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

[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.

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.

I don't know whether or not he used the words shortcut or if a reporter put those words in his mouth, but seeing as how we haven't been good in over 10 years, the entire idea is laughable IMO. Shortcut what lol?

A lot of posters presume, without evidence or even suggestions, that we could have traded whatever talent we had for absolute garbage contracts (which practically don't exist anymore and haven't for years) that magically had actual good draft picks attached. It's funny because a number 11 or 12 pick is apparently a disgrace when we own it (Matas, 2025 pick), but if it were a building block gained from a "proper direction" move such as trading Caruso for it (let's be honest, it would have been a lesser pick most likely), it would be celebrated.

And at the end of the day, even the very, very worst team in the league is unlikely to be in a position to draft a top 3 player. Every. Single. Year. No matter how many times they may have struck out in the past.

Tanking for superstardom is clinically insane. The league knows this. They trivially changed the rules so that teams don't do it. It's as simple as that. Doesn't mean in any way that you should always ignore your projected draft position, but too many people are operating in a fantasy land of the the retrospective options that were actually available as a way to do nothing more than pile on criticism of AK IMO.

People here would apparently be thrilled with essentially trading ALL of these guys for Ace Bailey or VJ Edgecomb:

Caruso
Coby
Zach

[nomorezorro]

can't believe there's only 3 more days until we win the lottery

[DuckIII]

can't believe there's only 3 more days until we win the lottery

Gonna be two lotteries for me. I bet my life savings on it.

[jnrjr79]

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.

I do not agree with the bolded portion. He let DeMar go because keeping him would have put the Bulls in the luxury tax, which we know is verboten (at least for a non-contending team). Had he been able to shed Zach's contract before DeMar was due for a new deal, I think it's overwhelmingly likely he would have re-signed DeMar.

[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.

I do not agree with the bolded portion. He let DeMar go because keeping him would have put the Bulls in the luxury tax, which we know is verboten (at least for a non-contending team). Had he been able to shed Zach's contract before DeMar was due for a new deal, I think it's overwhelmingly likely he would have re-signed DeMar.

I suppose this is possible, and I can't remember the numbers, but IIRC he could have Demar instead of signing Smith and Patrick and avoided the tax. It's also impossible for me to believe that any human being on the face of the Earth would think that Demar and Josh could play on the court together for a good team.

[Dan Z]

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.

Of course there are more than two ways to build a team, but you already know that.

A better way of explaining what I'm talking about is that AK's plan hasn't changed. He's still looking for established players to win asap. He's not willing to take time and develop talent over time, with Matas being the exception.

That's why I think what he did is basically a lateral move. And guess what? It resulted in yet another 39 win season.

The Shaq/Penny teams were built through the draft. They drafted Shaq and traded for Penny on draft night. They drafted Nick Anderson in 1989 (#11).

And no not every team is built through the draft. Some teams just pick where they pick. Other teams tank to improve their draft odds and/or acquire as many picks as they can to get a better chance of drafting a star player.

[DropStep]

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.

Wait, what? He must have just wanted to leave and was disappointed when he won?

[Dan Z]

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.

I don't know whether or not he used the words shortcut or if a reporter put those words in his mouth, but seeing as how we haven't been good in over 10 years, the entire idea is laughable IMO. Shortcut what lol?

A lot of posters presume, without evidence or even suggestions, that we could have traded whatever talent we had for absolute garbage contracts (which practically don't exist anymore and haven't for years) that magically had actual good draft picks attached. It's funny because a number 11 or 12 pick is apparently a disgrace when we own it (Matas, 2025 pick), but if it were a building block gained from a "proper direction" move such as trading Caruso for it (let's be honest, it would have been a lesser pick most likely), it would be celebrated.

And at the end of the day, even the very, very worst team in the league is unlikely to be in a position to draft a top 3 player. Every. Single. Year. No matter how many times they may have struck out in the past.

Tanking for superstardom is clinically insane. The league knows this. They trivially changed the rules so that teams don't do it. It's as simple as that. Doesn't mean in any way that you should always ignore your projected draft position, but too many people are operating in a fantasy land of the the retrospective options that were actually available as a way to do nothing more than pile on criticism of AK IMO.

People here would apparently be thrilled with essentially trading ALL of these guys for Ace Bailey or VJ Edgecomb:

Caruso
Coby
Zach

It's not crazy to tank in a year where there's a top talent in the draft like say Wemby or even this year with Flagg.

Wemby showed that he can be a franchise changing talent and that's worth the gamble.

As Bulliever2020 points out...AK has said that he's not willing to take the long term view on building this team. He doesn't think very far into the future when planning. That's a big part of the problem.

When you rush something it rarely works out. That can be almost anything...building a basketball team...cooking a meal...building a house...etc.

[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.

Wait, what? He must have just wanted to leave and was disappointed when he won?

No, he just was insanely confident the Bulls would win.

[_txchilibowl_]

https://www.tankathon.com/past_drafts

Take a look at this list. Specifically the top three picks. Go back as far as you want. Basically, you have a one in three chance INSIDE THE TOP 3 of landing a franchise player. Those are... not great odds. Certainly not odds that make me want to be a terrible franchise on purpose. The odds of tanking your way to being a contender are even smaller.

By and large, being terrible on purpose likely just leads to you being terrible for longer.

[Michael Jackson]

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.

I think as soon as Jerry passes Mikey will sell to a high bidder. It can be a better cash cow and The United Arab Emirates will throw that money at them. The NBA has opened that door.

[Michael Jackson]

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 it is pure speculation and they are completely different ownership groups. I just speculate that Justin has a long term desire for it. He got the Sox though because the Twins fell through. Reinsdorf I believe has majority shares still in the Bulls (Steinbrenner and the Hunt family are out) He would have to divest in the Suns, but I can imagine where the Ishbia empire would love owning two NBA teams. Yes the NBA is an old boys club and only allow certain things but they now allow Private Equity and UAE money both which is more egregious to me than Two from the same family owning diferent teams.

[Dan Z]

https://www.tankathon.com/past_drafts

Take a look at this list. Specifically the top three picks. Go back as far as you want. Basically, you have a one in three chance INSIDE THE TOP 3 of landing a franchise player. Those are... not great odds. Certainly not odds that make me want to be a terrible franchise on purpose. The odds of tanking your way to being a contender are even smaller.

By and large, being terrible on purpose likely just leads to you being terrible for longer.

Would it be better to try and win every game only to end up with a 39 win season and losing the play-in game? How many years in a row should the Bulls do that?

[_txchilibowl_]

https://www.tankathon.com/past_drafts

Take a look at this list. Specifically the top three picks. Go back as far as you want. Basically, you have a one in three chance INSIDE THE TOP 3 of landing a franchise player. Those are... not great odds. Certainly not odds that make me want to be a terrible franchise on purpose. The odds of tanking your way to being a contender are even smaller.

By and large, being terrible on purpose likely just leads to you being terrible for longer.

Would it be better to try and win every game only to end up with a 39 win season and losing the play-in game? How many years in a row should the Bulls do that?

I believe it would be. I'd much rather be in the Bulls position than the Wizards or Hornets, for example. You could easily tank for 5 years and have worse talent than what we have right now.

Losing begets losing. It permeates a franchise from the management down to the players. There are outliers, of course, but that's uncommon. Hence why they are the outliers.

[_txchilibowl_]

The key is more bites at the apple. Asset collection and financial flexibility are a much better plan than outright tanking.

[Dan Z]

https://www.tankathon.com/past_drafts

Take a look at this list. Specifically the top three picks. Go back as far as you want. Basically, you have a one in three chance INSIDE THE TOP 3 of landing a franchise player. Those are... not great odds. Certainly not odds that make me want to be a terrible franchise on purpose. The odds of tanking your way to being a contender are even smaller.

By and large, being terrible on purpose likely just leads to you being terrible for longer.

Would it be better to try and win every game only to end up with a 39 win season and losing the play-in game? How many years in a row should the Bulls do that?

I believe it would be. I'd much rather be in the Bulls position than the Wizards or Hornets, for example. You could easily tank for 5 years and have worse talent than what we have right now.

Losing begets losing. It permeates a franchise from the management down to the players. There are outliers, of course, but that's uncommon. Hence why they are the outliers.

Fair enough.

I think the Wizards are in year two of their rebuild and it'll take time. The Hornets are a mess and I'm not sure what they're doing (trying to win? I don't think they were tanking).

[Dan Z]

The key is more bites at the apple. Asset collection and financial flexibility are a much better plan than outright tanking.

Why can't you do both? At least early on in a rebuild.

It's also possible that if you traded away players (for future assets) then the team might be bad and you won't have to tank to get a top pick.

[DuckIII]

https://www.tankathon.com/past_drafts

Take a look at this list. Specifically the top three picks. Go back as far as you want. Basically, you have a one in three chance INSIDE THE TOP 3 of landing a franchise player. Those are... not great odds. Certainly not odds that make me want to be a terrible franchise on purpose. The odds of tanking your way to being a contender are even smaller.

By and large, being terrible on purpose likely just leads to you being terrible for longer.

Would it be better to try and win every game only to end up with a 39 win season and losing the play-in game? How many years in a row should the Bulls do that?

39 wins > 21 wins = WINNING!

[_txchilibowl_]

The key is more bites at the apple. Asset collection and financial flexibility are a much better plan than outright tanking.

Why can't you do both? At least early on in a rebuild.

It's also possible that if you traded away players (for future assets) then the team might be bad and you won't have to tank to get a top pick.

You can and should do both. Not only when you're bad but also when you're good. It should be an overall organizational philosophy to be churning assets. AK has been pretty bad in that regard. But that's different from outright tanking your season for the next 3-5 years which is what real tanking would need to look like.

I realize I may be in the minority with this opinion but I've just seen too much terrible Bulls basketball to be purposefully looking for more.

[DuckIII]

The key is more bites at the apple. Asset collection and financial flexibility are a much better plan than outright tanking.

Why can't you do both? At least early on in a rebuild.

It's also possible that if you traded away players (for future assets) then the team might be bad and you won't have to tank to get a top pick.

Yeah, a classic rebuild involves getting worse while collecting assets and financial flexibility in order to get more bites at the apple. That’s the whole dang point.