NBA Trade Thread #13

[NecessaryEvil]

AD is injured every other game and is a packers fan

Hell no

[Infinity2152]

AD's median games played is around 65, average around 61. Already showed how he's middle of the pack injured among starting big men, while playing more minutes. I invite anybody to show some statistics that show AD is hurt significantly more than the average guy his size that plays a lot of minutes. Unless guys are saying they don't want a tall player or rim protector anymore, injury risk comes with the size. The few ironmen rarely get traded or hit free agency and are in the league 10-20 years.

As for Packers fan, he's also an NBA champion, veteran and one of the greatest players to ever come out of Chicago. Seems like a great guy, good locker room guy. He covers so many needs. What he could bring is more than just individual stats, I'm talking team defense, leadership, enforcer, mentor. He played 76 games just the year before last, this team is spoiled because of Vucevic.

Billy wouldn't play him more than 32 mins/gm and hopefully at PF, he's never played that few. Sure there's some risk, but most big man available have the same risk playing less minutes. AD is a top 10-15 player and could totally fit in with what we're doing without disrupting and much less pressure for him and playing at home. He is not Embid.

No offense meant to anyone who disagrees. I'd easily roll the dice on AD before Zion or Embid or PG13 or the other guys labeled injury risk. Especially with lower minutes/usage.

[madvillian]

I don't want any part of him. His median games played is meaningless to me given he's now 32 with chronic issues.

[Infinity2152]

I don't want any part of him. His median games played is meaningless to me given he's now 32 with chronic issues.

Is 32 the new old in the NBA? Like most of the top players in the league are around that age or older. Do teams usually do well with every player under 30? I though he was out with a calf injury, he has chronic issues?

Good luck adding a young, no risk top 15 player without trading the entire team. I know, I know. Keep doing nothing, waste this year and see what happens? What exactly are Bulls fans waiting on before we make a move?

[madvillian]

I don't want any part of him. His median games played is meaningless to me given he's now 32 with chronic issues.

Is 32 the new old in the NBA? Like most of the top players in the league are around that age or older. Do teams usually do well with every player under 30?

There's plenty of durable 32 year old players in the league. AD is not one of them and we'd be getting his 32-34 years paying full freight. We are not in a good position to go all in imo. Even if he was completely healthy I'd have concerns. The "he's from Chicago" angle I get, but it's not even a factor here for a serious FO.

[Infinity2152]

I don't want any part of him. His median games played is meaningless to me given he's now 32 with chronic issues.

Is 32 the new old in the NBA? Like most of the top players in the league are around that age or older. Do teams usually do well with every player under 30?

There's plenty of durable 32 year old players in the league. AD is not one of them and we'd be getting his 32-34 years paying full freight. We are not in a good position to go all in imo. Even if he was completely healthy I'd have concerns. The "he's from Chicago" angle I get, but it's not even a factor here for a serious FO.

Again, can you or anyone else show how he's less durable than the average guy his size? I posted the guys his size games last two years, he's in the middle. Right around where he's been for his career. If a player is in the middle, doesn't that mean "injury average"?

I put up my numbers with basic tools, lot of guys here have better resources. If anybody could compare AD's game played over a 2 year or 5-year period to guys of the same size playing 30+ minutes, that would be great. Every way I look at it, he's average injured for starting 6'11 guys playing big minutes. We could end the whole always injured if somebody please proves he's injured much more than average.

I'm curious, how many games do you guys think the average NBA starter playing 34+ minutes misses per season? Injury prone would mean he misses significantly more, say 30% more games than average, what number would be acceptable? Let's skip opinions and debate numbers.

None of the proposed packages for AD would be "all-in", expiring players plus Patrick Williams and a couple of picks was the suggestion. Very low cost for potential top 15 player. We're in exactly the position to do it before these contracts expire and it gets rid of Williams contract too.

Here's a question: would we be fine using load maintenance on AD and playing him 60 games, but he's healthy for the playoffs and only playing 32-34 mins/gm? His usage most years is around 30%, plus anchoring defense, running around blocking shots, catching oops for 36 minutes. Does that alone sound like it would lead to more injuries?

[ImSlower]

I think the main problem with trading for Anthony Davis in 2025 is paying him 62 million dollars in two years, when everyone on this and the GB seem to agree he's a huge risk of further physical decay. Even their inept owner is all over the news today, pumping the breaks on any hasty return.

[Infinity2152]

I think the main problem with trading for Anthony Davis in 2025 is paying him 62 million dollars in two years, when everyone on this and the GB seem to agree he's a huge risk of further physical decay. Even their inept owner is all over the news today, pumping the breaks on any hasty return.

I'd prefer JJJ myself, but I think the cost to get JJJ will be way more. Most bigs don't seem like they decline a lot between 32 and 34, imo. But of course theres some risk. But here's the thing:

Let's say you want to support/supplement this team right now: I'm struggling to think of a better FIT for our current team among max players or available players. Easy system fit.

AD is the second best 2-way big in the league after Giannis, imo. Best talent we could add.

Champion, veteran, Chicago born, seems like a great guy who could add to our chemistry instead of disrupting it. That's important too. I think he could come in and be Big Bro instead of clashing and competing for attention, shots, etc.

The cost: We're not giving up anything that hurts us.

Contract is max. Should be fine paying max contract for max talent. Even at 34, AD is likely a top 5 big, how bad do guys think he'll be at 34, lmao! If he was a UFA this summer, no doubt he gets multiple max contract offers of 3-4 years.

AD's the type of player we could NEVER get if he was healthy every year. His value is down now. Injury is a factor but all those other things are factors too. I don't think AD one man carries us to the championship, but I think adding him makes us a much better team.

[StephenAA]

Vucevic, Pat, Terry and POR 1st is what I would offer for AD

*
This...
I may add a 2027 1st to get the deal done, but that's it.
If it's truly a 'fire sale', that might do it...

Look, the East is weak! You strike when the 'opponent' is weak!
While Matas and Noa are still extremely young, the rest of the roster is essentially 'veterans'.
It might be a good time to go 'all in' for the next 3 years with this AD trade.
Don't forget, if we can get AD for the above price, we can make other trades also...

After all, what other top 15 player are you hoping to get?

AA

[GuardianEnzo]

Vucevic, Pat, Terry and POR 1st is what I would offer for AD

Let me know when they stop laughing.

AD is not going to fetch a monster return at his age with his injury history, obviously. But it'll take more than that. Is it worth it for us, given that he's not enough to make us into a title contender? I would argue no, given that the cost is more likely to be something like the above but with Noa and our unprotected '26 first instead of the PDX pick. That doesn't mean I don't like him though - he's still one of the best two-way bigs in the league and probably has 2-3 really good seasons left in him.

[jnrjr79]

Why are people so scared for the Bulls to make a risky play for a player that fits? I swear, every single trade for a major player gets hit with resistance. Most in here say they want us to get a top 10-15 player. Nobody wants to pay what it costs to get one. You're either going to deal with age and injury risks or giving up a ton of picks. Should we give up 5 firsts instead of two to get one with average injury risk, or just not get one?

There has to be a balance. AD plays a LOT of minutes for a center, averages 35-36 minutes most years. Played center a lot when he wants to be at PF. Most big guys who play that many minutes are injured a lot. Check the stats. We could have a special season if we trade for AD and keep Vucevic and our main guys.

I'm not going to ignore the fact that these guys look great right now. A JJJ or AD boost, they look like a top team. Without a "superstar". Who knows what the league looks like next year, and I don't think AD's contract would cripple us even if he plays 60 gms/season next 2-3 seasons.

He's literally everything you want in a PF, once you discount his price for injury risk. He's played at least 60 games 8 of his 13 seasons, what's the average for 7 footers?

Re: the bolded, the "why" is really easy to answer, regardless of whether you agree or not. Most players that are big names and become available are highly paid and have some sort of black mark - age, injuries, etc. Other than obviously the insane Luka trade, reliable young stars barely ever become available. So, doing a trade for AD or Zion or Ja or whoever is just a massive risk. It potentially has high upside, but you may also wreck your team doing it (and there are many examples of teams acquiring big names in recent years and having it blow up in their faces). So, some people prefer an "organic" build via the draft and more measured free agency signings. You obviously disagree with that approach, but it's not a hard approach to understand.

I get the build organically approach. You have to draft high end rookies for "organically" to work. Not Coby White, Daniel Gafford, Pat Williams, Dalen Terry, Julian Phillips, Ayo Dosunmu, Marko Simonovic.

We're building organically but continuing to get rid of every single player. Check last season forums to see how many people did not want to pay Giddey as a starter. How many want Vucevic gone now. How many wanted Ball, Lavine, Derozan gone. Want Pat Williams gone. Dalen Terry and Julian Phillips gone. Okoro gone. How many do NOT want to pay Coby $30+ mill. Still a debate on re-signing Ayo.

We are going to have to add at least 6-7 players next year, you guys can prepare to be mad about every contract, lmao! We're adding free agents and traded players before the end of next summer even if we re-sign every expiring player.

Tell me the "organically built" team that's great without at least one max contract. Guys here are losing their minds over every single max contract suggestion, without fail. It's real easy to do nothing, rather than trying to make moves to improve. All doing nothing does is waste Coby's year at $12 mill, Matas on rookie salary, Giddey at $25 mill, cheap team that might win the East with one trade of non-essential players. AD plays his average 65 games, Bulls are a top seed. Same with JJJ. We're way too good to tank and add a high draft pick player already.

Spurs build organically, traded for De Aaron Fox. Rocket organically, traded for KD. Warriors added KD. Celtics started organically, all types of free agent adds. Pacers added Siakam. Magic, Desmond Bane. At some point organic teams add a top FA/Trade player.

It’s obviously false that the Bulls under AK have built organically, though they appear to be trending in that direction in the last year.

I agree the Bulls are in a difficult predicament because they have not allowed themselves to truly tank, so you have to really hit on a pick that isn’t at the top of the lottery. They’ve done it to themselves.

I have no idea why you’re asking what great teams haven’t had a max guy. The idea here is whether it’s smart to go get an old max guy (meaning that player’s max is higher than a young one’s) when that player also has huge flaws that are the reason he’s available. Contrast that, say to OKC last year, who won with SGA on a 25% max and that’s it.

Re: the bolded, that’s a really funny point. Yes, fans want their losing players off their roster. In what sense is this surprising? The Bulls have hope for the first time in years precisely because they unloaded a bunch of purported stars who could not deliver actual results. And you now see the Bulls’ two main pieces of the prior build on a team in Sacramento that is flaming out and themselves ready to blow it up.

[jnrjr79]

I think the main problem with trading for Anthony Davis in 2025 is paying him 62 million dollars in two years, when everyone on this and the GB seem to agree he's a huge risk of further physical decay. Even their inept owner is all over the news today, pumping the breaks on any hasty return.

I'd prefer JJJ myself, but I think the cost to get JJJ will be way more. Most bigs don't seem like they decline a lot between 32 and 34, imo. But of course theres some risk. But here's the thing:

Let's say you want to support/supplement this team right now: I'm struggling to think of a better FIT for our current team among max players or available players. Easy system fit.

Agreed he’s a great fit. It’s just amusing seeing you act like this would be a no-brainer move. It would have huge risk, but could turn the Bulls into a top team (but not a contender IMO) in the East if it pans out.

AD is the second best 2-way big in the league after Giannis, imo. Best talent we could add.

As to the first sentence, I assume the words “if healthy” are implied.

Champion, veteran, Chicago born, seems like a great guy who could add to our chemistry instead of disrupting it. That's important too. I think he could come in and be Big Bro instead of clashing and competing for attention, shots, etc.

Champion: I care very little, but it’s not nothing.
Chicago-born: I could not care less.
Great guy: based on what? He was a malcontent in New Orleans and forced his way out. If he’s not happy about being traded here, watch out. You’d have to run that down first. If he were happy about it, then it could work out nicely and he’s not signed all that long-term anyway, so that helps with that risk.

The cost: We're not giving up anything that hurts us.

This is foolish thinking. I agree the expiring guys wouldn’t be a big deal to include, but cavalierly throwing in a couple of firsts is the antithesis of “can’t hurt us.”

Contract is max. Should be fine paying max contract for max talent. Even at 34, AD is likely a top 5 big, how bad do guys think he'll be at 34, lmao! If he was a UFA this summer, no doubt he gets multiple max contract offers of 3-4 years.

I agree that given the timeline on when the young guys project to get paid, the contract is fine.

AD's the type of player we could NEVER get if he was healthy every year. His value is down now. Injury is a factor but all those other things are factors too. I don't think AD one man carries us to the championship, but I think adding him makes us a much better team.

Agreed he’s only potentially available because of his injury status (which you deny exists lol).

If healthy, I agree he does not win this squad a championship but makes them pretty darn good in the East.

If not healthy, the Bulls would probably be pretty bad, but then if you still have your next couple of firsts, it at least helps those picks improve.

All in all, I don’t think the Bulls would do it, but if it were something like expiring dudes + the Portland pick, I’d be fine with taking the flier.

[NecessaryEvil]

AD's median games played is around 65, average around 61. Already showed how he's middle of the pack injured among starting big men, while playing more minutes. I invite anybody to show some statistics that show AD is hurt significantly more than the average guy his size that plays a lot of minutes. Unless guys are saying they don't want a tall player or rim protector anymore, injury risk comes with the size. The few ironmen rarely get traded or hit free agency and are in the league 10-20 years.

As for Packers fan, he's also an NBA champion, veteran and one of the greatest players to ever come out of Chicago. Seems like a great guy, good locker room guy. He covers so many needs. What he could bring is more than just individual stats, I'm talking team defense, leadership, enforcer, mentor. He played 76 games just the year before last, this team is spoiled because of Vucevic.

Billy wouldn't play him more than 32 mins/gm and hopefully at PF, he's never played that few. Sure there's some risk, but most big man available have the same risk playing less minutes. AD is a top 10-15 player and could totally fit in with what we're doing without disrupting and much less pressure for him and playing at home. He is not Embid.

No offense meant to anyone who disagrees. I'd easily roll the dice on AD before Zion or Embid or PG13 or the other guys labeled injury risk. Especially with lower minutes/usage.

This is crazy, insane even

He’s never gonna be there when you need him. His body is failing him.

I’ll give up Terry and Philip’s for him. That’s about it

[MisterRoy]

What has AD shown? He’s shown that he is good when healthy but, unfortunately, he’s not healthy enough and it impacts the team winning. What has he done to indicate that is going to change?

Not sure you give up a lot for that or even want to trade for that.

[sco]

So here's the question, assuming both guys are available, would folks prefer to trade:

for AD, our unprotected '26 1st and expirings, OR

for JJJ, our unprotected '26 and top 10 protected '28 and POR 1st and expirings?

[Infinity2152]

I keep seeing guys call AD injury prone. I have yet to see anyone prove he is injured significantly more than players his size playing 34+ minutes. Not one person has offered a shred of proof. I would welcome proof, maybe that would change my opinion. Opinions that he's too injury prone , compared to who? Injury prone would mean he's more prone to injury than similar players, unless you concede you don't want a 6'11 player playing 34+ minutes. He averages 60 gms/season, average for a guy his size playing 35 minutes might be 65-67, could be less. Most years AD has played above 60. In 13 years, he's missed half the season twice, which skews his numbers.

I did not act as if it was a no-brainer, I said I'd prefer JJJ. AT THE RIGHT COST, I would do it. Basketball is a physical sport, every player gets injured. Those who play more have more chances to get injured. It's the freaking NBA. Most guys his size don't even last this long.

The East is wide open. Tatum and Haliburton are back next year, lots of other teams in the East could be better. While you guys are looking for the perfect piece or combination of pieces for the future, right now this team could contend for the East with one move. We likely would have won at least half the games we lost already with AD or JJJ. After next summer, we will likely have no cap space and few expiring contracts. Try making a move with that. We're likely to add market value free agents on more than 1 year contracts.

A fully healthy all the time AD would cost 4-5 firsts easily, probably more. If you can get him for 2 picks and expirings, you saved 2-3 picks that will cover you some for an AD injury. Future picks only count when we're sending them out, not when we're saving them? AD's trade value is already discounted because of that "injury prone" moniker.

Sco: I'd take the AD trade over that JJJ trade, more up front risk, less pick cost so I have some insurance. I'll risk a couple of future picks for a shot to win the East and add a top tier player without giving up one.

[jnrjr79]

I keep seeing guys call AD injury prone. I have yet to see anyone prove he is injured significantly more than players his size playing 34+ minutes. Not one person has offered a shred of proof. I would welcome proof, maybe that would change my opinion. Opinions that he's too injury prone , compared to who? Injury prone would mean he's more prone to injury than similar players, unless you concede you don't want a 6'11 player playing 34+ minutes. He averages 60 gms/season, average for a guy his size playing 35 minutes might be 65-67, could be less. Most years AD has played above 60. In 13 years, he's missed half the season twice, which skews his numbers.

I did not act as if it was a no-brainer, I literally said I'd prefer JJJ. AT THE RIGHT COST, I would do it. Basketball is a physical sport, every player gets injured. Those who play more have more chances to get injured. It's the freaking NBA. Most guys his size don't even last this long.

The East is wide open. Tatum and Haliburton are back next year, lots of other teams in the East could be better. While you guys are looking for the perfect piece or combination of pieces for the future, right now this team could contend for the East with one move. We would have won at least half the games we lost already with AD. After next summer, we will likely have no cap space and few expiring contracts. Try making a move with that. We're likely to add market value free agents on more than 1 year contracts.

A fully healthy all the time AD would cost 4-5 firsts easily, probably more. If you can get him for 2 picks and expirings, you saved 2-3 picks that will cover you some for an AD injury. Future picks only count when we're sending them out, not when we're saving them? AD's trade value is already discounted because of that "injury prone" moniker.

Sco: I'd take the AD trade over that JJJ trade, more up front risk, less pick cost so I have some insurance. I'll risk a couple of future picks for a shot to win the East and add a top tier player without giving up one.

I think the flaw in your line of thinking here that is making this discussion somewhat unproductive is saying stuff like Davis "averages" 60 games a season. I mean, give me a break. That is using career numbers, and how many games Davis was able to play when he was 22 or whatever has little relevance to what he is now.

Since the 2020-21 season, he's had seasons of 36, 40, 56, 76, and 51 games. That means he has had a single healthy season in the past five. In all the others, he's missed a ton of time. And he currently has a calf injury that Dallas is worried could turn into an Achilles tear if he comes back.

I think it's fine to have a discussion about whether it's worth trading for a guy with that track record, while noting that he isn't getting any younger, and that is poses real risks. As I've noted in this thread, I'd be fine rolling the dice on it for expiring salaries and not too much draft capital. But arguing "most years he's played more than 60 games," when that argument relies on his seasons when he was in his early/mid-20s, is just a totally unrealistic discussion.

[Infinity2152]

I keep seeing guys call AD injury prone. I have yet to see anyone prove he is injured significantly more than players his size playing 34+ minutes. Not one person has offered a shred of proof. I would welcome proof, maybe that would change my opinion. Opinions that he's too injury prone , compared to who? Injury prone would mean he's more prone to injury than similar players, unless you concede you don't want a 6'11 player playing 34+ minutes. He averages 60 gms/season, average for a guy his size playing 35 minutes might be 65-67, could be less. Most years AD has played above 60. In 13 years, he's missed half the season twice, which skews his numbers.

I did not act as if it was a no-brainer, I literally said I'd prefer JJJ. AT THE RIGHT COST, I would do it. Basketball is a physical sport, every player gets injured. Those who play more have more chances to get injured. It's the freaking NBA. Most guys his size don't even last this long.

The East is wide open. Tatum and Haliburton are back next year, lots of other teams in the East could be better. While you guys are looking for the perfect piece or combination of pieces for the future, right now this team could contend for the East with one move. We would have won at least half the games we lost already with AD. After next summer, we will likely have no cap space and few expiring contracts. Try making a move with that. We're likely to add market value free agents on more than 1 year contracts.

A fully healthy all the time AD would cost 4-5 firsts easily, probably more. If you can get him for 2 picks and expirings, you saved 2-3 picks that will cover you some for an AD injury. Future picks only count when we're sending them out, not when we're saving them? AD's trade value is already discounted because of that "injury prone" moniker.

Sco: I'd take the AD trade over that JJJ trade, more up front risk, less pick cost so I have some insurance. I'll risk a couple of future picks for a shot to win the East and add a top tier player without giving up one.

I think the flaw in your line of thinking here that is making this discussion somewhat unproductive is saying stuff like Davis "averages" 60 games a season. I mean, give me a break. That is using career numbers, and how many games Davis was able to play when he was 22 or whatever has little relevance to what he is now.

Since the 2020-21 season, he's had seasons of 36, 40, 56, 76, and 51 games. That means he has had a single healthy season in the past five. In all the others, he's missed a ton of time. And he currently has a calf injury that Dallas is worried could turn into an Achilles tear if he comes back.

I think it's fine to have a discussion about whether it's worth trading for a guy with that track record, while noting that he isn't getting any younger, and that is poses real risks. As I've noted in this thread, I'd be fine rolling the dice on it for expiring salaries and not too much draft capital. But arguing "most years he's played more than 60 games," when that argument relies on his seasons when he was in his early/mid-20s, is just a totally unrealistic discussion.

Its's ok to use the last 5 years, but not his whole career or not the last two? I've presented both. Over the last two years, he played 76 and 51. He's had a single injured season in the last two. When I use career average it's the whole, 2 years is recent years. Unless it's a recurring injury don't really care if you hurt your leg 3 years ago. Let's not act like I only used his whole career, I also used a time period that was valid in my opinion, last two years. Five years is coincidentally the worst stretch of his career, I guess that helps. Did he become injury prone 5 years ago, is that why we'll skip the rest of his career when he was playing 75 games? The argument is he's, meaning his body, has been injury prone his whole career, right? Good thing you didn't use 6 years, would have had to add a 62 game season, right around his career average.

Using numbers, show me how he's been injured significantly more than players his size and minutes without specifically focusing on the worst stretch of his career. Or maybe just define injury prone in terms of numbers. Injury prone is a vague, easy catchall that means nothing. What types of injuries? Are they systemic? Who were the coaches, what's the usage? Thibs crippled entire teams, made them look injury prone, lmao! Were you told by Nico Harrison to come back early last year and got injured for much longer? Contending for championships with the Lakers, playing games in the post season? Ridiculous high usage on both ends leading to injury? There's no context to this label. He's not Gafford, playing 22 minutes/gm with 10% usage on offense, or Vucevic, lower usage, little energy spent on defense and never playing in the postseason.

So you give me a break. Injury prone is a very non specific term that tells nothing, at least I'm trying to use numbers to defend my point. Is injury prone absolute, regardless of height, position, usage, coaching, say less than 75% games played? Is last 5 years the length of time we use to judge everybody? That's more than the average NBA career. Or relative, as in he should be compared to similar build, usage, minutes NBA players?

[jnrjr79]

I keep seeing guys call AD injury prone. I have yet to see anyone prove he is injured significantly more than players his size playing 34+ minutes. Not one person has offered a shred of proof. I would welcome proof, maybe that would change my opinion. Opinions that he's too injury prone , compared to who? Injury prone would mean he's more prone to injury than similar players, unless you concede you don't want a 6'11 player playing 34+ minutes. He averages 60 gms/season, average for a guy his size playing 35 minutes might be 65-67, could be less. Most years AD has played above 60. In 13 years, he's missed half the season twice, which skews his numbers.

I did not act as if it was a no-brainer, I literally said I'd prefer JJJ. AT THE RIGHT COST, I would do it. Basketball is a physical sport, every player gets injured. Those who play more have more chances to get injured. It's the freaking NBA. Most guys his size don't even last this long.

The East is wide open. Tatum and Haliburton are back next year, lots of other teams in the East could be better. While you guys are looking for the perfect piece or combination of pieces for the future, right now this team could contend for the East with one move. We would have won at least half the games we lost already with AD. After next summer, we will likely have no cap space and few expiring contracts. Try making a move with that. We're likely to add market value free agents on more than 1 year contracts.

A fully healthy all the time AD would cost 4-5 firsts easily, probably more. If you can get him for 2 picks and expirings, you saved 2-3 picks that will cover you some for an AD injury. Future picks only count when we're sending them out, not when we're saving them? AD's trade value is already discounted because of that "injury prone" moniker.

Sco: I'd take the AD trade over that JJJ trade, more up front risk, less pick cost so I have some insurance. I'll risk a couple of future picks for a shot to win the East and add a top tier player without giving up one.

I think the flaw in your line of thinking here that is making this discussion somewhat unproductive is saying stuff like Davis "averages" 60 games a season. I mean, give me a break. That is using career numbers, and how many games Davis was able to play when he was 22 or whatever has little relevance to what he is now.

Since the 2020-21 season, he's had seasons of 36, 40, 56, 76, and 51 games. That means he has had a single healthy season in the past five. In all the others, he's missed a ton of time. And he currently has a calf injury that Dallas is worried could turn into an Achilles tear if he comes back.

I think it's fine to have a discussion about whether it's worth trading for a guy with that track record, while noting that he isn't getting any younger, and that is poses real risks. As I've noted in this thread, I'd be fine rolling the dice on it for expiring salaries and not too much draft capital. But arguing "most years he's played more than 60 games," when that argument relies on his seasons when he was in his early/mid-20s, is just a totally unrealistic discussion.

Its's ok to use the last 5 years, but not his whole career or not the last two? I've presented both. Over the last two years, he played 76 and 51. He's had a single healthy season in the last two. When I use career average it's the whole, 2 years is recent years. Unless it's a recurring injury don't really care if you hurt your leg 3 years ago. Let's not act like I only used his whole career, I also used a time period that was valid in my opinion, last two years. Five years is coincidentally the worst stretch of his career, I guess that helps. Did he become injury prone 5 years ago, is that why we'll skip the rest of his career when he was playing 75 games? The argument is he's, meaning his body, has been injury prone his whole career, right?

if the past 5 years is the worst stretch of his career, and is also the most recent data, and his trend line has generally headed in one direction, it's intellectually dishonest to ignore it. Using the only healthy season he's had in five to juice the numbers is not a particularly straightforward way to engage with the issue.

The argument is not that he's been "injury prone his whole career." The argument is that he's injury prone now (and just plain old injured now).

Using numbers, show me how he's been injured significantly more than players his size and minutes without specifically focusing on the worst stretch of his career. Or maybe just define injury prone in terms of numbers. Injury prone is a vague, easy catchall that means nothing. What types of injuries? Are they systemic? Who were the coaches, what's the usage? Thibs crippled entire teams, made them look injury prone, lmao! Were you told by Nico Harrison to come back early last year and got injured for much longer? Contending for championships with the Lakers, playing games in the post season? Ridiculous high usage on both ends leading to injury? There's no context to this label. He's not Gafford, playing 22 minutes/gm with 10% usage on offense, or Vucevic, lower usage, little energy spent on defense and never playing in the postseason.

Everyone knows what "injury-prone" means and if you're trading for Anthony Davis, you don't want him to be a 22 minute/game role player - you need him to be a star. So who cares is he could perhaps stay healthier with low usage?

I hate Vooch, by and large, but comparing his durability to Davis's is amusing. Vooch has played 70, 73, 82, 76, and 73 games in the past 5 seasons. The idea that Vooch's playing style is less exerting and that keeps him healthier (which is something you'd be screaming for "evidence" for if anyone else were making the point) is irrelevant. Vooch plays how he plays and Davis plays how he plays, so you have to view the prospects of Davis being healthy based on the player he is. If you want to say "he's not injury prone, he just busts his ass so much that he gets hurt," then fine, but that point would have no bearing on whether the Bulls should trade for him. it's just like Alex Caruso - people say he plays so hard that he gets hurt with some frequency. Well, sure, but that's who he is, so you have to be comfortable with his projected availability if you have him on your team.

The "never playing in the postseason" thing is also a funny line of argument. Sure, deep playoff runs could matter, I suppose, but the mileage on Davis is what it is and there's not some alternate universe where those games magically disappear. It's also just factually wrong; Davis has missed the playoffs in 7 of his seasons made them 5 times, and had only 2 deep runs.

FWIW, as of 2021, NBA All-Stars were missing games at the highest clip ever - 19%:

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/31592404/data-shows-nba-injuries-condensed-season

Height has no bearing on injury risk:

https://nycdatascience.com/blog/student-works/a-data-analysis-of-missed-nba-games/

Over his entire career, Davis has missed 28% of his games, meaning he's missed about 50% more time than his All-Star peers if that 2021 data is relatively on-par ( I couldn't immediately find a bigger data set, but this is conservative given that was the highest rate ever recorded at that time).

In the past 5 seasons, he has missed 36% of his games, meaning he's missed roughly double that of his All-Star peers.

He is also currently hurt and has played 16 games for Dallas since they traded for him.

Anthony Davis is injury-prone.