NBA DRAFT LOTTERY GT, 12 MAY 2025, 6 PM CT, CHICAGO, ESPN

[sco]

My current prediction is that we get #4, but VJ goes #3.

[jc23]

SO are we keeping the #1 pick or trading it for Giannis?

[League Circles]

Jerry kept every GM too long. Krause, Paxson, Gar and now AK. At least Paxson realized that he wasn't focused enough to continue doing the job and moved into a new position.

The one GM he didn't keep for very long was Rod Thorn and Thorn went on to prove that he was a good GM (with the Nets).

Jerry wouldn’t even let Paxson quit. TBH we would have been better of keeping Gar Pax, really Paxson but if Gar was here you know we have Halliburton instead of P Will and we likely have Franz and no Vuc. Not saying we ever woukd be close to contention but more flexibility. Paxson also was more than willing to swing for the fences at time (big 3 and Carmelo) even if it was futile. AK swings for Vuc. Hmmmm.

That's another reason why hiring AK (and sticking with him) is crazy. It's clear that almost all of his moves haven't worked and he hasn't done much to pivot in a new direction. You could argue that Giddey ,and trading Zach, is a new direction, but I think it's more like a lateral move so to speak. He's basically the opposite of Paxson.

AK has rebuilt the team twice now since he got here. He's had very mediocre results, but he significantly changed directions twice in his first 4 seasons. Now that the 5th season is over, he might even change a 3rd time.

These are just facts. There is a lot to criticize about him IMO, but this isn't one of them.

[jnrjr79]

https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/nba-draft-lottery-2025-which-teams-could-benefit-most-by-landing-cooper-flagg-with-the-no-1-pick/

6. Chicago Bulls
Percent chance of winning No. 1 overall pick: 1.7%

The last time the Bulls won a playoff series, you have to go back to 2015. Since then, Chicago has won five total games in the NBA Playoffs. The Bulls are frequent flyers in the Play-in Tournament. Landing Flagg would potentially change that and give the city hope.

The Bulls haven't committed to a full rebuild under their current ownership group.Chicago has won over 39 games in each of the last four seasons. Getting Flagg would be a step in the right direction if the goal is to avoid the Play-in.

Discuss

This sums up the disfunction of this organization from the Ownership down. Their priorities are trying to maximize short term profits without any clear organizational vision. An iconic brand like the Bulls should be up there with the Lakers and Celtics but that will never happen until the Bulls have new ownership. Instead they will continue to operate with a small market mentality in the 3rd largest U.S. Market. They are a disgrace.

Ishbia is likely going to own the Bulls one day but I am not exactly fond of what his brother has done with his NBA team honestly. Sadly I think that is the outcome... if he does transition into the role he will spend stupid money and completely handcuff the Bulls like the Suns. You need a smart team owner I doubt we will ever get that in Chicago.

Ishbia is expected to become the majority owner of the Sox post-Jerry, but I've not seen anyone project him to become the owner of the Bulls. Jerry's supposed preference is for his kids to sell the Sox and keep the Bulls. Of course, they might not accede to that when he's not around, but I haven't seen any indications to the contrary.

[Dan Z]

Jerry wouldn’t even let Paxson quit. TBH we would have been better of keeping Gar Pax, really Paxson but if Gar was here you know we have Halliburton instead of P Will and we likely have Franz and no Vuc. Not saying we ever woukd be close to contention but more flexibility. Paxson also was more than willing to swing for the fences at time (big 3 and Carmelo) even if it was futile. AK swings for Vuc. Hmmmm.

That's another reason why hiring AK (and sticking with him) is crazy. It's clear that almost all of his moves haven't worked and he hasn't done much to pivot in a new direction. You could argue that Giddey ,and trading Zach, is a new direction, but I think it's more like a lateral move so to speak. He's basically the opposite of Paxson.

AK has rebuilt the team twice now since he got here. He's had very mediocre results, but he significantly changed directions twice in his first 4 seasons. Now that the 5th season is over, he might even change a 3rd time.

These are just facts. There is a lot to criticize about him IMO, but this isn't one of them.

AK didn't pivot twice. The first time he moved in the direction he wanted to move in. I don't think it counts to get hired and do that.

It hasn"t worked and like I said you could argue that Giddey plus trading Zach is moving in a new direction, but I think its more of a lateral move.

[kodo]

Ishbia is likely going to own the Bulls one day but I am not exactly fond of what his brother has done with his NBA team honestly. Sadly I think that is the outcome... if he does transition into the role he will spend stupid money and completely handcuff the Bulls like the Suns. You need a smart team owner I doubt we will ever get that in Chicago.

Ishbia is expected to become the majority owner of the Sox post-Jerry, but I've not seen anyone project him to become the owner of the Bulls. Jerry's supposed preference is for his kids to sell the Sox and keep the Bulls. Of course, they might not accede to that when he's not around, but I haven't seen any indications to the contrary.

Agreed, and to be clear the current owner doesn't pick the new owner the NBA does. Ownership is being part of a super elite club for billionaires but the league is full control. Multiple owners and cities found that out.

Regardless, Justin is co-owner of the Suns and this is illegal to be in the ownership of two teams. Now technically he could relinquish all his ownership but I think the league will see through that and obviously see there is a connection between the two brothers owning two teams.

And owners with split attention between two major teams like Uncle Jerry & Gayle Benson of the Pelicans/Saint and Jody Allen of the Blazers/Seahawks have all been terrible owners for their NBA teams while they focused on their NFL/MLB teams. Reinsdorf literally said in a Sun Times interview he stopped caring about the Bulls and stopped doing anything and just let it make money. We all know that, but that's damning optics for an NBA owner of the 3rd largest market, I'd be surprised if Silver goes down that road again with another owner who is mainly focused on their other major sport team.

And back to what you were originally saying, I don't think even think Michael is going to sell anyway. Selling the Sox just made it more clear the family is going to keep the Bulls IMO.

[League Circles]

That's another reason why hiring AK (and sticking with him) is crazy. It's clear that almost all of his moves haven't worked and he hasn't done much to pivot in a new direction. You could argue that Giddey ,and trading Zach, is a new direction, but I think it's more like a lateral move so to speak. He's basically the opposite of Paxson.

AK has rebuilt the team twice now since he got here. He's had very mediocre results, but he significantly changed directions twice in his first 4 seasons. Now that the 5th season is over, he might even change a 3rd time.

These are just facts. There is a lot to criticize about him IMO, but this isn't one of them.

AK didn't pivot twice. The first time he moved in the direction he wanted to move in. I don't think it counts to get hired and do that.

It hasn"t worked and like I said you could argue that Giddey plus trading Zach is moving in a new direction, but I think its more of a lateral move.

I guess I don't know what "lateral move" is supposed to mean. He changed the core makeup of the team very significantly, along with the style of play, and got rid of probably our 3 best players for much younger players/picks in return. If you don't like the outcome or strategy, that's absolutely fair, but it's undeniable that it's a new direction. As it was when he changed the team entirely towards and at the end of his first season.

He just hasn't done a good job, IMO mostly due to poor talent evaluation and roster coherence. Not because he hasn't made changes. He's rebuilt the essence of the roster twice now in 5 offseasons.

[KirkHinrich12]

Getting the number 2 is highly underrated. Harper and Matas an amazing combo. Although I’d sure take Flagg #1. It’s just Flagg and Matas are virtually identical as new era 4s. Definitely not 3s. And definitely not 5s.

[prolific passer]

He is and I am guilty I was fed up with GarPax but just a lesson to be learned it can always get worse. Don’t worry though AK is trading for Kuminga to get younger and giving him a 5/150 mil contract so him and Pat can tie up a max salary space and sit on the bench together.

Yikes! That would be terrible. I could almost stomach it if it's a straight up sign and trade of PW for Kuminga, but that's it.

You mentioned previously that a new owner might be willing to spend money. One good thing about that is the team won't stick with coaches like Jim Boylan for too long. Boylan did a bad job of developing the talent that the team had. If the Bulls had a better coach during that period maybe Markkanen shows more potential? Or Zach does better? Or Gafford?

That’s the hope at least. That’s where Jerry’s cheap really bites them. With the CBA as it is going into the tax and or apron for anything that isn’t a cornerstone solves nothing. Spending on everything else is crucial. Cheapness there is what kills this team, last to have an analytics department for instance. It’s not paying tax will make the situation better, might actually make it worse under this CBA but hire elite FO and staff, spend there. Nope too cheap. That’s where any other owner can improve the culture. Jerry won’t. He will let Phil and Jerry fight, or Kenny and Ozzy. He suck’s at the actual controllable things. I get the not spending or paying tax unless it is a top notch team, because of the CBA, but in excusable not to spend on everything else.

Jerry pretty much admitted in the last dance that he's a hands off owner....unless it has to do with finances and money. Then he's all in.

[Dan Z]

AK has rebuilt the team twice now since he got here. He's had very mediocre results, but he significantly changed directions twice in his first 4 seasons. Now that the 5th season is over, he might even change a 3rd time.

These are just facts. There is a lot to criticize about him IMO, but this isn't one of them.

AK didn't pivot twice. The first time he moved in the direction he wanted to move in. I don't think it counts to get hired and do that.

It hasn"t worked and like I said you could argue that Giddey plus trading Zach is moving in a new direction, but I think its more of a lateral move.

I guess I don't know what "lateral move" is supposed to mean. He changed the core makeup of the team very significantly, along with the style of play, and got rid of probably our 3 best players for much younger players/picks in return. If you don't like the outcome or strategy, that's absolutely fair, but it's undeniable that it's a new direction. As it was when he changed the team entirely towards and at the end of his first season.

He just hasn't done a good job, IMO mostly due to poor talent evaluation and roster coherence. Not because he hasn't made changes. He's rebuilt the essence of the roster twice now in 5 offseasons.

Like I said...its arguable. I don't look at the Giddey trade as a new direction because AK is basically trying to win without building anything through the draft. It's trades for "win now" players, which is what he has always done.

But I can understand the arguement that things changed. New players....younger...etc. I just don't see it as a good plan.

[dougthonus]

I'm reminded of the epic story of newskoolbulls.

In 2008, he made a bet with a New York Knicks poster that the Bulls would land the #1 pick in the draft. Loser had to leave the forum forever.

[HearshotKDS]

A little bit of luck here would be huge for the "not a full rebuild" rebuild the team appears to be undergoing.

[Am2626]

Hopefully he learned from his brother’s mistakes.

The tactic Mat used will work in the MLB, so yeah if he does look to acquire the bulls after Jerry steps down (seems like a plan, Mat divests in the Bulls and Justin in the Suns) you just hope the “quick buy a team” thing isn’t the plan. Spending Mo ey to build an organization hopefully is the plan, FO, etc… buy the best minds then go from there.

Jerry has been a terrible owner for years and I'll be happy when he no longer owns the team. If the new owners spend and rush into things...so be it. I'll give them a chance to see what happens. If they're willing to spend it'll be nice not to worry about the luxury tax and being just "good enough" to make a profit (which the Bulls do even when they lose).

I would rather see an owner willing to spend money than not spend money. Anyone at this point would be better then the Reinsdorf’s.

[Am2626]

This sums up the disfunction of this organization from the Ownership down. Their priorities are trying to maximize short term profits without any clear organizational vision. An iconic brand like the Bulls should be up there with the Lakers and Celtics but that will never happen until the Bulls have new ownership. Instead they will continue to operate with a small market mentality in the 3rd largest U.S. Market. They are a disgrace.

Ishbia is likely going to own the Bulls one day but I am not exactly fond of what his brother has done with his NBA team honestly. Sadly I think that is the outcome... if he does transition into the role he will spend stupid money and completely handcuff the Bulls like the Suns. You need a smart team owner I doubt we will ever get that in Chicago.

Ishbia is expected to become the majority owner of the Sox post-Jerry, but I've not seen anyone project him to become the owner of the Bulls. Jerry's supposed preference is for his kids to sell the Sox and keep the Bulls. Of course, they might not accede to that when he's not around, but I haven't seen any indications to the contrary.

Yeah I don’t see the Reinsdorf’s selling their cash cow. There are too many fans that are ok with supporting a bad product run by a bad organization. It needs to get back to the days before Jordan to get the Reinsdorf’s out of town. Either that or someone has to massively overpay for the Bulls.

[League Circles]

AK didn't pivot twice. The first time he moved in the direction he wanted to move in. I don't think it counts to get hired and do that.

It hasn"t worked and like I said you could argue that Giddey plus trading Zach is moving in a new direction, but I think its more of a lateral move.

I guess I don't know what "lateral move" is supposed to mean. He changed the core makeup of the team very significantly, along with the style of play, and got rid of probably our 3 best players for much younger players/picks in return. If you don't like the outcome or strategy, that's absolutely fair, but it's undeniable that it's a new direction. As it was when he changed the team entirely towards and at the end of his first season.

He just hasn't done a good job, IMO mostly due to poor talent evaluation and roster coherence. Not because he hasn't made changes. He's rebuilt the essence of the roster twice now in 5 offseasons.

Like I said...its arguable. I don't look at the Giddey trade as a new direction because AK is basically trying to win without building anything through the draft. It's trades for "win now" players, which is what he has always done.

But I can understand the arguement that things changed. New players....younger...etc. I just don't see it as a good plan.

This is only makes sense if the only two conceivable directions are "trying to win" and "trying to lose".

All players are essentially "win now". But to the extent they aren't, Jalen Smith and Josh Giddey aren't (because they're pretty young and inexperienced).

How is he not trying to build anything through the draft when Matas is our top prospect (and a pretty damn great one at that), and we traded our best player for a lottery pick in this year's draft?

Again, totally fair if you don't see it as a good plan. But it's absolutely, positively a very significant change in direction, and absolutely involves building through the draft also. Just not to the extent or for the duration that you may wish.

If AK had swapped out guys like Demar, Caruso and Zach for even older players, that would still obviously be a huge change in direction. Your direction is defined by your core players. Otherwise everything can just be boiled down to "tank" or "not tank".

[Dan Z]

I guess I don't know what "lateral move" is supposed to mean. He changed the core makeup of the team very significantly, along with the style of play, and got rid of probably our 3 best players for much younger players/picks in return. If you don't like the outcome or strategy, that's absolutely fair, but it's undeniable that it's a new direction. As it was when he changed the team entirely towards and at the end of his first season.

He just hasn't done a good job, IMO mostly due to poor talent evaluation and roster coherence. Not because he hasn't made changes. He's rebuilt the essence of the roster twice now in 5 offseasons.

Like I said...its arguable. I don't look at the Giddey trade as a new direction because AK is basically trying to win without building anything through the draft. It's trades for "win now" players, which is what he has always done.

But I can understand the arguement that things changed. New players....younger...etc. I just don't see it as a good plan.

This is only makes sense if the only two conceivable directions are "trying to win" and "trying to lose".

All players are essentially "win now". But to the extent they aren't, Jalen Smith and Josh Giddey aren't (because they're pretty young and inexperienced).

How is he not trying to build anything through the draft when Matas is our top prospect (and a pretty damn great one at that), and we traded our best player for a lottery pick in this year's draft?

Again, totally fair if you don't see it as a good plan. But it's absolutely, positively a very significant change in direction, and absolutely involves building through the draft also. Just not to the extent or for the duration that you may wish.

If AK had swapped out guys like Demar, Caruso and Zach for even older players, that would still obviously be a huge change in direction. Your direction is defined by your core players. Otherwise everything can just be boiled down to "tank" or "not tank".

Its shifting things around. To use Dougs analogy AK didnt buy a plot of land to build a house. He just bought a new house

You can think its a pivot in a new direction amd I don't think it really is. Its more of the same. We can agree to disagree about that.

Every team gets a first round pick. Drafting Matas isnt building through the draft. Getting the
2025 pick back and then not maximizing it isn't building through the draft.

[sco]

Like I said...its arguable. I don't look at the Giddey trade as a new direction because AK is basically trying to win without building anything through the draft. It's trades for "win now" players, which is what he has always done.

But I can understand the arguement that things changed. New players....younger...etc. I just don't see it as a good plan.

This is only makes sense if the only two conceivable directions are "trying to win" and "trying to lose".

All players are essentially "win now". But to the extent they aren't, Jalen Smith and Josh Giddey aren't (because they're pretty young and inexperienced).

How is he not trying to build anything through the draft when Matas is our top prospect (and a pretty damn great one at that), and we traded our best player for a lottery pick in this year's draft?

Again, totally fair if you don't see it as a good plan. But it's absolutely, positively a very significant change in direction, and absolutely involves building through the draft also. Just not to the extent or for the duration that you may wish.

If AK had swapped out guys like Demar, Caruso and Zach for even older players, that would still obviously be a huge change in direction. Your direction is defined by your core players. Otherwise everything can just be boiled down to "tank" or "not tank".

Its shifting things around. To use Dougs analogy AK didnt buy a plot of land to build a house. He just bought a new house

You can think its a pivot in a new direction amd I don't think it really is. Its more of the same. We can agree to disagree about that.

Every team gets a first round pick. Drafting Matas isnt building through the draft. Getting the
2025 pick back and then not maximizing it isn't building through the draft.

I think AK shift to preferring young vets to picks is his way to try to shortcut the tank timeline. Odds are you don't get a true #1 out of his approach, but IMO he's hoping to luck into one via trade somewhere along the way.

Tanking increases your odds of nabbing a true #1, but it still has a VERY high failure rate AND usually takes more that 4 seasons of sucking to find your way out as the young guys take that long to convert potential to actual play. Most GM's don't survive that.

[League Circles]

Like I said...its arguable. I don't look at the Giddey trade as a new direction because AK is basically trying to win without building anything through the draft. It's trades for "win now" players, which is what he has always done.

But I can understand the arguement that things changed. New players....younger...etc. I just don't see it as a good plan.

This is only makes sense if the only two conceivable directions are "trying to win" and "trying to lose".

All players are essentially "win now". But to the extent they aren't, Jalen Smith and Josh Giddey aren't (because they're pretty young and inexperienced).

How is he not trying to build anything through the draft when Matas is our top prospect (and a pretty damn great one at that), and we traded our best player for a lottery pick in this year's draft?

Again, totally fair if you don't see it as a good plan. But it's absolutely, positively a very significant change in direction, and absolutely involves building through the draft also. Just not to the extent or for the duration that you may wish.

If AK had swapped out guys like Demar, Caruso and Zach for even older players, that would still obviously be a huge change in direction. Your direction is defined by your core players. Otherwise everything can just be boiled down to "tank" or "not tank".

Its shifting things around. To use Dougs analogy AK didnt buy a plot of land to build a house. He just bought a new house

You can think its a pivot in a new direction amd I don't think it really is. Its more of the same. We can agree to disagree about that.

Every team gets a first round pick. Drafting Matas isnt building through the draft. Getting the
2025 pick back and then not maximizing it isn't building through the draft.

For sure, no shame in being wrong .

Again, what you're saying makes sense in only the most binary of ways - a team is either "trying to win now" or it's "tanking for and/or trading for extra draft picks".

Moving to a new house is certainly a new direction. You could move to a new house across the country where a bunch of things are different, where the people are younger and life fast lives, or you could buy the plot of land next to yours and build a house similar to yours by drafting the next Zach, Demar, Vuc and Caruso. It's obvious which one is a bigger change.

You guys just don't like what he's done, which is absolutely fine and very fair.

Were the Shaq/Penny Magic team that made the finals not "built through the draft" because they weren't acquired with extra picks that had been traded for?

As you said, every team gets a pick every year, so frankly, every team is built through the draft, or virtually none of them are. You guys are placing thresholds in locations that serve no purpose other than to re-emphasize your criticism. Which is fine, but that's what it is.

[League Circles]

I think AK shift to preferring young vets to picks is his way to try to shortcut the tank timeline. Odds are you don't get a true #1 out of his approach, but IMO he's hoping to luck into one via trade somewhere along the way.

Tanking increases your odds of nabbing a true #1, but it still has a VERY high failure rate AND usually takes more that 4 seasons of sucking to find your way out as the young guys take that long to convert potential to actual play. Most GM's don't survive that.

I think it's much simpler than this:

He let Demar go cause re-signing an old, OK #1 option to a non playoff team is crazy enough that even he could see that.

He traded Zach cause it wasn't working well over many years, and Zach's salary and play style made it such that it was unlikely keeping him would work well, but rather delay the inevitable. He traded him for a package he thought was best for our future, which coincidentally included our pick coming back to us. Nobody has reported some deal that sounds better that was on the table.

He traded Caruso for what seemed like in real time OBVIOUSLY the best move for our future (a very young, recent #6 overall pick that was actually panning out!), instead of "multiple firsts" (lol, most likely two garbage mid to late firsts that wouldn't hold a candle to Giddey).

He signed the young, somewhat raw Jalen Smith instead of a "win now vet" cause it was better for our future.

I don't think it's about shortcutting. It's just about trying to make the best moves for our future. Who knows if he has, but the Giddey and Demar moves are looking good so far for sure.

[Bulliever2020]

I think AK shift to preferring young vets to picks is his way to try to shortcut the tank timeline. Odds are you don't get a true #1 out of his approach, but IMO he's hoping to luck into one via trade somewhere along the way.

Tanking increases your odds of nabbing a true #1, but it still has a VERY high failure rate AND usually takes more that 4 seasons of sucking to find your way out as the young guys take that long to convert potential to actual play. Most GM's don't survive that.

I think it's much simpler than this:

He let Demar go cause re-signing an old, OK #1 option to a non playoff team is crazy enough that even he could see that.

He traded Zach cause it wasn't working well over many years, and Zach's salary and play style made it such that it was unlikely keeping him would work well, but rather delay the inevitable. He traded him for a package he thought was best for our future, which coincidentally included our pick coming back to us. Nobody has reported some deal that sounds better that was on the table.

He traded Caruso for what seemed like in real time OBVIOUSLY the best move for our future (a very young, recent #6 overall pick that was actually panning out!), instead of "multiple firsts" (lol, most likely two garbage mid to late firsts that wouldn't hold a candle to Giddey).

He signed the young, somewhat raw Jalen Smith instead of a "win now vet" cause it was better for our future.

I don't think it's about shortcutting. It's just about trying to make the best moves for our future. Who knows if he has, but the Giddey and Demar moves are looking good so far for sure.

He has literally said this exact thing in recent press conferences. It is most definitely about him not wanting to take the long term approach to things and rather make moves to shorten the timeline to getting better. Which in a nutshell is everything wrong about the Bulls now and forever.