Free Agent/Trade For PG Discussion

[waffle]

I have alot of faith in AK. He's a savvy dealer. I think he won every trade last time around. He's not going to sit on his hands...

[sco]

I have alot of faith in AK. He's a savvy dealer. I think he won every trade last time around. He's not going to sit on his hands...

If he can somehow get any value for Lauri and nab us an above-average starting PG this offseason, I'd be impressed. I don't expect any big moves for Simmons, nor do I think we land Ball or Lowry.

[MGB8]

It's highly likely that at least one, if not two, of Suggs / Mobley / Green are going to bust. It's also highly likely that all three of those guys never reach Simmons' level of play. The draft is typically one big mirage. The next KG and Shaq combo turn into Chandler and Curry. The next Charles Barkley turns out to be Marcus Fizer. Even the good draft picks typically never become decade long franchise players (i.e., Ben Gordon, Kirk Hinrich, Loul Deng, Tyrus Thomas, Noah, etc.). It's better to trade a combination of these guys for literal franchise talents before the stink of who they really are starts pouring on strong.

EDIT:
Tbh, I could care less about the arbitrary all-star classification. Out of the last 10 years, FIVE of the last 10 #1 draft picks had great rookie seasons.

2010 - At age 20, John Wall averaged 16.4 ppg, 8.3 apg, 4.6 rpg and 1.8 spg.
2011 - At age 19, Kyrie Irving averaged 18.5 ppg, 5.4 apg, 3.7 rpg and 1.1 spg.
2012 - At age 19, Anthony Davis averaged 13.5 ppg, 8.2 rpg, 1.2 spg and 1.8 bpg along with massive scoring efficiency.
2015 - At age 20, Karl Anthony Towns averaged 18.3 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 2.0 apg, and 1.7 bpg along with massive scoring efficiency.
2018 - At age 20, DeAndre Ayton averaged 16.3 ppg, 10.3 rpg, 0.9 spg, 0.9 bpg along with massive scoring efficiency.

More importantly, SEVEN of the last 10 #1 draft picks became great players. The two players who haven't been mentioned yet are Zion Williamson (2019) and Ben Simmons (2017), whose rookie seasons were either skipped due to injury or greatly hampered by injury, but they've become dominant impactful game changing franchise level talents. In a draft with any depth, the #1 consensus has traditionally had a 70 % chance or higher to reach elite NBA greatness. Cade is the consensus and quite literally projects to be part of this group.

It’s also possible that 1,2,or all 3 of them will end up being as good or even better than Simmons. We honestly don’t know. I don’t think Simmons looked any better then these guys in his 1 year at LSU. Yeah if the draft pick by itself lands Simmons go for it but it will take a lot more than that to get him. In addition you have to factor in Rookie Salary vs Simmons salary. Is it better to add Simmons while gutting the core and not having much financial flexibility to build around him or just add the pick with FA’s and or another trade. I think it is easier and better just to add the pick if the Bulls are lucky enough to get it.

Slim possibilities are mostly a mirage, kiddos. For instance, it's possible that the next lotto ticket you buy will make you a millionaire. Spoiler alert: no, your next lotto ticket won't. What matters is the likelihood of something like that occurring. Cade is the consensus pick, and the odds historically favor the first pick in the draft to the tune of about 70 % for an impactful starter who's an all-star. From a historical perspective, Cade is LIKELY to reach that target.

Here's an old article that analyzed this issue:
https://threesandlayups.com/2019/05/15/how-likely-is-each-draft-pick-to-someday-make-an-all-star-team/

In this article's analysis, which looked at what happened between 1995-2012, 12 out of the 18 #1 draft picks became all-stars.

The 2nd pick is UNLIKELY to succeed. In stark contrast to the #1 pick, only 5 out of the 18 #2 draft picks (28 %) became all-stars... with the percentages only getting slimmer from there. This is not even a reality I want to exist. It's really unfortunate that there's such a drop off between the first pick and all of the other picks in the draft. But it IS reality. The odds drop quite dramatically after that first pick, to the point where it immediately becomes a slim chance. To me, ignoring a chance at Simmons, who already plays the game at a level that few others can match, in favor of chasing slim possibilities and poor percentages is pure lunacy.

This is an abuse of stats. There is no well defined "likelihood of success" of any particular #1 pick. It's not a fully random system where everything is equal year to year, nor is it such a controlled system that trends must hold in perpetuity.

The statement that "you have a 70% chance of drafting an all star with the top pick in any given draft" is like saying "you are likely to earn 8% returns in the stock market with a S&P500 index fund in any year" - because that's the average rate of return over most (but not all) 30 year periods.... one has very little to do with the other. In the 5 draft stretch from 2013 to 2017, 3 of the 5 first round picks were effective busts - Bennett, Wiggins, Fultz. Simmons and KAT are the other two, and while talented, both have serious flaws (Simmons more than Wiggins).

Yes, that's a cherry-picked 5 year period, but it's instructive to explain that every year isn't equal. Especially when you start looking at talent pool in, say, 2013.

Not one true all-star in the lotto (but Giannis just outside)... Bennett, Oladipo (injury, but he was never a top 15 guy even without), Porter, Zeller, Len, Noel, Mclemore, KCP, Trey Burke, McCullom, MCW, Adams, Olynyk, Shabazz...

This coming draft looks significantly better than that, but you the fact that any other #1 pick was good or not good tells you absolutely nothing about Cade Cunningham's chances - a better approach is to look at his statistical profile and shown skillset and project out.

[shrink]

I know Ricky Rubio isn’t most Bulls fans’ first option at PG, but I am a fan for both teams of the many iterations of the deals of Sato for Rubio. I just wanted to post to say, if you missed the draft, I think a deal might have gotten a lot less likely.

Rachel Nichols interviewed Anthony Edwards, the Wolves representative at the lottery, and asked the kid, “What was the biggest experience you had your rookie year that made an impact on you, and you could use in the future?”

Almost any rookie would talk about a big game, or particularly for Edwards, when he made that tremendous leap in talent. Instead, he didn’t talk about himself.

“I think Ricky Rubio had a great impact on my rookie year — as far as just being a leader, on and off the court, and showing up every day, ready to work, and never taking days off.”

Classy. But I brought it over here because it makes me think that Rosas might try to keep Ricky here for another season. Ricky doesn’t always fit the Wolves with D’Angelo Russell, and MIN needs to cut a little salary to avoid the lux. However, if Anthony Edwards is still crediting Rubio for his growth (just like Donovan Mitchell and Devin Booker still do), I think MIN is likely to keep him around another season as an investment in Ant. If not, I’d love to see if he can help Zach LaVine make a similar leap.

[TheJordanRule]

It’s also possible that 1,2,or all 3 of them will end up being as good or even better than Simmons. We honestly don’t know. I don’t think Simmons looked any better then these guys in his 1 year at LSU. Yeah if the draft pick by itself lands Simmons go for it but it will take a lot more than that to get him. In addition you have to factor in Rookie Salary vs Simmons salary. Is it better to add Simmons while gutting the core and not having much financial flexibility to build around him or just add the pick with FA’s and or another trade. I think it is easier and better just to add the pick if the Bulls are lucky enough to get it.

Slim possibilities are mostly a mirage, kiddos. For instance, it's possible that the next lotto ticket you buy will make you a millionaire. Spoiler alert: no, your next lotto ticket won't. What matters is the likelihood of something like that occurring. Cade is the consensus pick, and the odds historically favor the first pick in the draft to the tune of about 70 % for an impactful starter who's an all-star. From a historical perspective, Cade is LIKELY to reach that target.

Here's an old article that analyzed this issue:
https://threesandlayups.com/2019/05/15/how-likely-is-each-draft-pick-to-someday-make-an-all-star-team/

In this article's analysis, which looked at what happened between 1995-2012, 12 out of the 18 #1 draft picks became all-stars.

The 2nd pick is UNLIKELY to succeed. In stark contrast to the #1 pick, only 5 out of the 18 #2 draft picks (28 %) became all-stars... with the percentages only getting slimmer from there. This is not even a reality I want to exist. It's really unfortunate that there's such a drop off between the first pick and all of the other picks in the draft. But it IS reality. The odds drop quite dramatically after that first pick, to the point where it immediately becomes a slim chance. To me, ignoring a chance at Simmons, who already plays the game at a level that few others can match, in favor of chasing slim possibilities and poor percentages is pure lunacy.

This is an abuse of stats. There is no well defined "likelihood of success" of any particular #1 pick. It's not a fully random system where everything is equal year to year, nor is it such a controlled system that trends must hold in perpetuity.

The statement that "you have a 70% chance of drafting an all star with the top pick in any given draft" is like saying "you are likely to earn 8% returns in the stock market with a S&P500 index fund in any year" - because that's the average rate of return over most (but not all) 30 year periods.... one has very little to do with the other. In the 5 draft stretch from 2013 to 2017, 3 of the 5 first round picks were effective busts - Bennett, Wiggins, Fultz. Simmons and KAT are the other two, and while talented, both have serious flaws (Simmons more than Wiggins).

Yes, that's a cherry-picked 5 year period, but it's instructive to explain that every year isn't equal. Especially when you start looking at talent pool in, say, 2013.

Not one true all-star in the lotto (but Giannis just outside)... Bennett, Oladipo (injury, but he was never a top 15 guy even without), Porter, Zeller, Len, Noel, Mclemore, KCP, Trey Burke, McCullom, MCW, Adams, Olynyk, Shabazz...

This coming draft looks significantly better than that, but you the fact that any other #1 pick was good or not good tells you absolutely nothing about Cade Cunningham's chances - a better approach is to look at his statistical profile and shown skillset and project out.

Before I say anything else, allow me to say this: I thoroughly enjoy reading your content, MGB8. You're a great poster whose presence is enjoyed on this board. However, you would have to be blind to ignore historical trends. Historically-- and I mean ever since the NBA combined with the ABA, the #1 pick is batting at about .700 at producing all-stars. That's an insanely high percentage in comparison to the other picks in the draft.

You mentioned that there are some drafts that are absolutely awful, failing to produce any all-stars in the lotto, and other times when GMs just blow the pick on the wrong dude. I don't deny any of that at all. That's why there's a roughly 30 percent chance that the first pick DOESN'T produce an all-star. Just because the odds favor something doesn't mean that it will happen.

You claim I "cherry picked" a 5 year period. That's false to the point of being delusional. I picked the last 10 years-- and 7 of those #1 picks turned out to be all-stars. I also pointed out an article which analyzed drafts between 1995-2012, which added an additional 15 years worth of data. At best, I "cherry picked" a 25 year period. What a cherry pick .

You're a nuance guy and most of the time I appreciate your nuance. Even in this conversation, I see value in your idea that context matters. Sure, the depth of the draft, and the quality of its topline talent can certainly make it more likely to miss or make the first pick. But that only strengthens the case for Cade. Not only does the first pick tend to reach all-star status, but this draft is deeper, and the topline talent here is stronger. All of that combined with what Cade can already do with the basketball and his incredible tools, make it highly likely that Cade will reach all-star status. It is highly likely that Detroit's getting an impact player. I wish that was us.

[othawhitemeat]

I mean, I think there are several options out there next year, but it is up to AK to set us up right. Realistically, we can have a ton of cap space, can trade some of our young talent but not at peak value, or stick with mediocrity and sign a low-cost but value point guard that can simply make us a lot better by just being average. There are many ways to do this in my opinion.

1) Trade Flex contracts in Thad/Tomas separate, together, or with other enticing prospect such as Patrick Williams for multitude of packages such as a Ben Simmons (probably don't have the package for him even though he is overpriced - some team will take a chance on him), Marcus Smart, or just good enough overpriced player. Thad himself is probably valuable as he cannot just not picked up, be valuable player on 1 year deal, and has expiring contract.
2) Not resign current players, but sign some expensive player that could meet what we want, but also likely to decline soon - DeRozen, Lowry, Conley, CPaul if available, etc...
3) Sign an expensive but not max contract that could still leave flexibility with roster - Dinwiddie, Lou Will type
4) Take a chance on player that is a risk, but not max - Lonzo Ball
5) Trade players such as Coby (not getting peak value due to injury and inconsistent play, or Pat Williams who showed promise but also concerns.
6) Take a chance on S&T with Lauri to get some kind of asset - draft pick for Lauri or if he was interested in say a team like Suns a player like a Jalen Smith who has promise but did not play much due to depth and being young.
7) Sign some players that show promise to be steady and improve team, but not in star role - C Payne, Josh Hart, etc...
8) overpay for young player getting a nice rookie bump such as Collins from ATL that will probably be matched or Kelly Oubre Jr. (don't think he will be worth the price)

Personally, I like many options, but I don't want to keep same roster. I would go one of 2 routes in that if there was a way to guage if Paul or Lowry became available, I'm going after them based only from our GM stating we want to win - in all honesty I would try to blow it up myself and max out what I could get for Zach/Vuc since we are middle land. However, I would go win mode if Paul definitely became available if knew behind scenes he would be interested. Knowing that is unlikely, I would go route 2 which is signing some good players at good values if I could while it still being an overpay.

1) if Lauri is determined to be a Maverick if rumors are true, S&T and ask politely for Brunson/picks?
2) Go after a steady guard that has shown big moments
a) Cam Payne has showed why he was a high draft pick - if can get him for like 9 mill a year, would pair well with Lavine and Vucevic along with Billy D does well with guards. If not him, there are players such as Reggie Jackson, Derrick Rose, Schroeder, and my favorite while a risk in Dinwiddie. While others shoot better, Dinwiddie is a great creator, can pass, and good defensively.
3a) Sign a SF such as Josh Hart if available. Probably can be had for around 10 million while being solid which is what we need.
4) Get some possible more reasonable free agents that can produce but not going to tear us down in flexibility - Mo Harkless, Montrezl Harrell, Bullock, Lou Will, and Exum are some names that come to mind.

This would be my plan. Just get say a Dinwiddie and Josh Hart and we could be a lot better while increasing our depth.

1) Dinwiddie/Coby when healthy
2) Lavine/Coby
3) Hart/Pat W
4) Pat W/Thad or Theiss
5) Vuc

While nothing great, I don't know how else we can savage unless we somehow landed a B Simmons type.

[MGB8]

Slim possibilities are mostly a mirage, kiddos. For instance, it's possible that the next lotto ticket you buy will make you a millionaire. Spoiler alert: no, your next lotto ticket won't. What matters is the likelihood of something like that occurring. Cade is the consensus pick, and the odds historically favor the first pick in the draft to the tune of about 70 % for an impactful starter who's an all-star. From a historical perspective, Cade is LIKELY to reach that target.

Here's an old article that analyzed this issue:
https://threesandlayups.com/2019/05/15/how-likely-is-each-draft-pick-to-someday-make-an-all-star-team/

In this article's analysis, which looked at what happened between 1995-2012, 12 out of the 18 #1 draft picks became all-stars.

The 2nd pick is UNLIKELY to succeed. In stark contrast to the #1 pick, only 5 out of the 18 #2 draft picks (28 %) became all-stars... with the percentages only getting slimmer from there. This is not even a reality I want to exist. It's really unfortunate that there's such a drop off between the first pick and all of the other picks in the draft. But it IS reality. The odds drop quite dramatically after that first pick, to the point where it immediately becomes a slim chance. To me, ignoring a chance at Simmons, who already plays the game at a level that few others can match, in favor of chasing slim possibilities and poor percentages is pure lunacy.

This is an abuse of stats. There is no well defined "likelihood of success" of any particular #1 pick. It's not a fully random system where everything is equal year to year, nor is it such a controlled system that trends must hold in perpetuity.

The statement that "you have a 70% chance of drafting an all star with the top pick in any given draft" is like saying "you are likely to earn 8% returns in the stock market with a S&P500 index fund in any year" - because that's the average rate of return over most (but not all) 30 year periods.... one has very little to do with the other. In the 5 draft stretch from 2013 to 2017, 3 of the 5 first round picks were effective busts - Bennett, Wiggins, Fultz. Simmons and KAT are the other two, and while talented, both have serious flaws (Simmons more than Wiggins).

Yes, that's a cherry-picked 5 year period, but it's instructive to explain that every year isn't equal. Especially when you start looking at talent pool in, say, 2013.

Not one true all-star in the lotto (but Giannis just outside)... Bennett, Oladipo (injury, but he was never a top 15 guy even without), Porter, Zeller, Len, Noel, Mclemore, KCP, Trey Burke, McCullom, MCW, Adams, Olynyk, Shabazz...

This coming draft looks significantly better than that, but you the fact that any other #1 pick was good or not good tells you absolutely nothing about Cade Cunningham's chances - a better approach is to look at his statistical profile and shown skillset and project out.

Before I say anything else, allow me to say this: I thoroughly enjoy reading your content, MGB8. You're a great poster whose presence is enjoyed on this board. However, you would have to be blind to ignore historical trends. Historically-- and I mean ever since the NBA combined with the ABA, the #1 pick is batting at about .700 at producing all-stars. That's an insanely high percentage in comparison to the other picks in the draft.

You mentioned that there are some drafts that are absolutely awful, failing to produce any all-stars in the lotto, and other times when GMs just blow the pick on the wrong dude. I don't deny any of that at all. That's why there's a roughly 30 percent chance that the first pick DOESN'T produce an all-star. Just because the odds favor something doesn't mean that it will happen.

You claim I "cherry picked" a 5 year period. That's false to the point of being delusional. I picked the last 10 years-- and 7 of those #1 picks turned out to be all-stars. I also pointed out an article which analyzed drafts between 1995-2012, which added an additional 15 years worth of data. At best, I "cherry picked" a 25 year period. What a cherry pick .

You're a nuance guy and most of the time I appreciate your nuance. Even in this conversation, I see value in your idea that context matters. Sure, the depth of the draft, and the quality of its topline talent can certainly make it more likely to miss or make the first pick. But that only strengthens the case for Cade. Not only does the first pick tend to reach all-star status, but this draft is deeper, and the topline talent here is stronger. All of that combined with what Cade can already do with the basketball and his incredible tools, make it highly likely that Cade will reach all-star status. It is highly likely that Detroit's getting an impact player. I wish that was us.

No issue with your response and I appreciate the tone, though I disagree with the conclusion. But do want to add that it was *I* who (admittedly) cherry picked a 5 year period - just to demonstrated that any long term trend has little impact / meaning on shorter term trends. You didn't cherry pick (at least not to my knowledge) and I want it clear that I didn't accuse you of cherry picking.

As to the conclusion, and not having done the background data research, let's assume that folks holding the #1 pick - a person ranked as or near the most talented of any draft class - historically plays in at least 1 all-star game 70% of the time. That helps you "value" a #1 pick vs. a #2 pick vs. a #15. But that doesn't tell you much of anything about any individual player - Anthony Bennett never had a 70% chance of being an all-star, and Lebron never had anything less than a 95%+ chance...

Once you get to a particular draft, with a particular player or set of players, the statistical profile regarding any given draft-spot ceases to be particularly relevant.

[drosestruts]

In this remote world I like to take lunch around 1 and watch Jalen & Jacoby most days. Due to Eurco Cup that wasn't an options and I ended up watching Colin Cowherd's show and he made an interesting observation about Phoenix's players peaking at the right time. This is undoubtedly the best basketball Booker, Ayton, Bridges and Payne have ever played.

It initially got me reminiscing about Bulls teams of the past. Rosters that featured guys like Derrick Rose, Luol Deng, Joakim Noah, Carlos Boozer, Pau Gasol, Rip Hamilton, and Jimmy Butler. All very good players, you could win a championship with a roster of these guys, it's just that their peaks never aligned.

This brings us to our current Bulls. I haven't been that big on Lonzo Ball, I think he'll cost a lot due to the hope he keeps improving and your paying somewhat for that growth potential and not necessarily what he could do for you now, like the guy who's been atop my free-agent wish list DeMar DeRozan. But when thinking about aligning peaks, someone like Lonzo starts making more sense in my mind.

If you could align the peaks of guys like Ball, LaVine, White, and Williams while still getting solid contributions from veterans like Vucevic, Theis, Satoransky, Temple, Young, etc. - you're starting to build something dangerous.

I'm not sure it's convinced me enough that Ball should be our top target, but it does have me warming up the idea of him and looking at him in a different light.

[barn34]

I think Lonzo is the clear priority target for this offseason. He's a great fit for our greatest position of need, has an age that lines up with our talent timeline, and still has some potential to check off the 'third star' box if he continues to improve. I don't see another realistic scenario for the Bulls to have the assets to be able to check all those criteria off at the same time. The asking price he's going to demand is my one qualm, but honestly I think he's going to end up getting a market fair contract. We do have some pieces we can work a S&T around that could make sense or both teams and reduce the overall impact of the cap hit, as well.

Vooch at 30, LaVine at 26, Lonzo at 23, PAW at 19. That's a pretty good core for competing not just next year, but to continue to get better for years to come. As Vooch starts to decline, PAW should be continuing to get better and better. Zach and Lonzo are entering what should be the prime of their careers. You get the right role players fleshed out around that, and I think you can compete at a high level with that group.

[sco]

I think Lonzo is the clear priority target for this offseason. He's a great fit for our greatest position of need, has an age that lines up with our talent timeline, and still has some potential to check off the 'third star' box if he continues to improve. I don't see another realistic scenario for the Bulls to have the assets to be able to check all those criteria off at the same time. The asking price he's going to demand is my one qualm, but honestly I think he's going to end up getting a market fair contract. We do have some pieces we can work a S&T around that could make sense or both teams and reduce the overall impact of the cap hit, as well.

Vooch at 30, LaVine at 26, Lonzo at 23, PAW at 19. That's a pretty good core for competing not just next year, but to continue to get better for years to come. As Vooch starts to decline, PAW should be continuing to get better and better. Zach and Lonzo are entering what should be the prime of their careers. You get the right role players fleshed out around that, and I think you can compete at a high level with that group.

Not that it's a deal breaker, but to be able to offer Lonzo $20M+, we'd need to renounce Sato, Thad and Lauri. Folks can correct me if I'm wrong, but unless we have the cap space to make the offer, we are unlikely to be able to bring NO to the table for a S&T. Even then, NY may outbid us or NO could decide to match, and we'd now be without our 3 guys. Despite all of the smoke on our interest in Ball, I don't see much chance in nabbing him.

I see more realistic scenarios of going over the cap, and using the higher MLE to nab someone like Rose

[TheJordanRule]

This is an abuse of stats. There is no well defined "likelihood of success" of any particular #1 pick. It's not a fully random system where everything is equal year to year, nor is it such a controlled system that trends must hold in perpetuity.

The statement that "you have a 70% chance of drafting an all star with the top pick in any given draft" is like saying "you are likely to earn 8% returns in the stock market with a S&P500 index fund in any year" - because that's the average rate of return over most (but not all) 30 year periods.... one has very little to do with the other. In the 5 draft stretch from 2013 to 2017, 3 of the 5 first round picks were effective busts - Bennett, Wiggins, Fultz. Simmons and KAT are the other two, and while talented, both have serious flaws (Simmons more than Wiggins).

Yes, that's a cherry-picked 5 year period, but it's instructive to explain that every year isn't equal. Especially when you start looking at talent pool in, say, 2013.

Not one true all-star in the lotto (but Giannis just outside)... Bennett, Oladipo (injury, but he was never a top 15 guy even without), Porter, Zeller, Len, Noel, Mclemore, KCP, Trey Burke, McCullom, MCW, Adams, Olynyk, Shabazz...

This coming draft looks significantly better than that, but you the fact that any other #1 pick was good or not good tells you absolutely nothing about Cade Cunningham's chances - a better approach is to look at his statistical profile and shown skillset and project out.

Before I say anything else, allow me to say this: I thoroughly enjoy reading your content, MGB8. You're a great poster whose presence is enjoyed on this board. However, you would have to be blind to ignore historical trends. Historically-- and I mean ever since the NBA combined with the ABA, the #1 pick is batting at about .700 at producing all-stars. That's an insanely high percentage in comparison to the other picks in the draft.

You mentioned that there are some drafts that are absolutely awful, failing to produce any all-stars in the lotto, and other times when GMs just blow the pick on the wrong dude. I don't deny any of that at all. That's why there's a roughly 30 percent chance that the first pick DOESN'T produce an all-star. Just because the odds favor something doesn't mean that it will happen.

You claim I "cherry picked" a 5 year period. That's false to the point of being delusional. I picked the last 10 years-- and 7 of those #1 picks turned out to be all-stars. I also pointed out an article which analyzed drafts between 1995-2012, which added an additional 15 years worth of data. At best, I "cherry picked" a 25 year period. What a cherry pick .

You're a nuance guy and most of the time I appreciate your nuance. Even in this conversation, I see value in your idea that context matters. Sure, the depth of the draft, and the quality of its topline talent can certainly make it more likely to miss or make the first pick. But that only strengthens the case for Cade. Not only does the first pick tend to reach all-star status, but this draft is deeper, and the topline talent here is stronger. All of that combined with what Cade can already do with the basketball and his incredible tools, make it highly likely that Cade will reach all-star status. It is highly likely that Detroit's getting an impact player. I wish that was us.

No issue with your response and I appreciate the tone, though I disagree with the conclusion. But do want to add that it was *I* who (admittedly) cherry picked a 5 year period - just to demonstrated that any long term trend has little impact / meaning on shorter term trends. You didn't cherry pick (at least not to my knowledge) and I want it clear that I didn't accuse you of cherry picking.

As to the conclusion, and not having done the background data research, let's assume that folks holding the #1 pick - a person ranked as or near the most talented of any draft class - historically plays in at least 1 all-star game 70% of the time. That helps you "value" a #1 pick vs. a #2 pick vs. a #15. But that doesn't tell you much of anything about any individual player - Anthony Bennett never had a 70% chance of being an all-star, and Lebron never had anything less than a 95%+ chance...

Once you get to a particular draft, with a particular player or set of players, the statistical profile regarding any given draft-spot ceases to be particularly relevant.

Tbh your point in bold is incisive. This is what I was trying to communicate to the kids in this thread who were saying they would never trade PAW + a pick in the 2 - 4 range for Ben Simmons. The VALUE of a pick in the 2 - 4 range is considerably lower than what the yearly draft hype would have you believe. It's easy to dream about grabbing a dude in that range who can match the play of Simmons. Tyson Chandler was going to be the next KG and Eddie Curry was going to be the next Shaq, and even when you hit on a prospect, like we did with Ben Gordon at #2, they typically end up as good not great. But Simmons is not only all star, but an all-defensive first teamer too! How often does an NBA player ever reach those milestones simultaneously? Conversely, if the deal was PAW + the first pick in the draft for Simmons, that would give me some pause, because of both the VALUE of the FIRST pick in the draft, which is high AND because Cade exists. I also see value in your assertion that draft slots alone don't determine everything. Tbh I couldn't agree more. If this was last year's first pick, in comparison, I would be trading away the first pick + PAW away for Simmons without blinking. There was no consensus back then and that draft was one of the weaker ones in recent memory.

[TheJordanRule]

I think Lonzo is the clear priority target for this offseason. He's a great fit for our greatest position of need, has an age that lines up with our talent timeline, and still has some potential to check off the 'third star' box if he continues to improve. I don't see another realistic scenario for the Bulls to have the assets to be able to check all those criteria off at the same time. The asking price he's going to demand is my one qualm, but honestly I think he's going to end up getting a market fair contract. We do have some pieces we can work a S&T around that could make sense or both teams and reduce the overall impact of the cap hit, as well.

Vooch at 30, LaVine at 26, Lonzo at 23, PAW at 19. That's a pretty good core for competing not just next year, but to continue to get better for years to come. As Vooch starts to decline, PAW should be continuing to get better and better. Zach and Lonzo are entering what should be the prime of their careers. You get the right role players fleshed out around that, and I think you can compete at a high level with that group.

Not that it's a deal breaker, but to be able to offer Lonzo $20M+, we'd need to renounce Sato, Thad and Lauri. Folks can correct me if I'm wrong, but unless we have the cap space to make the offer, we are unlikely to be able to bring NO to the table for a S&T. Even then, NY may outbid us or NO could decide to match, and we'd now be without our 3 guys. Despite all of the smoke on our interest in Ball, I don't see much chance in nabbing him.

I see more realistic scenarios of going over the cap, and using the higher MLE to nab someone like Rose

Completely agree, even though I like Lonzo. We may nitpick the details-- I have zero interest in Rose-- but Thad AND Sato AND MLE Free Agent (preferably Devonte Graham / THT) combined beat the improving but frequently injured Lonzo. Chasing Lonzo would probably wreck our team depth, and Thad and Sato are on expiring contracts, which can be leveraged if a disgruntled star shows up on the scene.

[Global Game]

NBA needs to get back to basketball and away from wingspan blindness.

Mental toughness. Jump shooting ability. Playmaking skills. Hi IQ. Make timely plays on both ends.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

[TheJordanRule]

NBA needs to get back to basketball and away from wingspan blindness.

Mental toughness. Jump shooting ability. Playmaking skills. Hi IQ. Make timely plays on both ends.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

I respect him as a Euroleague but he's too slow, too small and too uncoordinated. He won't be able to get away with half this **** in the NBA.

[waffle]

yeah, that didn't look like an NBA player to me either....glad to be wrong? but kinda doubt it