Anthony Davis: Chicago’s The Mecca Of Bball, Would Consider Bulls

[PaKii94]

I will forever maintain the opinion that if a competent front office had been put in place and traded for him this summer and signed another FA like Kemba or something, that it would have done pretty well in this garbage conference and would have been enough to have Davis pull a Paul George (the OKC part, not the LA part).

There are two moves that forever changed the fortunes of this franchise for the worst

- The first was hard lining Jimmy so long on a deal at 4/48. If the Bulls (who at the same time should have known that with the drastic increase in TV money from ESPN any deal signed later that fall was going to turn any contract into a bargain) stupidly fought Jimmy on the deal to the point that he was able to sign for nearly double (5/95) and with an out after 4 meaning the Bulls cost themselves about, oh, 35 million dollars in free contract value. For nothing. But the real issue with that deal was that if he signs the extension, Jimmy's cap hold this summer would have been in the 20-23 million range but he could have signed for at least 10-15 million more than that. If you have Jimmy at Otto Porter's cap hold, you can go into FA and attract a star + another really good player and still not overly cap yourself.

- The second was the MCW/Snell/Dinwiddie debacle. Some will say ''THIS MOVE?" is franchise changing and unfortunately the answer is yes. If the Bulls had decided that Dinwiddie and Snell was better than MCW and RJ Hunter, they would have had Dinwiddie here for a fairly cheap deal. But the main thing would have been if nothing else changes that year, does Dinwiddie provide enough value that if the Bulls are up 2-0 and Rondo still breaks his thumb, can the Bulls close the series with Dinwiddie instead of Grant/MCW/Canann? Let's say they can and now, you have Butler as the best player on a 8 seed that just beat the #1 seed AFTER Rondo got hurt and you have no major money. It's the summer of 2017, now all of the sudden you're the premier FA destination because you're good, you have a ton of cap space, and the team is on the rise.

It's two moves, both at the time completely indefensible, that cost the team a chance at truly being something special. The Bulls and Warriors faced very similar situations with Butler and Curry after three years in the league: do you give them 4 years at a slightly above what they are worth price because of either being slightly not good enough (Butler's case) or in Curry's, injury risk? The Bulls said no, made Butler play it out, and was the beginning of the end of Jimmy in Chicago. In Golden State, all Curry did after signing that deal was make the all-star each year of the four years of the extension (was probably robbed in year 4), win two MVP (one unanimous), led a team to 73 wins, and won 2 titles and lost another in game 7.

None of that is possible if the Warriors tell Curry to play another year and have to max him to a deal in the summer of 2013. So yeah, sometimes it is just one contract or move that changes the entire complexion of a team's history.

After his 3d year (which was when this was in play IIRC, a year before he signed the bigger contract), he had averaged 13/5/2.6 on 46% shooting (28% from 3). The next year he jumped to 20/6/3.3 on 38% shooting (38% from 3). That $12M deal was $19% of the cap. Put it this way - if the Bulls signed someone like Bobby Portis* (14/8/1.4 shooting 49% and 39% from 3) to a contract averaging $21M, people would riot in the streets. So unless there was reason to think Jimmy was about to take that leap, I find it hard to call that "completely indefensible." IMO there are good arguments both ways. Particularly since either way the Bulls were sure they would be able to retain the player.

*No, I'm not equating Jimmy to Bobby, pick your 3d year player with similar performance. Bobby was just one of the first names I came up with and then surprisingly his stats were similar. But even being better than Bobby, the point still holds.

If you look at his numbers that year, he was having deng (+) level impact before the turf toe injury. Then he didn't spend time to recover and came back to play big minutes which really hampered his numbers. He still had a great impact on defense and intangibles.

Around that year is when Pippen tweeted that jimmy could be an all-star and there was a quote that there were GMs who would max him if they had him

[Peelboy]

There are two moves that forever changed the fortunes of this franchise for the worst

- The first was hard lining Jimmy so long on a deal at 4/48. If the Bulls (who at the same time should have known that with the drastic increase in TV money from ESPN any deal signed later that fall was going to turn any contract into a bargain) stupidly fought Jimmy on the deal to the point that he was able to sign for nearly double (5/95) and with an out after 4 meaning the Bulls cost themselves about, oh, 35 million dollars in free contract value. For nothing. But the real issue with that deal was that if he signs the extension, Jimmy's cap hold this summer would have been in the 20-23 million range but he could have signed for at least 10-15 million more than that. If you have Jimmy at Otto Porter's cap hold, you can go into FA and attract a star + another really good player and still not overly cap yourself.

- The second was the MCW/Snell/Dinwiddie debacle. Some will say ''THIS MOVE?" is franchise changing and unfortunately the answer is yes. If the Bulls had decided that Dinwiddie and Snell was better than MCW and RJ Hunter, they would have had Dinwiddie here for a fairly cheap deal. But the main thing would have been if nothing else changes that year, does Dinwiddie provide enough value that if the Bulls are up 2-0 and Rondo still breaks his thumb, can the Bulls close the series with Dinwiddie instead of Grant/MCW/Canann? Let's say they can and now, you have Butler as the best player on a 8 seed that just beat the #1 seed AFTER Rondo got hurt and you have no major money. It's the summer of 2017, now all of the sudden you're the premier FA destination because you're good, you have a ton of cap space, and the team is on the rise.

It's two moves, both at the time completely indefensible, that cost the team a chance at truly being something special. The Bulls and Warriors faced very similar situations with Butler and Curry after three years in the league: do you give them 4 years at a slightly above what they are worth price because of either being slightly not good enough (Butler's case) or in Curry's, injury risk? The Bulls said no, made Butler play it out, and was the beginning of the end of Jimmy in Chicago. In Golden State, all Curry did after signing that deal was make the all-star each year of the four years of the extension (was probably robbed in year 4), win two MVP (one unanimous), led a team to 73 wins, and won 2 titles and lost another in game 7.

None of that is possible if the Warriors tell Curry to play another year and have to max him to a deal in the summer of 2013. So yeah, sometimes it is just one contract or move that changes the entire complexion of a team's history.

After his 3d year (which was when this was in play IIRC, a year before he signed the bigger contract), he had averaged 13/5/2.6 on 46% shooting (28% from 3). The next year he jumped to 20/6/3.3 on 38% shooting (38% from 3). That $12M deal was $19% of the cap. Put it this way - if the Bulls signed someone like Bobby Portis* (14/8/1.4 shooting 49% and 39% from 3) to a contract averaging $21M, people would riot in the streets. So unless there was reason to think Jimmy was about to take that leap, I find it hard to call that "completely indefensible." IMO there are good arguments both ways. Particularly since either way the Bulls were sure they would be able to retain the player.

*No, I'm not equating Jimmy to Bobby, pick your 3d year player with similar performance. Bobby was just one of the first names I came up with and then surprisingly his stats were similar. But even being better than Bobby, the point still holds.

If you look at his numbers that year, he was having deng (+) level impact before the turf toe injury. Then he didn't spend time to recover and came back to play big minutes which really hampered his numbers. He still had a great impact on defense and intangibles.

Around that year is when Pippen tweeted that jimmy could be an all-star and there was a quote that there were GMs who would max him if they had him

Can't speak to the quotes, but the splits actually show improvement post-ASB. He was at 12/5/2 shooting 38% pre-ASB and 14/5/3 shooting 42% post-ASB. Hard for me to think that those stats foretold his next year is all. (And FWLIW, my recollection on Deng is that many around these parts were critical of that contract as one more fitting a star than Deng.)

Anyway, I'm not arguing Jimmy wasn't a good player, just that it's by no means "completely indefensible" to set a value and stick to it because it was wholly unclear that he could/would take that leap, and even if he did it they had the ability to retain him. It was a call to take the risk that he'd blow up and you'd have less cap space or take the risk that he'd improve but far less than he ended up doing and end up overpaying and wasting cap space.

[PaKii94]

After his 3d year (which was when this was in play IIRC, a year before he signed the bigger contract), he had averaged 13/5/2.6 on 46% shooting (28% from 3). The next year he jumped to 20/6/3.3 on 38% shooting (38% from 3). That $12M deal was $19% of the cap. Put it this way - if the Bulls signed someone like Bobby Portis* (14/8/1.4 shooting 49% and 39% from 3) to a contract averaging $21M, people would riot in the streets. So unless there was reason to think Jimmy was about to take that leap, I find it hard to call that "completely indefensible." IMO there are good arguments both ways. Particularly since either way the Bulls were sure they would be able to retain the player.

*No, I'm not equating Jimmy to Bobby, pick your 3d year player with similar performance. Bobby was just one of the first names I came up with and then surprisingly his stats were similar. But even being better than Bobby, the point still holds.

If you look at his numbers that year, he was having deng (+) level impact before the turf toe injury. Then he didn't spend time to recover and came back to play big minutes which really hampered his numbers. He still had a great impact on defense and intangibles.

Around that year is when Pippen tweeted that jimmy could be an all-star and there was a quote that there were GMs who would max him if they had him

Can't speak to the quotes, but the splits actually show improvement post-ASB. He was at 12/5/2 shooting 38% pre-ASB and 14/5/3 shooting 42% post-ASB. Hard for me to think that those stats foretold his next year is all. (And FWLIW, my recollection on Deng is that many around these parts were critical of that contract as one more fitting a star than Deng.)

Anyway, I'm not arguing Jimmy wasn't a good player, just that it's by no means "completely indefensible" to set a value and stick to it because it was wholly unclear that he could/would take that leap, and even if he did it they had the ability to retain him. It was a call to take the risk that he'd blow up and you'd have less cap space or take the risk that he'd improve but far less than he ended up doing and end up overpaying and wasting cap space.

I said before his turf toe injury lol. This was with crappy post acl rose as #1 option he was putting up ~15 on 60% TS, elite defense, +5.2 box score, +12 net rtg on 16% usage. Albeit it was a small sample size (9 games) but it was continuing showing improvement from the playoffs the year before (12 games) being the best LeBron defender playing 48 mins, in the playoffs ~13 on 58TS, elite defense, +6 net rtg and before that again an elite defensive role player for a solid second half of the season.

He showed steady progression until the turf toe injury. Once he had the off-season to fully recover and the bulls finally moved on from Rose as #1 option and savior he finally exploded to stardom

[Leslie Forman]

Hey, believe what you want about GarPax

OK I will, thanks for the great advice!

[Peelboy]

If you look at his numbers that year, he was having deng (+) level impact before the turf toe injury. Then he didn't spend time to recover and came back to play big minutes which really hampered his numbers. He still had a great impact on defense and intangibles.

Around that year is when Pippen tweeted that jimmy could be an all-star and there was a quote that there were GMs who would max him if they had him

Can't speak to the quotes, but the splits actually show improvement post-ASB. He was at 12/5/2 shooting 38% pre-ASB and 14/5/3 shooting 42% post-ASB. Hard for me to think that those stats foretold his next year is all. (And FWLIW, my recollection on Deng is that many around these parts were critical of that contract as one more fitting a star than Deng.)

Anyway, I'm not arguing Jimmy wasn't a good player, just that it's by no means "completely indefensible" to set a value and stick to it because it was wholly unclear that he could/would take that leap, and even if he did it they had the ability to retain him. It was a call to take the risk that he'd blow up and you'd have less cap space or take the risk that he'd improve but far less than he ended up doing and end up overpaying and wasting cap space.

I said before his turf toe injury lol. This was with crappy post acl rose as #1 option he was putting up ~15 on 60% TS, elite defense, +5.2 box score, +12 net rtg on 16% usage. Albeit it was a small sample size (9 games) but it was continuing showing improvement from the playoffs the year before (12 games) being the best LeBron defender playing 48 mins, in the playoffs ~13 on 58TS, elite defense, +6 net rtg and before that again an elite defensive role player for a solid second half of the season.

He showed steady progression until the turf toe injury. Once he had the off-season to fully recover and the bulls finally moved on from Rose as #1 option and savior he finally exploded to stardom

In the 9 games before he sat for the toe, he went for 11PPG/4.8RPG/1.7APG shooting 43.4% and 38% from 3. It's a 9 game sample so really hard to draw conclusions from but I'm not sure where you're getting any sense of dominance or budding stardom from that small set. His broke 14 points once (his first game). I'm curious what you see as the "steady progression" that indicated budding stardom (or where you get the #s you're citing).

[PaKii94]

Can't speak to the quotes, but the splits actually show improvement post-ASB. He was at 12/5/2 shooting 38% pre-ASB and 14/5/3 shooting 42% post-ASB. Hard for me to think that those stats foretold his next year is all. (And FWLIW, my recollection on Deng is that many around these parts were critical of that contract as one more fitting a star than Deng.)

Anyway, I'm not arguing Jimmy wasn't a good player, just that it's by no means "completely indefensible" to set a value and stick to it because it was wholly unclear that he could/would take that leap, and even if he did it they had the ability to retain him. It was a call to take the risk that he'd blow up and you'd have less cap space or take the risk that he'd improve but far less than he ended up doing and end up overpaying and wasting cap space.

I said before his turf toe injury lol. This was with crappy post acl rose as #1 option he was putting up ~15 on 60% TS, elite defense, +5.2 box score, +12 net rtg on 16% usage. Albeit it was a small sample size (9 games) but it was continuing showing improvement from the playoffs the year before (12 games) being the best LeBron defender playing 48 mins, in the playoffs ~13 on 58TS, elite defense, +6 net rtg and before that again an elite defensive role player for a solid second half of the season.

He showed steady progression until the turf toe injury. Once he had the off-season to fully recover and the bulls finally moved on from Rose as #1 option and savior he finally exploded to stardom

In the 9 games before he sat for the toe, he went for 11PPG/4.8RPG/1.7APG shooting 43.4% and 38% from 3. It's a 9 game sample so really hard to draw conclusions from but I'm not sure where you're getting any sense of dominance or budding stardom from that small set. His broke 14 points once (his first game). I'm curious what you see as the "steady progression" that indicated budding stardom (or where you get the #s you're citing).

Hmmm didn't realize his raw stats were that low but if you watched the games it was the impact he had in the game and the poise he had going ironman against LeBron in the playoffs. that's why I included the net ratings. Similar to siakam last year waiting to breakout.

In those 9 games bulls started off slow 1-3 and then won 5 in a row to get to 6-3. Jimmy went down for 11 games and they went 2-9. This does have the caveat that Rose also went down in the 11th game but he was a net negative inefficient ball hog then so it was technically not a loss for the team.


This is what I wrote about him during that summer when people were totally against giving him even 10 mil per year: viewtopic.php?t=1337097

Here was the year after:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1415007

[PaKii94]

^With that said about Jimmy I see similar things from Lauri but he has even more natural talent compared to Jimmy and he's younger than where jimmy started. I'm excited to see Lauri's progression into baby Dirk and eventual GOAT stretch 4.

[Michael Jackson]

^With that said about Jimmy I see similar things from Lauri but he has even more natural talent compared to Jimmy and he's younger than where jimmy started. I'm excited to see Lauri's progression into baby Dirk and eventual GOAT stretch 4.

I don’t. That being said I never thought Butler would be this good either so what do I know. I am not a huge Lauri fan though. I hope he makes me shut up and want to slob on his bob though.

[PaKii94]

^With that said about Jimmy I see similar things from Lauri but he has even more natural talent compared to Jimmy and he's younger than where jimmy started. I'm excited to see Lauri's progression into baby Dirk and eventual GOAT stretch 4.

I don’t. That being said I never thought Butler would be this good either so what do I know. I am not a huge Lauri fan though. I hope he makes me shut up and want to slob on his bob though.

This is the play jimmy confirmed in my eyes he'd be legit:
https://youtu.be/hoHsz6HSn60

Similarly, lauri had a play that confirmed he'd be legit in my eyes during his rookie season. It was a throwaway play, a missed dunk but it was pretty revealing of Lauri's mentality.
During one of the grizzlies game, Lauri got the ball in the post and immediately tried turning around and slamming it down over 3 defenders including gasol. He wasn't soft, wasn't scared. He was purposeful and determined and accepted the challenge.

He had the DGAF attitude of he didn't care who was defending him, he was going to try to slam it down regardless. That was something that Niko was missing and prevented him from taking the next step.

This past season similar to Jimmy's 13-14 season, was derailed by significant injury but he still showed flashes. Jimmy's case was the toe which hampered his all around game. For Lauri it was his shooting elbow messing up his best option on offense: his shot.

With a healthy off-season and hopefully health going forward, I expect big things from Lauri this year. Like how Jimmy showed potential in the second half of 2012-13 season, lauri showed something similar in February before getting shut down.

[Michael Jackson]

^With that said about Jimmy I see similar things from Lauri but he has even more natural talent compared to Jimmy and he's younger than where jimmy started. I'm excited to see Lauri's progression into baby Dirk and eventual GOAT stretch 4.

I don’t. That being said I never thought Butler would be this good either so what do I know. I am not a huge Lauri fan though. I hope he makes me shut up and want to slob on his bob though.

This is the play jimmy confirmed in my eyes he'd be legit:
https://youtu.be/hoHsz6HSn60

Similarly, lauri had a play that confirmed he'd be legit in my eyes during his rookie season. It was a throwaway play, a missed dunk but it was pretty revealing of Lauri's mentality.
During one of the grizzlies game, Lauri got the ball in the post and immediately tried turning around and slamming it down over 3 defenders including gasol. He wasn't soft, wasn't scared. He was purposeful and determined and accepted the challenge.

He had the DGAF attitude of he didn't care who was defending him, he was going to try to slam it down regardless. That was something that Niko was missing and prevented him from taking the next step.

This past season similar to Jimmy's 13-14 season, was derailed by significant injury but he still showed flashes. Jimmy's case was the toe which hampered his all around game. For Lauri it was his shooting elbow messing up his best option on offense: his shot.

With a healthy off-season and hopefully health going forward, I expect big things from Lauri this year. Like how Jimmy showed potential in the second half of 2012-13 season, lauri showed something similar in February before getting shut down.

Yeah I am not worried about the man Lauri is, he has a great head on his shoulders but a lot like Jimmy he has some physical aspects that aren’t idea (ie footspeed). Jimmy’s short arms proved to me he would never be great. See how I am always right! I publicly declared on the score that Elton Brand was a bust and he wouldn’t last 3 years in the league. So with a flawless track record like that my opinion really matters. Also Dinwiddie sucks and I am glad we cut him.

[MeloRoseNoah]

Man all this Chicago hype coming from his side.... It's starting to seem to me that Lakers could be a pit stop if they don't get there title this year.

Conspiracy theorist in me thinks AD didn't have bulls as a trade destination cause it would have gutted the team of talent. If our current talent develops as expected, he can easily slide in this year or next

Part one is a yes the Lakers very well could end up a pit stop. Part 2 zero percent chance this organization has deal cut with Davis. First off no way they could pull it off. Secondly Rich Paul is not letting that happen.

Now when the Lakers likely fall apart and if the Bulls improve (2 things that realistically could happen) we might be on the list the next time. On the list only.

Not saying the FO has a backdoor deal. But AD continues to rep Chicago hard and if they are a good up and coming team next year (like nets/clips this year) then I feel like he'll strongly consider the bulls. Key thing is Lauri and Lavine have to get into the all-star game this year and start planting the seeds during that weekend with AD

If we make the playoff and win high 40s to low 50s W while the Lakers miss the playoff with AD and Lebron, I def think that we're number #1 on AD wish list.

Nothing is impossible in today NBA. We just need to win games in order to attract the big fish.

[The Box Office]

California is the mecca of basketball.

LeBron, Anthony Davis, Steph Curry, Draymond Green, Klay Thompson, Kevin Durant (made his rounds here), Russell Westbrook, Kawhi Leonard, Paul George, Paul Pierce, Kobe, Chris Paul, Blake Griffin all have roots or made long career passages here.

Let's not be New Yorkers with their mecca of ball crap. This better not be a trend where Chicago native ballers claim that Chicago is the place, but they never sign with the Chicago Bulls. Ewww yuck disgusting and humiliating. Thanks GarPax.

[DanTown8587]

After his 3d year (which was when this was in play IIRC, a year before he signed the bigger contract), he had averaged 13/5/2.6 on 46% shooting (28% from 3). The next year he jumped to 20/6/3.3 on 38% shooting (38% from 3). That $12M deal was $19% of the cap. Put it this way - if the Bulls signed someone like Bobby Portis* (14/8/1.4 shooting 49% and 39% from 3) to a contract averaging $21M, people would riot in the streets. So unless there was reason to think Jimmy was about to take that leap, I find it hard to call that "completely indefensible." IMO there are good arguments both ways. Particularly since either way the Bulls were sure they would be able to retain the player.

*No, I'm not equating Jimmy to Bobby, pick your 3d year player with similar performance. Bobby was just one of the first names I came up with and then surprisingly his stats were similar. But even being better than Bobby, the point still holds.

If you look at his numbers that year, he was having deng (+) level impact before the turf toe injury. Then he didn't spend time to recover and came back to play big minutes which really hampered his numbers. He still had a great impact on defense and intangibles.

Around that year is when Pippen tweeted that jimmy could be an all-star and there was a quote that there were GMs who would max him if they had him

Can't speak to the quotes, but the splits actually show improvement post-ASB. He was at 12/5/2 shooting 38% pre-ASB and 14/5/3 shooting 42% post-ASB. Hard for me to think that those stats foretold his next year is all. (And FWLIW, my recollection on Deng is that many around these parts were critical of that contract as one more fitting a star than Deng.)

Anyway, I'm not arguing Jimmy wasn't a good player, just that it's by no means "completely indefensible" to set a value and stick to it because it was wholly unclear that he could/would take that leap, and even if he did it they had the ability to retain him. It was a call to take the risk that he'd blow up and you'd have less cap space or take the risk that he'd improve but far less than he ended up doing and end up overpaying and wasting cap space.

I gotta love a person who has the time and energy to defend not signing Jimmy Butler to what would have been one of the sweat heart deals in the history of the league because of sticking to values. You know who else stuck to values? The Thunder when they traded Harden.

The point I made then that made this indefensible was the difference in the offers was so small (I believe it was around 4/40 v 4/48) in terms of impact to your team both at the time of signing and what you would reasonably would project out over the next few years that drawing a line like that was massively detrimental to the team.

I've seen a lot of people try and defend a lot of moves; hell I've defended some of them myself. But to argue the Bulls were in ANY way in the right in how they handled the Butler extension either in the moment or in hindsight is hysterical.

[PaKii94]

If you look at his numbers that year, he was having deng (+) level impact before the turf toe injury. Then he didn't spend time to recover and came back to play big minutes which really hampered his numbers. He still had a great impact on defense and intangibles.

Around that year is when Pippen tweeted that jimmy could be an all-star and there was a quote that there were GMs who would max him if they had him

Can't speak to the quotes, but the splits actually show improvement post-ASB. He was at 12/5/2 shooting 38% pre-ASB and 14/5/3 shooting 42% post-ASB. Hard for me to think that those stats foretold his next year is all. (And FWLIW, my recollection on Deng is that many around these parts were critical of that contract as one more fitting a star than Deng.)

Anyway, I'm not arguing Jimmy wasn't a good player, just that it's by no means "completely indefensible" to set a value and stick to it because it was wholly unclear that he could/would take that leap, and even if he did it they had the ability to retain him. It was a call to take the risk that he'd blow up and you'd have less cap space or take the risk that he'd improve but far less than he ended up doing and end up overpaying and wasting cap space.

I gotta love a person who has the time and energy to defend not signing Jimmy Butler to what would have been one of the sweat heart deals in the history of the league because of sticking to values. You know who else stuck to values? The Thunder when they traded Harden.

The point I made then that made this indefensible was the difference in the offers was so small (I believe it was around 4/40 v 4/48) in terms of impact to your team both at the time of signing and what you would reasonably would project out over the next few years that drawing a line like that was massively detrimental to the team.

I've seen a lot of people try and defend a lot of moves; hell I've defended some of them myself. But to argue the Bulls were in ANY way in the right in how they handled the Butler extension either in the moment or in hindsight is hysterical.

Looking at just the raw numbers a case could easily have been made during that summer to not give Jimmy more than 10per but just by watching you could easily see the impact he was having on the floor. And you're right. They chose to be conservative. I think jimmy was asking for 13-14per and they wouldn't go that high.

[PaKii94]

I don’t. That being said I never thought Butler would be this good either so what do I know. I am not a huge Lauri fan though. I hope he makes me shut up and want to slob on his bob though.

This is the play jimmy confirmed in my eyes he'd be legit:
https://youtu.be/hoHsz6HSn60

Similarly, lauri had a play that confirmed he'd be legit in my eyes during his rookie season. It was a throwaway play, a missed dunk but it was pretty revealing of Lauri's mentality.
During one of the grizzlies game, Lauri got the ball in the post and immediately tried turning around and slamming it down over 3 defenders including gasol. He wasn't soft, wasn't scared. He was purposeful and determined and accepted the challenge.

He had the DGAF attitude of he didn't care who was defending him, he was going to try to slam it down regardless. That was something that Niko was missing and prevented him from taking the next step.

This past season similar to Jimmy's 13-14 season, was derailed by significant injury but he still showed flashes. Jimmy's case was the toe which hampered his all around game. For Lauri it was his shooting elbow messing up his best option on offense: his shot.

With a healthy off-season and hopefully health going forward, I expect big things from Lauri this year. Like how Jimmy showed potential in the second half of 2012-13 season, lauri showed something similar in February before getting shut down.

Yeah I am not worried about the man Lauri is, he has a great head on his shoulders but a lot like Jimmy he has some physical aspects that aren’t idea (ie footspeed). Jimmy’s short arms proved to me he would never be great. See how I am always right! I publicly declared on the score that Elton Brand was a bust and he wouldn’t last 3 years in the league. So with a flawless track record like that my opinion really matters. Also Dinwiddie sucks and I am glad we cut him.

My point was the eye test can reveal the "IT" factor even if the raw stats don't show it. To me Lauri showed it.

Lauri does have some physical hinderances but I wouldn't say footspeed tbh. More like stength/conditioning (which should improve as he matures his NBA body) and like jimmy, wingspan. The short wingspan makes me doubt his fit at the 5 and IDT he will ever be a good rim protector but I think with his overall size, that doesn't matter except with the tallest/biggest Cs.

[DanTown8587]

Can't speak to the quotes, but the splits actually show improvement post-ASB. He was at 12/5/2 shooting 38% pre-ASB and 14/5/3 shooting 42% post-ASB. Hard for me to think that those stats foretold his next year is all. (And FWLIW, my recollection on Deng is that many around these parts were critical of that contract as one more fitting a star than Deng.)

Anyway, I'm not arguing Jimmy wasn't a good player, just that it's by no means "completely indefensible" to set a value and stick to it because it was wholly unclear that he could/would take that leap, and even if he did it they had the ability to retain him. It was a call to take the risk that he'd blow up and you'd have less cap space or take the risk that he'd improve but far less than he ended up doing and end up overpaying and wasting cap space.

I gotta love a person who has the time and energy to defend not signing Jimmy Butler to what would have been one of the sweat heart deals in the history of the league because of sticking to values. You know who else stuck to values? The Thunder when they traded Harden.

The point I made then that made this indefensible was the difference in the offers was so small (I believe it was around 4/40 v 4/48) in terms of impact to your team both at the time of signing and what you would reasonably would project out over the next few years that drawing a line like that was massively detrimental to the team.

I've seen a lot of people try and defend a lot of moves; hell I've defended some of them myself. But to argue the Bulls were in ANY way in the right in how they handled the Butler extension either in the moment or in hindsight is hysterical.

Looking at just the raw numbers a case could easily have been made during that summer to not give Jimmy more than 10per but just by watching you could easily see the impact he was having on the floor. And you're right. They chose to be conservative. I think jimmy was asking for 13-14per and they wouldn't go that high.

If they would have drawn a line at 4/24 and he wanted 4/48 then the difference in those two deals is enough where you can argue "hey, that's what they have him at and that's what he is worth" and those two deals are fundamentally different in terms of impacting your cap and future "flexibility". There is no argument to be made that 4/40 and 4/48 are in anyway materially different enough that the Bulls should have drawn the line there. That will always be asinine.

The problem many (including you) are having is that contract negations are incredibly binary at a high level (was a deal done yes or no) but the value of the deal obviously fluctuates based on price and there is no real difference between 4/40 and 4/48. And here's the question the Bulls have to deal with

- Sign Jimmy at 4/48
- Do NOT sign Jimmy and see what happens next summer

Considering where the cap was going, 4/48 was probably the floor of Jimmy's play. Let's look at comparable players after Jimmy's third year and their summer 2015 deals

Danny Green - 4/45
Tobias Harris - 4/64
Monta Ellis - 4/44
Thad Young - 4/50
Iman Shumpert - 4/40
Wes Matthews - 4/70

Considering where Jimmy was after even his third year, 4/48 was an absolute floor and considering the amount of cap that was there, someone would have paid Jimmy probably well above 4/48 because in some alternate universe where Jimmy is just the year 3 Jimmy, some team would have gambled on him due to his advanced metrics (FTR, corner three point shooting, on ball defense) that the Bulls fought for nothing.

The Bulls should have realized that Jimmy was playing hurt and playing heavy minutes post trade that his numbers cratered but that it's highly unlikely Jimmy all of the sudden got worse in every shooting category. I mean post all-star break he was putting up near league efficiency (.544% TS) while playing 41 minutes a night and shooting only .295% from three. Even if he improved to a mediocre shooter the next year, a player putting up above average efficiency (which he would have been with even low level improvement) who can guard any 2/3 in the league fairly well and do it for 40 minutes a night is a valuable player.

[PaKii94]

I gotta love a person who has the time and energy to defend not signing Jimmy Butler to what would have been one of the sweat heart deals in the history of the league because of sticking to values. You know who else stuck to values? The Thunder when they traded Harden.

The point I made then that made this indefensible was the difference in the offers was so small (I believe it was around 4/40 v 4/48) in terms of impact to your team both at the time of signing and what you would reasonably would project out over the next few years that drawing a line like that was massively detrimental to the team.

I've seen a lot of people try and defend a lot of moves; hell I've defended some of them myself. But to argue the Bulls were in ANY way in the right in how they handled the Butler extension either in the moment or in hindsight is hysterical.

Looking at just the raw numbers a case could easily have been made during that summer to not give Jimmy more than 10per but just by watching you could easily see the impact he was having on the floor. And you're right. They chose to be conservative. I think jimmy was asking for 13-14per and they wouldn't go that high.

If they would have drawn a line at 4/24 and he wanted 4/48 then the difference in those two deals is enough where you can argue "hey, that's what they have him at and that's what he is worth" and those two deals are fundamentally different in terms of impacting your cap and future "flexibility". There is no argument to be made that 4/40 and 4/48 are in anyway materially different enough that the Bulls should have drawn the line there. That will always be asinine.

The problem many (including you) are having is that contract negations are incredibly binary at a high level (was a deal done yes or no) but the value of the deal obviously fluctuates based on price and there is no real difference between 4/40 and 4/48. And here's the question the Bulls have to deal with

- Sign Jimmy at 4/48
- Do NOT sign Jimmy and see what happens next summer

Considering where the cap was going, 4/48 was probably the floor of Jimmy's play. Let's look at comparable players after Jimmy's third year and their summer 2015 deals

Danny Green - 4/45
Tobias Harris - 4/64
Monta Ellis - 4/44
Thad Young - 4/50
Iman Shumpert - 4/40
Wes Matthews - 4/70

Considering where Jimmy was after even his third year, 4/48 was an absolute floor and considering the amount of cap that was there, someone would have paid Jimmy probably well above 4/48 because in some alternate universe where Jimmy is just the year 3 Jimmy, some team would have gambled on him due to his advanced metrics (FTR, corner three point shooting, on ball defense) that the Bulls fought for nothing.

The Bulls should have realized that Jimmy was playing hurt and playing heavy minutes post trade that his numbers cratered but that it's highly unlikely Jimmy all of the sudden got worse in every shooting category. I mean post all-star break he was putting up near league efficiency (.544% TS) while playing 41 minutes a night and shooting only .295% from three. Even if he improved to a mediocre shooter the next year, a player putting up above average efficiency (which he would have been with even low level improvement) who can guard any 2/3 in the league fairly well and do it for 40 minutes a night is a valuable player.

Oh I was all for paying Jimmy what he wanted. I saw him coming. I agree with what you said However, i think you are discounting the general consensus on Jimmy. At that point in time people were questioning if he was even worth roleplayer money. People thought he was brewer 2.0.

Also, there definitely was a difference between those two salaries. You are looking at it from post spike levels. Before the spike, his MAX extension I believe was $15 mil per. He would have "settled" for 13 per. Bulls were offering 10-11 per. 2 million of 15 is still 13% difference. The bulls should have seen the spike coming and signed him at what he wanted but it ended up working out better for Jimmy anyway. He got his max the year later

[SeniorWalker]

This wouldnt be the craziest scenario to ever happen. But the best way for the bulls to woo Davis is to show competency in building a winning team and culture without him.

If this young core suddenly becomes a 45 win team and shows heart and potential, especially with a guy like Lauri taking a step further in development, Chicago probably does become more appealing than it is today.

For Davis, I think if the LeBron LA thing doesnt work out (I think they will do well, but there is a sizable amount of potential for things to go wrong with the injury history and age of their rotation players) AD may very look to go somewhere else long term.

So the best approach, especially considering that Chicago alone is not necessarily a top FA destination, is to build intelligently and put forth a competitive team, much like the clippers did last year. Then if AD really wants to play in Chicago he will have enough motivation to do so.

[Michael Jackson]

This wouldnt be the craziest scenario to ever happen. But the best way for the bulls to woo Davis is to show competency in building a winning team and culture without him.

If this young core suddenly becomes a 45 win team and shows heart and potential, especially with a guy like Lauri taking a step further in development, Chicago probably does become more appealing than it is today.

For Davis, I think if the LeBron LA thing doesnt work out (I think they will do well, but there is a sizable amount of potential for things to go wrong with the injury history and age of their rotation players) AD may very look to go somewhere else long term.

So the best approach, especially considering that Chicago alone is not necessarily a top FA destination, is to build intelligently and put forth a competitive team, much like the clippers did last year. Then if AD really wants to play in Chicago he will have enough motivation to do so.

I don’t think things will go well for them in LA. The squad is not good and AD has an insane amount of pressure on him that he didn’t in NOLA. He wants rings and Legacy and he is looking at a one year window. LA found out everyone else improved more than them. On any given night they have the two best players in the league.

[Peelboy]

If you look at his numbers that year, he was having deng (+) level impact before the turf toe injury. Then he didn't spend time to recover and came back to play big minutes which really hampered his numbers. He still had a great impact on defense and intangibles.

Around that year is when Pippen tweeted that jimmy could be an all-star and there was a quote that there were GMs who would max him if they had him

Can't speak to the quotes, but the splits actually show improvement post-ASB. He was at 12/5/2 shooting 38% pre-ASB and 14/5/3 shooting 42% post-ASB. Hard for me to think that those stats foretold his next year is all. (And FWLIW, my recollection on Deng is that many around these parts were critical of that contract as one more fitting a star than Deng.)

Anyway, I'm not arguing Jimmy wasn't a good player, just that it's by no means "completely indefensible" to set a value and stick to it because it was wholly unclear that he could/would take that leap, and even if he did it they had the ability to retain him. It was a call to take the risk that he'd blow up and you'd have less cap space or take the risk that he'd improve but far less than he ended up doing and end up overpaying and wasting cap space.

I gotta love a person who has the time and energy to defend not signing Jimmy Butler to what would have been one of the sweat heart deals in the history of the league because of sticking to values. You know who else stuck to values? The Thunder when they traded Harden.

The point I made then that made this indefensible was the difference in the offers was so small (I believe it was around 4/40 v 4/48) in terms of impact to your team both at the time of signing and what you would reasonably would project out over the next few years that drawing a line like that was massively detrimental to the team.

I've seen a lot of people try and defend a lot of moves; hell I've defended some of them myself. But to argue the Bulls were in ANY way in the right in how they handled the Butler extension either in the moment or in hindsight is hysterical.

$2M/yr is nothing in a cap league? That's 3% of the cap! It would be like saying "the Bulls were willing to pay LaVine $20M, so should be ok paying him $23.5M." That extra $3.5M is the same 3% of this year's cap. Should the Bulls have signed Thad Young to a $16.5M/yr deal rather than $13?

Now if you want to argue that they should have seen Jimmy as about to bust out to what he did, fine but I don't think there's a lot of data to support that. It's the "eye test" which is hugely hindsight-driven IMO (perhaps PaKii excepted). If Jimmy had stayed a 13/4/5 type of guy with excellent D, even 4/$40 would be an overpay and people would have been calling for their heads. Now obviously, with the benefit of hindsight, it's the wrong call. But that's the advantage of hindsight.....Calling it a no-brainer/indefensible at the time is a huge stretch.