Bulls extended AK/ME?

[dice]

most Mocks had us taking Hali and Patrick was around #14-15.

hali was composite #8 (4-8 range) and pat was #11 (9-14)

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/2200224/2020/11/17/nba-draft-big-board/

[dice]

Pax's best quality was he was safe and willing to play the .500 game to keep Jerry happy.

oft-repeated falsehood. jerry was content to have krause bottom out the roster for years. and later both fire thibs and trade jimmy, whose presences alone would have almost guaranteed mediocrity

Thank god we got extremely lucky and we had a few seasons of Derrick Rose. Because that was really the only bright spot in a 17 year career for him outside of one overachieving team (2006).

derrick rose COST the bulls victories in the long run. a couple seasons of regular season excellence did not make up for 5 years of poor play on a max contract

[dice]

AK had one very good off season where he signed Ball, Demar, AC, also trading for Vuc was a good move at the time before the deadline even though it didn’t work out at the end.

Other than that though AK hasn’t had much success and a bit surprised that he got an extension after missing the playoffs so much when that has been his primary goal. Reinsdorfs must be very patient to continue working with someone who has failed.

I’m not going to say it’s a bad move to keep him longer, many fans here have been hard on AK. A lot of times you do need luck too. He was stuck with Lonzos injury, then Zach’s contract.Let’s see what he does in the next couple of years. Now is his chance to redeem himself.

In what world was trading for Vuc a "good move"? They traded for him when his value was at an all time high, while having an outlier 3-pt shooting season. It was a disasterous trade. I'm wondering how one could justify that being a "good move".

i said at the time it was the kind of trade a contending team missing a piece makes. same w/ derozan. the bulls were certainly not contenders

[Axl Rose]

What makes you say they could've traded up for Wade? Miami wanted to trade the pick?

In John Paxson’s first draft as general manager, months after succeeding Jerry Krause, he had trade talks with the Raptors to move from the Bulls’ seventh pick to Toronto’s fourth.

Paxson’s target? Wade, who went fifth to the Heat out of Marquette.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2016/07/07/bulls-pursuit-of-dwyane-wade-began-with-2003-nba-draft/

From that article.

It says it's a myth. We have no idea what was really discussed.

The story that Paxson wouldn’t part with Donyell Marshall and thus killed the trade is as much a myth as the fact Wade played the Bulls in 2010 free agency.

The idea that Pax refused to trade a 30 year old journeyman to move up to the 4th pick has always defied believability. Paxson did not waste any time clearing the roster of everyone here before him. Only Tyson Chandler survived until 2006 (3 years).

Seems more likely there were rumors about trading up and perhaps Marshall was mentioned as someone Raps had interest in (he was traded there a few months later) and that morphed into Paxson refusing to trade him.

[DropStep]

Also, Pax was all about patience in rebuilding. Remember the "we are still in the asset accumulation phase of our rebuild" quote? People were clamoring for things to speed up, and he resisted and tried to do things methodically. Drafting who he drafted was not because he expected them to win right away, it was because he liked a certain kind of player. One of many examples: https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/john-paxson-bulls-patient-rebuild-plan-several-years/

[Dominator83]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2016/07/07/bulls-pursuit-of-dwyane-wade-began-with-2003-nba-draft/

From that article.

It says it's a myth. We have no idea what was really discussed.

The story that Paxson wouldn’t part with Donyell Marshall and thus killed the trade is as much a myth as the fact Wade played the Bulls in 2010 free agency.

The idea that Pax refused to trade a 30 year old journeyman to move up to the 4th pick has always defied believability. Paxson did not waste any time clearing the roster of everyone here before him. Only Tyson Chandler survived until 2006 (3 years).

Seems more likely there were rumors about trading up and perhaps Marshall was mentioned as someone Raps had interest in (he was traded there a few months later) and that morphed into Paxson refusing to trade him.

Exactly. Realistically, his only potential avenue to trade up was Jay Williams (he was involved in alot of trade rumors leading in).once he crashed his bike that was the end of that.

[Dan Z]

From that article.

It says it's a myth. We have no idea what was really discussed.

The idea that Pax refused to trade a 30 year old journeyman to move up to the 4th pick has always defied believability. Paxson did not waste any time clearing the roster of everyone here before him. Only Tyson Chandler survived until 2006 (3 years).

Seems more likely there were rumors about trading up and perhaps Marshall was mentioned as someone Raps had interest in (he was traded there a few months later) and that morphed into Paxson refusing to trade him.

Exactly. Realistically, his only potential avenue to trade up was Jay Williams (he was involved in alot of trade rumors leading in).once he crashed his bike that was the end of that.

You got me to look up Jay Williams college stats. I didn't realize how well he shot from three. .393 on 7.4 attempts per game.

I know he had a bad rookie year, but I remember thinking that it was a situation where he had a difficult transition and that he'd do better in year 2. Unfortunately that never happened.

[dougthonus]

Perhaps you're forgetting that Tyson Chandler went on to become an All-Star, a defensive player of the year and the second best player on an NBA championship team. Jalen Rose was also the 2nd best player on a great team 2-3 years before we got him and wasn't unsalvageable IMO though I admit it worked out poorly and he was overpaid.

Sorry, let me rephrase, in the time period of comparison (first five years after they inherited the team). AK inherited two players who would go to multiple all-star games in the next five years. Chandler was a starting caliber role player for the next 7-8 years and eventually made a single all-star game on his 3rd team and DPOY on his 4th team. Also worth noting Tyson made it in the "had to take a center when there were no good centers" era while the Zach/Lauri were competing against the overly crowded field of guards and forwards.

Jalen Rose was not salvaged. I don't know if there was some magical world where things could have been different, but we are using hindsight, and Jalen Rose went on to be completely dead salary and was then out of the league. We can look back on this and know this was true. It was actually much to Paxson's credit that he moved Rose in the tiny window where one team still hadn't figured it out.

I'm also probably not nearly as high on Lauri as you, or Zach maybe. I'd easily take Tyson over everyone both execs inherited. Good point on Thad Young though.

Not in love with Lauri/Zach either TBH, but Tyson was a starting caliber role player. He was really good at that role and had an obvious role, but he wasn't anything special. If my team were really bad, I'd much rather have started with Zach/Lauri, even if it was just as trade assets if I was looking at what both players did over the next five years.

But looking at "next 5 year value" and giving Chandler all-star value even though he wasn't one in that period:
2 all stars, 1 starter, 1 role player, 1 valuable vet role player, 1 year of dead salary at sub MLE, better draft pick
1 all star, 1 role player, 1 valuable vet role player, 3 years of dead salary at MAX, worse draft pick

This still isn't a competition and this is just the 100 mile away view. If you start looking into the actual nuance, the gap gets bigger like Satoransky / Temple were traded in a year as positive value contracts. Haliburton whom was on the board and liked by many in our draft slot goes on to lead a team to the finals within 5 years whereas there was no one left in the draft that would go on to be a meaningfully better career than Hinrich (David West, Boris Diaw, and Kyle Korver were the only three guys you could even argue, but none were within 10 picks of Hinrich's selection and none were really in different tiers of players).

[dougthonus]

Another big difference being, Pax, hell even Gar/Pax, was able to get us these same mediocre AKME squads WITHOUT gutting our future draft capital to do so. AKME burned THREE future 1st round picks just to get this annual play-in status.

Imagine how ugly it would be if the play-in didn't exist for AK.

[dougthonus]

Is there a GM that people feel built a winner without any luck?

Whether it be Pax or AKME, I so often see posters attribute the good things they did to luck.

Are other successful GMs not also beneficiaries of luck?

I think you generally need luck to win a title, but with neutral luck that you can create yourself by being methodical in your approach, I think you can build a 2nd round playoff team pretty easily.

As an example, take Sam Presti, now I think he got lucky that SGA turned into an MVP, but if you remove SGA from the mix, everything else he has done trivially puts him in position to have built a 2nd round playoff team. He could easily trade a bunch of his assets for a different star, say swap out SGA for Kevin Durant, whom he could have trivially acquired from the Nets two years ago with his draft picks. Would that team win the title if you swap those guys out? Maybe they still would, they'd sure as hell get to the 2nd round. Say you swap out SGA, and say he trades for Giannis this year with an overwhelming offer, would the Thunder be favored to make the finals with Giannis instead of SGA? Probably.

I think you probably need the absence of really bad luck to achieve consistent first round playoff performance / occasional second round performance. Really bad luck like Portland having every star player they ever draft get hurt can always doom you of course, but being patient and smart and having only mildly bad luck still leaves upper 40s / low 50s as a reasonable bar to achieve by just being very good.

[League Circles]

Perhaps you're forgetting that Tyson Chandler went on to become an All-Star, a defensive player of the year and the second best player on an NBA championship team. Jalen Rose was also the 2nd best player on a great team 2-3 years before we got him and wasn't unsalvageable IMO though I admit it worked out poorly and he was overpaid.

Sorry, let me rephrase, in the time period of comparison (first five years after they inherited the team). AK inherited two players who would go to multiple all-star games in the next five years. Chandler was a starting caliber role player for the next 7-8 years and eventually made a single all-star game on his 3rd team and DPOY on his 4th team. Also worth noting Tyson made it in the "had to take a center when there were no good centers" era while the Zach/Lauri were competing against the overly crowded field of guards and forwards.

Jalen Rose was not salvaged. I don't know if there was some magical world where things could have been different, but we are using hindsight, and Jalen Rose went on to be completely dead salary and was then out of the league. We can look back on this and know this was true. It was actually much to Paxson's credit that he moved Rose in the tiny window where one team still hadn't figured it out.

I'm also probably not nearly as high on Lauri as you, or Zach maybe. I'd easily take Tyson over everyone both execs inherited. Good point on Thad Young though.

Not in love with Lauri/Zach either TBH, but Tyson was a starting caliber role player. He was really good at that role and had an obvious role, but he wasn't anything special. If my team were really bad, I'd much rather have started with Zach/Lauri, even if it was just as trade assets if I was looking at what both players did over the next five years.

But looking at "next 5 year value" and giving Chandler all-star value even though he wasn't one in that period:
2 all stars, 1 starter, 1 role player, 1 valuable vet role player, 1 year of dead salary at sub MLE, better draft pick
1 all star, 1 role player, 1 valuable vet role player, 3 years of dead salary at MAX, worse draft pick

This still isn't a competition and this is just the 100 mile away view. If you start looking into the actual nuance, the gap gets bigger like Satoransky / Temple were traded in a year as positive value contracts. Haliburton whom was on the board and liked by many in our draft slot goes on to lead a team to the finals within 5 years whereas there was no one left in the draft that would go on to be a meaningfully better career than Hinrich (David West, Boris Diaw, and Kyle Korver were the only three guys you could even argue, but none were within 10 picks of Hinrich's selection and none were really in different tiers of players).

Fair enough, I've never looked at guys and believed that the stats they put up at a certain time were all they could have done - I don't believe in player destiny if that makes sense. Food for thought - Jalen Rose had virtually the same exact numbers the year AFTER we traded him for Toronto as a 32 year old as "dead albatross money" that Lauri had last year as a 27 year old "all star". Very few Bulls fans even wanted to keep Lauri on the QO (though I did), so I don't think we should let a hot year or two for a meaningless team cloud us into thinking he was some special piece. In terms of contributing to winning basketball, I'd maintain that Tyson and Jalen clearly did more in the NBA than Lauri or Zach have done to date, and the ages they were when we had them suggests they could have contributed more to us than they did, perhaps if circumstances had been different or if we had been a little more patient. IMO Tyson wasn't a "role player" any more than Zach or Lauri. He was just the defensive oriented caliber of player that they were at a different position. I mean I'd arguably take Tyson over Noah. Way healthier, way better rim protector, way more efficient finisher.

[dougthonus]

Fair enough, I've never looked at guys and believed that the stats they put up at a certain time were all they could have done - I don't believe in player destiny if that makes sense.

Sure, and if you imagine guys like Lauri or Zach put into a situation where they were expected to be the 4th best player instead of the best player, how good might they be? That's what happened to Tyson Chandler, whom was kind of viewed as a bust when expected to a top 2-3 guy on a team, and found success as a role player when expected to be just a defensive anchor.

Food for thought - Jalen Rose had virtually the same exact numbers the year AFTER we traded him for Toronto as a 32 year old as "dead albatross money" that Lauri had last year as a 27 year old "all star".

Come on dude, get serious. Jalen Rose was salary dumped by Toronto a year after they traded for him because they didn't want him and never played in the league again after his contract expired. Also, my mistake, when Paxson inherited him he had 4 years of bad salary left, not 3.

Very few Bulls fans even wanted to keep Lauri on the QO (though I did), so I don't think we should let a hot year or two for a meaningless team cloud us into thinking he was some special piece. In terms of contributing to winning basketball

Agreed, but we are using hindsight to see what happened and what could have happened.

I'd maintain that Tyson and Jalen clearly did more in the NBA than Lauri or Zach have done to date, and the ages they were when we had them suggests they could have contributed more to us than they did, perhaps if circumstances had been different or if we had been a little more patient.

Jalen Rose literally did nothing but be a bad contract after the Bulls acquired him, what he did prior to the Bulls acquiring him is irrelevant to this discussion. Tyson did considerably less than both Lauri and Zach in the five years after Paxson became GM, and to how you view him vs those other two guys is up in the air. As you noted above, a lot depends on the situation you find yourself in and the expectations. If Zach/Lauri were expected to be 4th best guys in their prime, maybe they'd find success, maybe not. We know exactly how Tyson's story played out, we probably at this point basically know enough about Zach's story. Lauri's still is pretty up in the air.

IMO Tyson wasn't a "role player" any more than Zach or Lauri. He was just the defensive oriented caliber of player that they were at a different position. I mean I'd arguably take Tyson over Noah. Way healthier, way better rim protector, way more efficient finisher.

I classified them as all roughly equals in this discussion. I don't think you are wrong about your view of Tyson as a solid high end starter on a good team with a really well defined, valuable role. Like you could slot him into any team and he's going to help you.

But evaluating them as assets, there was a point where AK turned down multiple first round picks for Zach LaVine and he had multiple first value for several years before being viewed as a bad contract. Same is true of Lauri. In terms of flexibility of roster building, Tyson Chandler never had that type of value for Paxson as an asset.

[Red8911]

AK had one very good off season where he signed Ball, Demar, AC, also trading for Vuc was a good move at the time before the deadline even though it didn’t work out at the end.

Other than that though AK hasn’t had much success and a bit surprised that he got an extension after missing the playoffs so much when that has been his primary goal. Reinsdorfs must be very patient to continue working with someone who has failed.

I’m not going to say it’s a bad move to keep him longer, many fans here have been hard on AK. A lot of times you do need luck too. He was stuck with Lonzos injury, then Zach’s contract.Let’s see what he does in the next couple of years. Now is his chance to redeem himself.

In what world was trading for Vuc a "good move"? They traded for him when his value was at an all time high, while having an outlier 3-pt shooting season. It was a disasterous trade. I'm wondering how one could justify that being a "good move".

They brought in all star level talent. Most fans loved the trade when it happened. Thats what that team needed at the time in order to take the next step even though it didn’t work out in the end.

[ScrantonBulls]

AK had one very good off season where he signed Ball, Demar, AC, also trading for Vuc was a good move at the time before the deadline even though it didn’t work out at the end.

Other than that though AK hasn’t had much success and a bit surprised that he got an extension after missing the playoffs so much when that has been his primary goal. Reinsdorfs must be very patient to continue working with someone who has failed.

I’m not going to say it’s a bad move to keep him longer, many fans here have been hard on AK. A lot of times you do need luck too. He was stuck with Lonzos injury, then Zach’s contract.Let’s see what he does in the next couple of years. Now is his chance to redeem himself.

In what world was trading for Vuc a "good move"? They traded for him when his value was at an all time high, while having an outlier 3-pt shooting season. It was a disasterous trade. I'm wondering how one could justify that being a "good move".

They brought in all star level talent. Most fans loved the trade when it happened. Thats what that team needed at the time in order to take the next step even though it didn’t work out in the end.

That's terrible justification for what a "good move" is.

[dougthonus]

They brought in all star level talent. Most fans loved the trade when it happened. Thats what that team needed at the time in order to take the next step even though it didn’t work out in the end.

Vuc was a faux all-star talent. He was a one way offensive player with poor efficiency that never achieved any winning in the league but compiled counting stats on really bad teams.

There was a chance that Vuc would be unlocked in a different situation with more talent around him in a lesser role. There are definitely guys that have that kind of path.

However, the reality is that when Vuc was surrounded by more talent, his strengths were less useful. His efficiency didn't go up with other people demanding more offensive attention, and some of his potential strengths (like shooting) were exposed as small sample size / empty gym variance.

So conceptually, while trying to bring in talent isn't necessarily a bad idea, his evaluation here was terrible. The amount he paid was terrible. The inability to protect against the risks of this going badly when it was obvious there was a high probability it could was terrible. The best thing you could say about this move is that it was one of his first moves and maybe he learned how bad it was and would make smarter decisions over time.

Generally speaking, the conceptual idea of trying to trade away all your future assets to "win now" starting from a low 30s win base was just a bad idea. It shows a lack of understanding fundamentally of how the league works.

While this one move is really the source of so many of our problems, he hasn't made any more all-time dumb moves since then. He started off with one of the worst mistakes he could make both strategically and tactically, but after that you could make a case that he's just been bottom 10 level bad in the GM if you strike this move instead of bottom 3 level bad with it.

[TheJordanRule]

They brought in all star level talent. Most fans loved the trade when it happened. Thats what that team needed at the time in order to take the next step even though it didn’t work out in the end.

Vuc was a faux all-star talent. He was a one way offensive player with poor efficiency that never achieved any winning in the league but compiled counting stats on really bad teams.

There was a chance that Vuc would be unlocked in a different situation with more talent around him in a lesser role. There are definitely guys that have that kind of path.

However, the reality is that when Vuc was surrounded by more talent, his strengths were less useful. His efficiency didn't go up with other people demanding more offensive attention, and some of his potential strengths (like shooting) were exposed as small sample size / empty gym variance.

So conceptually, while trying to bring in talent isn't necessarily a bad idea, his evaluation here was terrible. The amount he paid was terrible. The inability to protect against the risks of this going badly when it was obvious there was a high probability it could was terrible. The best thing you could say about this move is that it was one of his first moves and maybe he learned how bad it was and would make smarter decisions over time.

Generally speaking, the conceptual idea of trying to trade away all your future assets to "win now" starting from a low 30s win base was just a bad idea. It shows a lack of understanding fundamentally of how the league works.

While this one move is really the source of so many of our problems, he hasn't made any more all-time dumb moves since then. He started off with one of the worst mistakes he could make both strategically and tactically, but after that you could make a case that he's just been bottom 10 level bad in the GM if you strike this move instead of bottom 3 level bad with it.

I had such a hard time wrapping my mind around this reality when you first brought up Vuce's issues, Doug. I remember arguing with you back in the day. But at this point, the accuracy of your take can't even be questioned. And it ain't hindsight. You called it on Year 1. And then again when they resigned him. Spot on, brother!

[Dominator83]

They brought in all star level talent. Most fans loved the trade when it happened. Thats what that team needed at the time in order to take the next step even though it didn’t work out in the end.

Vuc was a faux all-star talent. He was a one way offensive player with poor efficiency that never achieved any winning in the league but compiled counting stats on really bad teams.

There was a chance that Vuc would be unlocked in a different situation with more talent around him in a lesser role. There are definitely guys that have that kind of path.

However, the reality is that when Vuc was surrounded by more talent, his strengths were less useful. His efficiency didn't go up with other people demanding more offensive attention, and some of his potential strengths (like shooting) were exposed as small sample size / empty gym variance.

So conceptually, while trying to bring in talent isn't necessarily a bad idea, his evaluation here was terrible. The amount he paid was terrible. The inability to protect against the risks of this going badly when it was obvious there was a high probability it could was terrible. The best thing you could say about this move is that it was one of his first moves and maybe he learned how bad it was and would make smarter decisions over time.

Generally speaking, the conceptual idea of trying to trade away all your future assets to "win now" starting from a low 30s win base was just a bad idea. It shows a lack of understanding fundamentally of how the league works.

While this one move is really the source of so many of our problems, he hasn't made any more all-time dumb moves since then. He started off with one of the worst mistakes he could make both strategically and tactically, but after that you could make a case that he's just been bottom 10 level bad in the GM if you strike this move instead of bottom 3 level bad with it.

Vuc has basically been the center version of Jalen Rose! creepily similiar in terms of trading young talent for a win-now vet that really won't help you win now! The Jalen trade wasn't quite as big a disaster in the end because Artest's mental illness outweighted his play, and Krause didn't mortgage any draft picks in the deal either. But still a bad idea nonetheless.

Vuc trade was insanely bad. I wasn't and still aint mad about WCJ. Hes the exact JAG type of player i always thought he would be. You can get those with MLE. But like, how in the world did we STILL owe them another pick after surrendering the #8?? There should have been atleast some conditional language saying that if you get a top 10 pick, then we're square. A top 10 pick was more than enough for Vuc