Chicago bulls : What is the plan?

[kodo]

Bulls aren't all that different than Indiana 2 seasons ago in 2023 before Siakam.
Indy was:
- 35 wins
- Led by a 22 year old who was primarily an assist guy, 10 apg
- One of the fastest teams in the league (4th)
- high 3P shooting (6th in makes, 7th in attempts)
- disaster defensively (26th)
- absolutely refused to tank historically, so was never going to tank for Wemby or Flagg in the upcoming years

The Siakam acquisition launched them to what they have been last 2 years.
That's been really the huge gap, the Bulls have been trying to find that 2-way, elite defensively and able to get his 20 offensively guy and Chicago struck out big with Patrick, but laid down more bets with Matas & maybe Noa (although it will be 6-7 years if Noa is the next Siakam).

At the end of the day every team would love 8-9 good guys, but Indiana is still that 35 win team without 2 all-nba players in Hali & Siakam.
If Caitlin asked Rick at that moment, "So Rick, are you still as good a team if Haliburton & Siakam are gone?" I doubt Carlisle would say "absolutely, we wouldn't miss those guys for a beat just pick up 2 MLE guys."

[Evil_Headband]

Read on Twitter

But when AK says it all the smart asses over here go off on him.

Yes, this is exactly what AK was trying to say. It fits in with what the Bulls are trying to do with pace. This really needs to be understood better by bloggers, talking heads, etc.

[Infinity2152]

Was talking about a trade of White, Vucevic and multiple firsts for Bam Adebayo in the trade thread. I think a lineup of Giddey, Okoro, Essengue, Matas, Adebayo would look extremely similar to Pacers Finals lineup. In 2026, when Matas, Giddey and Noa have improved some. Not exactly of course, but that team running and defending could be extremely good. There's a ton of cap left to replace Noa or Okoro as starters.

I think most of us think having a 1A is important to winning. But you can't build for that. 1A's to me would be guys like Ant, Luka, Luka, Lebron, Jokic but also guys like Embid, Kawhi, Wemby. Maybe 15 guys. It's random and hard as hell to get a 1A, maybe 1 moves a year? Your team needs will be different depending on which 1A you get, and we're not turning down a 1A because they don't fit the team, lol. You adjust the team then to fit the 1A.

All we can do now is build the best performing team we can, make it as attractive as possible. Add value players like Caruso (when we got him), Okoro, Smith. Young, relatively low-cost guys with good potential to up their value. Take shots on guys like Giddey and Quentin Grimes. It's really hard to jump from lottery team to legit contender and skipping becoming a good 6-7th seed first.

If we tank and look like we suck, why would a 1A want to come here? Even Bradley Beal didn't, lmao!

[Dominator83]

Read on Twitter

But when AK says it all the smart asses over here go off on him.

Yes, this is exactly what AK was trying to say. It fits in with what the Bulls are trying to do with pace. This really needs to be understood better by bloggers, talking heads, etc.

Not even remotely comparable. The Pacers are spearheaded by Haliburton. AK decided to draft Patrick Williams over him. They buy low on Siakam, we buy high on Vuc whos not nearly as good of a player (except for in fantasy). When we find a Haliburton, then we can start comparing

[Ccwatercraft]

But when AK says it all the smart asses over here go off on him.

Yes, this is exactly what AK was trying to say. It fits in with what the Bulls are trying to do with pace. This really needs to be understood better by bloggers, talking heads, etc.

Not even remotely comparable. The Pacers are spearheaded by Haliburton. AK decided to draft Patrick Williams over him. They buy low on Siakam, we buy high on Vuc whos not nearly as good of a player (except for in fantasy). When we find a Haliburton, then we can start comparing

They made a good trade for.Hali, but it was for sabonis who was very established vs a 2nd yr guy so.there was a bit of a gamble, obviously he blossomed from there, and his teammates did.as well

The more "good" players we have on reasonable contracts the better shot we have at a 1a and set the.roster up how we want. It's a risky move, Cleveland went all in on Mitchell and he stayed. Durant and harden have bounced everywhere and kinda left a trail of bad rosters behind them.

[kodo]

The Bulls validate everything Carlisle said. Every year we're supposed to be a trash, 20 win team. Every year we beat Vegas odds, sometimes by a massive amount. We weren't remotely close to 28 Ws even w/ Lavine dumped mid season. Bulls win by playing hard and wearing opponents down in the 4th. Post ASG, Chicago was the 2nd best net rating team in the league. 1st was Indiana.

What some people don't like is that getting wins above your talent level screws you in the draft, so it perpetuates a cycle. We're never just gonna try-hard our way to a championship.

[dougthonus]

The Bulls validate everything Carlisle said. Every year we're supposed to be a trash, 20 win team. Every year we beat Vegas odds, sometimes by a massive amount. We weren't remotely close to 28 Ws even w/ Lavine dumped mid season. Bulls win by playing hard and wearing opponents down in the 4th. Post ASG, Chicago was the 2nd best net rating team in the league. 1st was Indiana.

What some people don't like is that getting wins above your talent level screws you in the draft, so it perpetuates a cycle. We're never just gonna try-hard our way to a championship.

I think it's a pretty big stretch to compare Chicago to Indiana. We haven't been far above Vegas expectations, and we've averaged being like the 19th to 20th best team in the league the last 3 years, with most of the 10 beneath us attempting to lose. We've literally been bottom 4 every year for the last three years of teams legitimately trying to win at the end of the season vs chasing draft picks and missed the playoffs each year.

We've done well relative to our talent IMO, but that's a long stretch away from doing something meaningful and is more an indictment of our talent / strategy that outplaying our talent can't even get us to the playoffs. Granted, we'll see what happens over the next year. At least we've reset around some younger players, hopefully we see some good internal roster improvement.

[Hangtime84]

Read on Twitter

But when AK says it all the smart asses over here go off on him.

Yes, this is exactly what AK was trying to say. It fits in with what the Bulls are trying to do with pace. This really needs to be understood better by bloggers, talking heads, etc.

They do but when you critique Chicago major media consensus is you have to have a negative lean to it. AK is right.

[Jcool0]

But when AK says it all the smart asses over here go off on him.

Yes, this is exactly what AK was trying to say. It fits in with what the Bulls are trying to do with pace. This really needs to be understood better by bloggers, talking heads, etc.

They do but when you critique Chicago major media consensus is you have to have a negative lean to it. AK is right.

They arent wrong in being negative. The big 3 era is dead, but that also doesn't mean you can now win without star players, you need to find a way to trade for Haliburton or SGA types before they are All NBA guys. Giddey could be that type if he continues to get better. But right now he isn't close to a star player. "9 good players" doesn't work if your best player is outside of the top 50.

[sco]

Yes, this is exactly what AK was trying to say. It fits in with what the Bulls are trying to do with pace. This really needs to be understood better by bloggers, talking heads, etc.

They do but when you critique Chicago major media consensus is you have to have a negative lean to it. AK is right.

They arent wrong in being negative. The big 3 era is dead, but that also doesn't mean you can now win without star players, you need to find a way to trade for Haliburton or SGA types before they are All NBA guys. Giddey could be that type if he continues to get better. But right now he isn't close to a star player. "9 good players" doesn't work if your best player is outside of the top 50.

Yeah, Hali IMO showed he can be a legit #1 option on a contending team. I also think that Turner and Siakam make for a legit big 3...importantly a big 3, where 2 of them are good defenders. The fact that Turner had 3pt range, covered up for Siakam's limited 3pt shooting. This whole 9 deep thing isn't wrong, but IMO it's still predicated on having a legit big 3.

[Jcool0]

They do but when you critique Chicago major media consensus is you have to have a negative lean to it. AK is right.

They arent wrong in being negative. The big 3 era is dead, but that also doesn't mean you can now win without star players, you need to find a way to trade for Haliburton or SGA types before they are All NBA guys. Giddey could be that type if he continues to get better. But right now he isn't close to a star player. "9 good players" doesn't work if your best player is outside of the top 50.

Yeah, Hali IMO showed he can be a legit #1 option on a contending team. I also think that Turner and Siakam make for a legit big 3...importantly a big 3, where 2 of them are good defenders. The fact that Turner had 3pt range, covered up for Siakam's limited 3pt shooting. This whole 9 deep thing isn't wrong, but IMO it's still predicated on having a legit big 3.

Turner is a good defender & the 3rd best player but its not a "big three", you need that 3rd guy to have been on more then All Rookie 2nd team.

[Hangtime84]

They arent wrong in being negative. The big 3 era is dead, but that also doesn't mean you can now win without star players, you need to find a way to trade for Haliburton or SGA types before they are All NBA guys. Giddey could be that type if he continues to get better. But right now he isn't close to a star player. "9 good players" doesn't work if your best player is outside of the top 50.

Yeah, Hali IMO showed he can be a legit #1 option on a contending team. I also think that Turner and Siakam make for a legit big 3...importantly a big 3, where 2 of them are good defenders. The fact that Turner had 3pt range, covered up for Siakam's limited 3pt shooting. This whole 9 deep thing isn't wrong, but IMO it's still predicated on having a legit big 3.

Turner is a good defender & the 3rd best player but its not a "big three", you need that 3rd guy to have been on more then All Rookie 2nd team.

I think 3 boarder-line all-stars and 1 first team defender can could also be contending level team while still being deep. Just cannot overpay.

[Stratmaster]

Yeah, Hali IMO showed he can be a legit #1 option on a contending team. I also think that Turner and Siakam make for a legit big 3...importantly a big 3, where 2 of them are good defenders. The fact that Turner had 3pt range, covered up for Siakam's limited 3pt shooting. This whole 9 deep thing isn't wrong, but IMO it's still predicated on having a legit big 3.

Turner is a good defender & the 3rd best player but its not a "big three", you need that 3rd guy to have been on more then All Rookie 2nd team.

I think 3 boarder-line all-stars and 1 first team defender can could also be contending level team while still being deep. Just cannot overpay.

You mean like... Lavine, DDR, Vuc and Caruso/Lonzo?

The Bulls tried that. It didn't work.

[Hangtime84]

Turner is a good defender & the 3rd best player but its not a "big three", you need that 3rd guy to have been on more then All Rookie 2nd team.

I think 3 boarder-line all-stars and 1 first team defender can could also be contending level team while still being deep. Just cannot overpay.

You mean like... Lavine, DDR, Vuc and Caruso/Lonzo?

The Bulls tried that. It didn't work.

A valid point

But main guys in this case need be more two-way or better plus defenders.

[Jcool0]

Yeah, Hali IMO showed he can be a legit #1 option on a contending team. I also think that Turner and Siakam make for a legit big 3...importantly a big 3, where 2 of them are good defenders. The fact that Turner had 3pt range, covered up for Siakam's limited 3pt shooting. This whole 9 deep thing isn't wrong, but IMO it's still predicated on having a legit big 3.

Turner is a good defender & the 3rd best player but its not a "big three", you need that 3rd guy to have been on more then All Rookie 2nd team.

I think 3 boarder-line all-stars and 1 first team defender can could also be contending level team while still being deep. Just cannot overpay.

Can Turner be a boarder-line All Star if he has never made the team & his best All NBA finish was 32nd once? And FWIW no current Pacer has made an All Defensive team.

[drosestruts]

Man listening to the Dunc'd on Basketball NBA podcast of the 2024 offseason re-grades.

Danny dropped it from an F+ to an F

Nate kept it as a F (considered doing an F-)


Year later still label both the DeRozan and Caruso trades as awful. And the Williams and Smith signing as terrible.

Also slightly touched on the LaVine trade summrizing it as "got their own pick back but took on a bunch of **** contracts to do so"

I know I'm a Bulls fan and I guess a bit of a homer but the F grades just seem too low.


DeRozan trade
There criticisms here I do think are fair. Bulls sent out the best player in the deal, Spurs received the best asset in the trade. That's a bad trade, and we only didn't recive the pick swap because we didn't want to take on Barnes contract to preserve space to re-sign Williams. Which is brutal in hindsight.


Caruso trade
I think they're way too negative here. Josh Giddey is good. This was a good trade for Chicago.


Williams signing
On it's own has been bad. When combined with its impact on the Demar trade it looks even worse.


Smith signing
Just not sure what there is to hate on here.

Buzelis draft
They also sounded prettty low on Matas, both initially last year, and even still now. As someone who started low on Matas, I think he's been a decent surprise and showed enough promise to be excited about him. They mention the Bulls should have drafted Topic and I'm not sure what that could be based on.


DeRozan trade - F

Caruso trade - B

Williams signing - F

Smith signing - C

Buzelis draft - B+

Which I guess is a D+, if you weigh each move equally.

[jnrjr79]

Man listening to the Dunc'd on Basketball NBA podcast of the 2024 offseason re-grades.

Danny dropped it from an F+ to an F

Nate kept it as a F (considered doing an F-)


Year later still label both the DeRozan and Caruso trades as awful. And the Williams and Smith signing as terrible.

Also slightly touched on the LaVine trade summrizing it as "got their own pick back but took on a bunch of **** contracts to do so"

I know I'm a Bulls fan and I guess a bit of a homer but the F grades just seem too low.


DeRozan trade
There criticisms here I do think are fair. Bulls sent out the best player in the deal, Spurs received the best asset in the trade. That's a bad trade, and we only didn't recive the pick swap because we didn't want to take on Barnes contract to preserve space to re-sign Williams. Which is brutal in hindsight.


Caruso trade
I think they're way too negative here. Josh Giddey is good. This was a good trade for Chicago.


Williams signing
On it's own has been bad. When combined with its impact on the Demar trade it looks even worse.


Smith signing
Just not sure what there is to hate on here.

Buzelis draft
They also sounded prettty low on Matas, both initially last year, and even still now. As someone who started low on Matas, I think he's been a decent surprise and showed enough promise to be excited about him. They mention the Bulls should have drafted Topic and I'm not sure what that could be based on.


DeRozan trade - F

Caruso trade - B

Williams signing - F

Smith signing - C

Buzelis draft - B+

Which I guess is a D+, if you weigh each move equally.

Yeah, these opinions as you summarize them here are really stupid. There’s just no two ways about it. I think AK sucks, but this strikes me as a sort of “AK Derangement Syndrome” phenomenon where every AK transaction must suck due solely to the fact that AK made it.

The Buzelis draft picks was good. The Giddey-for-Caruso swap was good. The Smith signing is, at least, fine. The DeRozan trade was not good, but was also in line with expectations given the ownership edict to stay out of the tax. The contracts they took back were totally fine and now are potential trade assets.

The Williams deal is indeed terrible, though.

[DuckIII]

Again, I'll never understand why you guys care about the national guys. They don't know your team, they don't care to know your team, that is not why they are talking. You know more than they do.

P.S. This also applies when they are superficially praising your team.

[_txchilibowl_]

F+ is such a click-baity grade. It's only purpose is to drive engagement and discussion.

It's actually pretty pathetic because all it really says is they can't achieve those things through actual basketball analysis.

[kodo]

Demar was definitely an F. The guy's value was an unprotected 1st round pick swap from Sacramento in the post-Sabonis era, and we just gave it to San Antonio to save some salary for an inexpensive $18M Harrison Barnes for 2 measly years. Who has been a more than solid vet player shooting 43% from 3.

The very, very faint silver lining was that Chicago at least got a couple of 2nd rounders...but then they just sold one of those picks to LA for cash and I assume we'll do the same with the 2028 pick. So we literally got nothing. I didn't think it was possible to literally get nothing in a sign & trade, but never doubt Chicago's ability to make nothing out of something.