O'Connor: Bulls interested in Gobert and Mitchell Robinson

[MikeDC]

The important part of all of this is the skuddlebutt is we know we need to shore up the front court. One way or the other it will get addressed this year. Maybe it is Mark Williams. Maybe it is Gobert. Maybe Robinson? Maybe Ayton? Maybe Nerlens etc.... but you know AK sees the same thing everyone else does at least. I personally don't want to invest too much into a center, I just don't think that anyone outside of Jokic or Embiid is worth it (although I would surely consider Mr Glass because as much as I hate him his skill set is awesome)

To me it's an indication that AK has no plan and no philosophy whatsoever and is just chasing whatever name is available. Just throwing **** against the wall to see what sticks

I guess.... If we are to believe the rumor tree that is. AK has played pretty close to the vest so any of these reports are just guys looking to write articles IMHO. The only telegraphed move he made was the one for Lonzo, everything else has been a lil bit of a surprise (Pat, Vuc, DDR, Donovan) That also speaks to your point though that he just goes after what is available if you want to look at it from that lens. I also like going after what is available rather than going after what isn't (ahem GarPax targeting things they never could have).[/quote]

I think there were actually rumors floating out there that we were looking at DDR. Pat's rise up the boards was linked to us really liking him. And once we decided on BD, it got done pretty quickly. What I'm saying is, I think all of the moves except the Vuc move were somewhat telegraphed. This isn't the first time we've heard the Bulls floating Gobert either, so I think it's reasonably likely the Bulls do like him. I don't really mind that.

I don't know what to think of AK, I don't think he has a grand ole masterplan because that is damn near impossible (and even if you do well Brooklyn and Lakers proved sometimes thats not the best) but I also don't think he is some dolt who just sits on his hands and plays a "fluid" game and tries to make moves and gambles. As I said I prefer that route to the hand sitting dolt that Gar Forman was and that Pax allowed him to be, since Pax didn't want the job a long time before it was taken from him.

If I had to characterize him so far, I'd say that he wants to run the team more like how, say, Pat Riley or Masai Ujiri run things, where they're trying to be competitive and improving incrementally and to try to get from good to great by being positioned to make trades (examples being trading for Lowry - didn't work but they tried or trading for Kawhi - worked). I wonder if he's going to be allowed to really do that with the Bulls though, because sometimes that approach means spending in anticipation of building a contender rather than truly being a contender. It's an expensive way to run a team

[Chi town]

Can we at least acknowledge the positive in that it appears that AK is actually exploring moving on from Vuc this offseason?

That’s the real news from the guy that preached continuity at the deadline.

[kulaz3000]

To me, what AK is doing is acquiring assets, whilst still attempting to be competitive - that's a difficult balance to do, and for the most part he has been doing very well, with the limited assets he has in his chess board.

We have become a playoff team, but we also have good players on relatively solid contracts, I don't think there is a single contract on the roster which is simple not movable at one point or another.

[MikeDC]

To me, what AK is doing is acquiring assets, whilst still attempting to be competitive - that's a difficult balance to do, and for the most part he has been doing very well, with the limited assets he has in his chess board.

We have become a playoff team, but we also have good players on relatively solid contracts, I don't think there is a single contract on the roster which is simple not movable at one point or another.

It's weird, in the NBA it seems like if you want to do this thing where you're "competitive but upgradeable" you actually need a couple filler contracts that the Bulls don't really have right now. This past year, if the Bulls wanted to trade for another expensive player, they'd have to give up too many rotational pieces to do it (or Zach or DeMar, which would kind of defeat the point). It's like, you have to overbuild to become a 45-50 win team so you can add that guy who will take you to the next level. The textbook example being the Raptors having enough pieces to win the title even after trading for Kawhi.

[PistolP]

Pros and cons of trading for Gobert IMO:

Pros:
-- He's a hugely impactful player in the regular season. The Jazz have been a materially better team BOTH offensively and defensively when he's on the floor. He’s a big time floor raiser.
-- He would instantly solve our serious deficiencies in rebounding and rim protection
-- The combination of Gobert + Lonzo/AC at the point of attack would create one of the top defenses in the NBA. If you combine that with Zach/DDR + shooters, that has a realistic chance to be one of the best teams in the NBA.
-- While lacking offensive skills, he can still be very helpful to an offense. He only averaged 2 less points per 36 than Vuc last year, but with a TS% of 73% vs Vuc at 53%. The Jazz have been a better offensive team with Gobert on the floor for the last 6 seasons.

Cons:
-- He's about to turn 30 and has 4 years left on a max deal, so he could easily start declining in a year or two
-- His contract + Zach/DDR/Zo on the books would lock us into a really expensive team without a ton of flexibility or picks
-- Pairing him with DeRozan is tough on spacing - every other player on the floor would have to be a 3pt sniper at all times
-- His net impact in the playoffs is still positive, but is reduced by ~50% as teams can game plan to reduce his impact on defense and exploit his lack of offensive skills. So while he's a regular season floor raiser, and likes makes us a perennial 2nd round playoff team, it's not clear he leap frogs us into actual title contention
-- He wont come cheap. I seriously doubt the Jazz would sell super low and there are teams with decent assets (ATL, CHA, GSW) that could put in a solid offer better than just an expiring Vuc. I think, at a minimum, the cost would be something like Vuc + PWill + Coby + pick(s), just to field an offer somewhat in the ballpark of what Utah would accept. That would further deplete our limited trade assets.

I think adding Gobert to our core would probably solidify us as a Top 4 team in the East for the next couple years, which I don't think is likely if we stand pat and "work around the margins", so as a selfish and impatient fan, I'd be down with a Gobert deal. Though I could easily see it backfiring in a couple years when he's declining and eating a third of our cap space.

[gobullschi]

Vucevic is more valuable than Gobert and his absurd contract.

[jordanwilliams6]

I think Vuc still has some value around the league rather than no value. His impact to winning is debatable but he's on a pretty cheap expiring contract next year which will entice some teams. I'm looking mainly at the Suns & Jazz who I assume what to remain contenders but may lose their starting centers. They can have a look at how he looks next year without any long term considerable salary.

[rosenthall]

Vucevic is more valuable than Gobert and his absurd contract.

Di
When you compare the two, I find it difficult to reason that Gobert is absurdly overpaid, and Vucevic is not. I think people underestimate just how big the gap in impact is between these two guys. It's why I'd jump for joy if we could 'unload' Vucevic for Gobert.

Consider their win shares last year. Gobert had 11, Vuc had 4.5. Here's the list of guys above and below each player in the NBA last year. for that metric.

The list for Gobert looks like this:



Outside of Robert Williams, who's on a rookie contract, every single one of those players is on the maximum payscale they're allowed to be on. Rather than being on a horrific payscale, Goberts' seems commensurate with other players around the league who impact winning as much as he does.

If you look at a similar list for Vuc, it looks like this:



The stars in Vuc's neighborhood are SGA and AD, but they both played significantly less games. For the guys who played around 70 games and had non-rookie pay scales, here were their salaries for next year:

- Mason Plumlee: 8.5 million
- Luke Kennard: 13.7 million
- DiAngelo Russell: 31 million

Vuc makes 22 million. Of those three, on Russell makes more, but I'm pretty sure it's not viewed as a good contract around the league. However, no one in Gobert's realm is considered overpaid.

It's also worthwhile to consider just how different these neighborhoods of players are. In terms of impact, Gobert shares the same air as All-NBA players. Vuc shares it with mid-round draft picks who are still on their rookie contracts.

Hell, last year Javale McGee had more win shares playing about half as many minutes as Vuc did.

It actually boggles my mind that people would have to think twice about swapping Vuc for Gobert. They are not on the same planet as NBA players.

[rosenthall]

Vucevic is more valuable than Gobert and his absurd contract.

Di
When you compare the two, I find it difficult to reason that Gobert is absurdly overpaid, and Vucevic is not. I think people underestimate just how big the gap in impact is between these two guys. It's why I'd jump for joy if we could 'unload' Vucevic for Gobert.

Consider their win shares last year. Gobert had 11, Vuc had 4.5. Here's the list of guys above and below each player in the NBA last year. for that metric.

The list for Gobert looks like this:



Outside of Robert Williams, who's on a rookie contract, every single one of those players is on the maximum payscale they're allowed to be on. Rather than being on a horrific payscale, Goberts' seems commensurate with other players around the league who impact winning as much as he does.

If you look at a similar list for Vuc, it looks like this:



The stars in Vuc's neighborhood are SGA and AD, but they both played significantly less games. For the guys who played around 70 games and had non-rookie pay scales, here were their salaries for next year:

- Mason Plumlee: 8.5 million
- Luke Kennard: 13.7 million
- DiAngelo Russell: 31 million

Vuc makes 22 million. Of those three, on Russell makes more, but I'm pretty sure it's not viewed as a good contract around the league. However, no one in Gobert's realm is considered overpaid.

It's also worthwhile to consider just how different these neighborhoods of players are. In terms of impact, Gobert shares the same air as All-NBA players. Vuc shares it with mid-round draft picks who are still on their rookie contracts.

Hell, last year Javale McGee had more win shares playing about half as many minutes as Vuc did.

It actually boggles my mind that people would have to think twice about swapping Vuc for Gobert. They are not on the same planet as NBA players.

[rosenthall]

Vucevic is more valuable than Gobert and his absurd contract.

When you compare the two, I find it difficult to reason that Gobert is absurdly overpaid, but Vucevic is not. I think people underestimate just how big the gap in impact is between these two guys. It's why I'd jump for joy if we could 'unload' Vucevic for Gobert.

Consider their win shares last year. Gobert had 11, Vuc had 4.5. Here's the list of guys above and below each player in the NBA last year for that metric.

The list for Gobert looks like this:



Outside of Robert Williams, who's on a rookie contract, every single one of those players is on the maximum payscale they're allowed to be on. Rather than being on a horrific payscale, Goberts' seems commensurate with other players around the league who impact winning as much as he does.

A similar list for Vuc looks like this:



The notable players in Vuc's neighborhood are SGA and AD, but they both played significantly less games than Vuc. For the guys who played around 70 games and had non-rookie pay scales, here are their salaries for next year:

- Mason Plumlee: 8.5 million
- Luke Kennard: 13.7 million
- DiAngelo Russell: 31 million

Vuc will make 22 million. Of those three, only Russell makes more, but I'm pretty sure it's not viewed as a good contract around the league. However, no one in Gobert's realm is considered overpaid.

It's also worthwhile to consider just how different these neighborhoods of players are. In terms of impact, Gobert breathes the same air as All-NBA players. Vuc shares it with mid-round draft picks who are still on their rookie contracts.

Hell, last year Javale McGee had more win shares playing about half as many minutes as Vuc did.

It actually boggles my mind that people would have to think twice about swapping Vuc for Gobert. They are not on the same planet as NBA players.

[dougthonus]

In what world would AINGE give up Gobert for nothing. Vooch is a expiring and Utah has trouble attracting free agents so they would want picks and lots of young players on rookie deals. They are a old team and Mitchell and Gobert are their youth .

Gobert is under contract for 160M for a player playing the least valuable position in the game, with skills that don't match the modern game, and will be 30, 31, 32, and 33 for those years, where centers typically start having pretty big drop offs after 30 because they are just so big that the wear is worse on them.

Ainges history suggest that you wont get Gobert without taking back Conley or Clarkson as he traded KG, Pierce, and Terry plus a lot of other players for a boatload of picks and players and those were 35/36 yr old no way he simply gives away Gobert in that market

I'm sure Ainge will try. Maybe he will be successful. Just saying a team wants something doesn't mean anything if there isn't someone who wants to give them that. What team is giving you a buttload of picks for a Gobert?

[Red8911]

Can we at least acknowledge the positive in that it appears that AK is actually exploring moving on from Vuc this offseason?

That’s the real news from the guy that preached continuity at the deadline.

Would be funny if both Vuc and Zach end up getting traded after AK said that the core would remain the same during the press conference. Then no one will ever believe one word he says to media ever again lol.

[micromonkey]

Rudy over Vuc in a heartbeat.
Better and better fit. Better D, more efficient O and needs the ball way less.

[jnrjr79]

I like the idea of getting Gobert. I think people overlook the fact that for the last four years, he's been elite in terms of wins added. The only people who have been above him are tier 1 superstars like Giannis and Jokic.

I think when people talk about him and his contract they overlook the fact that he's a tier above rim running centers. It's not fair to group him in with guys like Mitchell Robinson and Clint Capela. He's much better than them. You will have a top 10 defense if you add him to your team.

Last year he posted career bests in PER, Rebound %, TS%, and was just a touch below his all time high in WS/48, (0.264 vs 0.268). Getting above 0.25 WS/48 is elite territory. Here's the list of people who have done it since 2000: https://stathead.com/basketball/player-season-finder.cgi?request=1&match=player_season&order_by_asc=0&order_by=ws&year_min=2001&comp_type=reg&comp_id=NBA&display_type=totals&ccomp%5B1%5D=gt&cval%5B1%5D=0.25&cstat%5B1%5D=ws_per_48&ccomp%5B2%5D=gt&cval%5B2%5D=50&cstat%5B2%5D=games&ccomp%5B3%5D=gt&cval%5B3%5D=1000&cstat%5B3%5D=mp&season_start=1&season_end=-1&locationMatch=is&as_selections_comp=gt.

That is basically the mendoza line for superstars in their prime, and Gobert is on the right side of it.

I get that Gobert influences his team in very lopsided ways, but I think people lose track of the fact that, given his impact stats, Gobert today is not really overpaid. For sure, the last years of his contract will probably be an albatross, but acquiring him for Vuc + parts would be a huge boon to this team for the next 3 years.

Better yet, his impact is lopsided in ways that compliment what we currently have. Last year our 'Big 3' proved incapable of maintaining even an average defense. We also saw how Vuc is little more than a glorified two-point spammer. He's incapable of increasing his output when Demar and Zach received additional defensive attention. So I don't see our offense losing much with Vuc's absence, but I see our defense benefitting tremendously by having Gobert in the fold.

I would expect this positive influence to last for at least three years, which coincides reasonably well with the rest of the team's timeline.

Last offseason we traded away three first round picks to acquire 'win now' vets, which shut the door of playing the flexibility/rebuild game. Acquiring Gobert when his value might be low would be another way to keep moving in that direction.

Great post and pretty much where I’m at. Assuming you’re maxing Zach, you need to spend the next two years of DeRozan’s deal in “win now” mode. Gobert makes a ton of sense in filling an area of need that got exposed as the season went on last year. His fit should be improved if 1) Lonzo is healthy (a big “if”!) 2) Pat is healthy, and 3) if you use the MLE to add additional shooting. The Bulls would have a very interesting mix of roles that I think could mesh very well. When the Gobert deal is over, you move on to a new phase of the Bulls team. I honestly am not sure the Bulls will have many better “win now” options for the duration of DeRozan’s contract. It also potentially leaves you in a Toronto-like position when they traded for Kawhi if a big disgruntled fish becomes available.

[jnrjr79]

My only argument with that is that, Rudy has too many accolades for a straight up salary swap. They have to be viewed as winning the deal to sell it to their fans. Unless Rudy is just toxic and worn out his stay, i think they want either picks or a great young talent to make it sellable to the fan base.

I don't think they can get those things for him. They will be in the tax, are coming off two 1st round exits, their coach just quit, and the star player they want to keep doesn't like him. I think there will be considerable pressure for them to move him. They absolutely won't get a great young talent. They might be able to get picks, but they will be protected / bad picks and even then getting more than 1 feels unlikely. I think most of the league (maybe all of the league) looks at him like a talented player but an awful contract.

I am with you here. The contract is huge for someone who is an elite role player. But the Bulls have good scorers and the MLE, so they are in a good position to deal with that. No non-contending team is going to want Gobert. So, of the elite NBA teams, how many others would want to and would be able to offer a more appealing package?

My whole thing with Gobert is assuming that Utah wants to build around Mitchell who 1) already hates Gobert and 2) is pretty pissed about Snyder leaving, apparently. Under those circumstances, Utah might be in a position where they feel they have to take the best deal for Gobert this offseason, no matter what. If those assumptions aren’t true, then sure, this is probably all for naught. I understand everyone thinks Danny Ainge won’t make trades unless he’s screwing the other side, but the dynamics here may not allow for that.

[jnrjr79]

The general question is if the Bulls truly are planning on paying the tax frequently. If they are, the problems with Gobert's contract go down significantly.

Yep. At a minimum, in order for this to make sense, the Bulls have to be willing to pay tax for the next two seasons, until DeMar’s deal is over.

[chitownsports4ever]

To me, what AK is doing is acquiring assets, whilst still attempting to be competitive - that's a difficult balance to do, and for the most part he has been doing very well, with the limited assets he has in his chess board.

We have become a playoff team, but we also have good players on relatively solid contracts, I don't think there is a single contract on the roster which is simple not movable at one point or another.

It's weird, in the NBA it seems like if you want to do this thing where you're "competitive but upgradeable" you actually need a couple filler contracts that the Bulls don't really have right now. This past year, if the Bulls wanted to trade for another expensive player, they'd have to give up too many rotational pieces to do it (or Zach or DeMar, which would kind of defeat the point). It's like, you have to overbuild to become a 45-50 win team so you can add that guy who will take you to the next level. The textbook example being the Raptors having enough pieces to win the title even after trading for Kawhi.

Its simply too early in the process the Bulls are at least one to two years away from that sort of deal .

[Dan Z]

My only argument with that is that, Rudy has too many accolades for a straight up salary swap. They have to be viewed as winning the deal to sell it to their fans. Unless Rudy is just toxic and worn out his stay, i think they want either picks or a great young talent to make it sellable to the fan base.

I don't think they can get those things for him. They will be in the tax, are coming off two 1st round exits, their coach just quit, and the star player they want to keep doesn't like him. I think there will be considerable pressure for them to move him. They absolutely won't get a great young talent. They might be able to get picks, but they will be protected / bad picks and even then getting more than 1 feels unlikely. I think most of the league (maybe all of the league) looks at him like a talented player but an awful contract.

I am with you here. The contract is huge for someone who is an elite role player. But the Bulls have good scorers and the MLE, so they are in a good position to deal with that. No non-contending team is going to want Gobert. So, of the elite NBA teams, how many others would want to and would be able to offer a more appealing package?

My whole thing with Gobert is assuming that Utah wants to build around Mitchell who 1) already hates Gobert and 2) is pretty pissed about Snyder leaving, apparently. Under those circumstances, Utah might be in a position where they feel they have to take the best deal for Gobert this offseason, no matter what. If those assumptions aren’t true, then sure, this is probably all for naught. I understand everyone thinks Danny Ainge won’t make trades unless he’s screwing the other side, but the dynamics here may not allow for that.

It's also a made up narrative. Ainge will do what he thinks is best for the franchise he's working for. Period. That's it.

Shouldn't every GM be that way? Of course.

Also, I agree with you that in this case he might have to settle for the best offer he can get. Gobert is good, but his limitations as a player, plus his contract, limits his value.

[WindyCityBorn]

Would Vuc/White/#18/Port pick be enough? I think if we signed the #18, then finalized the trade a month later it would be legal

Ball/Ayo
Lavine/Caruso
DDR/JGreen
PWill/random vet
Gobert/Random vet
if healthy, that is a nice team

Utah gets a starting center back, a mediocre prospect in White and 2 picks

That’s too much for Gobert IMO.

[WindyCityBorn]

The general question is if the Bulls truly are planning on paying the tax frequently. If they are, the problems with Gobert's contract go down significantly.

You only trade for Gobert if you absolutely believe it makes you a serious contender. So the answer would be yes if they do it.