Bulls GM game

[dougthonus]

You are head of all personnel decisions. You want to maximize what ownership desires, and they have given you this scale:

Non-Play-in team: 0 points
Play-in team: 1 points
1st round: 2 points
2nd round: 3 points
ECF: 4 points
Finals: 5 points
Champion: 6 points

You cannot spend the luxury tax unless you made it to the 2nd round the previous year, and if you are in the tax, you subtract 1 from your score in that year. For every 4 years of scoring points in a row, you get one point of grace period to apply to any future firing conditions.

Fired conditions:
Score 0 in consecutive years
Score -1 in any year
Score 0 in 3 of 5 years

You take over the team exactly now. You get to play the game for as long as you are not fired. What do you do?

[dougthonus]

Obvious incentives:
1: Aim for 1st round exits with 2nd round upside
2: Never spend in the luxury tax
3: Only make long term decisions when you can do so with misfit assets that don't hurt the present

[League Circles]

I like the exercise but without agreement on plausible trade options, comparisons are nearly impossible IMO.

I'd continue to olay relative hardball with Giddey, but likely sign him to anything below 30 mil. Anything above 35 mil I'm probably calling his bluff and letting him play on the QO. 30-35 depends on specifics.

I'd shop some guys as hard as I could and see what I could maybe add to these pieces:

Smith
Matas
Noa
Giddey
Okoro
Coby
Jones

So that means these guys would be the focus of my trade efforts until further notice:
Vuc
Collins
Phillips
Patrick
Huerter
Ayo
Terry
Carter

I'd see what I can get in a consildation trade of some sort for someone to complement the first 7 guys I listed. Problem is, Ayo is probably the best trade chip and he's not that great.

[dougthonus]

I like the exercise but without agreement on plausible trade options, comparisons are nearly impossible IMO.

Yeah, I phrased it as a game, but is really a statement of how I think the Bulls internally run their team than an exercise we can truly participate in fully.

I'd continue to olay relative hardball with Giddey, but likely sign him to anything below 30 mil. Anything above 35 mil I'm probably calling his bluff and letting him play on the QO. 30-35 depends on specifics.

I'd shop some guys as hard as I could and see what I could maybe add to these pieces:

Smith
Matas
Noa
Giddey
Okoro
Coby
Jones

So that means these guys would be the focus of my trade efforts until further notice:
Vuc
Collins
Phillips
Patrick
Huerter
Ayo
Terry
Carter

I'd see what I can get in a consildation trade of some sort for someone to complement the first 7 guys I listed. Problem is, Ayo is probably the best trade chip and he's not that great.

Yeah, it's interesting, because it's now really important for me to try to make the play-in this year. So I'm probably aggressively shopping Ayo or Coby after I resign Giddey. I agree in this scenario, I really want Giddey because I think he can help me get to the playoffs even if I don't think I can win, and that becomes really important to me.

[Dan Z]

I'd re-sign Giddey if the cost isn't too high and continue trying to trade Vucevic. If any team is willing to give up assets (future picks) for an expiring contract then I'd do that too.

For the first 1/4 of the season I'd evaluate the team, and if they look similar to what they've been the past few years (play-in or no playoffs level), then I'd use the remaining games to develop young players (at the same time not worry about wins). If all of the happens I'd try to get a top pick in 2026.

Reinsdorf can fire me if he wants too, but I wouldn't push for a meaningless play-in game and I think the worst outcome is what the Bulls keep doing (lose in the play-in and end up with an 11th/12th pick in the draft).

I'd rather think about the teams future than continue plodding along and going nowhere.

[MrSparkle]

Hard to make moves with the draft already done. Head coach is extended. They locked in some long-term decisions: obviously committed to Noa and Matas… but added small but long-term salary in Tre/Okoro. With Patrick and Jalen that adds up to a combined $50M in 2028 cap on 3rd-string playoff guys (atleast their aspiring/deep playoff teams didn’t want them in the 1st/2nd-string).

So honestly, I roll with what AK has done (likely resign Giddey, even if it means $30M; would try to make it a 3y deal then) and re-evaluate next year. It’s hard to pivot from this “shoot-fish-in-barrel” approach. I don’t mind it as a general GM strategy with a strong scouting dept., but the number of misses is so high I’ve lost count (inc. the Troy Browns and Markos, who wouldn’t be a big deal if he wasn’t 4Y guaranteed of a wasted roster spot).

I’d plan for a busy trade deadline, probably come back with some bad looking returns on Coby, Vuc… just to move on, get a better 26 pick. Don’t think it’d be a top-3, but top-12 would be better than 15.

Take the 0 points and tell Jerry that loyalty is #1! Let Matas, Noa and Patrick take turns turning the ball over when Giddey’s sitting. Thing is I need to see where these 3 are at (and if I can move Patrick) before committing to the next step.

[ThisGuyFawkes]

I'd re-sign Giddey if the cost isn't too high and continue trying to trade Vucevic. If any team is willing to give up assets (future picks) for an expiring contract then I'd do that too.

For the first 1/4 of the season I'd evaluate the team, and if they look similar to what they've been the past few years (play-in or no playoffs level), then I'd use the remaining games to develop young players (at the same time not worry about wins). If all of the happens I'd try to get a top pick in 2026.

Reinsdorf can fire me if he wants too, but I wouldn't push for a meaningless play-in game and I think the worst outcome is what the Bulls keep doing (lose in the play-in and end up with an 11th/12th pick in the draft).

I'd rather think about the teams future than continue plodding along and going nowhere.

Call me crazy, but the roster seems vastly different from what it was in the "plodding along and going nowhere" years. How much of our roster was here 2 seasons ago? To be fair, it still seems like we're in the middle, but at least there were drastic changes?

Get whatever you can for Vuc and Pat. I think half of our roster is about to expire so the options are wide open.

Resign Giddey to 5/$125M. Try to get Huerter and Ayo on vet min deals. Paying a little extra is okay because you need those kinds of dudes to fill out the roster.

We've got some young, promising players like Matas and Noa. Still developing.

I think I resign Coby if he wants a similar 5/$125M deal. Otherwise, I'm looking to shop him and grab some picks.

We need some big bodies. Matas and Noa are thin and if we're trying to replicate the Pacers success, we need guys like Toppin, Turner, and Siakim. I feel like that's our biggest weakness, and area that I would push to improve quickly. Maybe Pat can become one of those guys?

[CBS7]

Might have fun with this tool.. https://basketball-gm.com/

Obviously it has a huge luck factor with prospects filling out their potential or not, but the same can be said of real life prospects.

[Dan Z]

I'd re-sign Giddey if the cost isn't too high and continue trying to trade Vucevic. If any team is willing to give up assets (future picks) for an expiring contract then I'd do that too.

For the first 1/4 of the season I'd evaluate the team, and if they look similar to what they've been the past few years (play-in or no playoffs level), then I'd use the remaining games to develop young players (at the same time not worry about wins). If all of the happens I'd try to get a top pick in 2026.

Reinsdorf can fire me if he wants too, but I wouldn't push for a meaningless play-in game and I think the worst outcome is what the Bulls keep doing (lose in the play-in and end up with an 11th/12th pick in the draft).

I'd rather think about the teams future than continue plodding along and going nowhere.

Call me crazy, but the roster seems vastly different from what it was in the "plodding along and going nowhere" years. How much of our roster was here 2 seasons ago? To be fair, it still seems like we're in the middle, but at least there were drastic changes?

Get whatever you can for Vuc and Pat. I think half of our roster is about to expire so the options are wide open.

Resign Giddey to 5/$125M. Try to get Huerter and Ayo on vet min deals. Paying a little extra is okay because you need those kinds of dudes to fill out the roster.

We've got some young, promising players like Matas and Noa. Still developing.

I think I resign Coby if he wants a similar 5/$125M deal. Otherwise, I'm looking to shop him and grab some picks.

We need some big bodies. Matas and Noa are thin and if we're trying to replicate the Pacers success, we need guys like Toppin, Turner, and Siakim. I feel like that's our biggest weakness, and area that I would push to improve quickly. Maybe Pat can become one of those guys?

I agree that the roster is different than it was a year ago and that's why I said I'd evaluate the team in the first 1/4 of the season. If they're better than expected I'd keep going with it, but if they look like it'll be another play-in level season then I'd focus on the young players and won't worry about wins. At that point player development and a top pick in 2026 means more than continuing to push for the play-in.

[kodo]

Paxson would have crushed this.
2004 - 2016
7 first rounds (14)
3 2nd rounds (6)
1 EC finals (4)

Total: 24 points

Hard to believe Chicago actually won Executive of the Year back in those days.

[dougthonus]

Paxson would have crushed this.
2004 - 2016
7 first rounds (14)
3 2nd rounds (6)
1 EC finals (4)

Total: 24 points

Hard to believe Chicago actually won Executive of the Year back in those days.

While I didn't do it intentionally, GarPax actually got fired in exact accordance to this game too. They earned one extra point over that time (so close to doing it a couple times but only hit 3) and were fired after three misses in a row.

[PaKii94]

You are head of all personnel decisions. You want to maximize what ownership desires, and they have given you this scale:

Non-Play-in team: 0 points
Play-in team: 1 points
1st round: 2 points
2nd round: 3 points
ECF: 4 points
Finals: 5 points
Champion: 6 points

You cannot spend the luxury tax unless you made it to the 2nd round the previous year, and if you are in the tax, you subtract 1 from your score in that year. For every 4 years of scoring points in a row, you get one point of grace period to apply to any future firing conditions.

Fired conditions:
Score 0 in consecutive years
Score -1 in any year
Score 0 in 3 of 5 years

You take over the team exactly now. You get to play the game for as long as you are not fired. What do you do?

Do you get to accumulate points over time? If it's a yearly thing then anything above play in is irrelevant. Championship could be 100000 points and it still wouldn't matter. If you don't go to the second round, then no luxury tax so no luxury tax penalty ever. And if the "win" is keeping your job then that gets rid of the -1 possibility firing.

So the least amount of work continuous win would be optimizing for getting into the play in every other year.

[MisterRoy]

Do we get a contract extension for 5 straight 0s? Continuity and all...

[sco]

The ambiguity is what other teams would trade for our guys.

If I could get BOS to take Vuc for Simons and Dallas to give me Lively plus Christie for White, I'd do those things, for example.

[League Circles]

Not to poke holes in a fun exercise but IMO the point values should be different. They're way too linear. A championship should be worth more than it is, and a play-in or 1st round exit should be worth more than they are relative to missing the playoffs, so that means the whole scale should be reconsidered.

[dougthonus]

Not to poke holes in a fun exercise but IMO the point values should be different. They're way too linear. A championship should be worth more than it is, and a play-in or 1st round exit should be worth more than they are relative to missing the playoffs, so that means the whole scale should be reconsidered.

My guess was its close to how the Bulls actually think. I don't think they value you championships very much.

I'd actually do something like:
Missed playoffs: 0
Play-in loss: -1
1st round: 2
2nd round: 3
ECF: 4
Finals: 5
Championship: 10

Ie, the worst case scenario is to lose in the play-in and get no meaningful post season play and also get really poor lotto odds.

[MGB8]

Best strategy I could see, beyond retaining Giddey and likely Coby (presuming combined cost does not exceed 60M AAV), is scouring apron troubled teams to see if we can get decent- ish player upgrades at a discount. But hard to see much that makes sense off hand.

I think a Giddey-Coby-Matas group, with decent defensive center play, likely gets you into the play in every year. Assuming health, of course.

[sco]

The part of the game that's hard is trying to work through the likely scenario that the Bulls don't have the assets and can't (other than through luck) get them via trade or draft to make it out of the 1st round for the next 5 years.

[League Circles]

Not to poke holes in a fun exercise but IMO the point values should be different. They're way too linear. A championship should be worth more than it is, and a play-in or 1st round exit should be worth more than they are relative to missing the playoffs, so that means the whole scale should be reconsidered.

My guess was its close to how the Bulls actually think. I don't think they value you championships very much.

I'd actually do something like:
Missed playoffs: 0
Play-in loss: -1
1st round: 2
2nd round: 3
ECF: 4
Finals: 5
Championship: 10

Ie, the worst case scenario is to lose in the play-in and get no meaningful post season play and also get really poor lotto odds.

I don't really disagree on the worst case, it's just that the worst case is really measured in years other than the season in question. Missing the playoffs may be better for a different season than one in question, and maybe enough to justify the tradeoff, but we shouldn't double count the pros and cons of doing so. If you're the 5th worst team in the league for example, that's worse for that season's grade value than being in the play-in (because it's a team worth following vs one not worth following all season). It may get you a draft prospect that makes it worthwhile, but if that's the case, it should help the future seasons grades, not that season.

Also I definitely don't think that's how the Bulls operate. Aren't we all in agreement that they value playoffs vs non playoffs as being of more value than, say, ECF vs 2nd round?

[dougthonus]

I don't really disagree on the worst case, it's just that the worst case is really measured in years other than the season in question. Missing the playoffs may be better for a different season than one in question, and maybe enough to justify the tradeoff, but we shouldn't double count the pros and cons of doing so. If you're the 5th worst team in the league for example, that's worse for that season's grade value than being in the play-in (because it's a team worth following vs one not worth following all season). It may get you a draft prospect that makes it worthwhile, but if that's the case, it should help the future seasons grades, not that season.

Your personal valuation probably gets pretty personal based on your goals for the year and how well you achieve them, so a simple scoring probably is never going to create the nuance you want.

Also I definitely don't think that's how the Bulls operate. Aren't we all in agreement that they value playoffs vs non playoffs as being of more value than, say, ECF vs 2nd round?

They definitely would place inordinate value on playoffs in general, not sure how much they would value high end playoff performance, but they definitely have not historically been excited to make high risk / low odds moves that might boost championship equity at the cost of playoff equity.