Dunc’d On Grades Bulls’ Offseason

[MrSparkle]

I can almost guarantee that standing pat will backfire a bit. We have too many guaranteed contracts and log-jams. I guess our Windy City Bulls squad ought to be pretty damn good, although Donovan iii also demonstrated the uncanny ability to lose a SL game by 50 points.

AK needs another year to evaluate Coby, Ayo and Vuc.

[dougthonus]

His last 117 3PA he shot 37% taking almost 7 a game. For not playing for two season that's not bad. As far as impact his on-off numbers he was #2 on the Bulls with a +9.7, Huerter was #1 with +13.4. The risk with Ball is what its always been healthy not ability.

Good to know he shot ok (not great) if you remove the 40% of the threes where he didn't shoot well. He also shot 36% from two on the season, FWIW.

+/- is a worthless statistic, and it's super worthless in the amount Lonzo played.

If you think he played really well, more power to you, I think he played well for a feel good story guy that hadn't played in 2 and a half years and had 3 surgeries and it was a miracle he got on the court, but I'll say again, if he just mirrored that season this year, it was a vet min season.

[ShouldaPaidBG]

Idk why everyone acts like Lonzo is likely to stay healthy

[Dan Z]

The substance of the comments:

They like that the Bulls are holding firm with Giddey.

They do not like the Okoro trade b/c it didn't add an "asset" beyond Okoro. Lonzo is "useful" when he's healthy. Traded "a better player for a worse player, who also has a worse contract."

Traded down in the 2nd for cash.

Tre Jones contract good.

Essengue pick is potentially good, but turning down the Pelicans trade was bad.

Rated it as "incomplete" given Giddey is unresolved, but "preliminary grade" is an F, b/c the Bulls extended AK. Nate, as you noted, an F+ b/c of the couple things AK has done that he liked this offseason.

That's a pretty harsh grade related to the commentary. I agree with most of the commentary outside of the Lonzo/Okoro thing, I think that's a pretty neutral trade. Lonzo wasn't all that good last year, and played in very few games and ended the season hurt again. If you view Okoro as a negative, it's a poor trade, but I wouldn't view him as a negative.

I guess I normally wouldn't include extending AK as part of the criteria, and if you do, F makes sense given how bad he's been.

I agree with you that the Okoro/Lonzo trade is neutral, but was it necessarily? My two cents is that it wasn't. What's the point? Potentially another win or two because Okoro is an okay player?

[bledredwine]

When’s the last time we got an A?

How about a B?

[Muzbar]

When’s the last time we got an A?

How about a B?

1996? 2008?

[dougthonus]

I agree with you that the Okoro/Lonzo trade is neutral, but was it necessarily? My two cents is that it wasn't. What's the point? Potentially another win or two because Okoro is an okay player?

Yeah, I'd rate it as a C move. Nothing good or bad really IMO. I think there is some upside with Okoro, but even if he plays better, the deal is so short you won't really capitalize on it.

[The Force.]

To be fair these guys value the OKC philosophy of stockpiling draft capital and tanking for high upside picks. While I agree that, from an armchair GM’s perspective, this is objectively the best strategy, in reality I don’t think most GMs would concur.

With that said, I mostly agree with the grades purely based on the fact that AK still has a job.

[CROBulls]

I agree with you that the Okoro/Lonzo trade is neutral, but was it necessarily? My two cents is that it wasn't. What's the point? Potentially another win or two because Okoro is an okay player?

Yeah, I'd rate it as a C move. Nothing good or bad really IMO. I think there is some upside with Okoro, but even if he plays better, the deal is so short you won't really capitalize on it.

Hence why should be considered C-

[DuckIII]

When’s the last time we got an A?

How about a B?

Grade: B

Done. And I mean it. And I forgot more about the Bulls situation and history last week than the Dunc’d On podcast has ever known.

[dougthonus]

When’s the last time we got an A?

How about a B?

Grade: B

Done. And I mean it. And I forgot more about the Bulls situation and history last week than the Dunc’d On podcast has ever known.

Not sure how familiar you are with Dunc'd on, but you would probably love the heck out of that podcast, I think it's the best basketball podcast that exists. That said, it's subscriber only and pretty expensive, but I can guarantee you their knowledge of every team and player in the league has unbelievable depth.

That said, I agree, F is harsh unless you're going F just on extending AK, I think that's quite defensible, but AK himself had a decent off-season.

[Jcool0]

His last 117 3PA he shot 37% taking almost 7 a game. For not playing for two season that's not bad. As far as impact his on-off numbers he was #2 on the Bulls with a +9.7, Huerter was #1 with +13.4. The risk with Ball is what its always been healthy not ability.

Good to know he shot ok (not great) if you remove the 40% of the threes where he didn't shoot well. He also shot 36% from two on the season, FWIW.

+/- is a worthless statistic, and it's super worthless in the amount Lonzo played.

If you think he played really well, more power to you, I think he played well for a feel good story guy that hadn't played in 2 and a half years and had 3 surgeries and it was a miracle he got on the court, but I'll say again, if he just mirrored that season this year, it was a vet min season.

Its only worthless because you say so not because it actually is. If you value your opinion more then facts i cant stop you. Knocking Lonzo isn't going to make the trade look any better. Lonzo is never going to play 50-60 games again, if unavailability to you makes a player "bad" then have at it. All i know is when he is on the court he is a good player even if that is less then 40 games a year. Which probably does nothing for the Bulls at this point but if Cleveland can get 15+ MPG in the playoffs from him might be something.

[sco]

His last 117 3PA he shot 37% taking almost 7 a game. For not playing for two season that's not bad. As far as impact his on-off numbers he was #2 on the Bulls with a +9.7, Huerter was #1 with +13.4. The risk with Ball is what its always been healthy not ability.

Good to know he shot ok (not great) if you remove the 40% of the threes where he didn't shoot well. He also shot 36% from two on the season, FWIW.

+/- is a worthless statistic, and it's super worthless in the amount Lonzo played.

If you think he played really well, more power to you, I think he played well for a feel good story guy that hadn't played in 2 and a half years and had 3 surgeries and it was a miracle he got on the court, but I'll say again, if he just mirrored that season this year, it was a vet min season.

Its only worthless because you say so not because it actually is. If you value your opinion more then facts i cant stop you. Knocking Lonzo isn't going to make the trade look any better. Lonzo is never going to play 50-60 games again, if unavailability to you makes a player "bad" then have at it. All i know is when he is on the court he is a good player even if that is less then 40 games a year. Which probably does nothing for the Bulls at this point but if Cleveland can get 15+ MPG in the playoffs from him might be something.

Now to be fair to Zo, it wasn't his knee that took him out last season, but maybe it's a new chronic issue with his wrist. Who knows with him. I think, if healthy, he is a better player than Okoro...especially for CLE. I remember thinking last season that Jones looked better as good as Ball did defensively and better offensively. Ball is a better passer in the full court, but IMO Jones looked more effective in the half-court because he's able to penetrate off the dribble where Ball just can't. Ball will probably go back to being a better 3pt shooter. So getting Okoro who may not be the elite defender of wings that Ball is (when healthy), but he's not far off and can likely give you more minutes/games of actual play - which I think is important.

So from a team building perspective, I really like keeping Jones and adding Okoro.

[Tutupa]

Idk why everyone acts like Lonzo is likely to stay healthy

This.

I don't know why everyone (including the press) acts like the Cavs robbed us.

When Lonzo was with the Bulls, no one was betting on his recovery, and even if he did, everyone was skeptical about how he'd perform and how long he'd last. He's back, the guy ony plays 35 games on a minutes restriction after missing two and a half seasons, and it now feels like we've let go of our best asset since Caruso.

Most people here wouldn't even have re-signed Lonzo (myself included). So you can think of it this way: consider you let Lonzo expire and you get Okoro for 2 years "for free". I don´t know how people see the trade as "neutral" or even a bad trade, unless you consider Okoro has a bad contract (which he doesn´t).

In today´s NBA "availability is the best ability". You may not like Okoro but he is a decent role player and he has never played fewer than 55 games in a season. Wake me up the next time Lonzo plays 50 games in a season.

[Jcool0]

Good to know he shot ok (not great) if you remove the 40% of the threes where he didn't shoot well. He also shot 36% from two on the season, FWIW.

+/- is a worthless statistic, and it's super worthless in the amount Lonzo played.

If you think he played really well, more power to you, I think he played well for a feel good story guy that hadn't played in 2 and a half years and had 3 surgeries and it was a miracle he got on the court, but I'll say again, if he just mirrored that season this year, it was a vet min season.

Its only worthless because you say so not because it actually is. If you value your opinion more then facts i cant stop you. Knocking Lonzo isn't going to make the trade look any better. Lonzo is never going to play 50-60 games again, if unavailability to you makes a player "bad" then have at it. All i know is when he is on the court he is a good player even if that is less then 40 games a year. Which probably does nothing for the Bulls at this point but if Cleveland can get 15+ MPG in the playoffs from him might be something.

Now to be fair to Zo, it wasn't his knee that took him out last season, but maybe it's a new chronic issue with his wrist. Who knows with him. I think, if healthy, he is a better player than Okoro...especially for CLE. I remember thinking last season that Jones looked better as good as Ball did defensively and better offensively. Ball is a better passer in the full court, but IMO Jones looked more effective in the half-court because he's able to penetrate off the dribble where Ball just can't. Ball will probably go back to being a better 3pt shooter. So getting Okoro who may not be the elite defender of wings that Ball is (when healthy), but he's not far off and can likely give you more minutes/games of actual play - which I think is important.

So from a team building perspective, I really like keeping Jones and adding Okoro.

So the much better team in Cleveland didn't want him and not to many other teams wanted Okoro but he will be good for a worse Bulls team? I mean anything can happen, but the really only positive is he will play a lot more then Lonzo will. If that is a good thing remains to be seen.

[dougthonus]

Its only worthless because you say so not because it actually is. If you value your opinion more then facts i cant stop you.

There is a lot of statistical research on the subject, and my opinion on it is based on that research. There are other versions using on/off data that have much more value by regressing for quality of opponents on the floor, quality of teammates you play with, removing a lot of other pieces of noise and adjust for luck and other things, but even with those versions of the stat which are much better, you need a tremendous amount of data for it to balance out and Lonzo didn't reach that amount. But yes, it is my opinion is based on the research I have read on it and a pretty deep understanding of what the stat means, how it is calculated and what weaknesses exist.

Knocking Lonzo isn't going to make the trade look any better. Lonzo is never going to play 50-60 games again, if unavailability to you makes a player "bad" then have at it. All i know is when he is on the court he is a good player even if that is less then 40 games a year. Which probably does nothing for the Bulls at this point but if Cleveland can get 15+ MPG in the playoffs from him might be something.

I'm not trying to knock Lonzo, I'm just stating what I think you can realistically expect from him. Maybe 700-1400 minutes of really heady play, possibly with very significant physical limitations. I'm open to the possibility that he can bounce back even further this year, we'll see what happens.

[ChettheJet]

I'd really go for

D

The only thing lifting it from F is resigning Tre Jones. Yeah they drafted somebody, much more future than help for the next 2 years so the Noa payoff is that far down the road.

I disagree with the Lonzo/Okoro trade, factoring in the contract just don't see it being any benefit and they still have Vucevic. .

Maybe something happens as teams make cut at the end of camp but I sure doubt it.

[jnrjr79]

TBH, I'm happy about the offseason as much for what the Bulls *didn't* do than for what they did. It would be very AK to use all these expiring contracts and some draft capital to acquire the next Vooch or DeRozan-level player. Not doing that seems like real progress. (A low bar, to be sure, but the first rule when you find yourself stuck in a hole is to stop digging.)

[drosestruts]

Its only worthless because you say so not because it actually is. If you value your opinion more then facts i cant stop you. Knocking Lonzo isn't going to make the trade look any better. Lonzo is never going to play 50-60 games again, if unavailability to you makes a player "bad" then have at it. All i know is when he is on the court he is a good player even if that is less then 40 games a year. Which probably does nothing for the Bulls at this point but if Cleveland can get 15+ MPG in the playoffs from him might be something.

Now to be fair to Zo, it wasn't his knee that took him out last season, but maybe it's a new chronic issue with his wrist. Who knows with him. I think, if healthy, he is a better player than Okoro...especially for CLE. I remember thinking last season that Jones looked better as good as Ball did defensively and better offensively. Ball is a better passer in the full court, but IMO Jones looked more effective in the half-court because he's able to penetrate off the dribble where Ball just can't. Ball will probably go back to being a better 3pt shooter. So getting Okoro who may not be the elite defender of wings that Ball is (when healthy), but he's not far off and can likely give you more minutes/games of actual play - which I think is important.

So from a team building perspective, I really like keeping Jones and adding Okoro.

So the much better team in Cleveland didn't want him and not to many other teams wanted Okoro but he will be good for a worse Bulls team? I mean anything can happen, but the really only positive is he will play a lot more then Lonzo will. If that is a good thing remains to be seen.

The Cavs simply no longer needed Okoro after trading for a better, more expensive version of the same player in De'Andre Hunter.

The report about other teams not wanting Okoro was in reference to their not being a market for teams to straight up absord all his salary while sending none back.

Neither Lonzo and Okoro put up eye-popping counting stats. Both are +/- darlings. Okoro plays a lot more than Lonzo.

[GetBuLLish]

I'd go with a D.

If Okoro turns out better than I anticipate, then the grade could go higher. On the other hand, if Lonzo plays well (even if in limited minutes) in Cleveland, then the grade goes down to an F as it's likely that the Bulls could have gotten better future assets if they waited to trade him.