PG: Can't stop, won't stop

[GameBredAPBT]

Warren G is just stating the obvious, mate. You're living in some bizarro world, lol. I know lots of Chicago sports fans that are very self-deprecating though, or that have inferiority complexes, but this one is just deluded. The Bulls will always & forever be the NBA's #1 franchise, and if they ever get that coveted superstar again, and win even 1 or 2 titles, it'll bust up global financial records all over again.

[ctl131]

I do want say this:

I'm sorry for even getting into a debate with you guys over something so frivolous. I really enjoy being a part of this message board community and the fact that I grew up in NY and wasn't even a huge basketball fan obviously have a lot to do with my admittedly biased perspective on this matter, just like Bulls fans are biased in their opinion of their team, and rightfully so. So there's that.

What I don't appreciate is the posters who are trying to belittle my intelligence or speak down to me like I'm some sort of child because I don't agree with them, especially when no evidence is provided to support either sides case other than me or you saying "everyone knows that" or "no one thinks that". It's very much a microcosm for what's going on in our national discourse, and I apologize for being a part of it.

I promise to be better going forward.

[GameBredAPBT]

Lol, you were "over in England" Okay? I was on Palawan in the Philippines last January. I was in the Mani Peninsula in Greece in October for three weeks, one of the most desolate places in Europe. I lived in the Basque region in Bumble****, Spain for a year, and on Sao Miguel in the Azores Islands for a year. The first thing anyone interjects with when I mention Chicago is "The Bulls! Michael Jordan!" and will proceed to tell me where they watched the Finals wins when they happened.

I don't know what your heat is here, mate. Aren't you a Bulls fan? Good grief, relax already. What a dumb thing to refute. "It's warm outside in January & cold in July!" That's basically what you're arguing, haha.

[GameBredAPBT]

"everyone knows that" is completely applicable here. Not everything is subjective. No one knew nor cared what the NBA was worldwide prior to MJ & The Bulls. And they're still the most known basketball entity worldwide to this day. That isn't debatable, it's a fact. Take it sleazy.

[ctl131]

Lol, you were "over in England" Okay? I was on Palawan in the Philippines last January. I was in the Mani Peninsula in Greece in October for three weeks, one of the most desolate places in Europe. I lived in the Basque region in Bumble****, Spain for a year, and on Sao Miguel in the Azores Islands for a year. The first thing anyone interjects with when I mention Chicago is "The Bulls! Michael Jordan!" and will proceed to tell me where they watched the Finals wins when they happened.

I don't know what your heat is here, mate. Aren't you a Bulls fan? Good grief, relax already. What a dumb thing to refute. "It's warm outside in January & cold in July!" That's basically what you're arguing, haha.

I'm not a Bulls fan, I'm here to watch Kris Dunn. I watched all of the miserable Timberwolves games last season, too.

[ctl131]

"everyone knows that" is completely applicable here. Not everything is subjective. No one knew nor cared what the NBA was worldwide prior to MJ & The Bulls. And they're still the most known basketball entity worldwide to this day. That isn't debatable, it's a fact. Take it sleazy.

Its completely debatable. You ask any kid 20 or younger who the most famous basketball franchise of all time is they will definitely not tell you the Bulls, because they haven't been relevant in 20 years.

[GameBredAPBT]

Pretty sure I'm being trolled. Stupid me.

[Ice Man]

Since nobody has given any facts here, it doesn't make much sense to cite the "facts."

[ctl131]

Pretty sure I'm being trolled. Stupid me.

No trolling. I'm being logical.

If you ask my father (65 years old) who the most famous basketball franchise in the NBA is, he will tell you Lakers, Celtics, Knicks, because those were the best teams when he was growing up.

If you ask someone my age (30), yes, they would likely say the Bulls because the Bulls dominated for a period of time in my youth, but they might also tell you the Lakers (or way less likely the Spurs), since they were teams that were winning titles in the early 2000s.

If you ask high schoolers now, they are going to tell you the Heat/Cavs (LeBrons teams), or the Warriors, or the Thunder, or basically any team because everything is so seamlessly globalized and there are no real "small market" teams anymore. No kid in 9th grade is pretending to be MJ hitting the final shot for the Bulls in his backyard anymore, its all LeBron, Steph, KD, Anthropomorphic Beard.

The most famous franchise in basketball is 100% subjective; its simply a matter of what era of the NBA you grew up watching.

[3noD]

Absolutely not. Lauri goes right back to the starting lineup. The goal is to develop the young core guys.

If that is the policy, then Lauri and Niko should start, with RoLo watching.

RoLo should be traded, but that's besides the point. I don't think putting Lauri at the 5 defending players too strong for him is best for his development. He'll be in constant foul trouble planted to the bench which in turn will damper his development more.

But I rather think Fred will start the guys that he thinks will give the team the best chance of winning, which means RoLo and Niko, if Niko keeps playing like this.

If Fred thinks his goal is to win as many games as possible, and not to develop our young core, then he's more clueless than I thought. And in turn he'll be sealing his own fate.

He can stick around and lead the tank as long as our youngsters are showing growth (ie Dunn's improvement). If he becomes the coach who leads his team to the late lottery every year, he can take his act back to college.

Fred is doing it the right way. Focusing on young player development, teaching a system that kids should become familiar with, and also trying to win / be competitive in games, but not at all cost.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[Fl_Flash]

I'd take your age analogy a little further. Ask someone from China and they may well say the Houston Rockets because of Yao. Someone from Japan or the Pacific Rim? May well be the Lakers. Europe or South America? I'd guess more like the Bulls or Knicks (possibly the Heat for our Southern Hemisphere folks).

I will say that overall, due to the exposure that Jordan generated not only for the Bulls but the NBA as a whole, that the Bulls are a very popular, well-known franchise throughout the globe. Anyone who is a moderate fan of the game knows of Jordan and by extension knows of the Bulls.

[MC3]

Bulls still are popular worldwide and still make huge amount of profit not only because of Jordan. But because of Rose. He put us back there for some time. And that wasnt that long ago regardless of how short it was.

I am pretty sure Dunn idolized growing up watching Rose more than he did Curry.

http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/fighting-through-hardship-something-kris-has-dunn

What Derrick Rose did in Chicago before his injuries was amazing,” noted Dunn. “Since Jordan, he had the city where it needs to be, coming out, loving the team and the game. I’m not saying I’m the next D-Rose. But I watched him a lot and why not, great point guard. You can take something from their game and put it in yours, see how he ran a team, the mentality. Hopefully, I can get to that stature. Hopefully, if I keep working hard that can happen.

[Ice Man]

Fred is doing it the right way. Focusing on young player development

Fred is trying to win games. It so happens that most of his players are young, so sure he wants them to develop. And sure he wants them to learn a system. If they develop and learn a system well, they will be more effective on the court, and then they will win more games.

No doubt that GarPax wants the wins to come because of the guys they just traded for, and most fans do too. I doubt that Fred cares much, if at all. His role is different than that of the GM, or of the fans.

[kapo]

Im from finland and have to say that if you ask from average Joe about NBA MJ and the Bulls are the only thing that come to mind. Maybe the Dream team but still they dont know who John Stockton is or who David Robinson is. But if you ask someone who is interested about basketball it is complitely different thing.

[Dresden]

If top 20 picks are now suddenly meaningless or equal we could have just kept Butler and our 42 win team and built on to them through the draft as well as we are now.

Except they aren't meaningless. While everyone can cherry pick stars picked later, or years where the #8 beat the #1 or whatever, the historical odds are pretty clear that average production/talent, decreases linearly as you go down the draft.

So while sure you can still make a good pick or gem later on, it gets harder and harder with each spot you go down. Just search 'NBA average production by draft position' and you'll get reams of articles detailing the odds in various ways.

For instance here's an 11 year study looking All-Star selections by spot. While the #2 pick has been uniquely busting in modern history, otherwise the chart reads exactly as you'd expect with diminishing results.

No. 1 pick: All-Star Appearances: 41
No. 2 pick: All-Star Appearances: 11
No. 3 pick: All-Star Appearances: 26
No. 4 pick: All-Star Appearances: 22
No. 5 pick: All-Star Appearances: 16
No. 6 pick: All-Star Appearances: 4

What about the 7-10 picks, which is where the Bulls will likely end up?

I just did a quick search. I would suggest that number of appearances may not be as telling as how many players.

Since 2000, only 9 of the #1 picks have made the all-star game (Caveat: obviously, players who are still active but haven't been an all-star could make the all-star team in the future and make that total rise)

Very interesting. I think it probably is due to GM's going for the home run when they get a top 4 pick, whereas later in the draft, they will go for a college player who is a bit older, who has slid because he doesn't have the "upside" a 19 yr old does.

Only 3 #2 picks have made the ASG

5 of the #3 picks have made the ASG

3 of the #4 picks

4 of the #5 picks

2 of the #6 picks, 2 of the #7 and NONE of the #8.

7 of the #9 picks, 5 of the #10 picks,

Basically, other than the very first pick, there is absolutely no advantage from the standpoint of getting an all-star player between #2 and #10. If you believe the numbers...if you don't get the #1 pick you are just as likely to hit pay dirt at the #9 or #10 spot in the draft. What that really tells you is that other than certain generational tyype players in the #1 spot, it is a complete and total crap-shoot.

Info per:

http://www.nba-allstar.com/players/lists/players-by-draft-pick.htm

[Dresden]

Basically, other than the very first pick, there is absolutely no advantage from the standpoint of getting an all-star player between #2 and #10.

But 'from the standpoint of getting an All-Star' is hardly the only measurement, it was just one example.

If you read every study on the topic, whether averaging Expected Wins, PER, production, whatever, it becomes very clear the lottery is a very linear scale going down, and one that is heavily front loaded toward the top 3.

I would agree that the difference between 4 and 10 is a lot less than say 5 vs 1, but that just shows all the more importance in truly being one of, or the worst, team in the league this year.

To whatever degree GarPax ARE good at identifying talent, each spot down is a spot the guys they wanted could be gone.

No argument from me that the higher you pick the better your chances. However, to me the whole Hinkie tank approach nets out to having to have TWO #1 picks to be confident of success. Not top 3. Not top 5...but specifically #1 picks. Based on general odds, "even if you have the worst record every season, that could happen in 2 seasons, or it could take 6 seasons. Any approach that is that hit or miss, and that can plunge your team into up to 6 seasons of being absolutely horrible...just to find that one player is pure insanity. Once you find that one player, you then have to fill in the gaps. Usually takes a couple seasons to do that and have the team gel. So your process is anywhere from 4 years to 8 years to become competitive.

The Bulls got 3 years of that done with one trade, meaning their process should be anywhere from 1 season to 5 seasons. If all 3 of the guys they brought in from the Butler trade turn into starting quality players (and that appears to be the direction it is going) it should be closer to one season than to 5; way closer.

And mind you, Philly hasn't won anything yet. They are about .500. Sure, you have to like their chances of being contenders in a few years, but a lot can happen- Embiid could get hurt again, etc. So even with all that tanking, it's still not clear that they've put together a championship team, or ever will with that core. Whereas look at what Houston has done through trades and free agency- they've built a powerhouse who is contending for the top seed in the West.

So there's more than one way to skin a cat, and the Philly process is long, arduous, and has yet to produce a title winning team.

[Dresden]

The Bulls got 3 years of that done with one trade, meaning their process should be anywhere from 1 season to 5 seasons. If all 3 of the guys they brought in from the Butler trade turn into starting quality players (and that appears to be the direction it is going) it should be closer to one season than to 5; way closer.

If all 3 guys they got are starting level players it will definitely make a hinkie impossible, but if none are actually All-Stars it might just lock us into to another Skiles level team (not saying they can't be but so far don't see Kyrie/Draymond potential there even as #2 guys).

As if we don't get our superstar next summer, not sure how else we'd get one, seeing as how this org has not been good at luring A level Free Agents, plus nowadays you need more like 2 or 3 elite talents not just the old single star surrounded by role players model that sometimes worked.

IF none are actual All-stars. But what if they are? Or very close to it- say Klay Thompson sort of players for a couple of them, and maybe a true all star from either one of them, or our draft pick this summer?

Then you top it off with a free agent, say AD. Not impossible to contemplate. Just because we didn't lure Lebron here or Wade doesn't mean we can't next time around. We were actually within a hair of getting both Lebron and Bosh that summer. And what attracted them here? Not Paxson, but the team we had- Rose, Deng, Noah, etc.

Similarly, if we can built an exciting young team with Lavine, Lauri, Niko, Dunn, and our draft pick this year, I could see a player wanting to come here as a free agent. AD would be a great fit if we don't have a center by then. Maybe Donovan Mitchelll- we saw UT lose Hayward last summer.

What free agents don't want is to go to a team that is losing 60 games a year.

[Dresden]

Wow, just wow! I retire as the game thread tank commander and look what happens!! Niko comes back and leads the charge to a 4 game winning streak!! Do I have to come back to get the tank back on track?

Yes please!

Lol at the people saying not to worry about a 3 game win streak. I say the Bulls win at least 5 and go over .500 once Lavine comes back.
The difference makers are Niko, Lopez, Dunn, and Portis. Trade all of them except Dunn since he is the future starter pg.

I think best case scenario, we are still only going to win about half our games against non-playoff teams like UT or NY, and probably lose 3 of 4 to playoff teams. If we do that the rest of the year, we'll still end up with only about 28 wins. Still in the top 6 most likely.

[bulls4ever]

"everyone knows that" is completely applicable here. Not everything is subjective. No one knew nor cared what the NBA was worldwide prior to MJ & The Bulls. And they're still the most known basketball entity worldwide to this day. That isn't debatable, it's a fact. Take it sleazy.

Its completely debatable. You ask any kid 20 or younger who the most famous basketball franchise of all time is they will definitely not tell you the Bulls, because they haven't been relevant in 20 years.

not entirely true .... a child may have watched Space Jam. Jordan is a big brand and his name is associated to Bulls. If you ask a kid 20 or younger that doesn't watch basketball, Bulls could be the answer. as could Lakers, Boston or Knicks...

When I was young (child), I started rooting for the Bulls only cause I loved the cap. And I only knew/heard of Lakers, Boston and New York. So if asked what teams were the best, I could have answered any or all of those. and btw, that was before Jordan ...

[Dresden]

Lol, you were "over in England" Okay? I was on Palawan in the Philippines last January. I was in the Mani Peninsula in Greece in October for three weeks, one of the most desolate places in Europe. I lived in the Basque region in Bumble****, Spain for a year, and on Sao Miguel in the Azores Islands for a year. The first thing anyone interjects with when I mention Chicago is "The Bulls! Michael Jordan!" and will proceed to tell me where they watched the Finals wins when they happened.

I don't know what your heat is here, mate. Aren't you a Bulls fan? Good grief, relax already. What a dumb thing to refute. "It's warm outside in January & cold in July!" That's basically what you're arguing, haha.

I'm not a Bulls fan, I'm here to watch Kris Dunn. I watched all of the miserable Timberwolves games last season, too.

Interesting! As a Kris Dunn expert, what do you see is different about his game this year compared to last? Is it just opportunity? Confidence? Maturation?

They say Holberg has been working with him on his shooting technique- maybe that is paying dividends.