Assembling Core 2.0

[sco]

My latest (you know...dumb) thoughts:

Lauri for Ball

Otto/Carter/Felicio/Sato for Griffin/Grant (really just Carter, maybe Otto for a salary Dump of Griffin to get Grant) could need to cut back package, not take Griffin and add our (protected) 2022 first.

Val/Gafford for Noel

Thad/Temple for THT/Schroder

Leaves us a core of:

Ball/Schroder
Zach/Coby
PWill/THT
Grant/Griffin
Noel

[gobullschi]

My latest (you know...dumb) thoughts:

Lauri for Ball

Otto/Carter/Felicio/Sato for Griffin/Grant (really just Carter, maybe Otto for a salary Dump of Griffin to get Grant) could need to cut back package, not take Griffin and add our (protected) 2022 first.

Val/Gafford for Noel

Thad/Temple for THT/Schroder

Leaves us a core of:

Ball/Schroder
Zach/Coby
PWill/THT
Grant/Griffin
Noel

That package for Grant is not enough value going to Detroit. They won’t take less of a return for Grant to dump Blake and WCJ + 1st won’t be enough either.

Huge Grant fan though.

[MGB8]

I just don't understand why Coby gets lumped in with Lavine/PWill as a top asset.

He's very plainly not that. Goal should be to build the best team we can. Not to jump through hoops so that Coby can stay a starter.

He's not a top asset. He's a guard who right now is defending very poorly, lacks a good enough handle to be a high level playmaker, seems to have "Jerian Grant" level vision, and has some issues finishing inside (though there have been signs of improvement on that).

But, as others have noted, he's on a cheap contract. More importantly, he has shown flashes of being a high level perimeter scorer.

Based on his deficiencies, he likely doesn't have a ton of value in a trade. But *if* he shows more consistency as a scorer - which may well come just by limiting his role to that (as opposed to trying to have him learn to play point guard) - and if he improves a bit on defense (my biggest complaint about him, honestly) --- *if* he can become some approximation of Ben Gordon - then he could be a significant contributor to a high level team. Kind of like Seth Curry to the Sixers right now.

[Ben Wilson25]

I’m not worried about Coby. It’s not very pretty right now because BD is teaching him to swim; not in the Goldfish Swim School, hand under his stomach while he paddles in an 85 degree pool way but in the drive out to a deep pond in the woods and toss him out in the middle way. He’s going to flail around and puke up water for awhile but he’ll be a better player for it.

[TheSuzerain]

I just don't understand why Coby gets lumped in with Lavine/PWill as a top asset.

He's very plainly not that. Goal should be to build the best team we can. Not to jump through hoops so that Coby can stay a starter.

He's not a top asset. He's a guard who right now is defending very poorly, lacks a good enough handle to be a high level playmaker, seems to have "Jerian Grant" level vision, and has some issues finishing inside (though there have been signs of improvement on that).

But, as others have noted, he's on a cheap contract. More importantly, he has shown flashes of being a high level perimeter scorer.

Based on his deficiencies, he likely doesn't have a ton of value in a trade. But *if* he shows more consistency as a scorer - which may well come just by limiting his role to that (as opposed to trying to have him learn to play point guard) - and if he improves a bit on defense (my biggest complaint about him, honestly) --- *if* he can become some approximation of Ben Gordon - then he could be a significant contributor to a high level team. Kind of like Seth Curry to the Sixers right now.

That's a big "if". In any case, he's very obviously not a core member.

So his name really shouldn't come up in a thread about our new core.

[coldfish]

When you look at the team ratings, the Bulls are probably a playoff team just starting Sato / Lavine / Val / PW / Thad.

The Bulls should be able to upgrade several of those spots. The real "core" at this point is Lavine and PW. If the Bulls think they can put together a good team around them, they should do so and see what happens. If they stand absolutely no chance of putting together a competitive team, I suppose you shop Lavine and start all over again but IMO, the Bulls should have enough assets to get something to put together a functional team.

If the Bulls could turn Coby, Wendell, Lauri, Otto and some future firsts into a quality big man, it would be an interesting team.

[TheSuzerain]

When you look at the team ratings, the Bulls are probably a playoff team just starting Sato / Lavine / Val / PW / Thad.

The Bulls should be able to upgrade several of those spots. The real "core" at this point is Lavine and PW. If the Bulls think they can put together a good team around them, they should do so and see what happens. If they stand absolutely no chance of putting together a competitive team, I suppose you shop Lavine and start all over again but IMO, the Bulls should have enough assets to get something to put together a functional team.

If the Bulls could turn Coby, Wendell, Lauri, Otto and some future firsts into a quality big man, it would be an interesting team.

I agree they could make a playoff team, but that's basically meaningless when you look at the Eastern Conference.

The line in the sand is can you build a team around Lavine/Pwill that can compete with teams at the level of the Bucks/Nets/Celtics.

I feel like we could make all the right moves and basically build a Lavine team that's roughly as good as the Pacers or at best the pre-Kawhi Raptors. Is that desirable? I dunno maybe?

I like PWill but saying "Lavine and PWill is our core, let's roll!" is asking an awful lot of the guy. He'll basically need to hit the 95th percentile of his upside or higher for that to work out.

I still lean towards trading Zach mainly because the trade package he can return should be significant.

[chefo]

When you look at the team ratings, the Bulls are probably a playoff team just starting Sato / Lavine / Val / PW / Thad.

The Bulls should be able to upgrade several of those spots. The real "core" at this point is Lavine and PW. If the Bulls think they can put together a good team around them, they should do so and see what happens. If they stand absolutely no chance of putting together a competitive team, I suppose you shop Lavine and start all over again but IMO, the Bulls should have enough assets to get something to put together a functional team.

If the Bulls could turn Coby, Wendell, Lauri, Otto and some future firsts into a quality big man, it would be an interesting team.

Bulls would be a playoff team if Coby played 15 mins/game as opposed to 30+ (1). Bulls would be fighting for home court if (1) AND they replaced the WCJ/Gafford/Shrek trio with a guy like Drummond or Allen from the Cavs.

IMO, the Bulls already have players much more impactful than Coby riding the pine, so his minutes can easily be scaled down to 20-25, with 95% of them coming off-ball. We've got nothing in the front-court to replace our C brigade who've been "turrrible".

Bottom line is, you need productive, and more often than not, experienced talent to win big in the NBA... and the Bulls decided to have a starting lineup where 2 of the guys still can't drink and a third just turned 21. Yeah, that train-wreck the starters have been has been a surprise to exactly no-one. It's almost difficult to evaluate, because that lineup has a critical mass of lack of BBall IQ so they make each other look worse than otherwise. I mean, the Bulls lineup in 1980s terms looks like that: Zach, a college soph, a junior, a senior and a red shirt senior/grad student...

[nomorezorro]

Collins is very talented, but I think he'd be immediately less dynamic in Chicago as he'd have no playmaking wizard to play off of.

i do think there's potential for lavine + collins to develop some two-man chemistry, but yeah obviously you'd ideally have a more reliable playmaker.

it sucks that there are next to no exciting PG talents that are likely to be available at the deadline or next summer. i was thinking that it might be prudent to try to trade for collins now so you have his bird rights this summer and can take a swing at another piece in free agency before paying him, but sadly you're stuck between like...devonte graham or lonzo ball for realistic PG targets under the age of 30. maybe post acl-tear spencer dinwiddie if you really wanna pony up.

i definitely get why someone would be hesitant to build around lavine even with his performance this year. but if he is legitimately going to be a central piece, i think trying to quickly retool with young-ish talent is a legit approach? put lauri, wcj, coby and maybe even a lotto-protected 2021 first on the table and see if you can bring back better fits. the broad strokes of the starting lineup i'm envisioning is

??? mystery solid but not super expensive pg ???
lavine
williams
collins
solid cheapish FA defensive center (would look at nerlens noel or maybe take a flier on zach collins this offseason)

[gobullschi]

Collins is very talented, but I think he'd be immediately less dynamic in Chicago as he'd have no playmaking wizard to play off of.

i do think there's potential for lavine + collins to develop some two-man chemistry, but yeah obviously you'd ideally have a more reliable playmaker.

it sucks that there are next to no exciting PG talents that are likely to be available at the deadline or next summer. i was thinking that it might be prudent to try to trade for collins now so you have his bird rights this summer and can take a swing at another piece in free agency before paying him, but sadly you're stuck between like...devonte graham or lonzo ball for realistic PG targets under the age of 30. maybe post acl-tear spencer dinwiddie if you really wanna pony up.

i definitely get why someone would be hesitant to build around lavine even with his performance this year. but if he is legitimately going to be a central piece, i think trying to quickly retool with young-ish talent is a legit approach? put lauri, wcj, coby and maybe even a lotto-protected 2021 first on the table and see if you can bring back better fits. the broad strokes of the starting lineup i'm envisioning is

??? mystery solid but not super expensive pg ???
lavine
williams
collins
solid cheapish FA defensive center (would look at nerlens noel or maybe take a flier on zach collins this offseason)

Lonzo Ball?

[PaKii94]

This is what I posted in another thread. Lauri>Collins:

John collins is a perfect example of "grass is greener on the other side". "stuck with trae"? Trae is who makes him what he is! The attention he draws and the playmaking he provides is a great help to Collins.

1) We rag on Lauri's lack of self creation -> John Collins is FULLY playmaking dependent. 2 point FG assisted rate: Lauri- this year (61%) -> second highest of career, career (53%) Collins- this year (65%) -> lowest by far of career, career (73%)

2) Lauri is by far the better shooter compared to Collins. His 3 point rate is nearly 2x that of collins. That's a more valuable trait to have than "dunks"

3) Lauri's FT rate is again higher than Collins even though Collins is a lot more of a rim runner/traditional big. (Lauri is also the better FT shooter) That's a more valuable trait

4) We rag on Lauri's rebounding but Collins' isn't that much better. They are similar defensive rebounders (% wise) Collins is a better offensive rebounder but I think that's to be a given considering how close he plays to the basket. His average distance of play is 8 ft (this year is the highest at 11 ft). Lauri on the other hand plays at the minimum of 15 ft (almost double!).

5) Lauri is more efficient while creating more and taking a LOT more jumpers

6) Defense wise both are poor. Rim protection is probably a wash. I think Lauri is the better perimeter defender. IMO Collins is both mental + physical deficiency on defense. Lauri it's mostly physical.

I'd rather have the more shot creating/sharpshooting big with potential to be okay on defense. But I can see how a more athletic specimen would be more enticing.

[nomorezorro]

reasons why collins is more appealing than lauri to me:

-four-year track record of absurdly efficient offense (63.6% career ts%)
-proven two-level scorer (shooting 63% on twos and 40% on threes over the past two seasons)
-potential to scale up his offensive role? (he's taking less than four threes a game and shooting one fewer shot per game than coby white is this year)
-really good on/off numbers this season (as of jan. 28, atlanta was +7.5 with him on the court and -10 with him sitting)
-showing signs that he is not a defensive albatross (atlanta is an above average defense this year, i've seen hawks reporters/fans say positive things about his performance on that end although i am still most skeptical about this point)

Lonzo Ball?

i've gone back and forth on whether i'd want lonzo on this team, and right now i'm feeling relatively low on him.

i think my biggest concern is that the bulls under donovan have looked best moving the ball from side to side, getting everyone involved and not really having the ball stick. for that to work, i think you need players who are both decisive with the ball and threats to penetrate the defense (so you can take advantage of rotations / find a great look on the outside). you also need guys who can reliably knock down outside shots. lonzo's a total non-threat off the bounce and he's an iffy shooter (although he has gotten his 3pt% back up after a rocky start this season). i just worry about him gumming up the works a lil bit in this offense

he still might be the best option available, though. if you can sign him for cheap, maybe give him a short-term deal and see how things go so it's low-stakes if he doesn't pan out

[gobullschi]

This is what I posted in another thread. Lauri>Collins:

John collins is a perfect example of "grass is greener on the other side". "stuck with trae"? Trae is who makes him what he is! The attention he draws and the playmaking he provides is a great help to Collins.

1) We rag on Lauri's lack of self creation -> John Collins is FULLY playmaking dependent. 2 point FG assisted rate: Lauri- this year (61%) -> second highest of career, career (53%) Collins- this year (65%) -> lowest by far of career, career (73%)

2) Lauri is by far the better shooter compared to Collins. His 3 point rate is nearly 2x that of collins. That's a more valuable trait to have than "dunks"

3) Lauri's FT rate is again higher than Collins even though Collins is a lot more of a rim runner/traditional big. (Lauri is also the better FT shooter) That's a more valuable trait

4) We rag on Lauri's rebounding but Collins' isn't that much better. They are similar defensive rebounders (% wise) Collins is a better offensive rebounder but I think that's to be a given considering how close he plays to the basket. His average distance of play is 8 ft (this year is the highest at 11 ft). Lauri on the other hand plays at the minimum of 15 ft (almost double!).

5) Lauri is more efficient while creating more and taking a LOT more jumpers

6) Defense wise both are poor. Rim protection is probably a wash. I think Lauri is the better perimeter defender. IMO Collins is both mental + physical deficiency on defense. Lauri it's mostly physical.

I'd rather have the more shot creating/sharpshooting big with potential to be okay on defense. But I can see how a more athletic specimen would be more enticing.

I agree. The difference between the two in minimal and Collins will demand more money. I’d rather have Markkanen, but he needs to prove he can stay healthy.

[chefo]

This is what I posted in another thread. Lauri>Collins:

John collins is a perfect example of "grass is greener on the other side". "stuck with trae"? Trae is who makes him what he is! The attention he draws and the playmaking he provides is a great help to Collins.

1) We rag on Lauri's lack of self creation -> John Collins is FULLY playmaking dependent. 2 point FG assisted rate: Lauri- this year (61%) -> second highest of career, career (53%) Collins- this year (65%) -> lowest by far of career, career (73%)

2) Lauri is by far the better shooter compared to Collins. His 3 point rate is nearly 2x that of collins. That's a more valuable trait to have than "dunks"

3) Lauri's FT rate is again higher than Collins even though Collins is a lot more of a rim runner/traditional big. (Lauri is also the better FT shooter) That's a more valuable trait

4) We rag on Lauri's rebounding but Collins' isn't that much better. They are similar defensive rebounders (% wise) Collins is a better offensive rebounder but I think that's to be a given considering how close he plays to the basket. His average distance of play is 8 ft (this year is the highest at 11 ft). Lauri on the other hand plays at the minimum of 15 ft (almost double!).

5) Lauri is more efficient while creating more and taking a LOT more jumpers

6) Defense wise both are poor. Rim protection is probably a wash. I think Lauri is the better perimeter defender. IMO Collins is both mental + physical deficiency on defense. Lauri it's mostly physical.

I'd rather have the more shot creating/sharpshooting big with potential to be okay on defense. But I can see how a more athletic specimen would be more enticing.

You're on a roll today! Good job presenting facts in context.

My only disagreement is about Lauri on D. It's purely in his head. Or not yet in his head (knowledge), depending on how you look at it. I mean, people are saying that he doesn't have good length for his size, with the emphasis being "for his size". Dude's a legit 7 footer who dwarfs most other players when he's on the court.

He still has what's likely a 7' wingspan and 9' standing reach or close to it. Yeah, not Gobert or the Lopez brothers, but if you can move your feet in anticipation and you get your hands up when you're that tall, and get up to contest, and people still can't shoot over you. It's the reason why he's the Bulls best one-one-one defender (sans Temple). People just struggle shooting over him. Now, all he has to do is figure out how to translate that into help D. As late as last year, he was pretty bad at trying to figure out where to rotate to. He's made huge strides this year under coach D. So, there's some hope there.

[nomorezorro]

lauri is the bulls best one-on-one defender????

[ZOMG]

lauri is the bulls best one-on-one defender????

I'd say Lauri is our best "on an island" defender on the perimeter - and also closer to the basket when the offensive player faces up. He has a (probably natural) knack for mirroring and anticipating the moves of the ballhandler, which leads to unfathomable results like Steph and Lillard seeking out switches to get Lauri 1-on-1... and coming up totally empty. Just stymied.

Markkanen is a bit of a Jekyll and Hyde dude when it comes to hunting blocks, though. When he's defending jump shooters, he absolutely refuses to bite on any fakes, which is a big reason why he's so effective. But when the offensive player has a step on him and is going hard to the rack, Lauri just can't stop himself from swatting those invisible flies instead of just staying vertical. It's all a part of his lack of fundamentals - I don't believe for a second that anyone in Finland made him a surprisingly effective perimeter defender. He just happens to have a talent for it.

I sometimes wonder how Lauri has made it this far when he obviously has like 50% of the fundamentals required from a professional basketball player and no eye-popping athleticism. Just raw natural ability and, importantly, a willingness to use a team framework to his advantage.

[chefo]

reasons why collins is more appealing than lauri to me:

-four-year track record of absurdly efficient offense (63.6% career ts%)
-proven two-level scorer (shooting 63% on twos and 40% on threes over the past two seasons)
-potential to scale up his offensive role? (he's taking less than four threes a game and shooting one fewer shot per game than coby white is this year)
-really good on/off numbers this season (as of jan. 28, atlanta was +7.5 with him on the court and -10 with him sitting)
-showing signs that he is not a defensive albatross (atlanta is an above average defense this year, i've seen hawks reporters/fans say positive things about his performance on that end although i am still most skeptical about this point)

Lonzo Ball?

i've gone back and forth on whether i'd want lonzo on this team, and right now i'm feeling relatively low on him.

i think my biggest concern is that the bulls under donovan have looked best moving the ball from side to side, getting everyone involved and not really having the ball stick. for that to work, i think you need players who are both decisive with the ball and threats to penetrate the defense (so you can take advantage of rotations / find a great look on the outside). you also need guys who can reliably knock down outside shots. lonzo's a total non-threat off the bounce and he's an iffy shooter (although he has gotten his 3pt% back up after a rocky start this season). i just worry about him gumming up the works a lil bit in this offense

he still might be the best option available, though. if you can sign him for cheap, maybe give him a short-term deal and see how things go so it's low-stakes if he doesn't pan out

I've watched him in person 2-3 times from fairly up-close, so have some direct observations:

* Collins is a really small "big". He looks small on the court. On the Magic, Vucevic and Isaac just dwarfed him when they were matched up. He's probably the size of Aaron Gordon. I would not surprised if he is Thad-sized, at 6'7 or thereabouts barefoot. You can tell, especially on D.

* He moves very well off ball... which works great for him, because he's had a point guard that found him plenty. It's an underrated skill, but he's also not a guy you just dump the ball off to and make him go get buckets.

* Contrary to his reputation as a big-time dunker, he actually doesn't play much above the rim. He's not Amare-like who's just an overwhelming physical beast. Again, he's usually in the right spot, and if you've got a good touch, even as a 6'7 (like Thad is showing), good things happen around the hoop.

There's now way I'm giving that guy the max because he's a rich(er)-guy Harrell, both in size and impact. On a selfish team where he doesn't get as many touches, he'd look much worse.

[TheSuzerain]

Collins is very talented, but I think he'd be immediately less dynamic in Chicago as he'd have no playmaking wizard to play off of.

i do think there's potential for lavine + collins to develop some two-man chemistry, but yeah obviously you'd ideally have a more reliable playmaker.

it sucks that there are next to no exciting PG talents that are likely to be available at the deadline or next summer. i was thinking that it might be prudent to try to trade for collins now so you have his bird rights this summer and can take a swing at another piece in free agency before paying him, but sadly you're stuck between like...devonte graham or lonzo ball for realistic PG targets under the age of 30. maybe post acl-tear spencer dinwiddie if you really wanna pony up.

i definitely get why someone would be hesitant to build around lavine even with his performance this year. but if he is legitimately going to be a central piece, i think trying to quickly retool with young-ish talent is a legit approach? put lauri, wcj, coby and maybe even a lotto-protected 2021 first on the table and see if you can bring back better fits. the broad strokes of the starting lineup i'm envisioning is

??? mystery solid but not super expensive pg ???
lavine
williams
collins
solid cheapish FA defensive center (would look at nerlens noel or maybe take a flier on zach collins this offseason)

The player you are looking for is Devonte Graham. He won't be cheap, but there is a decent chance the Hornets will move on from him and stick with Rozier (already on a long term deal) and Lamelo (their new face of the franchise).

Now this is the CORE 2.0 thread (i.e. the trade Lavine path) thread, but if we are trying to build around Lavine then Devonte Graham fits like a glove as an offensive complement.

[ZOMG]

Collins is very talented, but I think he'd be immediately less dynamic in Chicago as he'd have no playmaking wizard to play off of.

i do think there's potential for lavine + collins to develop some two-man chemistry, but yeah obviously you'd ideally have a more reliable playmaker.

it sucks that there are next to no exciting PG talents that are likely to be available at the deadline or next summer. i was thinking that it might be prudent to try to trade for collins now so you have his bird rights this summer and can take a swing at another piece in free agency before paying him, but sadly you're stuck between like...devonte graham or lonzo ball for realistic PG targets under the age of 30. maybe post acl-tear spencer dinwiddie if you really wanna pony up.

i definitely get why someone would be hesitant to build around lavine even with his performance this year. but if he is legitimately going to be a central piece, i think trying to quickly retool with young-ish talent is a legit approach? put lauri, wcj, coby and maybe even a lotto-protected 2021 first on the table and see if you can bring back better fits. the broad strokes of the starting lineup i'm envisioning is

??? mystery solid but not super expensive pg ???
lavine
williams
collins
solid cheapish FA defensive center (would look at nerlens noel or maybe take a flier on zach collins this offseason)

The player you are looking for is Devonte Graham. He won't be cheap, but there is a decent chance the Hornets will move on from him and stick with Rozier (already on a long term deal) and Lamelo (their new face of the franchise).

Now this is the CORE 2.0 thread (i.e. the trade Lavine path) thread, but if we are trying to build around Lavine then Devonte Graham fits like a glove as an offensive complement.

Devonte Graham is another SG trapped in a PG's body. He's just a better version of Coby.

[TheSuzerain]

i do think there's potential for lavine + collins to develop some two-man chemistry, but yeah obviously you'd ideally have a more reliable playmaker.

it sucks that there are next to no exciting PG talents that are likely to be available at the deadline or next summer. i was thinking that it might be prudent to try to trade for collins now so you have his bird rights this summer and can take a swing at another piece in free agency before paying him, but sadly you're stuck between like...devonte graham or lonzo ball for realistic PG targets under the age of 30. maybe post acl-tear spencer dinwiddie if you really wanna pony up.

i definitely get why someone would be hesitant to build around lavine even with his performance this year. but if he is legitimately going to be a central piece, i think trying to quickly retool with young-ish talent is a legit approach? put lauri, wcj, coby and maybe even a lotto-protected 2021 first on the table and see if you can bring back better fits. the broad strokes of the starting lineup i'm envisioning is

??? mystery solid but not super expensive pg ???
lavine
williams
collins
solid cheapish FA defensive center (would look at nerlens noel or maybe take a flier on zach collins this offseason)

The player you are looking for is Devonte Graham. He won't be cheap, but there is a decent chance the Hornets will move on from him and stick with Rozier (already on a long term deal) and Lamelo (their new face of the franchise).

Now this is the CORE 2.0 thread (i.e. the trade Lavine path) thread, but if we are trying to build around Lavine then Devonte Graham fits like a glove as an offensive complement.

Devonte Graham is another SG trapped in a PG's body. He's just a better version of Coby.

Have you ever watched him play? He's an actual PG.

He's great at passing and keeping the offense organized. That was literally his 1 NBA level trait coming into the league.

He was 7th in the NBA in assists per game and did it with a very good assist-turnover ratio (as good or better than anyone else in the top 10 except for Rubio). In what way is that a SG?