Are you okay with the Bulls building two teams at once?

[DuckIII]

I have noted this a couple of times in threads, but this Bulls team reminds me of a better version of the early 2000s Pacers. They had veteran players and were a contending team, but also seemed to be building for the future at the same time. When their vets started to retire or be traded off, they were still relevant. That "Malice" team was downright stacked, and arguably the best team in the NBA for a couple of years had they not been derailed twice by Artest's antics.

Anyway, I think the Bulls FO is building two teams at once. A team to contend now, and a team to continue to contend later. And because of this, I believe you will see reluctance on their part to offer significant assets for short term gains in the present. I believe they believe they have enough, and want to also transition into the next generation of Bulls' contention (if it works).

That's my opinion. So I suppose the topic is two things. First, do you agree that this is what the FO is doing? And second, if you do agree that it is what they are doing, are you okay with it?

Like the majority of things under Paxson, I am okay with it.

Sidenote: The timing of this thread, given the recent record, might not be the best.

[League Circles]

Good question and thread. Yes I'm definitely ok with the two teams at once given our roster and prospects, and I downright advocate for it. The only key players that should decline within the next few years are gasol and noah IMO. And we have some tradable youth and maybe a pretty good Kings pick plus MLEs to add and tweak. If there were ever a team where building for present amd future made sense, it's this one. I mean, the only real asset who's not helping now is Doug, and he's not all that valuable IMO. It's nice to build a team that has no obvious weaknesses but such teams usually end up being average because they have no great strengths.

[Chicago Brawls]

When you try to do two things at the same time you get neither done well.

What other contender has rookies contributing?

[DuckIII]

When you try to do two things at the same time you get neither done well.

What other contender has rookies contributing?

Isn't us having a rookie contribute a good thing? It seems arbitrary, given that "contribute" rather than "rookie" should be the key word. Good basketball is good basketball. Niko's per36 numbers are strong for a veteran, let alone a rookie. If there's a problem with him, my argument would be that that its insufficient usage rather than the opposite.

[League Circles]

When you try to do two things at the same time you get neither done well.

What other contender has rookies contributing?

We don't have rookies contributing. Only Niko plays and he's not much of a rookie with many years of pro experience. And he plays smart ball.

I just abhor the idea of selling the future farm to slightly increase our already good (IMO) chances to win a title this year. I'm not ok with lowering oir future floor. Over the years I've come to believe that the best way to build in the nba is to just be as good as you can, present and future, at all times. And hope you can catch a title every now and then. No reason to ever miss the playoffs. Bottoming out costs years to rebuild usually.

[MGB8]

I'm not ok with it, honestly.

The Bulls aren't good enough to actually contend if they are focusing significant assets on ensuring future development.

At the same time, the Bulls might be good enough to actually contend is they used those assets to improve for this season.

In this case, by "building two teams," I think the Bulls are largely ensuring the ultimate failures both in the near term and in the long term - the team won't be bringing in super-blue-chip players for the future with their assets to compete against the next Lebron, Durant, Hakeem, Duncan etc. (e.g. if Embiid is that guy, Anthony Davis as he develops, etc).

At the same time, the Bulls, as it stands, aren't better than the Hawks in the east and potentially a few other teams, and would get crushed by the Warriors, Blazers or whomever the West sends.

[JohnnyKILLroy]

I'm OK with it. See the San Antonio Spurs.

[TheSuzerain]

It's good management.

[MGB8]

When you try to do two things at the same time you get neither done well.

What other contender has rookies contributing?

We don't have rookies contributing. Only Niko plays and he's not much of a rookie with many years of pro experience. And he plays smart ball.

I just abhor the idea of selling the future farm to slightly increase our already good (IMO) chances to win a title this year. I'm not ok with lowering oir future floor. Over the years I've come to believe that the best way to build in the nba is to just be as good as you can, present and future, at all times. And hope you can catch a title every now and then. No reason to ever miss the playoffs. Bottoming out costs years to rebuild usually.

I agree with you that the Bulls do not have "rookies" contributing - they have one, unusual rookie who happens to contribute. McDermott has so far been dog-poo.

I don't agree with the latter part, however. I think the window is now, and that's the shot the Bulls have to take. The future will take care of itself at that time. I'm not saying trade away multiple future firsts, but the Bulls have "extra" assets that, IMO, should be moved to help the Bulls take a shot this year and next, etc.

[Mech Engineer]

Rookies not contributing is just a lazy thought which even Thibs said in the beginning of the season. They are different people, different roles. Mirotic can contribute for 10 minutes in a playoff series on a championship team because he brings a skill which no one has on the team. That doesn't mean he has to play 40 minutes to trade vet bigs either. That is also dumb.

This is a unique team. They failed in the playoffs the last 4 years not because of a lack of coaching or will power or talent. They failed mostly because of injuries to key players. No contender has gone through a stretch like the Bulls for the last 3 years. They just have injury prone players in Noah, Derrick who are supposed to be the main guys of the team. And, now the other main piece is Gasol who is older, injury prone too.

You cannot mortgage your future relying on such pieces. If you had the Heat big 3 like in 2011, I would have traded Mirotic and McDermott etc.. for complimentary pieces. But, that's not the case. Noah, Gasol, Rose can fall apart realistically anytime compared to LeBron, Bosh and Wade of 2011.

They need to keep/add veteran pieces so that they can rest these guys/complement them. Gasol, Taj need to play to get Noah healthy by April. That should be the thought process and it applies the same for next year.

[TheStig]

The problem I have with it is that they're really stingy at both ends of it. It prevents them from being at elite at either. That's why we don't win a ring or get an elite talent.

You can't win without going all in and making that move that is risky that will put you over the top. We are spending adverse and adverse to trading picks.

You can't get an elite talent because you never really bottom out and we aren't a top tier free agent destination.

It results in good teams but not great teams.

Now if this team spent like a big market or tanked like a small market, I think we'd have better results.

[Mech Engineer]

Double Post

[JohnnyKILLroy]

As an example I believe Cleveland not keeping and eye to the future and going all in contributed their mess of a roster when LeBron was there.

[dice]

The problem I have with it is that they're really stingy at both ends of it. It prevents them from being at elite at either.

that's the whole point

[League Circles]

When you try to do two things at the same time you get neither done well.

What other contender has rookies contributing?

We don't have rookies contributing. Only Niko plays and he's not much of a rookie with many years of pro experience. And he plays smart ball.

I just abhor the idea of selling the future farm to slightly increase our already good (IMO) chances to win a title this year. I'm not ok with lowering oir future floor. Over the years I've come to believe that the best way to build in the nba is to just be as good as you can, present and future, at all times. And hope you can catch a title every now and then. No reason to ever miss the playoffs. Bottoming out costs years to rebuild usually.

I agree with you that the Bulls do not have "rookies" contributing - they have one, unusual rookie who happens to contribute. McDermott has so far been dog-poo.

I don't agree with the latter part, however. I think the window is now, and that's the shot the Bulls have to take. The future will take care of itself at that time. I'm not saying trade away multiple future firsts, but the Bulls have "extra" assets that, IMO, should be moved to help the Bulls take a shot this year and next, etc.

I don't know what extra assets we have. There are great reasons why we can't/shouldn't trade each of the 4 bigs. We have no superfluous picks or perimeter players.

Just remember, our 4 bigs are:

- an all star starter who is 34 years old and just signed on a discount. Untradable due to reputation hit with future FAs. Also he's not a good help defender and it hurts our defense which heavily relies on help D.

- an all nba 1st teamer who is bad at offense and helped us recruit the guy above. He's the emotional team leader. Can't trade for PR amd karma reasons.

- a guy who is better and younger than both of the above. And also projects as healthier going forward.

- a guy on a bargain deal who projects to be better than all of the above and who can't be traded also for PR reasons.

The only guy you can consider trading is Taj and he's a top 4 player for us right now at worst IMO. He's also a true "game changer" IMO. He "goes hard" to quote him.

[TheStig]

I'm OK with it. See the San Antonio Spurs.

I love how people bring up the Spurs. Its a lot easier to win with the greatest pf of all time. The Bulls don't have a generational great.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

I'm ok with it. Cleveland threw their future away. And they are still finding ways to trade draft picks. And it's all going to hell over there.

[JohnnyKILLroy]

I'm OK with it. See the San Antonio Spurs.

I love how people bring up the Spurs. Its a lot easier to win with the greatest pf of all time. The Bulls don't have a generational great.

Duncan or no Duncan it doesn't mean that it's not a smart way to do business.

[dougthonus]

The problem I have with it is that they're really stingy at both ends of it. It prevents them from being at elite at either. That's why we don't win a ring or get an elite talent.

You can't win without going all in and making that move that is risky that will put you over the top. We are spending adverse and adverse to trading picks.

You can't get an elite talent because you never really bottom out and we aren't a top tier free agent destination.

It results in good teams but not great teams.

Now if this team spent like a big market or tanked like a small market, I think we'd have better results.

I don't know. The strategy seems to have been pretty good given the hands they've been dealt.

If Rose were playing like an all-star right now and Joakim Noah was having a typical year for him [not even the MVP caliber year of last season] then the Bulls are probably the clear favorite to win the whole thing this season.

It's hard for me to fault management's overall strategy, they've done an excellent job of keeping an eye on both the long and short term goals when fans would have largely sacrificed the long term for short term every season except that after just one of those seasons they'd have nothing left to sacrifice.

[TheStig]

I'm OK with it. See the San Antonio Spurs.

I love how people bring up the Spurs. Its a lot easier to win with the greatest pf of all time. The Bulls don't have a generational great.

Duncan or no Duncan it doesn't mean that it's not a smart way to do business.

Duncan is the business! Duncan is a generational great who took less to contend and set the tone for the others. Without him they don't sniff a ring.