A team of 9-10 good players

[Dominator83]

A team of 9-10 good players in today's game is going nowhere. This is a star driven league. You need stars to win.

Having a GM who's trying to model his build from a 20+ year old anomaly of a team in the Detroit Pistons, who had one of the best defenses of the era, shows how completely out of touch our FO is.

If that's truly what AK is going for and not just nonsense words to make the fanbase feel good about the current team, then this situation is truly and utterly hopeless.

I will say the Pacers may have been an achilles tear away from winning the title this year, and Haliburton is a fringe star by traditional metrics, certainly prior to this year, not a guy I think many would view as a superstar that could lead you to a title as a clear 1A best player on a team type.

Not to say I believe in the model, just interesting that the Pacers almost got there this year in this model.

Well, Haliburton was All-NBA 3rd team for two seasons in a row and was an all-star the year before that. Which would put him in the top 15 range.

Siakam is probably a top 25 player. A 3 time all-star.

So, the "Pacers model", if you want to boil it down, is
1 Top 15 (All-NBA) player (Haliburton
1 Top 25 (All-Star) (Siakam)
1 ~Top 5-10 at his position starter (Turner)
3 generic starters (Nesmith, Nembhard, Mathurin)
3 Rotational players (McConnell, Sheppard, Toppin)

As Mr. Sparkle said, the Bulls don't have anyone in the top 50, and don't have any obvious candidates to make the leap to All-NBA, let alone all-star. Maybe Matas in a couple years (or Noa in a couple more) if all goes perfectly?

But the basic point is that the Bulls are just as far away from the Pacer's approach to success as they are from every other model of success.

Not to mention, ME basically said himself in the post draft pressor inadvertently how were nothing like that. He was glowing about the Pacers saying none of their guys can be targeted on defense. Someone, probably Cowley, then pointed out to him that the Bulls have lots of guys that can be targeted on defense

[burlydee]

Realistically to achieve the Pacers model you're hoping:

Giddey, Coby, Ayo, Jones continue to round out into solid players on reasonable contracts and 1 of those guys, most likely Giddey, becomes a fringe all-star. Ayo-Coby need to reach the Nembhard-McConnel in reliability and performance. Ayo and Jones in particular need to round into two way players so Bulls can be credible defensively. The Bulls backcourt is what i feel most confident about. Not bc i think anyone is as good as Haliburton but bc its deep and talented across the board.

Okoro, Williams need to channel their inner Nesmith and turn around their careers. More than the defense, the effort and hustle were incredible with Nesmith. The Bulls need wing defenders who aren't soft. Who have a bit of dog in them, if im being meathead about it.

Noa/Matas need to turn into consistent two way players with at least one approaching all-star production. The Bulls desperately need these picks to hit to improve the talent base, particularly upfront. But if these guys round into shape like the backcourt, that greatly increases the current rosters viability.

The Bulls need to find a rim protector. I don't think the current group at the 5 can credibly anchor a defense. I think Vuc is a net negative when he isn't producing like an all star offensively which will be increasingly unlikely as he ages. Collins and Smith are backups facing salary reductions on their next contracts.

Finally they need their version of Siakam. The Siakam role isn't about having a 4 in my mind, its about acquiring a vet who fits who can still play. In 2026 that could be Mikal Bridges, Lu Dort, Hartenstein or some combination.

My biggest takeaway is there is a pathway that wasn't there pre Lavine, Derozan and Caruso transactions. Still hoping for a lot of development, but so is every team not in the top 6.

[ShouldaPaidBG]

I'm willing to try it. Worst case scenario is a high pick next draft. But i do actually think the hockey- style, win every minute and keep guys fresh strategy can work. The players involved just have to be 2 way players (other than Giddey).

[dougthonus]

IMO, the Pacers being "an Achilles tear away" was contingent on them benefiting from a separate Achilles tear. I don't think they get by a healthy Boston this season.

New York was going to beat Boston either way, so they weren't going to play Boston either way.

[ImSlower]

I do enjoy some of these young players we have. I wanted Okoro (or Hali, sigh) pre-draft and I'd be delighted if he found a niche in a downhill-focused team - he could be very important on defense but has to hit shots. It's easy for optimistic fans to look at their record improvement post-LaVine, and once we basically punted Williams from the rotation. It also helps that the brand of basketball we got to watch not only brought more notches in the W column, but was legitimately fun to watch. Buzelis is the most exciting player we've had in ages.

That said! But! Please pardon my skepticism. I don't read a vast amount of national basketball media or listen to podcasts, but it seems to me outside of this forum, everyone that talks 2026 odds unilaterally is plugging this roster we're discussing as one of the 8 worst teams in the league. Glancing at some major gambling sites, some have the Bulls tied for the worst odds in the entire league to win the chip. Our General Board are currently discussing the East, and literally not a single poster yet has put the Bulls even in the play-in. Simmons just blasted the team as the worst positioned in the league, much because he and everyone else agree that AK isn't going to make any aggressive moves.

There's certainly some fun to be had as a die-hard fan of a maligned team as they prove everyone wrong - and it seems to me that's what this active rotation of 9-10 pretty ok to maybe-an-all-star will have to do. No one seems to think we have a shot even at a .500 record, despite their run as assembled.

[MikeDC]

I will say the Pacers may have been an achilles tear away from winning the title this year, and Haliburton is a fringe star by traditional metrics, certainly prior to this year, not a guy I think many would view as a superstar that could lead you to a title as a clear 1A best player on a team type.

Not to say I believe in the model, just interesting that the Pacers almost got there this year in this model.

Well, Haliburton was All-NBA 3rd team for two seasons in a row and was an all-star the year before that. Which would put him in the top 15 range.

Siakam is probably a top 25 player. A 3 time all-star.

So, the "Pacers model", if you want to boil it down, is
1 Top 15 (All-NBA) player (Haliburton
1 Top 25 (All-Star) (Siakam)
1 ~Top 5-10 at his position starter (Turner)
3 generic starters (Nesmith, Nembhard, Mathurin)
3 Rotational players (McConnell, Sheppard, Toppin)

As Mr. Sparkle said, the Bulls don't have anyone in the top 50, and don't have any obvious candidates to make the leap to All-NBA, let alone all-star. Maybe Matas in a couple years (or Noa in a couple more) if all goes perfectly?

But the basic point is that the Bulls are just as far away from the Pacer's approach to success as they are from every other model of success.

Not to mention, ME basically said himself in the post draft pressor inadvertently how were nothing like that. He was glowing about the Pacers saying none of their guys can be targeted on defense. Someone, probably Cowley, then pointed out to him that the Bulls have lots of guys that can be targeted on defense

I thought that Eversley interview was an interesting juxtaposition with "AKME's 9-10 good guys" spiel and the actual moves the Bulls made.

Eversley came out and to me, sounded like a normal GM. "Alright, we're in transition and we're gonna build through the draft and free agency. We've got cap room for 2026. We're putting in plans on and off the court for the development of the really young guys we are drafting." I don't think he really brought up the 9-10 good guys thing. He just responded to questions.

Of course, right after that, the Bulls went out and added $20M to their 2026 cap for two guys who can't shoot.

[jnrjr79]

IMO, the Pacers being "an Achilles tear away" was contingent on them benefiting from a separate Achilles tear. I don't think they get by a healthy Boston this season.

New York was going to beat Boston either way, so they weren't going to play Boston either way.

Fair take, but I’m not so confident.

[dougthonus]

IMO, the Pacers being "an Achilles tear away" was contingent on them benefiting from a separate Achilles tear. I don't think they get by a healthy Boston this season.

New York was going to beat Boston either way, so they weren't going to play Boston either way.

Fair take, but I’m not so confident.

New York was up 3-1. The success rate of coming back in NBA history is 4.4%. I mean anything can happen, but I think it's pretty reasonable to be relatively confident the Knicks would have gotten one game in the final 3. That said, I do think the odds for Boston would have been much better than 4.4% given most 3-1 leads the favorite is beating the crap out of the underdog, but I'd still say it's probably no more than maybe 20% for Boston to have come back.

[jnrjr79]

New York was going to beat Boston either way, so they weren't going to play Boston either way.

Fair take, but I’m not so confident.

New York was up 3-1. The success rate of coming back in NBA history is 4.4%. I mean anything can happen, but I think it's pretty reasonable to be relatively confident the Knicks would have gotten one game in the final 3.

They were up 2-1 when Tatum got hurt. NY was up 8 or 9 with 3 minutes left, so I’m not totally writing off what could have happened in game 4, particularly b/c Tatum was on an epic heater that game.

[dougthonus]

They were up 2-1 when Tatum got hurt. NY was up 8 or 9 with 3 minutes left, so I’m not totally writing off what could have happened in game 4, particularly b/c Tatum was on an epic heater that game.

Fair enough. We'll never know for sure, but EPSN had a probability of a Knicks win at 95%+ when Tatum got hurt.

5% chance of it being a 70/30 series odds for Boston if they come back and win and Tatum remains healthy
95% chance of it being a 80/20 New York (give Boston more of a chance to complete a comeback than normal odds due to their quality)

Combines to 77.5%/22.5% likely outcome for New York to win still.

Granted, my 70/30 and 80/20 are just sort of made up numbers, but I think I shaded both in such a way that they were more favorable for your case than the reality. Wouldn't say Boston had a trivial chance to win if Tatum stayed healthy, but it seems quite unlikely to me that they'd have won.

Also in that game where Tatum got hurt, the Celtics still scored on 4 of their 7 possessions and lost by 8. If Tatum hit a 2 pointer on every missed possessions they'd have still been down by 2.

[Am2626]

You know where that team as constructed goes - straight to the play in. Luckily they have time to mold together as they're all young but while they're hopefully modeling into a 5-6 seed over the years, other teams will be building better teams as well. I get where AK was coming from when he said it, but even those "good "non star" teams, have a minor star or multiple near stars. The way this roster stands Giddey is a "near star" if he continues to play well, Matas has the potential to be one but that is about it, everyone else is a role player.

Personally for me we lack that clear true leader, the guy the team rallies behind. Beyond that our "depth rotatioanl guys" are guys that would be great rotationally on a contender, but on a team still trying to build and find themselves they're kinda worthless (Vuc, Collins, Huerter, Jones, Carter) or they're raw/inconsisteant (Ayo, Okoro, WIlliams). Our "prospects" are raw and likely either not NBA-caliber or at minimum not NBA-ready (Essengue, Phillips, Terry)

If the Bulls get luck and win the lottery next year and draft a franchise player they are set.

[coldfish]

IMO, this is a few discussions:

What does a team of 9 to 10 good players look like?
and
Are the Bulls that?

So, just throwing this out there. I know people don't like PER but its a quick measure of a player's productivity and generally tracks where they stand in the league.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2025_advanced.html#advanced_stats::per

Let's say you had 3 players with a PER in the 18 to 20 range then filled around them with role players who were good at what they did without being a liability in some other fashion. 3 and D guys. Rebounders who can hit an open 3. Etc.

IMO, a team with such depth would just grind on teams during the regular season and be able to win 50+ almost Thibodeau style. Once the playoffs hit though and defenses started specializing, if the team lacked a guy who could beat such coverage I think they would fail.

Its not the end of the world. Such a team would be entertaining even if winning a title was off the table.

Are the Bulls that?

Well, in an absolute best case scenario Giddey is who he was to end the season and Matas becomes an 18+ PER guy. So you are short of the big 3 concept even in a best case scenario. Outside of that, you have several players who have deficiencies in their game in the rotation (Vuc, defense).

I think the Bulls could get to the above scenario with luck and a few good moves.

[Indomitable]

They were up 2-1 when Tatum got hurt. NY was up 8 or 9 with 3 minutes left, so I’m not totally writing off what could have happened in game 4, particularly b/c Tatum was on an epic heater that game.

Fair enough. We'll never know for sure, but EPSN had a probability of a Knicks win at 95%+ when Tatum got hurt.

5% chance of it being a 70/30 series odds for Boston if they come back and win and Tatum remains healthy
95% chance of it being a 80/20 New York (give Boston more of a chance to complete a comeback than normal odds due to their quality)

Combines to 77.5%/22.5% likely outcome for New York to win still.

Granted, my 70/30 and 80/20 are just sort of made up numbers, but I think I shaded both in such a way that they were more favorable for your case than the reality. Wouldn't say Boston had a trivial chance to win if Tatum stayed healthy, but it seems quite unlikely to me that they'd have won.

Also in that game where Tatum got hurt, the Celtics still scored on 4 of their 7 possessions and lost by 8. If Tatum hit a 2 pointer on every missed possessions they'd have still been down by 2.

Plus the Knicks were leading with 2:48 seconds left in the game.

[patryk7754]

AK has definitely done a good job the past year or so of accomplishing his goal of having 9-10 good players, but its the wrong strategy. We need a SUPERSTAR to compete. To be fair to him, he's probably handcuffed by Jerry's extreme cheapness. I think the best move would be to align all our contracts so they expire over the next two seasons and consolidate 2/3 contracts into one major contract and hope Matas and Noa become all-star level guys (i'm very hopefull for Mata and im high on Noa).

Right now, we're in for a couple (at least) of more frustrating seasons, unless giddey can play like jerry west all the time. This roster is like the Packers having 12 WR2s and thinking that's good. And i don't wnat to be anything like the packers

[sco]

AK has definitely done a good job the past year or so of accomplishing his goal of having 9-10 good players, but its the wrong strategy. We need a SUPERSTAR to compete. To be fair to him, he's probably handcuffed by Jerry's extreme cheapness. I think the best move would be to align all our contracts so they expire over the next two seasons and consolidate 2/3 contracts into one major contract and hope Matas and Noa become all-star level guys (i'm very hopefull for Mata and im high on Noa).

Right now, we're in for a couple (at least) of more frustrating seasons, unless giddey can play like jerry west all the time. This roster is like the Packers having 12 WR2s and thinking that's good. And i don't wnat to be anything like the packers

One could say that the 9-10 good players (coupled with having all of your own picks), puts you in a decent position to trade for a Superstar and still have enough of a team afterwards.

[Red Larrivee]

IMO, this is a few discussions:

What does a team of 9 to 10 good players look like?
and
Are the Bulls that?

So, just throwing this out there. I know people don't like PER but its a quick measure of a player's productivity and generally tracks where they stand in the league.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2025_advanced.html#advanced_stats::per

Let's say you had 3 players with a PER in the 18 to 20 range then filled around them with role players who were good at what they did without being a liability in some other fashion. 3 and D guys. Rebounders who can hit an open 3. Etc.

IMO, a team with such depth would just grind on teams during the regular season and be able to win 50+ almost Thibodeau style. Once the playoffs hit though and defenses started specializing, if the team lacked a guy who could beat such coverage I think they would fail.

Its not the end of the world. Such a team would be entertaining even if winning a title was off the table.

Are the Bulls that?

Well, in an absolute best case scenario Giddey is who he was to end the season and Matas becomes an 18+ PER guy. So you are short of the big 3 concept even in a best case scenario. Outside of that, you have several players who have deficiencies in their game in the rotation (Vuc, defense).

I think the Bulls could get to the above scenario with luck and a few good moves.

This is more/less what Houston just did:

3 Players with 18+ PER:
Sengun - 21.4
Thompson - 18.7
Eason - 18.5

3D or 3 or D Players:
- Brooks (11.0)
- Smith (12.6)
- VanVleet (12.8)
- Green (15.1)
- Whitmore (15.5)

Rebounder:
- Adams

4th best Defensive Rating

Probably wouldn't have won a title without some major breaks, but would've given every team hell in a series. They had picks and young players to cash in for a major move like KD. And even when KD is gone, they'll still have a good nucleus going forward with Thompson, Sengun and maybe Smith. It's a very good situation, even if it may never result in a title.

Obviously many differences between Houston and Chicago's front offices, but Houston the last several years has just been very good at drafting. Even if players like Green weren't home runs at their slot, they were still able to maintain their value and flip them.

Chicago...has not.

[dougthonus]

Probably wouldn't have won a title without some major breaks, but would've given every team hell in a series.

Not to be too nit picky here, but they got upset in the 1st round as the #2 seed, then the team they got upset by got annihilated in the 2nd round, but a team who got annihilated in the ECF.

Not sure they were giving anyone hell in the playoffs, they seemed like a paper tiger going in, and they seemed like a paper tiger going out.