Around The NBA

[dougthonus]

I follow college recruiting heavily so that may cloud my judgement on the perception of the draft but no one was saying this draft was supposed to be weak from the things I usually read.
Only when the season kicked off and guys struggled was there talk of weaker draft.

As I said "no clear top picks" is code for "weak draft". Every draft prospectus I could find either did not comment on the strength of the draft at all or made some statement like the above. Do you have anything from what you read that mentioned it as a strong draft?

I don't know that people often mention drafts as weak, because they never know who will emerge, but they often mention them as strong when they know they are good going in. It may certainly be the case that this was just a class where there was no clear great players, and maybe someone emerges and one does. It hinted at being weak early and as time went on, it got worse and worse.

I don't know much about the 2021 class either. I've just heard people say its a strong class. I remember at my draft party last year people saying 2020 wasn't a good class but 2021 was. That said, unlikely you, I do not follow college recruiting. I can not even name a guy in the 2021 draft without looking it up. I don't know that its true that it will be strong and am only repeating (in both cases) what I have heard others say.

My primary issue with that is the perception. People usually refer to a draft as extremely strong when there is a generational talent.
2012 had Davis and he was the clear #1 but the overall draft itself was weak yet it produced AD, Beal, Dame and Drummond in the 1st. Also Draymond, Middleton and Barnes.
2015 was considered stronger but no clear top pick until late when KAT was deemed the top guy due to defensive potential(lol)
It still produced KAT, Russell, Porzingis and Booker. Also Turner, Oubre Jr, Rozier.

Weak vs Strong produces nearly identical results from a sheer number of valuable players perspective. LeBron's draft year is an outlier similar to the 1983 and 2004 NFL drafts that produced legendary QB's.

I do think you are right that people tend to grade a draft by the value of its top few prospects, a counter would be 2018 was viewed as a strong draft, lots of good players in it but no obvious franchise star even though it is possible a couple emerged. 2019 had a couple franchise talents but wasn't viewed as a strong class overall.

[StunnerKO]

[Andi Obst]

I think I hate every single leaked jersey I have seen in the last few days. This one is no exception, but it's still better than most other ones. I will never take anyone seriously in that new Knicks or Nets jersey...

[Grodoboldo]

Even uglier than the light blue ones. What the actual ****?

[dice]

Even uglier than the light blue ones. What the actual ****?

the standard white and red ones from the last 30 years remain the only bulls unis i've ever liked. didn't like the scripted ones from the '80s nor the black pinstriped ones from the dynasty days

[StunnerKO]

2021 marks 100 year for Chicago theater

[MrFortune3]

As I said "no clear top picks" is code for "weak draft". Every draft prospectus I could find either did not comment on the strength of the draft at all or made some statement like the above. Do you have anything from what you read that mentioned it as a strong draft?

I don't know that people often mention drafts as weak, because they never know who will emerge, but they often mention them as strong when they know they are good going in. It may certainly be the case that this was just a class where there was no clear great players, and maybe someone emerges and one does. It hinted at being weak early and as time went on, it got worse and worse.

I don't know much about the 2021 class either. I've just heard people say its a strong class. I remember at my draft party last year people saying 2020 wasn't a good class but 2021 was. That said, unlikely you, I do not follow college recruiting. I can not even name a guy in the 2021 draft without looking it up. I don't know that its true that it will be strong and am only repeating (in both cases) what I have heard others say.

My primary issue with that is the perception. People usually refer to a draft as extremely strong when there is a generational talent.
2012 had Davis and he was the clear #1 but the overall draft itself was weak yet it produced AD, Beal, Dame and Drummond in the 1st. Also Draymond, Middleton and Barnes.
2015 was considered stronger but no clear top pick until late when KAT was deemed the top guy due to defensive potential(lol)
It still produced KAT, Russell, Porzingis and Booker. Also Turner, Oubre Jr, Rozier.

Weak vs Strong produces nearly identical results from a sheer number of valuable players perspective. LeBron's draft year is an outlier similar to the 1983 and 2004 NFL drafts that produced legendary QB's.

I do think you are right that people tend to grade a draft by the value of its top few prospects, a counter would be 2018 was viewed as a strong draft, lots of good players in it but no obvious franchise star even though it is possible a couple emerged. 2019 had a couple franchise talents but wasn't viewed as a strong class overall.

That’s one of the reasons I want to see us pick up another 1st in addition to #4. It would help us advance further in the build by taking advantage of skepticism among other teams.

[TheStig]

We have no use for Horford, he's a semi bad contract now and will only get worse.
Making that deal does not help roster construction. More to the point, it doesn't help us because Philly's 1sts are not likely to amount to anything.

Yeah, as I said, you'd only do it if you could flip Horford for an expiring in a 3 team deal. The picks wouldn't be great, but if you didn't think you were going to resign Zach in 2 years, it wouldn't be a bad move of getting ahead of trading him, being really bad this year in an epic drat next year.

The Bulls, IMO, aren't going anywhere with this iteration. This has shades of us trying to win in the Doncic draft year. Going in, people felt that was a great draft, and we were just good enough to avoid all the really good players. This draft next year is similar, there will probably be multiple franchise caliber players in it, no need to try and win 40 this year with something that might not have potential for real growth.

Do you think the Reinsdorf's have the stomach for being even worse? I think their mandate has always been quicker rebuilds. They don't want to be bad for 5 years. Would they let AK tear it all down and start from scratch? If you move Lavine, you might as well move a guy like Lauri looking to be paid.

I'd like to bottom out. But I think we're much more likely to go into next season with this core.

[ZOMG]

We have no use for Horford, he's a semi bad contract now and will only get worse.
Making that deal does not help roster construction. More to the point, it doesn't help us because Philly's 1sts are not likely to amount to anything.

Yeah, as I said, you'd only do it if you could flip Horford for an expiring in a 3 team deal. The picks wouldn't be great, but if you didn't think you were going to resign Zach in 2 years, it wouldn't be a bad move of getting ahead of trading him, being really bad this year in an epic drat next year.

The Bulls, IMO, aren't going anywhere with this iteration. This has shades of us trying to win in the Doncic draft year. Going in, people felt that was a great draft, and we were just good enough to avoid all the really good players. This draft next year is similar, there will probably be multiple franchise caliber players in it, no need to try and win 40 this year with something that might not have potential for real growth.

Do you think the Reinsdorf's have the stomach for being even worse? I think their mandate has always been quicker rebuilds. They don't want to be bad for 5 years. Would they let AK tear it all down and start from scratch? If you move Lavine, you might as well move a guy like Lauri looking to be paid.

I'd like to bottom out. But I think we're much more likely to go into next season with this core.

I've been saying for a long time that this "core" most likely isn't going anywhere. It's normal for fans to dream up wild scenarios for team shakeups, but that's rarely how the NBA works.

[robert76]

We have no use for Horford, he's a semi bad contract now and will only get worse.
Making that deal does not help roster construction. More to the point, it doesn't help us because Philly's 1sts are not likely to amount to anything.

Yeah, as I said, you'd only do it if you could flip Horford for an expiring in a 3 team deal. The picks wouldn't be great, but if you didn't think you were going to resign Zach in 2 years, it wouldn't be a bad move of getting ahead of trading him, being really bad this year in an epic drat next year.

The Bulls, IMO, aren't going anywhere with this iteration. This has shades of us trying to win in the Doncic draft year. Going in, people felt that was a great draft, and we were just good enough to avoid all the really good players. This draft next year is similar, there will probably be multiple franchise caliber players in it, no need to try and win 40 this year with something that might not have potential for real growth.

Do you think the Reinsdorf's have the stomach for being even worse? I think their mandate has always been quicker rebuilds. They don't want to be bad for 5 years. Would they let AK tear it all down and start from scratch? If you move Lavine, you might as well move a guy like Lauri looking to be paid.

I'd like to bottom out. But I think we're much more likely to go into next season with this core.

I don't think the Reindorfs are gonna agree with one more tank year. But if they were to do it, this would be the year to go for it. The next year's draft appears to be great, there aren't gonna be fans in the stands too soon, so you can have a bad product on the floor without thinking about any drops in attendance. Give AK an empty canvas to work with.

[dougthonus]

Do you think the Reinsdorf's have the stomach for being even worse? I think their mandate has always been quicker rebuilds. They don't want to be bad for 5 years. Would they let AK tear it all down and start from scratch? If you move Lavine, you might as well move a guy like Lauri looking to be paid.

I'd like to bottom out. But I think we're much more likely to go into next season with this core.

The question is really how good are they going to be with this group. Does this group facilitate a quick rebuild at this point? I think the answer is not very good. I do think if you move LaVine that you almost certainly should move Lauri as well, but I'd only consider either if I was getting some decent value back (not top 3 pick value, but I'm not dumping them for expirings and the 28th pick in the draft either).

[MrSparkle]

Do you think the Reinsdorf's have the stomach for being even worse? I think their mandate has always been quicker rebuilds. They don't want to be bad for 5 years. Would they let AK tear it all down and start from scratch? If you move Lavine, you might as well move a guy like Lauri looking to be paid.

I'd like to bottom out. But I think we're much more likely to go into next season with this core.

The question is really how good are they going to be with this group. Does this group facilitate a quick rebuild at this point? I think the answer is not very good. I do think if you move LaVine that you almost certainly should move Lauri as well, but I'd only consider either if I was getting some decent value back (not top 3 pick value, but I'm not dumping them for expirings and the 28th pick in the draft either).

We're in agreement here about the broken core... It's so disturbing that our top 3 PERs this past season were: Zach, Shaq and Gafford. Especially since big men usually fare better with PER (IMO their defensive vulnerabilities aren't reflected - Lauri is soft and slow, Wendell is slow on the perimeter and short in the paint). Compounded is that Zach has 2 years left on his good deal, so the best player (with major flaws) is going to be a big cap problem.

I'm all team-blame-Boylen, but at a certain point, it's highly alarming when your 2nd rd. rookie and undrafted defensive PG out-perform your three #7 picks, even in a broken system. I imagine Artunas' 1st thought was "I must improve these players' values," but 2nd thought was "I must trade them if the right deal comes."

So I'm prepared for the two scenarios. I just know that this Bulls team is going to be entirely different by late next year. And if that means Lauri and Wendell develop into all-stars, that would be entirely different as well. But Artunas had no problem trading a talented Nurkic for a bench journey-man in Plumlee. I'm mainly looking forward to less hesitation pulling the trade trigger on totally pedestrian NBA talents.

There shouldn't have been a lot of agony on GarPax's end about whether to keep Valentine, Dunn, Hutchinson, Felicio. You know? They haven't had star talent, they haven't won games, and they haven't even proven to stay healthy. Dead roster spots and struggling lotto picks costing $2-7m against the cap are worse than overpaid mediocre players like Sato and Thad (IMO).

It's a majorly broken roster, so again, I'm just looking forward to seeing how Artunas performs this surgery. He's already done a great job with the coaching staff.

[TheStig]

Do you think the Reinsdorf's have the stomach for being even worse? I think their mandate has always been quicker rebuilds. They don't want to be bad for 5 years. Would they let AK tear it all down and start from scratch? If you move Lavine, you might as well move a guy like Lauri looking to be paid.

I'd like to bottom out. But I think we're much more likely to go into next season with this core.

The question is really how good are they going to be with this group. Does this group facilitate a quick rebuild at this point? I think the answer is not very good. I do think if you move LaVine that you almost certainly should move Lauri as well, but I'd only consider either if I was getting some decent value back (not top 3 pick value, but I'm not dumping them for expirings and the 28th pick in the draft either).

Doug, my debate is not with your point. I agree with you that the core is weak and maybe peaks out in the first round. My point is that the Reinsdorf's don't have the stomach for this much loosing and to start from scratch again. I think he has this year to miss the playoffs because you have no fans in the stadium anyway. But he's got to make them look competitive and have guys look good. Remember they've already missed the playoffs 3 straight years and 4 out of 5. I don't think they want to go 5 straight years. The mandate is to get better quickly imho. That's why they got a guy like Donovan instead of going for a assistant.

[dougthonus]

Doug, my debate is not with your point. I agree with you that the core is weak and maybe peaks out in the first round. My point is that the Reinsdorf's don't have the stomach for this much loosing and to start from scratch again. I think he has this year to miss the playoffs because you have no fans in the stadium anyway. But he's got to make them look competitive and have guys look good. Remember they've already missed the playoffs 3 straight years and 4 out of 5. I don't think they want to go 5 straight years. The mandate is to get better quickly imho. That's why they got a guy like Donovan instead of going for a assistant.

I think Reinsdorf may want this or that, who knows, but I don't think they'll fire AK for taking 2 years to get to the playoffs or demand that he won't. I think they've given him autonomy. I think he has the power to do what is best and doesn't need to consider this point so closely as you do.

I agree the Reinsdorfs may prefer a quick rebuild, but I think they'll take a good rebuild over a quick rebuild and have given AK the trust he needs to decide what is best for the long term. The Bulls have historically generally been pretty long term focused, especially when it comes to contract planning.

I'd argue instead that the Bulls have historically been very willing to cut bait on guys before paying them if they didn't believe in them for the long run. Granted, all these things kind of overlap. The important thign to me is I feel AK has the power to decide what is best and won't have to make short term decisions due to ownership.

[TheFinishSniper]

Reinsdorf has NO right to put pressure on AK to make playoffs anywhere in near future. The core sucks. Boylen maybe was terrible but there is no coach in league which will make Markkanen post up midget and take advantage of missmatch or Lavine becoming MJ on both ends, while out the suddenly WCJ becomes next Noah. Job done by previous deal set this franchise back minimum 2-3 years from being good team.

Team is very flawed and good coaching can only fix smaller problems. It cant fix real problems. That can only be fixed by good drafting, player development and being active on market. And that's helluva job waiting for AK. Finding gems and superstars is key to any good franchise start and beginning of success. As ancient Thibetan philosophy says Dont start none wont be none. 20+ years of that without Derrick Rose my friends.

Till Bulls add superstar on roster there wont be none. Winning records, playoff success, Finals, championships etc .

[TheStig]

Doug, my debate is not with your point. I agree with you that the core is weak and maybe peaks out in the first round. My point is that the Reinsdorf's don't have the stomach for this much loosing and to start from scratch again. I think he has this year to miss the playoffs because you have no fans in the stadium anyway. But he's got to make them look competitive and have guys look good. Remember they've already missed the playoffs 3 straight years and 4 out of 5. I don't think they want to go 5 straight years. The mandate is to get better quickly imho. That's why they got a guy like Donovan instead of going for a assistant.

I think Reinsdorf may want this or that, who knows, but I don't think they'll fire AK for taking 2 years to get to the playoffs or demand that he won't. I think they've given him autonomy. I think he has the power to do what is best and doesn't need to consider this point so closely as you do.

I agree the Reinsdorfs may prefer a quick rebuild, but I think they'll take a good rebuild over a quick rebuild and have given AK the trust he needs to decide what is best for the long term. The Bulls have historically generally been pretty long term focused, especially when it comes to contract planning.

I'd argue instead that the Bulls have historically been very willing to cut bait on guys before paying them if they didn't believe in them for the long run. Granted, all these things kind of overlap. The important thign to me is I feel AK has the power to decide what is best and won't have to make short term decisions due to ownership.

I think they've run out of patience to be honest. They rushed into the 3 alphas instead of actually building long term. They signed Parker to try to boost themselves that year. They then signed older role players to try to boost the team to the playoffs in Sato and Young. These were not long term moves. They were win now moves.

I don't think that the Reinsdorf's were ever for long term rebuilds. That's why Krause and GarPax were dismissed. They backed into rebuilds that didn't go as plans and then seemed to have no end. And much like Pax, I think the mandate is for AK to make the playoffs. I agree they won't fire him if he doesn't make the playoffs next year or the year after but that doesn't mean that they don't push him into win now moves. These guys aren't afraid to throw in that demand.

But I agree with you. I think this off season is a great opportunity to cash out the pieces the new FO doesn't believe in and collect some assets. But I don't think that'll really happen outside of maybe a trade. I think these guys were brought in because they believe they can win with this group with another piece and good coaching.

[TheStig]

Reinsdorf has NO right to put pressure on AK to make playoffs anywhere in near future. The core sucks. Boylen maybe was terrible but there is no coach in league which will make Markkanen post up midget and take advantage of missmatch or Lavine becoming MJ on both ends, while out the suddenly WCJ becomes next Noah. Job done by previous deal set this franchise back minimum 2-3 years from being good team.

Team is very flawed and good coaching can only fix smaller problems. It cant fix real problems. That can only be fixed by good drafting, player development and being active on market. And that's helluva job waiting for AK. Finding gems and superstars is key to any good franchise start and beginning of success. As ancient Thibetan philosophy says Dont start none wont be none. 20+ years of that without Derrick Rose my friends.

Till Bulls add superstar on roster there wont be none. Winning records, playoff success, Finals, championships etc .

That is our opinion and I agree with you. But that's likely not the view of the FO and ownership. I think these guys were brought in to build around the group they have and make the playoffs. Look at the 7th and 8th seed this past year. They were both very flawed teams. I think they feel a good coach (billy D) and another piece or two and they can sneak in if everyone is healthy. The 7th and 8th seed were bad and flawed teams.

[dougthonus]

I think they've run out of patience to be honest. They rushed into the 3 alphas instead of actually building long term. They signed Parker to try to boost themselves that year. They then signed older role players to try to boost the team to the playoffs in Sato and Young. These were not long term moves. They were win now moves.

I think its weird that you would say that:
Situation 1: Historic cap rise, about 4x as much money as quality players, they went short on years to avoid locking themselves into anything stupid. They clearly weren't "sick of losing" as they hadn't even missed the playoffs yet. It was primarily a move to avoid going four years on really bad talent and try and still help do something.

Situation 2: Parker was an upside signing in a use it or lose it situation. Again, no other real options, also I don't think anyone thought Parker was a vet thats going to put you over the top or a "win now" player. He was perhaps a "win never" player, but a guy that if it worked out and he came back strong might be really valuable. This was a low risk / high reward signing that had nothing to do with winning now or desperation.

Situation 3: The Bulls put together a core of players and they wanted to give those guys the best chance to win so added some quality vets for depth around them. This is like what you said, though neither signing struck me as a desperation signing, this was definitely about trying to make a push for the playoffs and seeing if this core you had can actually go somewhere.

Situation 4 (now): You can choose whether to rebuild this thing or replay situation #3. I don't think AK has a mandate to do one or the other, just that he needs to get the team back on the right track long term. I could be wrong, maybe they are demanding playoffs immediately, but of the previous situations, I don't think that was only a part of the situation in #3 and made sense then. You've got this group, time to give them help and see what they can do. Turned out not to be much.

I don't think that the Reinsdorf's were ever for long term rebuilds. That's why Krause and GarPax were dismissed. They backed into rebuilds that didn't go as plans and then seemed to have no end. And much like Pax, I think the mandate is for AK to make the playoffs. I agree they won't fire him if he doesn't make the playoffs next year or the year after but that doesn't mean that they don't push him into win now moves. These guys aren't afraid to throw in that demand.

Why do you think this is true though? I mean it sounds like you have created this narrative in your head, but I don't think there is any basis for it. They traded Jimmy Butler to specifically attempt to rebuild, so I think they're okay with that. I don't think they want to Sam Hinkie this thing, but I think you're really underselling ownership here. I don't think Micheal Reinsdorf would be happy with a playoff team that doesn't have more than 45 win upside and will be in financial trouble, and that's where I see us heading. I don't think if someone tells him that he will be incapable of understanding it or seeing it. He spends his entire life thinking about the Bulls most likely, and people shouldn't assume he's a moron (though everyone seems to).

But I agree with you. I think this off season is a great opportunity to cash out the pieces the new FO doesn't believe in and collect some assets. But I don't think that'll really happen outside of maybe a trade. I think these guys were brought in because they believe they can win with this group with another piece and good coaching.

I don't expect it to happen either, and I think there is a case to be made for the win now route too. I won't hate it if we run it back with a good coaching staff and hope for better health and continuity. I just think AK has full autonomy to say "nope, these aren't the guys" and trade everyone and be bad if he wants to. I'm not sure that's the right choice (it would probably be my choice if I liked the trade offers, but I don't know if I would or not. Hard to say what we could get in trade).

[TheStig]

I think they've run out of patience to be honest. They rushed into the 3 alphas instead of actually building long term. They signed Parker to try to boost themselves that year. They then signed older role players to try to boost the team to the playoffs in Sato and Young. These were not long term moves. They were win now moves.

I think its weird that you would say that:
Situation 1: Historic cap rise, about 4x as much money as quality players, they went short on years to avoid locking themselves into anything stupid. They clearly weren't "sick of losing" as they hadn't even missed the playoffs yet. It was primarily a move to avoid going four years on really bad talent and try and still help do something.

Situation 2: Parker was an upside signing in a use it or lose it situation. Again, no other real options, also I don't think anyone thought Parker was a vet thats going to put you over the top or a "win now" player. He was perhaps a "win never" player, but a guy that if it worked out and he came back strong might be really valuable. This was a low risk / high reward signing that had nothing to do with winning now or desperation.

Situation 3: The Bulls put together a core of players and they wanted to give those guys the best chance to win so added some quality vets for depth around them. This is like what you said, though neither signing struck me as a desperation signing, this was definitely about trying to make a push for the playoffs and seeing if this core you had can actually go somewhere.

Situation 4 (now): You can choose whether to rebuild this thing or replay situation #3. I don't think AK has a mandate to do one or the other, just that he needs to get the team back on the right track long term. I could be wrong, maybe they are demanding playoffs immediately, but of the previous situations, I don't think that was only a part of the situation in #3 and made sense then. You've got this group, time to give them help and see what they can do. Turned out not to be much.

I don't think that the Reinsdorf's were ever for long term rebuilds. That's why Krause and GarPax were dismissed. They backed into rebuilds that didn't go as plans and then seemed to have no end. And much like Pax, I think the mandate is for AK to make the playoffs. I agree they won't fire him if he doesn't make the playoffs next year or the year after but that doesn't mean that they don't push him into win now moves. These guys aren't afraid to throw in that demand.

Why do you think this is true though? I mean it sounds like you have created this narrative in your head, but I don't think there is any basis for it. They traded Jimmy Butler to specifically attempt to rebuild, so I think they're okay with that. I don't think they want to Sam Hinkie this thing, but I think you're really underselling ownership here. I don't think Micheal Reinsdorf would be happy with a playoff team that doesn't have more than 45 win upside and will be in financial trouble, and that's where I see us heading. I don't think if someone tells him that he will be incapable of understanding it or seeing it. He spends his entire life thinking about the Bulls most likely, and people shouldn't assume he's a moron (though everyone seems to).

But I agree with you. I think this off season is a great opportunity to cash out the pieces the new FO doesn't believe in and collect some assets. But I don't think that'll really happen outside of maybe a trade. I think these guys were brought in because they believe they can win with this group with another piece and good coaching.

I don't expect it to happen either, and I think there is a case to be made for the win now route too. I won't hate it if we run it back with a good coaching staff and hope for better health and continuity. I just think AK has full autonomy to say "nope, these aren't the guys" and trade everyone and be bad if he wants to. I'm not sure that's the right choice (it would probably be my choice if I liked the trade offers, but I don't know if I would or not. Hard to say what we could get in trade).

Doug, in all those scenario's they could have taken back short term bad deals with a pick for the cap space (except the cap rise). That would have given us much more long term than striking out on some overpriced deals, even if they were short term. And what fool signs a player for 20 million in a year if they don't feel it's a win now move?

Why do I think it? They came out and said it wasn't a real rebuild and they thought they got players who would help them now. They called it 3 lotto picks and weren't planning on tanking. It was not my narrative. It was was the GarPax narrative. These guys were not planning on being bad the last 2 years. They thought they'd be in the playoffs.

I don't think that's AK's plan. I frankly don't think they would've hired someone who was going to tear it all down. I don't think you can sell a Billy D if you're going to tear it all down. If that were the case, he'd still be in OKC. I also don't think the ownership group has the stomach to keep missing the playoffs. I think this is AK's year to get it together and put them on the right track but he's mandated to do what it takes to make the playoffs. Maybe it doesn't happen in year one but I think he'll be on the hot seat if year 2 goes poorly. I really doubt we will see changes to the roster at the draft or offseason. But I think we will start to chase the trade market for a star. Just my two cents. I just get the feeling you don't bring in a high profile FO and coach to tear it all down.

[MrFortune3]

I don't think the Reinsdorf's are interested in completely bottoming out due to potential loss of revenue.
I do however believe that they want to allow AK to build his team. I truly believe that AK actually likes some of the talent of the roster and wants to simply improve upon it while adding pieces around it.

If AK wanted to rush in and tear it down, he would have already begun to do so. Same with Donovan coming in as HC. If he was expecting a complete tear down, he likely wouldn't have taken the job.