You spent about five paragraphs explaining this bizarre acquisition including references to the risks of making offers to RFAs. Last night I thought of, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."
As always I appreciate your acumen when applied to evaluating or just reporting on players' backgrounds or potentials. But, early on you claimed AK can't hurt you anymore, but then you proceeded to pick your scab a handful of times. Get help!
You referred to Mo Gueye. To eliminate some confusion, last night on X, I posted this reply twice: "Atlanta has Mouhamed Gueye. Chicago has Mouhamadou Gueye." It's my most popular contribution ever with about 6K views and 30 likes! So this trade was really good news.
The Bulls should not make their two 2nd round picks. Use #38 to trade up from #15, and trade the latter one for a future 2nd.
I find similarities in the personalities of AK and Tiago (both tall men) who are laid back, even laconic. If he does F-up, point that out. But I do like these two hires, as I liked AKME, all of whom had some success in roles with less responsibility and were sought after by other teams. If these two don't turn out, Reinsdorf won't fire either of them soon enough for you.
Before long, Tiago and Bryson will be "making mistakes" and will be labeled "trash" by some of those who are now praising their arrivals.
I imagine that, like the NFL trade value charts, the value of #38 is so low as to be pretty negligible in moving up. Anybody have a thought on how much? Maybe we could move to #13?
The way some of the mock drafts look, combined with the Bulls needs and their player evaluations, moving up 2 spots could be a big deal. For another team, maybe not so much, plus #38 could be a decent role player, which is around where Ayo was taken. Or, throw in another, future 2nd round pick; they've got a ton of 'em.
Some people don't like having to read long missives, but you didn't have to. Altogether, the six paragraphs addressed different issues in the original post, but cross referencing the two would have made it even longer. The one with the trade recommendation was the easiest; another person even replied to that.
How many times over the last several years was there a trade in which some other third party picked up an asset by playing facilitator and we all wondered why the bulls didn't do that?
Claxton's not great, but he's solid. He'd make a ton of sense as a starter while a Morez Johnson or whoever takes time to develop. Especially since the goal has to be competence now, given the lottery reform.
Mostly I'm just excited to watch an offense in which the center is in the dunkers spot instead of plodding around 35 feet from the rim.
I really like the trade. I like that claxton is front loaded as well. One of my favorite big men to target In 2k (lol) because he has a very high perimeter defensive rating for a big man - and indeed if you go look at his IRL 2022-2023 season, what made claxton get votes for dpoy was his ability to shift onto guards and defend them like a wing.
Splitter definitely has some say in this trade - he worked with claxton on the nets during said 2022-2023 season and I appreciate that synergy, give the coach someone who he can't trust to buy into his defensive philosophies.
I also like claxton is 27, if we extend him it will be as he enters his 30s and while I hope it's not an over pay, at the very least we will have him for the remainder of his prime - but I'm probably getting ahead of myself there.
This is a good pickup all and all. I know some people wanted to use the cap for distressed assets and picks but I think having a potential defensive anchor is imperative to a team and for once being mediocre is kind of the goal right now
Without checking the cap math, it feels like this move helps bolster our chances of getting out of the "bottom three" (per new lottery rules) in the next couple of years while also maintaining our cap flexibility for 2028 and beyond. The FA class isn't that strong this year, but any of the decent guys (particularly RFAs) were never going to sign a deal or offer sheet for less than 4-5 years which really locks you in.
Summer 2028 makes sense as the target year for Bulls making some big moves to try and compete. We can buy out PWill's player option for '28-29 if we haven't dumped him by then. And we could conceivably be LOADED with cap space that year depending on how much dead weight we might take on from other teams to accumulate assets from them.
Maybe it'll play out differently in practice but I am not treating the 'relegation zone' as something requiring to plan to avoid in roster construction. Always try and get players who are capable or have upside, all teams are going to do that. To me individual decisions will be more of an in season thing where you aren't sabotaging yourself with fake injury absences (great!)
Personally I think the relegation zone is going to be a major factor but I'm not sure how many teams are really planning for it (it's going to be a massive wake up call to a few of them). If you look at some of the teams who've tanked hard over the past decade, there were some seriously awful rosters (some of those teams traded for "damaged goods" assets like the Wizards last year). With those REALLY bad teams, there was never a need to sabotage using in-season tactics.
The issue with everyone following the NBA is that we haven't ever witnessed the psychological effects of the relegation zone yet -- we've been so conditioned to the "really bad teams want to lose and find it easy to lose, not-as-bad teams have to figure out how to catch up to the losing train" mentality that next year is going to be a massive wake-up call. I predict there will even be some relegation-zone teams who trade to ADD short-term reinforcements at the deadline, which is totally counterintuitive based on the way things worked previously.
The psychology I reference is that when playing a bad tanking team, you always knew they were invested in losing to you. There was only one team that bucked that trend: the Bulls, who snuck into play-in position a few years in a row by trying when everyone else wasn't trying. Now, if that team is anywhere close to the relegation zone, they will be 100% invested in winning. Putting together a roster that is safely in the 6th-11th worst spot was probably the easiest thing to do in past years, but will be challenging this year.
There will still be shenanigans in the "Goldilocks Zone" of teams who want to win just enough to avoid relegation but still want to land in the "three ball" category and don't aspire to make the playoffs. But it'll look very different than it ever has.
I missed the real point I wanted to make, which is that this current Bulls roster (even after we add whatever we add in the draft) would probably not be a bottom-three roster in previous years, but are very likely to be in the relegation conversation in a world where other bad teams are actively trying against them from February through April.
long way to go obviously, but I heard Will Gottlieb on CHGO give a hypothetical that Claxton's value will rise 'playing with Josh Giddey and some winning basketball' and yeah it may be better than the tank-forward Nets but the Bulls are likely going to be worse than even this year's Nets if they and all these other teams are no longer incentivized to throw away games in April
That's exactly right. Over the past several offseasons when many prognosticators and prediction models would pick the Bulls to win ~25-30 games I'd always argue that while we might not be that much more talented than other teams in that range, we did something that they did not, which was to strive for the play-in. The analytical models don't really account for psychology and strategy in that way.
I do think it's hilarious about Claxton "getting out of the Nets' losing culture." And I also think the Nets are poised to be better than the Bulls.
Honestly, who won't be better than the Bulls next year? Obviously a lot remains to be seen with how the draft and free agency play out, but at this stage, I'm having a hard time singling out three teams that will definitely be below the Bulls in the standings. (Jazz, Kings, Grizz, maybe Bucks?)
I'm speculating the bigger factor will be lowering the incentives to be bad, less impactful will be raising the punishment of being really really bad. But I do agree that it means at the deadline and down the stretch we will see some better behavior. I am just thinking teams aren't going into their offseason and multi-season team building with 'stay out of the relegation zone' in mind
it's fascinating that next year a likely relegation zone team, the Bucks, don't own their pick
I guess we'll see how things play out -- this first year will really set the tone. Like if the worst team in the league ends up picking #11 or #12 (a 39% chance of that happening!) there will be an outcry in some corners of the NBA world, and potential "market correction" the following year with teams' fan bases getting anxious about that happening.
More fascinating, as you mentioned with the Bucks, is what will happen with teams who either don't own their pick, and/or teams who are restricted from a #1 pick in back-to-back drafts or Top-5 in three consecutive drafts (both apply to the Jazz this year). That dynamic could get really interesting.
But lowering the incentives to be bad is going to dramatically change things... Looking at the teams that finished below the Bulls last year is much more scary. Assuming players actually played and teams tried to win I would say there are only three teams that were likely worse than the Bulls (Brooklyn, Sacramento, and maybe the Pelicans). If building through the draft is the way as you say, a team can't afford to cut their odds in half on a top pick, and we are way too close for comfort heading into this year.
I wouldn't say I'm as pessimistic as Noh is, but I definitely didn't realize how much Claxton had regressed over the last couple of years. My hope is that regression was a combination of playing through injury (that is hopefully fully healed) and playing for a team that was intentionally trying to lose.
I don't think the Bulls are necessarily trying to win this year (or the next couple of years for that matter), but they certainly aren't trying to actively lose like the Nets were. Maybe that and playing for his next contract will bring out the best version of Claxton that hasn't been seen for a couple years now.
The fit next to Wilson won't make much sense, but it's certainly possible to stagger their minutes. I do think playing with Giddey will be helpful for Claxton though. Ultimately, I think the acquisition is fine. His contract isn't terrible and expires in a couple years, and the Bulls likely won't actually be trying to win before then anyway.
Considering it's only for 2 years, contract is frontloaded, he's only 27, and we gave up basically nothing... it's a decent gamble and not a long term commitment. Not to mention, as you said, that the bulls aren't in a position to win a ton next season, it's the exact kind of thing the bulls are in a good position to take a chance on. If he's better, great, but it also isn't something the team is tied to for another 5 years.
Meh. I'll take Stephen Noh's analysis with a huge block of salt.
1) he said Vucevic's last contract was basically understandable or good, saying he was the 11th best center in the league, and so it was fine.
2) He leaves out a LOT of context. He mentions his back issue, but he doesn't mention that in 2023, he played with Kyrie Irving, Kevin Durant, Spencer Dinwiddie, Ben Simmons, and Mikal Bridges - all creators and or legitimate scorers with creation abilities. For an offensively limited center, they need that around them.
3) I also think it'd be nice if he gave the link to his sources, as basketball-reference lists his block % as different (but still simialrly declining).
4) Finally, I think it's less that he's been declining and more that he had one great year. for example, dunksandthrees.com has EPM as essentialy 0.0 in 4 out of the past 5 years - 2023 being the only exception a +1.9. It's hard not to see that as an exception rather than the rule.
Of course, if it's true that he was much better and earned his payday on the basis of being a role-player on a much better team, well, that doesn't matter since he's going to be on a bad team anyway. But at least raises the idea that he's not declining, but rather this is just who he is unless he's elevated by others.
Yeah with all due respect to Noh, I think his approach is off here.
It’s a good write-up to counter anyone who believes that Claxton is a franchise difference maker and a long-term fit with Wilson. But no one thinks that.
He’s a solid starter who raises your floor. The Bulls are a rebuilding team in an era where filling up your roster exclusively with bad vets and young players won’t work. You need a couple of solid vets who can just keep things afloat to help ensure you don’t finish with one of the worst records in the league.
I don't particularly care about anyone on the roster's fit with Wilson. If the Bulls spent assets to get Claxton that's a different consideration. As long as it doesn't actively harm Wilson's development I'm OK
Bulls Roundtable (it's a newish blog!) had the headline of "How Claxton Changes The Bulls' Draft Strategy" and I didn't click through to verify but I would hope it was a short post saying "in no way whatsoever"
Yeah, I completely agree about how players fit next to Wilson.
Just read that article and it actually isn't bad. The overall point was that Graham won't feel external pressure to draft a big at #15 simply because there's a hole in the roster at that spot. I'm not sure Graham would have felt much pressure to do that regardless.
It also specifically states that the addition of Claxton won't affect who the Bulls select at #4. So, mostly a nothingburger of an article, but at least it wasn't trying to say the Bulls now needed to try and get Boozer instead of Wilson simply because Boozer theoretically fits better next to Claxton.
I get why people don't like the aesthetics of tanking, and whatever. But to think it's actually a bad way to get better is just intentional ignorance and rage-baiting at this point.
Bulls traded away their team and tanked at the trade deadline. Many people, including yfBB said it was dumb and stupid, though I argued it was ultimately going to be very good. It resulted in: AKME being fired. (an undoubtedly great outcome), B) Donovan resigning (debateable, but I didn't think he was as good as people said he was - he was fine, pretty average to above-average). C) Getting the 4th pick in a draft in which there is widely considered a top tier of 4 players.
The Bulls finally embracing the tank was an undoubted success. Getting nothing back and losing as many games as possible was better for their short-term and long-term future.
Washington finally gets a chance to draft a potential star. Utah does as well. Memphis tanked and gets to jumpstart its rebuild. Throw in past tank specialists of the Pistons, the Spurts, the Thunder, and so on.
Fine, don't like watching tanking teams. Say it's bad for the league. Be angry that if the team you write about tanks, fewer people follow them and you make less money, whatever. But to just continually paint it as a bad strategy towards ultimately being a really good team is just ludicrous and laughable at this point.
Totally agree it was a success, and not a minute too soon with the incoming lottery changes. I think on balance there will be a lot more competitive games this year, which I think is a good thing. It sucks to root for your team to lose, but you bet I've been doing it the last few years with the Bulls. Will be nice to not have to.
But who is claiming that (before now) tanking was a bad strategy?
I think most people (including yfBB) were critical of this year's late tank because it was "too little, too late" and because the assets the Bulls received in their fire sale were not strong. Not because we thought tanking was a poor strategy.
However, it's all moot at this point going forward. There will still be teams who won't try to make the playoffs, and teams who want to lose some Feb/March/April games strategically, but the era of getting as bad as you possibly can and losing as many games as you possibly can is over. The "Goldilocks tank" (not too good, not too bad) is the new aspiration for the bottom third of the league.
Absolutely. But what's interesting is that winning even 40ish games or more won't be a negative since teams in the play-in will still get lottery picks and potentially the 7th best team in the conference gets a lottery ticket. (And if you're good enough to be the 6th seed or higher, playoff success vs. lottery positioning should be your goal).
This is why AKME was so terrible when he wouldn't even talk to other teams about his players. I envision him hanging up on Tim Connely when he calls to ask about Josh Giddey and saying, "He's not available. Stop asking."
But that can always be the start of a dialogue. Start talking about other players, see where else you might make a deal. Just because you're very unlikely to trade the player they're calling about, if you engage, you might find a way to still do something to make your team better.
I find myself wondering a lot how a player's measurements translate into his functional size. So, at the risk of some modest self-promotion (not making any money!), I built a little app that attempts to calculate a "plays like" height based on standing reach and wingspan from the combine anthro measurements. This is the start, and I'll probably add to it over time with some other size/space metrics.
Nic Claxton is kind of a boring one - he's 6'10 with a 7'2.5 wingspan and a 9'2 standing reach, which nets a "TrueHeight" of... 6'10.25. BUT, it's interesting (to me anyway) to have a methodology to think about it in a more structured way and compare players over multiple years. Anyway, hope you take a look and enjoy!
I know it’s been like 16 hours but I would say this is already better than literally any AKME trade during their tenure.
They got a player who’s gotten DPOY votes in the past for free. I honestly want to throw up thinking about what BS Karnisovas would’ve done if he was in charge still. He probably would’ve traded 2 firsts for Trae Young or some shit 🤮🤮🤮
Maybe god made Jaden Ivey go nuts so the Bulls could be cleansed. Thank you for your sacrifice Jaden. Idk if I’ve ever seen the Bulls make a savvy trade before which is REALLY sad
I'm fine with the trade and it's definitely not the kind of deal AKME would make, but I'm not sure I'm going to celebrate it as some super savvy move. It's the direct equivalent of signing Claxton as a FA for 2 years, $44M. If that deal was part of free agency this year there would be a healthy debate over whether it was the right move for where we are as a team right now.
There's definitely a world in which the Bulls' excess cap space might be more effectively used to absorb contracts while also netting some draft compensation. I have no idea what types of deals are being put in front of Bryson Graham right now so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but this isn't a no-doubter home run move in my mind.
I agree, it’s not a home run move at all. The Bulls wouldn’t have gotten him like this if he didn’t have warts on his game.
That’s just how awful the last front office was. They didn’t make a single positive value trade ONCE. Nic Claxton could be unplayable and I think his expiring contract next year would still be more valuable than anything those rubes did.
Just a shout out to whom I assume is mostly YFBB, covering the Bulls, staying objective mostly in seasons of crap has to be hard. Providing a place to still chat and cover the team, well done sir
They probably just linked the Bulls to Zion because of Graham. It wouldn't make a lick of sense if he even entertains it. I think Zion's amazing when he's healthy but staying healthy has always been the main thing holding him back. Where even is Zion's value right now?
I saw this reported on FB but had no idea if it was AI bullshit lol.
Glad to see Ayo get a nice extension!
Also I hate Randle ew so I think I would rather have this end of the deal lol.
You spent about five paragraphs explaining this bizarre acquisition including references to the risks of making offers to RFAs. Last night I thought of, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."
As always I appreciate your acumen when applied to evaluating or just reporting on players' backgrounds or potentials. But, early on you claimed AK can't hurt you anymore, but then you proceeded to pick your scab a handful of times. Get help!
You referred to Mo Gueye. To eliminate some confusion, last night on X, I posted this reply twice: "Atlanta has Mouhamed Gueye. Chicago has Mouhamadou Gueye." It's my most popular contribution ever with about 6K views and 30 likes! So this trade was really good news.
The Bulls should not make their two 2nd round picks. Use #38 to trade up from #15, and trade the latter one for a future 2nd.
I find similarities in the personalities of AK and Tiago (both tall men) who are laid back, even laconic. If he does F-up, point that out. But I do like these two hires, as I liked AKME, all of whom had some success in roles with less responsibility and were sought after by other teams. If these two don't turn out, Reinsdorf won't fire either of them soon enough for you.
Before long, Tiago and Bryson will be "making mistakes" and will be labeled "trash" by some of those who are now praising their arrivals.
Wow dude sounds like you are the better blogger. Where can I subscribe to your site?
A "Like" would have been preferable. We both follow Blog-A-Bull, probably for good reasons.
I imagine that, like the NFL trade value charts, the value of #38 is so low as to be pretty negligible in moving up. Anybody have a thought on how much? Maybe we could move to #13?
The way some of the mock drafts look, combined with the Bulls needs and their player evaluations, moving up 2 spots could be a big deal. For another team, maybe not so much, plus #38 could be a decent role player, which is around where Ayo was taken. Or, throw in another, future 2nd round pick; they've got a ton of 'em.
i honestly have no idea how you spent so many paragraphs saying what you said, and still no point was made.
Some people don't like having to read long missives, but you didn't have to. Altogether, the six paragraphs addressed different issues in the original post, but cross referencing the two would have made it even longer. The one with the trade recommendation was the easiest; another person even replied to that.
this has to be AK's burner
Great trade. Claxton is exactly the type of player that the Bulls have been missing.
How many times over the last several years was there a trade in which some other third party picked up an asset by playing facilitator and we all wondered why the bulls didn't do that?
Claxton's not great, but he's solid. He'd make a ton of sense as a starter while a Morez Johnson or whoever takes time to develop. Especially since the goal has to be competence now, given the lottery reform.
Mostly I'm just excited to watch an offense in which the center is in the dunkers spot instead of plodding around 35 feet from the rim.
I really like the trade. I like that claxton is front loaded as well. One of my favorite big men to target In 2k (lol) because he has a very high perimeter defensive rating for a big man - and indeed if you go look at his IRL 2022-2023 season, what made claxton get votes for dpoy was his ability to shift onto guards and defend them like a wing.
Splitter definitely has some say in this trade - he worked with claxton on the nets during said 2022-2023 season and I appreciate that synergy, give the coach someone who he can't trust to buy into his defensive philosophies.
I also like claxton is 27, if we extend him it will be as he enters his 30s and while I hope it's not an over pay, at the very least we will have him for the remainder of his prime - but I'm probably getting ahead of myself there.
This is a good pickup all and all. I know some people wanted to use the cap for distressed assets and picks but I think having a potential defensive anchor is imperative to a team and for once being mediocre is kind of the goal right now
Without checking the cap math, it feels like this move helps bolster our chances of getting out of the "bottom three" (per new lottery rules) in the next couple of years while also maintaining our cap flexibility for 2028 and beyond. The FA class isn't that strong this year, but any of the decent guys (particularly RFAs) were never going to sign a deal or offer sheet for less than 4-5 years which really locks you in.
Summer 2028 makes sense as the target year for Bulls making some big moves to try and compete. We can buy out PWill's player option for '28-29 if we haven't dumped him by then. And we could conceivably be LOADED with cap space that year depending on how much dead weight we might take on from other teams to accumulate assets from them.
Maybe it'll play out differently in practice but I am not treating the 'relegation zone' as something requiring to plan to avoid in roster construction. Always try and get players who are capable or have upside, all teams are going to do that. To me individual decisions will be more of an in season thing where you aren't sabotaging yourself with fake injury absences (great!)
Personally I think the relegation zone is going to be a major factor but I'm not sure how many teams are really planning for it (it's going to be a massive wake up call to a few of them). If you look at some of the teams who've tanked hard over the past decade, there were some seriously awful rosters (some of those teams traded for "damaged goods" assets like the Wizards last year). With those REALLY bad teams, there was never a need to sabotage using in-season tactics.
The issue with everyone following the NBA is that we haven't ever witnessed the psychological effects of the relegation zone yet -- we've been so conditioned to the "really bad teams want to lose and find it easy to lose, not-as-bad teams have to figure out how to catch up to the losing train" mentality that next year is going to be a massive wake-up call. I predict there will even be some relegation-zone teams who trade to ADD short-term reinforcements at the deadline, which is totally counterintuitive based on the way things worked previously.
The psychology I reference is that when playing a bad tanking team, you always knew they were invested in losing to you. There was only one team that bucked that trend: the Bulls, who snuck into play-in position a few years in a row by trying when everyone else wasn't trying. Now, if that team is anywhere close to the relegation zone, they will be 100% invested in winning. Putting together a roster that is safely in the 6th-11th worst spot was probably the easiest thing to do in past years, but will be challenging this year.
There will still be shenanigans in the "Goldilocks Zone" of teams who want to win just enough to avoid relegation but still want to land in the "three ball" category and don't aspire to make the playoffs. But it'll look very different than it ever has.
I missed the real point I wanted to make, which is that this current Bulls roster (even after we add whatever we add in the draft) would probably not be a bottom-three roster in previous years, but are very likely to be in the relegation conversation in a world where other bad teams are actively trying against them from February through April.
long way to go obviously, but I heard Will Gottlieb on CHGO give a hypothetical that Claxton's value will rise 'playing with Josh Giddey and some winning basketball' and yeah it may be better than the tank-forward Nets but the Bulls are likely going to be worse than even this year's Nets if they and all these other teams are no longer incentivized to throw away games in April
That's exactly right. Over the past several offseasons when many prognosticators and prediction models would pick the Bulls to win ~25-30 games I'd always argue that while we might not be that much more talented than other teams in that range, we did something that they did not, which was to strive for the play-in. The analytical models don't really account for psychology and strategy in that way.
I do think it's hilarious about Claxton "getting out of the Nets' losing culture." And I also think the Nets are poised to be better than the Bulls.
Honestly, who won't be better than the Bulls next year? Obviously a lot remains to be seen with how the draft and free agency play out, but at this stage, I'm having a hard time singling out three teams that will definitely be below the Bulls in the standings. (Jazz, Kings, Grizz, maybe Bucks?)
I'm speculating the bigger factor will be lowering the incentives to be bad, less impactful will be raising the punishment of being really really bad. But I do agree that it means at the deadline and down the stretch we will see some better behavior. I am just thinking teams aren't going into their offseason and multi-season team building with 'stay out of the relegation zone' in mind
it's fascinating that next year a likely relegation zone team, the Bucks, don't own their pick
I guess we'll see how things play out -- this first year will really set the tone. Like if the worst team in the league ends up picking #11 or #12 (a 39% chance of that happening!) there will be an outcry in some corners of the NBA world, and potential "market correction" the following year with teams' fan bases getting anxious about that happening.
More fascinating, as you mentioned with the Bucks, is what will happen with teams who either don't own their pick, and/or teams who are restricted from a #1 pick in back-to-back drafts or Top-5 in three consecutive drafts (both apply to the Jazz this year). That dynamic could get really interesting.
But lowering the incentives to be bad is going to dramatically change things... Looking at the teams that finished below the Bulls last year is much more scary. Assuming players actually played and teams tried to win I would say there are only three teams that were likely worse than the Bulls (Brooklyn, Sacramento, and maybe the Pelicans). If building through the draft is the way as you say, a team can't afford to cut their odds in half on a top pick, and we are way too close for comfort heading into this year.
Well, I was fairly happy about this move until I read Steph Noh's piece...
https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nba/news/julius-randle-trade-grade-timberwolves-nets-bulls-fare-nic-claxton/65e9124a59976a203a3263ec
I wouldn't say I'm as pessimistic as Noh is, but I definitely didn't realize how much Claxton had regressed over the last couple of years. My hope is that regression was a combination of playing through injury (that is hopefully fully healed) and playing for a team that was intentionally trying to lose.
I don't think the Bulls are necessarily trying to win this year (or the next couple of years for that matter), but they certainly aren't trying to actively lose like the Nets were. Maybe that and playing for his next contract will bring out the best version of Claxton that hasn't been seen for a couple years now.
The fit next to Wilson won't make much sense, but it's certainly possible to stagger their minutes. I do think playing with Giddey will be helpful for Claxton though. Ultimately, I think the acquisition is fine. His contract isn't terrible and expires in a couple years, and the Bulls likely won't actually be trying to win before then anyway.
Considering it's only for 2 years, contract is frontloaded, he's only 27, and we gave up basically nothing... it's a decent gamble and not a long term commitment. Not to mention, as you said, that the bulls aren't in a position to win a ton next season, it's the exact kind of thing the bulls are in a good position to take a chance on. If he's better, great, but it also isn't something the team is tied to for another 5 years.
Meh. I'll take Stephen Noh's analysis with a huge block of salt.
1) he said Vucevic's last contract was basically understandable or good, saying he was the 11th best center in the league, and so it was fine.
2) He leaves out a LOT of context. He mentions his back issue, but he doesn't mention that in 2023, he played with Kyrie Irving, Kevin Durant, Spencer Dinwiddie, Ben Simmons, and Mikal Bridges - all creators and or legitimate scorers with creation abilities. For an offensively limited center, they need that around them.
3) I also think it'd be nice if he gave the link to his sources, as basketball-reference lists his block % as different (but still simialrly declining).
4) Finally, I think it's less that he's been declining and more that he had one great year. for example, dunksandthrees.com has EPM as essentialy 0.0 in 4 out of the past 5 years - 2023 being the only exception a +1.9. It's hard not to see that as an exception rather than the rule.
Of course, if it's true that he was much better and earned his payday on the basis of being a role-player on a much better team, well, that doesn't matter since he's going to be on a bad team anyway. But at least raises the idea that he's not declining, but rather this is just who he is unless he's elevated by others.
Yeah with all due respect to Noh, I think his approach is off here.
It’s a good write-up to counter anyone who believes that Claxton is a franchise difference maker and a long-term fit with Wilson. But no one thinks that.
He’s a solid starter who raises your floor. The Bulls are a rebuilding team in an era where filling up your roster exclusively with bad vets and young players won’t work. You need a couple of solid vets who can just keep things afloat to help ensure you don’t finish with one of the worst records in the league.
what Noh is saying is that he feels Claxton is worse, or at least projects worse over the next 2 years, than a 'solid starter who raises your floor'
I don't particularly care about anyone on the roster's fit with Wilson. If the Bulls spent assets to get Claxton that's a different consideration. As long as it doesn't actively harm Wilson's development I'm OK
Bulls Roundtable (it's a newish blog!) had the headline of "How Claxton Changes The Bulls' Draft Strategy" and I didn't click through to verify but I would hope it was a short post saying "in no way whatsoever"
Yeah, I completely agree about how players fit next to Wilson.
Just read that article and it actually isn't bad. The overall point was that Graham won't feel external pressure to draft a big at #15 simply because there's a hole in the roster at that spot. I'm not sure Graham would have felt much pressure to do that regardless.
It also specifically states that the addition of Claxton won't affect who the Bulls select at #4. So, mostly a nothingburger of an article, but at least it wasn't trying to say the Bulls now needed to try and get Boozer instead of Wilson simply because Boozer theoretically fits better next to Claxton.
I get why people don't like the aesthetics of tanking, and whatever. But to think it's actually a bad way to get better is just intentional ignorance and rage-baiting at this point.
Bulls traded away their team and tanked at the trade deadline. Many people, including yfBB said it was dumb and stupid, though I argued it was ultimately going to be very good. It resulted in: AKME being fired. (an undoubtedly great outcome), B) Donovan resigning (debateable, but I didn't think he was as good as people said he was - he was fine, pretty average to above-average). C) Getting the 4th pick in a draft in which there is widely considered a top tier of 4 players.
The Bulls finally embracing the tank was an undoubted success. Getting nothing back and losing as many games as possible was better for their short-term and long-term future.
Washington finally gets a chance to draft a potential star. Utah does as well. Memphis tanked and gets to jumpstart its rebuild. Throw in past tank specialists of the Pistons, the Spurts, the Thunder, and so on.
Fine, don't like watching tanking teams. Say it's bad for the league. Be angry that if the team you write about tanks, fewer people follow them and you make less money, whatever. But to just continually paint it as a bad strategy towards ultimately being a really good team is just ludicrous and laughable at this point.
Totally agree it was a success, and not a minute too soon with the incoming lottery changes. I think on balance there will be a lot more competitive games this year, which I think is a good thing. It sucks to root for your team to lose, but you bet I've been doing it the last few years with the Bulls. Will be nice to not have to.
But who is claiming that (before now) tanking was a bad strategy?
I think most people (including yfBB) were critical of this year's late tank because it was "too little, too late" and because the assets the Bulls received in their fire sale were not strong. Not because we thought tanking was a poor strategy.
However, it's all moot at this point going forward. There will still be teams who won't try to make the playoffs, and teams who want to lose some Feb/March/April games strategically, but the era of getting as bad as you possibly can and losing as many games as you possibly can is over. The "Goldilocks tank" (not too good, not too bad) is the new aspiration for the bottom third of the league.
In a way then, the league has moved toward the Bulls. Winning 34 games looks to be a prized skill moving forward.
Absolutely. But what's interesting is that winning even 40ish games or more won't be a negative since teams in the play-in will still get lottery picks and potentially the 7th best team in the conference gets a lottery ticket. (And if you're good enough to be the 6th seed or higher, playoff success vs. lottery positioning should be your goal).
I wasn't against it at the deadline.
But who cares, it's over now you don't have to argue about it let alone create imaginary responses to argue against
This is why AKME was so terrible when he wouldn't even talk to other teams about his players. I envision him hanging up on Tim Connely when he calls to ask about Josh Giddey and saying, "He's not available. Stop asking."
But that can always be the start of a dialogue. Start talking about other players, see where else you might make a deal. Just because you're very unlikely to trade the player they're calling about, if you engage, you might find a way to still do something to make your team better.
I find myself wondering a lot how a player's measurements translate into his functional size. So, at the risk of some modest self-promotion (not making any money!), I built a little app that attempts to calculate a "plays like" height based on standing reach and wingspan from the combine anthro measurements. This is the start, and I'll probably add to it over time with some other size/space metrics.
https://truespan.app/
Nic Claxton is kind of a boring one - he's 6'10 with a 7'2.5 wingspan and a 9'2 standing reach, which nets a "TrueHeight" of... 6'10.25. BUT, it's interesting (to me anyway) to have a methodology to think about it in a more structured way and compare players over multiple years. Anyway, hope you take a look and enjoy!
Where's Vooch?!?
He's there! Click on 2011, and you'll see he had the highest trueheight of the draft (7'0.25)- listed as a PF (maybe you're filtering to Cs?)
Ahh he's listed as a power forward. I had limited it to just centers. Thanks!
-what Vuc said every training camp regarding the team's offensive gameplan
This is really cool. Thank you, Beezus.
I know it’s been like 16 hours but I would say this is already better than literally any AKME trade during their tenure.
They got a player who’s gotten DPOY votes in the past for free. I honestly want to throw up thinking about what BS Karnisovas would’ve done if he was in charge still. He probably would’ve traded 2 firsts for Trae Young or some shit 🤮🤮🤮
Maybe god made Jaden Ivey go nuts so the Bulls could be cleansed. Thank you for your sacrifice Jaden. Idk if I’ve ever seen the Bulls make a savvy trade before which is REALLY sad
I'm fine with the trade and it's definitely not the kind of deal AKME would make, but I'm not sure I'm going to celebrate it as some super savvy move. It's the direct equivalent of signing Claxton as a FA for 2 years, $44M. If that deal was part of free agency this year there would be a healthy debate over whether it was the right move for where we are as a team right now.
There's definitely a world in which the Bulls' excess cap space might be more effectively used to absorb contracts while also netting some draft compensation. I have no idea what types of deals are being put in front of Bryson Graham right now so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but this isn't a no-doubter home run move in my mind.
I agree, it’s not a home run move at all. The Bulls wouldn’t have gotten him like this if he didn’t have warts on his game.
That’s just how awful the last front office was. They didn’t make a single positive value trade ONCE. Nic Claxton could be unplayable and I think his expiring contract next year would still be more valuable than anything those rubes did.
Just a shout out to whom I assume is mostly YFBB, covering the Bulls, staying objective mostly in seasons of crap has to be hard. Providing a place to still chat and cover the team, well done sir
Heaven help us, ZIon rumors floating again
They probably just linked the Bulls to Zion because of Graham. It wouldn't make a lick of sense if he even entertains it. I think Zion's amazing when he's healthy but staying healthy has always been the main thing holding him back. Where even is Zion's value right now?
very low, it's more annoying than anything lol
fired up the chat for tonight! https://open.substack.com/chat/posts/97c82a09-d110-4ba0-b182-a7f7631f7c05
Bill simmons really likes the Bulls draft, both picks. The ringer had a reel
NEW POST https://www.blogabull.com/p/bulls-bryson-graham-flexed-his-draft