 3 team. The year we drafted Derrick Rose we had a 1.7% chance. Most teams in the lottery will not draft at their predicted position.

Three: People watch basketball for different reasons. Many for love of the game, not championship aspirations. If it's all about championships, you guys can stop watching and following the Bulls for the next 3-4 years. Many people would much prefer to watch their team win 42 games than 20. Not about short-sighted. Much easier to go from a 42 win team to a 50-55 win team than a 20-win team.

Four: The old superstars in the league are still here every draft. If you draft the next Ja Morant or Paulo Banchero, you're still not winning for a very long time while Giannis, Luka, Tatum, Jokic, Wemby, etc are in the league.

Five: It's completely unfair and bad for young players already on the team. Wastes a year of their development, a year of them being on a cheap contract, for a slightly higher chance to move up in the draft and maybe avoid drafting Greg Oden or Patrick Williams.

Six: You can add a star in free agency. Lebron's moved several times, KD has, Harden has, Kyrie has, Brandon Ingram, Derozan has, Zach has, SGA added through trade. Lakers just got Luka, we've been talking about Zion and Ja.

Most recent championship superstars over the last decade include Giannis (late 1st), Jimmy Butler (late 1st), Steph Curry (#7 pick), Jokic (second round pick), SGA (#11, not there yet but MVP level), Jayson Tatum (#3 pick). Tatum's drafted the highest and is the worst of the bunch, needs a fully loaded All Star. team to win.

Maybe focus on building your team the right way, Draft well at your positions like SA usually does, add rising young players like OKC did with the Paul George trade, find second round free agents gems, overseas players like Yabusele, castoffs like Patty Mills. Develop your own young players. Trade veteran players for picks from other teams, so you don't have to suck to get a high draft pick. Like the reigning champs did.

So many ways to improve your team without tanking, yet people keep wanting to focus on the worst, lowest probability way to add a star. You damn near have to be a bottom 3-4 team to significantly improve your draft odds at a top pick. Sad when people claiming to be fans are the people rooting for the team to lose. Who's going to root for our young guys to win then? Who's standing behind Coby, Ball, Giddey, Matas, Zach, Vucevic, Smith, Ayo, guys who play their hearts out for us and represent this team with honor and no problems, if not their own fans?

The fact that most years there are star drafted 5 and later makes it even worse. The 8th worst team has a 32% chance of getting a top 4 pick. The worst team has a 14% chance of getting the number 1 pick. And guys are pinning their dreams on Cooper Flagg. Not a single one of these draftees looks like they'll be the number 1 on a championship team, though one or two could surprise.

This is the greatest post of all time regarding the desire to tank. Thank you. Please post this every day.

Thank you, my brother. Gets lonely in here sometimes wanting the Bulls to get better and makes trades for players that can actually make the team better immediately. It's not impatience, I just believe it's better to build to greatness than try to leap to it with a lucky draw. You can get stars with those top picks all you want, stars are all over the league and get drafted all over the draft. Lebron's, Giannis, SGA's, Luka's and Jokics are once every 5-10 years. Most not top 5 picks. You can also get Coby White and Pat Williams while having the third worst record in the league, depending on the lottery.

[sco]

That was the year that the end of year meaningless wins took them out of a chance to draft in the top 5 where 4 out of the top 5 picks ended up having Hall of Fame Careers. I guess those end of season wins really must have been worth it.

That's why I'll never understand the people who cry about fans that want loses/tanking so we can get better draft position. Are they so short sighted that they can't see the benefit to getting a better draft spot? It's crazy to me.

It's pretty simple.

One, it's cheating. Deliberately losing and/or making your team worse is the opposite of what the NBA wants and horrible for sports. Like those people who bowl bad when they join a league so they can get more pins. Some people don't think shady moves pay off. Worst part of the season is the end, when teams are fighting to lose more games rather than win.

Two. You're not guaranteed a higher pick anyway, especially if you're not a bottom 3 team. The year we drafted Derrick Rose we had a 1.7% chance. Most teams in the lottery will not draft at their predicted position.

Three: People watch basketball for different reasons. Many for love of the game, not championship aspirations. If it's all about championships, you guys can stop watching and following the Bulls for the next 3-4 years. Many people would much prefer to watch their team win 42 games than 20. Not about short-sighted. Much easier to go from a 42 win team to a 50-55 win team than a 20-win team.

Four: The old superstars in the league are still here every draft. If you draft the next Ja Morant or Paulo Banchero, you're still not winning for a very long time while Giannis, Luka, Tatum, Jokic, Wemby, etc are in the league.

Five: It's completely unfair and bad for young players already on the team. Wastes a year of their development, a year of them being on a cheap contract, for a slightly higher chance to move up in the draft and maybe avoid drafting Greg Oden or Patrick Williams.

Six: You can add a star in free agency. Lebron's moved several times, KD has, Harden has, Kyrie has, Brandon Ingram, Derozan has, Zach has, SGA added through trade. Lakers just got Luka, we've been talking about Zion and Ja.

Most recent championship superstars over the last decade include Giannis (late 1st), Jimmy Butler (late 1st), Steph Curry (#7 pick), Jokic (second round pick), SGA (#11, not there yet but MVP level), Jayson Tatum (#3 pick). Tatum's drafted the highest and is the worst of the bunch, needs a fully loaded All Star. team to win.

Maybe focus on building your team the right way, Draft well at your positions like SA usually does, add rising young players like OKC did with the Paul George trade, find second round free agents gems, overseas players like Yabusele, castoffs like Patty Mills. Develop your own young players. Trade veteran players for picks from other teams, so you don't have to suck to get a high draft pick. Like the reigning champs did.

So many ways to improve your team without tanking, yet people keep wanting to focus on the worst, lowest probability way to add a star. You damn near have to be a bottom 3-4 team to significantly improve your draft odds at a top pick. Sad when people claiming to be fans are the people rooting for the team to lose. Who's going to root for our young guys to win then? Who's standing behind Coby, Ball, Giddey, Matas, Zach, Vucevic, Smith, Ayo, guys who play their hearts out for us and represent this team with honor and no problems, if not their own fans?

The fact that most years there are star drafted 5 and later makes it even worse. The 8th worst team has a 32% chance of getting a top 4 pick. The worst team has a 14% chance of getting the number 1 pick. And guys are pinning their dreams on Cooper Flagg. Not a single one of these draftees looks like they'll be the number 1 on a championship team, though one or two could surprise.

Well said!

I think teams with GM's who've been there more than 2 years have a hard time going the tank path anyway from a job perspective.

I'll add that you never know how secondary players can perform in larger roles. Looks like AK lucked out with White and Giddey. There are certainly no guarantees that their current play sticks, but I'll compare them to what happened with Poole going to WAS.

[Infinity2152]

That's why I'll never understand the people who cry about fans that want loses/tanking so we can get better draft position. Are they so short sighted that they can't see the benefit to getting a better draft spot? It's crazy to me.

It's pretty simple.

One, it's cheating. Deliberately losing and/or making your team worse is the opposite of what the NBA wants and horrible for sports. Like those people who bowl bad when they join a league so they can get more pins. Some people don't think shady moves pay off. Worst part of the season is the end, when teams are fighting to lose more games rather than win.

Two. You're not guaranteed a higher pick anyway, especially if you're not a bottom 3 team. The year we drafted Derrick Rose we had a 1.7% chance. Most teams in the lottery will not draft at their predicted position.

Three: People watch basketball for different reasons. Many for love of the game, not championship aspirations. If it's all about championships, you guys can stop watching and following the Bulls for the next 3-4 years. Many people would much prefer to watch their team win 42 games than 20. Not about short-sighted. Much easier to go from a 42 win team to a 50-55 win team than a 20-win team.

Four: The old superstars in the league are still here every draft. If you draft the next Ja Morant or Paulo Banchero, you're still not winning for a very long time while Giannis, Luka, Tatum, Jokic, Wemby, etc are in the league.

Five: It's completely unfair and bad for young players already on the team. Wastes a year of their development, a year of them being on a cheap contract, for a slightly higher chance to move up in the draft and maybe avoid drafting Greg Oden or Patrick Williams.

Six: You can add a star in free agency. Lebron's moved several times, KD has, Harden has, Kyrie has, Brandon Ingram, Derozan has, Zach has, SGA added through trade. Lakers just got Luka, we've been talking about Zion and Ja.

Most recent championship superstars over the last decade include Giannis (late 1st), Jimmy Butler (late 1st), Steph Curry (#7 pick), Jokic (second round pick), SGA (#11, not there yet but MVP level), Jayson Tatum (#3 pick). Tatum's drafted the highest and is the worst of the bunch, needs a fully loaded All Star. team to win.

Maybe focus on building your team the right way, Draft well at your positions like SA usually does, add rising young players like OKC did with the Paul George trade, find second round free agents gems, overseas players like Yabusele, castoffs like Patty Mills. Develop your own young players. Trade veteran players for picks from other teams, so you don't have to suck to get a high draft pick. Like the reigning champs did.

So many ways to improve your team without tanking, yet people keep wanting to focus on the worst, lowest probability way to add a star. You damn near have to be a bottom 3-4 team to significantly improve your draft odds at a top pick. Sad when people claiming to be fans are the people rooting for the team to lose. Who's going to root for our young guys to win then? Who's standing behind Coby, Ball, Giddey, Matas, Zach, Vucevic, Smith, Ayo, guys who play their hearts out for us and represent this team with honor and no problems, if not their own fans?

The fact that most years there are star drafted 5 and later makes it even worse. The 8th worst team has a 32% chance of getting a top 4 pick. The worst team has a 14% chance of getting the number 1 pick. And guys are pinning their dreams on Cooper Flagg. Not a single one of these draftees looks like they'll be the number 1 on a championship team, though one or two could surprise.

Well said!

I think teams with GM's who've been there more than 2 years have a hard time going the tank path anyway from a job perspective.

I'll add that you never know how secondary players can perform in larger roles. Looks like AK lucked out with White and Giddey. There are certainly no guarantees that their current play sticks, but I'll compare them to what happened with Poole going to WAS.

Man! This is part of the fun of basketball. Not just stacking all the highest rated and perfect looking players together, work with what you have, build a TEAM that can play together, have fun watching them have fun and going all out. Hopefully enjoy some great basketball. Watching your players grow up and get better, succeed with your team like Rose and Deng and Noah. 30 teams in the league, not always going to lead to greatness, but damn the ride was fun! Do things the right way, and live with the results. Just keep working to get better.

Jimmy got the big head (conceited), he needed to grow up some, but would have loved to see him a Bull for life, Lauri too. Zach, Demar, Vucevic, certainly not the best fit together. But I'll always appreciate how they brought their best, great energy, no complaints. Never feel like they cheated us, gave us less than we should have expected.

We were first in the East the year Lonzo got hurt. AK put that team together. It wasn't luck, he made moves a lot of people questioned and it worked. That was only like 4 years ago. Regardless of whether we were actually the best or second best or third best team in the East that year, we were a top team. Just 4 years ago. From a team that won 31 games the year before and added Patrik Williams in the draft. It's always what have you done for me lately, 4 years ago he turned a 31 win team into a team that was dominating until we had a key injury. He's done a lot of good things since, the Coby and Ayo contracts, signing Caruso to a bargain deal, trading that for Giddey on a bargain deal, getting Huerter, Collins and a lottery first for Zach, made some questionable or bad ones but the guy took us from 31-41 to 46-36, and that's with Ball getting injured and only playing 35 games. That team wins at least 50 games with a healthy Ball, maybe 60. Every good move he makes is called luck, every bad luck decision like Pat Will actually regressing instead of improving, Ball injury, he just makes bad decisions.

[Dan Z]

It's pretty simple.

It really is. Some fans have no patience and don't want to watch games when the team is projected to lose. So they advocate against that strategy because the short term enjoyment of individual games means more to them than long term sustained success. Not worth the uncertainty or time to many fans to endure the longer term losing that comes with a strong, ground up rebuild.

And that's fine. But that's all it is.

The rest of your post is the same tired talking points that do not in any way undo the fact - yes, fact - that the more and higher draft picks you have, the higher your chances are of landing a franchise player in either draft or trade.

Totally fine to not want to tank for a wide variety of subjective reasons related to your entertainment dollar and time. But there is no objective argument to be made that its poor strategy when you find yourself in the situation the Bulls did. That's the only issue I have with this perpetual "debate."

And what makes the fans that want to enjoy the games now more "shortsighted" than those who want to tank? What proof is there that tanking leads to long term success? None of the top teams got there by tanking. So these same tired talking points about having a slightly better chance of a higher draft pick leads to long term success don't undo that fact.

Three simple facts: tanking does not guarantee a higher draft pick. The 12th worst team can draft higher than the 5th.
Fact two: Even with that higher draft pick, you can pick wrong (Pat Williams).
Fact 3: You can usually get a better player in free agency or by trade than 95% of any draft, even if you do get the high pick and guess correctly.

Then it's just stupid to think the only way to get a high draft pick is by tanking. Boston basically built their whole team of draft picks from the Nets.

The debate is not who's view is right or wrong here. My point is, why are people short-sighted because they see a different way of teambuilding? That seems more probable to lead to long term success than drafting a rookie to one of the worst teams in the league, then trying to build a good team around him for the next 4 years? I disagree with tanking, but I understand why some people would want to do it. To me, that seems short-sighted, hoping for immediate luck with little to no long-term plan. But I'm not going to say you're short-sighted or want the Bulls to suck in the long-term because we disagree how to get there.

Like the way you frame people who don't want to tank as people with no patience. That's BS. Doesn't make you more patient because you think praying to the draft fairy will get you your star. Because you think we can't do a "strong, from the floor buildup" without tanking, even already having like 10 players 25 and under and a ton of projected cap space in 2026. Only hope for the future is tanking for anybody who cares about the long-term. Working out well for Philly and Detroit? 30 teams in the league, best player on OKC came from a trade, where's this proof tanking for years is leading teams to championships? Not Denver, Boston, Lakers, Phoenix, Knicks, Cavs, Dallas, Bucks, no top teams. You might get the Rockets, but I don't think they tanked for years, they were just bad.

Instead of the word "tanking" it should be "building through the draft", which is something AK hasn't been willing to do.

OKC did it and would've done it even without SGA. Boston did it (yes they used the Nets picks, but they didn't rush anything), Cavs did it (then added Mitchell). Rockets did it (then added FVV and Brooks), Philly tried, but injuries derailed them. Denver was using the draft until they got lucky with drafting Jokic (remember there was a time when they were figuring out if they should go with Nurkic or Jokic...once they figured that out, and Jokic took a leap forward, they moved on to add established players like Aaron Gordon). Phoenix used the draft, but then traded away the players they had to end up with the bad team they now have. The Lakers rarely use the draft because free agents ask to go there, but there was a time when they had Lonzo, Brandon Ingram and Josh Hart, which they later used to get Anthony Davis.

Free agency hasn't worked in recent years because star players generally re-sign with their team and ask to be traded. The one exception is Jalen Brunson who specifically wanted to go to NY (Chicago isn't a destination players are asking to go to). When is the last time someone traded for a star and it worked out? Kawhi to the Raptors? That's one trade out of how many? And a specific situation.

That leaves the draft as a way to potentially find a top talent.

I'm sure some people would say that trading for Giddey is finding a star, but I think that's debatable. He's also not enough on his own to make this team a serious contender.

[Infinity2152]

It really is. Some fans have no patience and don't want to watch games when the team is projected to lose. So they advocate against that strategy because the short term enjoyment of individual games means more to them than long term sustained success. Not worth the uncertainty or time to many fans to endure the longer term losing that comes with a strong, ground up rebuild.

And that's fine. But that's all it is.

The rest of your post is the same tired talking points that do not in any way undo the fact - yes, fact - that the more and higher draft picks you have, the higher your chances are of landing a franchise player in either draft or trade.

Totally fine to not want to tank for a wide variety of subjective reasons related to your entertainment dollar and time. But there is no objective argument to be made that its poor strategy when you find yourself in the situation the Bulls did. That's the only issue I have with this perpetual "debate."

And what makes the fans that want to enjoy the games now more "shortsighted" than those who want to tank? What proof is there that tanking leads to long term success? None of the top teams got there by tanking. So these same tired talking points about having a slightly better chance of a higher draft pick leads to long term success don't undo that fact.

Three simple facts: tanking does not guarantee a higher draft pick. The 12th worst team can draft higher than the 5th.
Fact two: Even with that higher draft pick, you can pick wrong (Pat Williams).
Fact 3: You can usually get a better player in free agency or by trade than 95% of any draft, even if you do get the high pick and guess correctly.

Then it's just stupid to think the only way to get a high draft pick is by tanking. Boston basically built their whole team of draft picks from the Nets.

The debate is not who's view is right or wrong here. My point is, why are people short-sighted because they see a different way of teambuilding? That seems more probable to lead to long term success than drafting a rookie to one of the worst teams in the league, then trying to build a good team around him for the next 4 years? I disagree with tanking, but I understand why some people would want to do it. To me, that seems short-sighted, hoping for immediate luck with little to no long-term plan. But I'm not going to say you're short-sighted or want the Bulls to suck in the long-term because we disagree how to get there.

Like the way you frame people who don't want to tank as people with no patience. That's BS. Doesn't make you more patient because you think praying to the draft fairy will get you your star. Because you think we can't do a "strong, from the floor buildup" without tanking, even already having like 10 players 25 and under and a ton of projected cap space in 2026. Only hope for the future is tanking for anybody who cares about the long-term. Working out well for Philly and Detroit? 30 teams in the league, best player on OKC came from a trade, where's this proof tanking for years is leading teams to championships? Not Denver, Boston, Lakers, Phoenix, Knicks, Cavs, Dallas, Bucks, no top teams. You might get the Rockets, but I don't think they tanked for years, they were just bad.

Instead of the word "tanking" it should be "building through the draft", which is something AK hasn't been willing to do.

OKC did it and would've done it even without SGA. Boston did it (yes they used the Nets picks, but they didn't rush anything), Cavs did it (then added Mitchell). Rockets did it (then added FVV and Brooks), Philly tried, but injuries derailed them. Denver was using the draft until they got lucky with drafting Jokic (remember there was a time when they were figuring out if they should go with Nurkic or Jokic...once they figured that out, and Jokic took a leap forward, they moved on to add established players like Aaron Gordon). Phoenix used the draft, but then traded away the players they had to end up with the bad team they now have. The Lakers rarely use the draft because free agents ask to go there, but there was a time when they had Lonzo, Brandon Ingram and Josh Hart, which they later used to get Anthony Davis.

Free agency hasn't worked in recent years because star players generally re-sign with their team and ask to be traded. The one exception is Jalen Brunson who specifically wanted to go to NY (Chicago isn't a destination players are asking to go to). When is the last time someone traded for a star and it worked out? Kawhi to the Raptors? That's one trade out of how many? And a specific situation.

That leaves the draft as a way to potentially find a top talent.

I'm sure some people would say that trading for Giddey is finding a star, but I think that's debatable. He's also not enough on his own to make this team a serious contender.

Celtics to me are an example of team building. Tatum is not that 1A that's carrying teams to championships. They did great drafting Brown and Tatum, but surrounding them with all the All-Star talent from other teams is what makes it work. I do think Giddey is a star, at the Tatum/Brown impact level at the same age. Matas could get there. I feel you all in it's GREAT to get a top pick and get Flagg, or Cade Cunningham, or Banchero. We all know once you leave the first 2-3 picks, your odds go way down on finding that superstar. Pick 4 odds are higher than pick 10 odds to get a superstar for instance, but not much. So every team as long as they have a first round pick say 20 or above has a fair chance of finding a great player. Getting a top 3 pick unless you're literally a bottom 5 team is damn impossible. Getting the number 1 pick even if you're the worst team is only 14%. Free agency hasn't worked until it does. We've already drafted #1 with a low pick. We've also dropped in the draft in the lottery. That's Cavs team is another team I like. We could build a team with that talent level without tanking.

LA just got a young superstar, Luka, without tanking. It's not because he wanted to go there. I KNOW we could have beat the package Dallas received, lol. OKC got SGA shipping out George. Zion could be on the move. There are ways to get that guy even outside free agency or the draft, other teams are doing it. Giddey may not be a superstar but adding him for an expiring Caruso is a helluva good step forward.

[Chi town]

If we only played capture the Flagg. Might already have him on the roster opportunities are low cause we have Vuc as a featured player here

We get Coop and I think we are a defensive C away from being contenders as soon as 2027.

[Dan Z]

And what makes the fans that want to enjoy the games now more "shortsighted" than those who want to tank? What proof is there that tanking leads to long term success? None of the top teams got there by tanking. So these same tired talking points about having a slightly better chance of a higher draft pick leads to long term success don't undo that fact.

Three simple facts: tanking does not guarantee a higher draft pick. The 12th worst team can draft higher than the 5th.
Fact two: Even with that higher draft pick, you can pick wrong (Pat Williams).
Fact 3: You can usually get a better player in free agency or by trade than 95% of any draft, even if you do get the high pick and guess correctly.

Then it's just stupid to think the only way to get a high draft pick is by tanking. Boston basically built their whole team of draft picks from the Nets.

The debate is not who's view is right or wrong here. My point is, why are people short-sighted because they see a different way of teambuilding? That seems more probable to lead to long term success than drafting a rookie to one of the worst teams in the league, then trying to build a good team around him for the next 4 years? I disagree with tanking, but I understand why some people would want to do it. To me, that seems short-sighted, hoping for immediate luck with little to no long-term plan. But I'm not going to say you're short-sighted or want the Bulls to suck in the long-term because we disagree how to get there.

Like the way you frame people who don't want to tank as people with no patience. That's BS. Doesn't make you more patient because you think praying to the draft fairy will get you your star. Because you think we can't do a "strong, from the floor buildup" without tanking, even already having like 10 players 25 and under and a ton of projected cap space in 2026. Only hope for the future is tanking for anybody who cares about the long-term. Working out well for Philly and Detroit? 30 teams in the league, best player on OKC came from a trade, where's this proof tanking for years is leading teams to championships? Not Denver, Boston, Lakers, Phoenix, Knicks, Cavs, Dallas, Bucks, no top teams. You might get the Rockets, but I don't think they tanked for years, they were just bad.

Instead of the word "tanking" it should be "building through the draft", which is something AK hasn't been willing to do.

OKC did it and would've done it even without SGA. Boston did it (yes they used the Nets picks, but they didn't rush anything), Cavs did it (then added Mitchell). Rockets did it (then added FVV and Brooks), Philly tried, but injuries derailed them. Denver was using the draft until they got lucky with drafting Jokic (remember there was a time when they were figuring out if they should go with Nurkic or Jokic...once they figured that out, and Jokic took a leap forward, they moved on to add established players like Aaron Gordon). Phoenix used the draft, but then traded away the players they had to end up with the bad team they now have. The Lakers rarely use the draft because free agents ask to go there, but there was a time when they had Lonzo, Brandon Ingram and Josh Hart, which they later used to get Anthony Davis.

Free agency hasn't worked in recent years because star players generally re-sign with their team and ask to be traded. The one exception is Jalen Brunson who specifically wanted to go to NY (Chicago isn't a destination players are asking to go to). When is the last time someone traded for a star and it worked out? Kawhi to the Raptors? That's one trade out of how many? And a specific situation.

That leaves the draft as a way to potentially find a top talent.

I'm sure some people would say that trading for Giddey is finding a star, but I think that's debatable. He's also not enough on his own to make this team a serious contender.

Celtics to me are an example of team building. Tatum is not that 1A that's carrying teams to championships. They did great drafting Brown and Tatum, but surrounding them with all the All-Star talent from other teams is what makes it work. I do think Giddey is a star, at the Tatum/Brown impact level. Matas could get there. I feel you all in it's GREAT to get a top pick and get Flagg, or Cade Cunningham, or Banchero. We all know once you leave the first 2-3 picks, your odds go way down on finding that superstar. Pick 4 odds are higher than pick 10 odds to get a superstar for instance, but not much. So every team as long as they have a first round pick say 20 or above has a fair chance of finding a great player. Getting a top 3 pick unless you're literally a bottom 5 team is damn impossible. Getting the number 1 pick even if you're the worst team is only 14%. Free agency hasn't worked until it does. We've already drafted #1 with a low pick. We've also dropped in the draft in the lottery. That's Cavs team is another team I like. We could build a team with that talent level without tanking.

LA just got a young superstar, Luka, without tanking. It's not because he wanted to go there. I KNOW we could have beat the package Dallas received, lol. OKC got SGA shipping out George. Zion could be on the move. There are ways to get that guy even outside free agency or the draft, other teams are doing it. Giddey may not be a superstar but adding him for an expiring Caruso is a helluva good step forward.

The Luka trade is a rarity and many people have questions about what really happened. I'm not sure if the Bulls could beat that offer because they don't have anyone like Anthony Davis. It also wasn't offered to the Bulls.

I know OKC got SGA, but they did what they could to get draft picks too and build through the draft. That's how they got Chet and Jalen. It will also give them flexibility going forward.

The Celtics were patient and developed Brown/Tatum. I'm sure there were moments over the years where they could've traded one of those two for an established star, but they didn't. I disagree that Giddey is at the impact level of Tatum/Brown. Giddey is 22 years old. At that point in Tatums career he was already a two time all-star. Jaylen Brown was still developing so maybe there's an argument to be made when it comes to him (even though I might not agree).

My point is that AK has never been willing to build through the draft. The top teams have done that. Once they got a foundation then they made moves such as Mitchell to the Cavs.

Building through the draft is a long term plan. Trading future picks for Vucevic is a move to win asap (which didn't work).

[Infinity2152]

Instead of the word "tanking" it should be "building through the draft", which is something AK hasn't been willing to do.

OKC did it and would've done it even without SGA. Boston did it (yes they used the Nets picks, but they didn't rush anything), Cavs did it (then added Mitchell). Rockets did it (then added FVV and Brooks), Philly tried, but injuries derailed them. Denver was using the draft until they got lucky with drafting Jokic (remember there was a time when they were figuring out if they should go with Nurkic or Jokic...once they figured that out, and Jokic took a leap forward, they moved on to add established players like Aaron Gordon). Phoenix used the draft, but then traded away the players they had to end up with the bad team they now have. The Lakers rarely use the draft because free agents ask to go there, but there was a time when they had Lonzo, Brandon Ingram and Josh Hart, which they later used to get Anthony Davis.

Free agency hasn't worked in recent years because star players generally re-sign with their team and ask to be traded. The one exception is Jalen Brunson who specifically wanted to go to NY (Chicago isn't a destination players are asking to go to). When is the last time someone traded for a star and it worked out? Kawhi to the Raptors? That's one trade out of how many? And a specific situation.

That leaves the draft as a way to potentially find a top talent.

I'm sure some people would say that trading for Giddey is finding a star, but I think that's debatable. He's also not enough on his own to make this team a serious contender.

Celtics to me are an example of team building. Tatum is not that 1A that's carrying teams to championships. They did great drafting Brown and Tatum, but surrounding them with all the All-Star talent from other teams is what makes it work. I do think Giddey is a star, at the Tatum/Brown impact level. Matas could get there. I feel you all in it's GREAT to get a top pick and get Flagg, or Cade Cunningham, or Banchero. We all know once you leave the first 2-3 picks, your odds go way down on finding that superstar. Pick 4 odds are higher than pick 10 odds to get a superstar for instance, but not much. So every team as long as they have a first round pick say 20 or above has a fair chance of finding a great player. Getting a top 3 pick unless you're literally a bottom 5 team is damn impossible. Getting the number 1 pick even if you're the worst team is only 14%. Free agency hasn't worked until it does. We've already drafted #1 with a low pick. We've also dropped in the draft in the lottery. That's Cavs team is another team I like. We could build a team with that talent level without tanking.

LA just got a young superstar, Luka, without tanking. It's not because he wanted to go there. I KNOW we could have beat the package Dallas received, lol. OKC got SGA shipping out George. Zion could be on the move. There are ways to get that guy even outside free agency or the draft, other teams are doing it. Giddey may not be a superstar but adding him for an expiring Caruso is a helluva good step forward.

The Luka trade is a rarity and many people have questions about what really happened. I'm not sure if the Bulls could beat that offer because they don't have any like Anthony Davis. It also wasn't offered to the Bulls.

I know OKC got SGA, but they did what they could to get draft picks too and build through the draft. That's how they got Chet and Jalen. It will also give them flexibility going forward.

The Celtics were patient and developed Brown/Tatum. I'm sure there were moments over the years where they could've traded one of those two for an established star, but they didn't. I disagree that Giddey is at the impact level of Tatum/Brown. Giddey is 22 years old. At that point in Tatums career he was already a two time all-star. Jaylen Brown was still developing so maybe there's an argument to be made when it comes to him (even though I might not agree).

My point is that AK has never been willing to build through the draft. The top teams have done that. Once they got a foundation then they made moves such as Mitchell to the Cavs.

Building through the draft is a long term plan. Trading future picks for Vucevic is a move to win asap (which didn't work).

Getting the number 1 pick is a rarity. Drafting top 3 is a rarity. That pick becoming a superstar at Luka's level is a rarity. Warriors having cap space to add KD, rarity. Luck and rare chances pair well with having a solid team. Like getting a Giannis or Jokic late is a rarity but moves like that shape the league more than who gets the number 1 pick. How about the GM do his job and find the SGA's in trade and Jimmy Butler's in late round draft picks? Focus on skill instead of luck?

AK came here and put together an immediate winner. He drafted a high pick and started him, though most fault him for that. Everybody's basically giving him crap for not immediately pivoting, like it was going to be so easy to move Zach, Demar, and Vucevic. What would him wanting to build through the draft look like at that point? We're not getting high draft picks with Zach, Demar and Vuc and he had just added Demar and Vucevic using picks. Because he traded those picks to build an immediate contender doesn't mean he won't build through the draft. Did our young draft picks, Ayo, Coby White and Pat Williams, two high draft picks, not get plenty of minutes even with all the vets? Pat and Coby weren't drafted exactly as high as Tatum and Brown, but pretty damn close.

It was the 2021-2022 season Ball got injured. Only 3 seasons ago. He was supposed to be coming back each year. We were not a building team, he built a contender. Now we're rebuilding.

At age 22, Tatum was the featured star on his team playing over 34 minutes. Brown averaged 13pts, 4rbs, 1.4 assists, easy argument.

Josh Giddey has been featured since Zach Lavine left. So if we're talking about this Josh Giddey right now, since Feb 20th Giddey has averaged 22.8 pts, 10.5 rebounds and 9.2 assists over 13 games. If I'm comparing the Giddey I'm seeing right now to Tatum. Not going to argue, I'm using the Giddey I see now as close to his base going forward. He should get better.

[Dan Z]

Celtics to me are an example of team building. Tatum is not that 1A that's carrying teams to championships. They did great drafting Brown and Tatum, but surrounding them with all the All-Star talent from other teams is what makes it work. I do think Giddey is a star, at the Tatum/Brown impact level. Matas could get there. I feel you all in it's GREAT to get a top pick and get Flagg, or Cade Cunningham, or Banchero. We all know once you leave the first 2-3 picks, your odds go way down on finding that superstar. Pick 4 odds are higher than pick 10 odds to get a superstar for instance, but not much. So every team as long as they have a first round pick say 20 or above has a fair chance of finding a great player. Getting a top 3 pick unless you're literally a bottom 5 team is damn impossible. Getting the number 1 pick even if you're the worst team is only 14%. Free agency hasn't worked until it does. We've already drafted #1 with a low pick. We've also dropped in the draft in the lottery. That's Cavs team is another team I like. We could build a team with that talent level without tanking.

LA just got a young superstar, Luka, without tanking. It's not because he wanted to go there. I KNOW we could have beat the package Dallas received, lol. OKC got SGA shipping out George. Zion could be on the move. There are ways to get that guy even outside free agency or the draft, other teams are doing it. Giddey may not be a superstar but adding him for an expiring Caruso is a helluva good step forward.

The Luka trade is a rarity and many people have questions about what really happened. I'm not sure if the Bulls could beat that offer because they don't have any like Anthony Davis. It also wasn't offered to the Bulls.

I know OKC got SGA, but they did what they could to get draft picks too and build through the draft. That's how they got Chet and Jalen. It will also give them flexibility going forward.

The Celtics were patient and developed Brown/Tatum. I'm sure there were moments over the years where they could've traded one of those two for an established star, but they didn't. I disagree that Giddey is at the impact level of Tatum/Brown. Giddey is 22 years old. At that point in Tatums career he was already a two time all-star. Jaylen Brown was still developing so maybe there's an argument to be made when it comes to him (even though I might not agree).

My point is that AK has never been willing to build through the draft. The top teams have done that. Once they got a foundation then they made moves such as Mitchell to the Cavs.

Building through the draft is a long term plan. Trading future picks for Vucevic is a move to win asap (which didn't work).

AK came here and put together an immediate winner. He drafted a high pick and started him, though most fault him for that. Everybody's basically giving him crap for not immediately pivoting, like it was going to be so easy to move Zach, Demar, and Vucevic. What would him wanting to build through the draft look like at that point? We're not getting high draft picks with Zach, Demar and Vuc and he had just added Demar and Vucevic using picks. Because he traded those picks to build an immediate contender doesn't mean he won't build through the draft. Did our young draft picks, Ayo, Coby White and Pat Williams, two high draft picks, not get plenty of minutes even with all the vets? Pat and Coby weren't drafted exactly as high as Tatum and Brown, but pretty damn close.

It was the 2021-2022 season Ball got injured. Only 3 seasons ago. He was supposed to be coming back each year. We were not a building team, he built a contender. Now we're rebuilding.

AK never should've rushed things in the first place. That's the problem.

They weren't a winner. That team did good for a few months and fell apart. Yes, part of that is Lonzo's injury but that's only part of it. A year later it was obvious that Lonzo wasn't coming back any time soon so pivoting made sense.

At that time Caruso had more value (because a team would get him for an extra playoff run before his contract expired). I have no idea what kind of value Zach or DDR had, but I bet it was more than it was later on (because they were both younger and both had all-star seasons...or in Zachs case one year removed from it).

AK could've pivoted, trade players for whatever future picks/assets he could get (even if it wasn't a big haul) and then do the best he can with the draft. Then when he has a few players that have showed good potential (a foundation) he can build on it. Like I said the Cavs did that with Garland and Mobley. The Rockets did that with their young players. OKC was fortunate to already have SGA, but added to him with Jalen and Chet.

[Infinity2152]

The Luka trade is a rarity and many people have questions about what really happened. I'm not sure if the Bulls could beat that offer because they don't have any like Anthony Davis. It also wasn't offered to the Bulls.

I know OKC got SGA, but they did what they could to get draft picks too and build through the draft. That's how they got Chet and Jalen. It will also give them flexibility going forward.

The Celtics were patient and developed Brown/Tatum. I'm sure there were moments over the years where they could've traded one of those two for an established star, but they didn't. I disagree that Giddey is at the impact level of Tatum/Brown. Giddey is 22 years old. At that point in Tatums career he was already a two time all-star. Jaylen Brown was still developing so maybe there's an argument to be made when it comes to him (even though I might not agree).

My point is that AK has never been willing to build through the draft. The top teams have done that. Once they got a foundation then they made moves such as Mitchell to the Cavs.

Building through the draft is a long term plan. Trading future picks for Vucevic is a move to win asap (which didn't work).

AK came here and put together an immediate winner. He drafted a high pick and started him, though most fault him for that. Everybody's basically giving him crap for not immediately pivoting, like it was going to be so easy to move Zach, Demar, and Vucevic. What would him wanting to build through the draft look like at that point? We're not getting high draft picks with Zach, Demar and Vuc and he had just added Demar and Vucevic using picks. Because he traded those picks to build an immediate contender doesn't mean he won't build through the draft. Did our young draft picks, Ayo, Coby White and Pat Williams, two high draft picks, not get plenty of minutes even with all the vets? Pat and Coby weren't drafted exactly as high as Tatum and Brown, but pretty damn close.

It was the 2021-2022 season Ball got injured. Only 3 seasons ago. He was supposed to be coming back each year. We were not a building team, he built a contender. Now we're rebuilding.

AK never should've rushed things in the first place. That's the problem.

They weren't a winner. That team did good for a few months and fell apart. Yes, part of that is Lonzo's injury but that's only part of it. A year later it was obvious that Lonzo wasn't coming back any time soon so pivoting made sense.

At that time Caruso had more value (because a team would get him for an extra playoff run before his contract expired). I have no idea what kind of value Zach or DDR had, but I bet it was more than it was later on (because they were both younger and both had all-star seasons...or in Zachs case one year removed from it).

AK could've pivoted, trade players for whatever future picks/assets he could get (even if it wasn't a big haul) and then do the best he can with the draft. Then when he has a few players that have showed good potential (a foundation) he can build on it. Like I said the Cavs did that with Garland and Mobley. The Rockets did that with their young players. OKC was fortunate to already have SGA, but added to him with Jalen and Chet.

How can you say he rushed things if it worked? Until Ball got hurt, it worked. That's called doing what you're supposed to do, build a team that can be a top team in the conference. They were winning, so they were winners. You're talking about pivoting a year after the Lonzo injury, again the injury was only 4 seasons ago. So pivoting after you already traded your draft picks away and added high priced vets. How?

It's obvious to fans now Lonzo wasn't coming back, it wasn't obvious to the medical professionals that the team consults with.

He got Caruso dirt cheap, played great for us while he was here, and traded an older often injured player who needs a new contract for our young triple double PG. Don't even know how this is debatable, OKC just gave Caruso 4yrs/$81 mill. He's played 50 games at 19 minutes/gm this season and he's older next year. Great move.

He has pivoted, within 3 years, just not fast enough for some people. Who have no idea what the returns for any of those "valuable" pieces like Lavine, Demar and Vucevic would bring. It's been the line consistently that all are overpaid and unmovable, lmao! He tried to move Zach last year and let Demar go. He started the pivot last year. Put Vuc on the block this year, was he worth a lot more two years ago if AK tried to trade him?

[Dan Z]

AK came here and put together an immediate winner. He drafted a high pick and started him, though most fault him for that. Everybody's basically giving him crap for not immediately pivoting, like it was going to be so easy to move Zach, Demar, and Vucevic. What would him wanting to build through the draft look like at that point? We're not getting high draft picks with Zach, Demar and Vuc and he had just added Demar and Vucevic using picks. Because he traded those picks to build an immediate contender doesn't mean he won't build through the draft. Did our young draft picks, Ayo, Coby White and Pat Williams, two high draft picks, not get plenty of minutes even with all the vets? Pat and Coby weren't drafted exactly as high as Tatum and Brown, but pretty damn close.

It was the 2021-2022 season Ball got injured. Only 3 seasons ago. He was supposed to be coming back each year. We were not a building team, he built a contender. Now we're rebuilding.

AK never should've rushed things in the first place. That's the problem.

They weren't a winner. That team did good for a few months and fell apart. Yes, part of that is Lonzo's injury but that's only part of it. A year later it was obvious that Lonzo wasn't coming back any time soon so pivoting made sense.

At that time Caruso had more value (because a team would get him for an extra playoff run before his contract expired). I have no idea what kind of value Zach or DDR had, but I bet it was more than it was later on (because they were both younger and both had all-star seasons...or in Zachs case one year removed from it).

AK could've pivoted, trade players for whatever future picks/assets he could get (even if it wasn't a big haul) and then do the best he can with the draft. Then when he has a few players that have showed good potential (a foundation) he can build on it. Like I said the Cavs did that with Garland and Mobley. The Rockets did that with their young players. OKC was fortunate to already have SGA, but added to him with Jalen and Chet.

How can you say he rushed things if it worked? Until Ball got hurt, it worked. That's called doing what you're supposed to do, build a team that can be a top team in the conference. They were winning, so they were winners. You're talking about pivoting a year after the Lonzo injury, again the injury was only 4 seasons ago. So pivoting after you already traded your draft picks away and added high priced vets. How?

It's obvious to fans now Lonzo wasn't coming back, it wasn't obvious to the medical professionals that the team consults with.

He got Caruso dirt cheap, played great for us while he was here, and traded an older often injured player who needs a new contract for our young triple double PG. Don't even know how this is debatable, OKC just gave Caruso 4yrs/$81 mill. He's played 50 games at 19 minutes/gm this season and he's older next year. Great move.

He has pivoted, within 3 years, just not fast enough for some people. Who have no idea what the returns for any of those "valuable" pieces like Lavine, Demar and Vucevic would bring. It's been the line consistently that all are overpaid and unmovable, lmao! He tried to move Zach and let Demar go. He started the pivot last year. Put Vuc on the block this year, was he worth a lot more two years ago if AK tried to trade him?

They won 46 games that first year and ended up losing badly in the first round to the Bucks. That's a winner? I'm sure if you look at their season they fell off after those first two months.

It didn't take long to figure out that Lonzo wasn't coming back any times soon. I said that here and many other posters did too. Also, if you're waiting for Lonzo to "save you" then something is wrong with your team.

We've deviated from my point which is building through the draft. Nobody wants to consistently lose on purpose in hopes of landing a star in the draft. What I'd like (I think I'm not alone in this) is a GM who sees that the team isn't working (the Bulls won 1 playoff game in 4 years. Our records have been 31 wins, 46, 39 and this year...37 or so wins?) and then does whatever he can to build a new foundation to work with. The best way to do that in the current NBA is the draft.

Trade players for as many picks as you can and try to get the highest picks that you can. Then draft as best you can and once you have a solid foundation then go from there (possibly adding vets). Rockets did that and so did the Cavs.

I like Giddey, Coby and Matas, but there's a good chance the Bulls continue to be a play-in team next year. Just look the new thread about the Eastern Conference next season.

[Infinity2152]

AK never should've rushed things in the first place. That's the problem.

They weren't a winner. That team did good for a few months and fell apart. Yes, part of that is Lonzo's injury but that's only part of it. A year later it was obvious that Lonzo wasn't coming back any time soon so pivoting made sense.

At that time Caruso had more value (because a team would get him for an extra playoff run before his contract expired). I have no idea what kind of value Zach or DDR had, but I bet it was more than it was later on (because they were both younger and both had all-star seasons...or in Zachs case one year removed from it).

AK could've pivoted, trade players for whatever future picks/assets he could get (even if it wasn't a big haul) and then do the best he can with the draft. Then when he has a few players that have showed good potential (a foundation) he can build on it. Like I said the Cavs did that with Garland and Mobley. The Rockets did that with their young players. OKC was fortunate to already have SGA, but added to him with Jalen and Chet.

How can you say he rushed things if it worked? Until Ball got hurt, it worked. That's called doing what you're supposed to do, build a team that can be a top team in the conference. They were winning, so they were winners. You're talking about pivoting a year after the Lonzo injury, again the injury was only 4 seasons ago. So pivoting after you already traded your draft picks away and added high priced vets. How?

It's obvious to fans now Lonzo wasn't coming back, it wasn't obvious to the medical professionals that the team consults with.

He got Caruso dirt cheap, played great for us while he was here, and traded an older often injured player who needs a new contract for our young triple double PG. Don't even know how this is debatable, OKC just gave Caruso 4yrs/$81 mill. He's played 50 games at 19 minutes/gm this season and he's older next year. Great move.

He has pivoted, within 3 years, just not fast enough for some people. Who have no idea what the returns for any of those "valuable" pieces like Lavine, Demar and Vucevic would bring. It's been the line consistently that all are overpaid and unmovable, lmao! He tried to move Zach and let Demar go. He started the pivot last year. Put Vuc on the block this year, was he worth a lot more two years ago if AK tried to trade him?

They won 46 games that first year and ended up losing badly in the first round to the Bucks. That's a winner? I'm sure if you look at their season they fell off after those first two months.

It didn't take long to figure out that Lonzo wasn't coming back any times soon. I said that here and many other posters did too. Also, if you're waiting for Lonzo to "save you" then something is wrong with your team.

We've deviated from my point which is building through the draft. Nobody wants to consistently lose on purpose in hopes of landing a star in the draft. What I'd like (I think I'm not alone in this) is a GM who sees that the team isn't working (the Bulls won 1 playoff game in 4 years. Our records have been 31 wins, 46, 39 and this year...37 or so wins?) and then does whatever he can to build a new foundation to work with. The best way to do that in the current NBA is the draft.

Trade players for as many picks as you can and try to get the highest picks that you can. Then draft as best you can and once you have a solid foundation then go from there (possibly adding vets). Rockets did that and so did the Cavs.

I like Giddey, Coby and Matas, but there's a good chance the Bulls continue to be a play-in team next year. Just look the new thread about the Eastern Conference next season.

They won 46 games because Lonzo only played 35 before he got injured. They were on pace for a much better record, and certainly no guaranteed first round out. They wouldn't haven't even seen the Bucks in the first round.

The Bulls don't get great draft capital trading Derozan and Vuc. They just got a first for Zach, don't think he was getting more than that. Don't think it would have been easier or we get more for Vucevic with more years on his contract either. We could still end up with draft capital superior to what we would have gotten. Ony one we could have gotten more for is Derozan. And I'd say trading Caruso for Giddey is very similar to trading a valuable vet for a high draft pick, he still had a year left on rookie contract.

Really don't think we have significantly more young player or draft assets if we traded Zach, Demar and Vuc 2 years ago, if that was even possible. Maybe an extra late first or a couple of seconds.

Let's use your timeline. Ball is injured 2021-2022 season. A year later, we should know he's not coming back. After the 2022-2023 season. We don't have a first round pick in 2023, makes no sense to tank 2022-2023. 2023-2024 season he's trying to trade the vets (Zach gets injured and untradeable) and pivoting into rebuild. Starts the 2024-2025 season having released Derozan, traded Caruso and placed every vet on the trading block.

Irony is if we had hit on our last high draft pick and drafted the popular pick Haliburton instead of Williams, none of this tanking talk would even be happening. If Williams plays to his draft status and Ball doesn't get hurt, Bulls win a ton of games and AK is a genius. One of the biggest reasons this team has failed is not hitting when we had a high pick in the draft.