Is AK getting better?

[Truebiscuit]

Who was worse at their job? AK as GM or Jim Boylen as head coach?

Jim Boylen is probably worse at his job
AK being bad at his job has a much bigger and enduring impact

AK is worse, because guy like that can easily set this franchise decade(s) behind. Boylen can only set it few years. GM's last much longer than coaches with job security. My guess is longer AK is at held of franchise, we are longer from ever winning ring. Right now possibly 10-15 years without being competitive at least (this includes time since he become GM). Barring luck like Dallas.

I dunno... I think Billy Donovan is be best coach we've had since Thibs (who seemingly can't hold a job) and I understood the vision of Ball/LaVine/DeRozan/Vuc, who looked pretty good before Ball got hurt. That threw a wrench into everything. I do think his strength is in developing young talent -- kids who won't push back too hard or throw tantrums like we've seen many vets do in the NBA.

I am excited about Matas, I think Giddey is an ascending talent, Coby White is growing into a prolific scorer. If we hit on Essengue I truly think the sky is the limit. It's a huge IF, though.

[ChiTownHero1992]

Jim Boylen is probably worse at his job
AK being bad at his job has a much bigger and enduring impact

AK is worse, because guy like that can easily set this franchise decade(s) behind. Boylen can only set it few years. GM's last much longer than coaches with job security. My guess is longer AK is at held of franchise, we are longer from ever winning ring. Right now possibly 10-15 years without being competitive at least (this includes time since he become GM). Barring luck like Dallas.

I dunno... I think Billy Donovan is be best coach we've had since Thibs (who seemingly can't hold a job) and I understood the vision of Ball/LaVine/DeRozan/Vuc, who looked pretty good before Ball got hurt. That threw a wrench into everything. I do think his strength is in developing young talent -- kids who won't push back too hard or throw tantrums like we've seen many vets do in the NBA.

I am excited about Matas, I think Giddey is an ascending talent, Coby White is growing into a prolific scorer. If we hit on Essengue I truly think the sky is the limit. It's a huge IF, though.

To be fair that isn't saying much, the Bulls have been pathetic when hiring coaches:

Fred Hoiberg - Terrible career .426 winning percentage and .333 in playoffs
Jim Boylen - Terrible career . 317 winning percentage and no playoffs
Billy Donovan - during tenure .488 winning percentage but an outstanding . 200 in the playoffs!

Beyond that if we just look at post Phil Jackson - we are a laughing stock of the league, Floyd, Cartwright, Skiles, Boylan, Del Negro, Hoiberg, Boylen and Billy have all been just bad...the only good teams and coach we've had since Phil was the Rose/Thibs era

[GoBlue72391]

I vaguely recall AK wanting to make a move but was told by Jerry to not do it because he wanted to make the playoffs.

That doesn't seem likely to me that he would have said that.

He publicly said he had full permission to do a rebuild and chose not to.

Of course this is different from whether the underlying statement is true in reality, just that he very publicly said the opposite of this.

I'm not nearly as "plugged in" to the Bulls as I used to be (getting older sucks) but wasn't AK considered a central cog in the development of the Denver Nuggets -- Jokic, MPJ, etc. -- and highly thought of around the league as an up-and-coming Executive?

I can't imagine that suddenly falls by the wayside, but at the same time perhaps his biggest issue is negotiating salaries or extracting value out of players/assets (which we have seen).

Unrelated: did you like GarPax better than AKME?

Same question to you

.

and anyone else

I liked GarPax better than AKME. Specifically the Pax portion.

The first, I don't know, decade or so of Pax's tenure was pretty good. It seems like things went off the rails when Gar was promoted and by that point Pax was starting to lose it and it just got gradually worse until it was a dumpster fire.

Even their late tenure drafting was pretty good: Portis, Lauri, Coby, etc. Obviously some whiffs, too. You could generally rely on them to draft pretty well. But developing those good picks and putting them in a position to succeed? That's another story entirely.

AK will make a genuinely good move here and there, but it's drowned out by all the bad to horrible moves combined with a seemingly directionless path and some very unorthodox methods. He also comes across as thinking he's the smartest guy in the room.

GarPax was maybe a D+ or C- on the whole, but the last portion of their tenure was an F. AKME have been an F up to this point. If they didn't have that 2-3 month stretch 4 years ago where we were 1st in the East they would have literally nothing to hang their hat on.

[GoBlue72391]

AK is worse, because guy like that can easily set this franchise decade(s) behind. Boylen can only set it few years. GM's last much longer than coaches with job security. My guess is longer AK is at held of franchise, we are longer from ever winning ring. Right now possibly 10-15 years without being competitive at least (this includes time since he become GM). Barring luck like Dallas.

I dunno... I think Billy Donovan is be best coach we've had since Thibs (who seemingly can't hold a job) and I understood the vision of Ball/LaVine/DeRozan/Vuc, who looked pretty good before Ball got hurt. That threw a wrench into everything. I do think his strength is in developing young talent -- kids who won't push back too hard or throw tantrums like we've seen many vets do in the NBA.

I am excited about Matas, I think Giddey is an ascending talent, Coby White is growing into a prolific scorer. If we hit on Essengue I truly think the sky is the limit. It's a huge IF, though.

To be fair that isn't saying much, the Bulls have been pathetic when hiring coaches:

Fred Hoiberg - Terrible career .426 winning percentage and .333 in playoffs
Jim Boylen - Terrible career . 317 winning percentage and no playoffs
Billy Donovan - during tenure .488 winning percentage but an outstanding . 200 in the playoffs!

Beyond that if we just look at post Phil Jackson - we are a laughing stock of the league, Floyd, Cartwright, Skiles, Boylan, Del Negro, Hoiberg, Boylen and Billy have all been just bad...the only good teams and coach we've had since Phil was the Rose/Thibs era

Billy and Skiles aren't great, but they don't deserve to be in the crap pile with the rest of those bums.

[erdamon]

Maybe worth its own thread but I'll dump it here.

Most front offices think talent first and then build a team concept around their top talent. AKME seems to not think that way. Almost from day 1, he has been going for this large group of somewhat athletic, big wing type players that can switch and play up tempo. He basically has a team concept and he is willing to go for lesser talent that fits to put it together.

The last few years it has gotten heavily derailed by injuries. Lavine and Ball most noticeably. That won't be the case this year (hopefully).

As such, the team is getting back to AKME's vision of having all these switchable wings on the court at the same time. Bigger than before too when Caruso and Ball were frequently forced to guard 4's. Deeper at the C spot with Vucevic, Smith and Collins so no more guards playing C.

I have also written that Chicago is rather unique in that they are trying to put together a bunch of players just coming into their primes. Not a bunch of old guys and rookies.

I can't say that I am excited about the team this year but I am intrigued. Its a basketball experiment. AKME 100% has their vision, albeit with mediocre talent. We shall see if concept trumps talent.

Giddey / Jones / Ayo
Coby / Huerter
Okuro / Terry
Matas / PW / Noa
Vucevic / Smith / Collins

Donovan could decide to run a 10 or 11 man rotation here and just tell people to run their asses off.

I don’t see this concept ever being better low end playoff team. Generally you build around that top 10 guy because you need a top 10 guy for a title. We seem to be trying to build 2004 Detroit. But that requires so much luck in collecting 5 of the 10-25 guys that all just work together.

That said we are so hamstrung by ownership that winning a title may be impossible.

[dougthonus]

I'm not nearly as "plugged in" to the Bulls as I used to be (getting older sucks) but wasn't AK considered a central cog in the development of the Denver Nuggets -- Jokic, MPJ, etc. -- and highly thought of around the league as an up-and-coming Executive?

He was viewed as an up and coming exec, and he may have scouted Jokic, but the Nuggets didn't believe Jokic was going to be Jokic or else they wouldn't have taken him in the second round. MPJ was a high risk/high reward player expected to go 7 spots earlier, and you can argue it's really dicey whether that ended up being a good pick or not even today.

I can't imagine that suddenly falls by the wayside, but at the same time perhaps his biggest issue is negotiating salaries or extracting value out of players/assets (which we have seen).

He wasn't the lead decision maker in those cases, nor was he responsible for the overall vision, and so even if you want to say he was really good in some areas within an org, he isn't good with the overall vision/strategy which is his current role.

Unrelated: did you like GarPax better than AKME?

GarPax, not even close.

I fundamentally believe the impact a GM is significantly overrated, because there is so much dumb luck involved, but GarPax were generally really good around the margins in all ways and AK is awful around the margins in all ways, and that's really where most of the non luck skill in the position is.

[dougthonus]

I liked GarPax better than AKME. Specifically the Pax portion.

The first, I don't know, decade or so of Pax's tenure was pretty good. It seems like things went off the rails when Gar was promoted and by that point Pax was starting to lose it and it just got gradually worse until it was a dumpster fire.

Even their late tenure drafting was pretty good: Portis, Lauri, Coby, etc. Obviously some whiffs, too. You could generally rely on them to draft pretty well. But developing those good picks and putting them in a position to succeed? That's another story entirely.

AK will make a genuinely good move here and there, but it's drowned out by all the bad to horrible moves combined with a seemingly directionless path and some very unorthodox methods. He also comes across as thinking he's the smartest guy in the room.

GarPax was maybe a D+ or C- on the whole, but the last portion of their tenure was an F. AKME have been an F up to this point. If they didn't have that 2-3 month stretch 4 years ago where we were 1st in the East they would have literally nothing to hang their hat on.

I think the one thing that really sunk GarPax was their coaching decisions. Hoiberg/Boylen were really poor choices.

[ChiTownHero1992]

I dunno... I think Billy Donovan is be best coach we've had since Thibs (who seemingly can't hold a job) and I understood the vision of Ball/LaVine/DeRozan/Vuc, who looked pretty good before Ball got hurt. That threw a wrench into everything. I do think his strength is in developing young talent -- kids who won't push back too hard or throw tantrums like we've seen many vets do in the NBA.

I am excited about Matas, I think Giddey is an ascending talent, Coby White is growing into a prolific scorer. If we hit on Essengue I truly think the sky is the limit. It's a huge IF, though.

To be fair that isn't saying much, the Bulls have been pathetic when hiring coaches:

Fred Hoiberg - Terrible career .426 winning percentage and .333 in playoffs
Jim Boylen - Terrible career . 317 winning percentage and no playoffs
Billy Donovan - during tenure .488 winning percentage but an outstanding . 200 in the playoffs!

Beyond that if we just look at post Phil Jackson - we are a laughing stock of the league, Floyd, Cartwright, Skiles, Boylan, Del Negro, Hoiberg, Boylen and Billy have all been just bad...the only good teams and coach we've had since Phil was the Rose/Thibs era

Billy and Skiles aren't great, but they don't deserve to be in the crap pile with the rest of those bums.

Fair point, i'll give you that as well both more mediocre then crap. I liked Skiles but wasn't built for the team they had, i've not really been a fan of Billy but he also hasn't been given much to work with over the years either

[kodo]

Skiles was one of my favorite coaches along with Collins. I just don't think his style works for the modern NBA, in the same vein as Thibs although Thibs has adjusted himself more and has come a long way to working with NBA egos. Skiles could never compromise.

Boylen was just in the Finals and part of the coaching for our national team.
"I just want to recognize Jim Boylen for being USA Basketball Coach of the Year, which is very significant," Pacers head coach Rick Carlisle said last year. "Congratulations to him."
Boylen also won a championship as the defensive assistant for the Spurs, and that team won mainly on defense not offense.

I suspect Boylen is fine on Xs & Os but just horrible as a people/ego manager, something Billy has been great at. Bulls have gone through a lot of drama and there's never been the kind of stuff we saw with Thibs or Hoiberg or Boylen.

[GoBlue72391]

I liked GarPax better than AKME. Specifically the Pax portion.

The first, I don't know, decade or so of Pax's tenure was pretty good. It seems like things went off the rails when Gar was promoted and by that point Pax was starting to lose it and it just got gradually worse until it was a dumpster fire.

Even their late tenure drafting was pretty good: Portis, Lauri, Coby, etc. Obviously some whiffs, too. You could generally rely on them to draft pretty well. But developing those good picks and putting them in a position to succeed? That's another story entirely.

AK will make a genuinely good move here and there, but it's drowned out by all the bad to horrible moves combined with a seemingly directionless path and some very unorthodox methods. He also comes across as thinking he's the smartest guy in the room.

GarPax was maybe a D+ or C- on the whole, but the last portion of their tenure was an F. AKME have been an F up to this point. If they didn't have that 2-3 month stretch 4 years ago where we were 1st in the East they would have literally nothing to hang their hat on.

I think the one thing that really sunk GarPax was their coaching decisions. Hoiberg/Boylen were really poor choices.

Boylen is the worst head coach I've ever seen in my life for any pro sport. That alone was proof that they lost the plot by that point.

[GoBlue72391]

Skiles was one of my favorite coaches along with Collins. I just don't think his style works for the modern NBA, in the same vein as Thibs although Thibs has adjusted himself more and has come a long way to working with NBA egos. Skiles could never compromise.

Boylen was just in the Finals and part of the coaching for our national team.
"I just want to recognize Jim Boylen for being USA Basketball Coach of the Year, which is very significant," Pacers head coach Rick Carlisle said last year. "Congratulations to him."
Boylen also won a championship as the defensive assistant for the Spurs, and that team won mainly on defense not offense.

I suspect Boylen is fine on Xs & Os but just horrible as a people/ego manager, something Billy has been great at. Bulls have gone through a lot of drama and there's never been the kind of stuff we saw with Thibs or Hoiberg or Boylen.

He's absolutely not good at the Xs and Os part either. He must be good at something behind the scenes, otherwise he wouldn't keep getting assistant jobs, but I don't know what it is.

[dougthonus]

Boylen is the worst head coach I've ever seen in my life for any pro sport. That alone was proof that they lost the plot by that point.

It's even worse with some inside info, the players were openly mocking him.

[HomoSapien]

Boylen is the worst head coach I've ever seen in my life for any pro sport. That alone was proof that they lost the plot by that point.

It's even worse with some inside info, the players were openly mocking him.

Dish, girlfriend!

[keloms]

No.

Complete embarrassments who should be out of the league for good after Reinsdorfs get tired of them and decide to find cheaper replacements.

[MisterRoy]

The Rs just need to sell the team. They don't care about the sport. Go invest into something else.

[PaKii94]

I don't want to defend boylen but he did lead the roster to a top 10 defense with the losers that they had. The offense could have worked to if we had somebody to run it. But he did mess up Lauri's development.

He was satisfactory for the skill he was tuned towards (defense) but he did not have full head coaching skills to cover for the rest

[Jcool0]

Read on Twitter

[HomoSapien]

To be fair that isn't saying much, the Bulls have been pathetic when hiring coaches:

Fred Hoiberg - Terrible career .426 winning percentage and .333 in playoffs
Jim Boylen - Terrible career . 317 winning percentage and no playoffs
Billy Donovan - during tenure .488 winning percentage but an outstanding . 200 in the playoffs!

Beyond that if we just look at post Phil Jackson - we are a laughing stock of the league, Floyd, Cartwright, Skiles, Boylan, Del Negro, Hoiberg, Boylen and Billy have all been just bad...the only good teams and coach we've had since Phil was the Rose/Thibs era

Billy and Skiles aren't great, but they don't deserve to be in the crap pile with the rest of those bums.

Fair point, i'll give you that as well both more mediocre then crap. I liked Skiles but wasn't built for the team they had, i've not really been a fan of Billy but he also hasn't been given much to work with over the years either

Skiles coaching that 2004 Bulls team to the playoffs is one of the most impressive coaching jobs I have ever seen. That team really had no business being in the playoffs, but somehow a team lead by rookies and young players overcame a disastrous 3-14 start to win 47 games. Just incredible. And they would have made it to the 2nd round if they hadn't lost Curry for the playoffs.

[dougthonus]

Skiles coaching that 2004 Bulls team to the playoffs is one of the most impressive coaching jobs I have ever seen. That team really had no business being in the playoffs, but somehow a team lead by rookies and young players overcame a disastrous 3-14 start to win 47 games. Just incredible. And they would have made it to the 2nd round if they hadn't lost Curry for the playoffs.

They also lost Deng for those playoffs. That's still one of my favorite Bulls seasons of all time, it was the 3rd year I was a season ticket holder, and just the shift from being so incredibly bad to being really good was unbelievable.

To your above point, I forgot to reply earlier, I can't remember the exact story, but the players thought he was an idiot and had zero respect for him.

[dougthonus]

Was thinking about this some more this morning.

Tactically, I like everything the Bulls have done in the past year except the way they negotiated with Pat. If they had landed on 18M after letting the market play out, I would have been okay with that deal too even though it turned out bad, I'm just mad they didn't let the market play out.

This year, it feels like they learned from that mistake with Giddey and aren't bidding against themselves proactively. They may still get into a situation where they pay him more than they want, but they will at least get closer to the lowest number Giddey will accept.

The only things that really bother me is the young vet vs deeper rebuild strategy, but if they continue to make good tactical decisions then I think they will at least get us back to 1st round exit status instead of play-in status.