So now you're galaxy-braining for tanking since it can't work. Makes sense. We can all still count more teams that tanked their way to success than those that were never bad.
It's also funny that I said Norman Powell was the exact type of player a tanking team would target because they're not good enough to move the win total that much, but they are good enough and have enough specific skills to be of value to contending teams at the deadline. Throw in that people can throw out his intangibles of "developing" younger players as a key value of his, and voila.
The Bulls have all the points of a tanking team: youth that "demands" to play; bloated short-term veteran contracts, that can be traded; rookie head coach, no pressure to win. People love it. Now that tanking can't actually be a proven strategy for getting a championship-contending roster, that is. Now it's smart.
What? I'm literally saying don't think about it. They should play youth because that's the right thing to do for their development, not because it will win or lose games. You're conflating tanking (a method) versus rebuilding (a goal).
Good point about how the Bulls should maybe not even want a top 5 pick next year.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think they’re currently one of the three worst teams in the league.
I’d put Brooklyn, Washington (not buying Trae Young and AD turning things around), Milwaukee, Sacramento, and New Orleans as five teams that I think can finish with worse records. Yes, I understand all those teams will be trying now, but I still see them being bad.
Could the Bulls be a relegation team? It’s possible, and because the 2027 draft is bad, there might be no real downside to that outcome. I think we’ll get to April with six teams, including the Bulls, hovering around the relegation zone. Ultimately though, I think the Bulls will avoid it.
I agree with you, it's a different question of 'who will finish with a worse record' and 'who has a worse roster'. The Bulls may have the worst roster if all these other suspect teams are more healthy - with SAC and MIL being close but certainly not a lock
The Jazz have actual expectations for next year! They still have Lauri! They traded three first round picks for JJJ! They have a coach who everyone says is good entering his fifth year!
Shouldn’t we anticipate they stop rebuilding sometime this decade?
The Jazz and Pacers will be interesting this season. They're both awful teams adding back 2 proven good performers (JJJ and Lauri) or just 1 (Haliburton) and a promising rookie. I wonder how much impact that will have on 20-something win teams.
Pacers added Zubac but subtracted Myles Turner and Benedict Mathurin from their 2024 Finals team, and Siakam is 2 years older (will turn 33 before the season ends). And the Pacers don't have a promising rookie. A healthy Halliburton/Zubac/Siakam core with the vets around them should definitely keep them in playoff contention but there are a lot of things that could go wrong and put them right back where they were last season.
I think they're ready to stop rebuilding I just don't believe in them. I don't think much of Lauri, he scores for bad teams, lets see how he does with real expectations
I think VERY little of Lauri as a winning player. It's crazy that two of the most prominent "scores for bad teams" players of this century were both traded to the Bulls in the same deal.
For what is worth, Lauri has been quite dominant with his national team against relevant FIBA competition (european tournament). I don't think he is à a franchise player, but as a fringe All Star and 2 or 3 option on contending team I do believe he is legit.
He did score on bad teams though, but never chose them first ^^
keep in mind: New Orleans, Milwaukee and Brooklyn don't own their picks. So they truly do not care if they're in the relegation zone or not, I suppose in theory they don't want a top-5 pick due to that '3 years in a row' thing that would affect their potential 2028 pick.
and I'm thinking all teams have the same philosophy to where they aren't going to bother with standings manipulation. They aren't going to intentionally lose, but they aren't going to, like, trade for a veteran to win enough to be out of the bottom-3. It'll just be the more generic team building goals of either going for the playoffs or get young players who are hopefully good.
IMO you really don't want to be bottom three because that means lack of talent PLUS organizational incompetence. I would hope Tiago plus what looks like some intriguing young talent would be better than traditional nincompoop orgs like NJ, Sac, Pels, Wiz almost by default and outside of any draft positioning considerations.
I'll get more into this the closer we get to the start of the season, but I think people are not enough prepared for the possibility that next year Caleb is bad at helping the Bulls win games. Like, really bad. Like, notably bad even for a rookie. Obviously not saying it will happen or anything like that. Just that I think the chances are higher than people likely believe.
I'll be curious to see your take on notably bad. He'll certainly be a net negative on impact metrics, like 90% of rookies, but of course high usage/low efficiency could make him a real hand grenade.
People see what players did in college and think they should be able to have the same success in the pros. So they have unrealistic expectations.
That said, I agree with you that most rookies, even the top ones, will be below average starters their first year. What makes me hope Caleb is an exception is the prospect for him to be a positive defender right out of the gate. Graham and Splitter have both said they want to focus on that side of the ball, and Wilson's SLAP-iness can really help him there.
He was very active and athletic. He got a bunch of blocks. The Bulls as a whole looked very disorganized to me. They didn't have much of a scheme going. A lot of iso on offense and a lot of chasing guys around screens on defense. Pretty haphazard.
I didn't go to SL this time, but I watched all the Bulls games on TV. They were hard to watch.
After summer league I have slightly higher hopes for this team than I did earlier. I think Caleb Wilson is going to be an instant floor-raiser who won't need 1-2 "development years" before he meaningfully contributes. Meaning that playing him lots of minutes isn't going to mean sacrificing potential wins -- he'll be an essential part of many of the wins we do achieve. Now, if we also commit to getting Swain and Essengue 20+ minutes a game, that's a different story -- but I have a feeling that's not the plan (Noa getting benched in SUMMER LEAGUE reveals part of that story).
For this team, even more than most years, the results are going to come down to health & availability. A healthy bounce-back year from Claxton could be impactful, but we'll struggle up front if he doesn't regain his previous form. I think the pre-hamstring-injury Giddey last year was also an impactful player, but he was never quite the same when slightly hobbled. Powell's getting up there in years, so his physical status is a wildcard as well.
Tre Jones, Jalen Smith, and Okoro are all strong bench pieces who contribute to wins. Matas Buzelis is no longer the face of the rebuild, but he's raised his game every year and isn't close to his ceiling yet. This could be a breakout year, but even marginal improvement puts him on a path toward being a significant player in the league.
If we play most of our games with most of those top 8 players (noted above) getting most of the key minutes, I think we have a good shot to hit 30 wins.
But of course, not all availability is related to health -- we need to also factor in potential trades that could send some of our winning players to other teams, so that's another wildcard. It's very possible we're on a 30-win pace at the trade deadline but end up at 24-58 or something.
But if we have lots of games with many of the guys above on the bench in street clothes (or playing in different uniforms), we could see 2nd/3rd quarter lineups like "Dillingham/Swain/PWill/Miller/Collins", and in that case it's going to be a struggle to crack 20 wins. So we'll see...
Oh -- and as a reminder, if you're looking at some of the other lower-tier rosters around the league to compare against ours, remember that a lot of those teams are going to be decimated by injuries as well. Essentially the "bottom 10" standings at the end of the year are going to be determined by real injuries vs. fake injuries now and going forward.
I agree with your thoughts, the only thing I would point out is that, without the incentives for tanking this year, the bad teams will win more games. I expect the worst team will have 25 wins.
You know, I've thought about this a lot (and looked back at the standings in previous years) and I definitely see the potential that ~25 wins will be the floor, but I can also see a couple of teams with injuries/etc. just totally crashing out, for the same reason you mentioned -- one, two, or three "actually terrible" teams are going to get creamed by all 27 or 28 or 29 other teams who range from "elite" to "not good, but trying".
If 25 wins is the floor, that will also mean a LOT of teams will be jockeying in the 27-33 win range. And there may also be fewer teams who reach the 50-win and 60-win thresholds, as the good/great teams won't have those 20-25 games where they can just "phone in" wins against tanking teams.
So, per everything above, I think there will probably be a couple elite teams, a couple bottom-dwellers who can't escape relegation for whatever reason, and then a general "flattening" of the standings across the board, where everyone moves a little bit closer to the middle. It's gonna be such an interesting dynamic.
Yes, for example if Randolph gets hurt and Porter gets traded, the Nets could struggle to get to 25. But for the most part the bad teams should be able to steal a few more wins from the good teams, just because they will be trying.
Jalen Smith a rumored target of the Lakers (per Dan Woike of The Athletic) though no rumor of actual talks
I think all of him, Jones, and (especially) Okoro should not be counted on to be winning players either. They're not good enough to assume consistency year-to-year IMO, and I think they were helped by Billy Donovan's system.
I think they are good to have around as 'good veterans' on and off the court for Caleb+Matas, but certainly hope Graham isn't holding on to them - all of them - to help them win a few regular season games. This is kind of what he failed to do all offseason so I'm not holding my breath, but I think they could help the Lakers and take back more money and worse players and maybe get a 1st pick swap (an outright first likely impossible)
saves the Lakers $7.4M this year and $13.2M (Vanderbilt PO) next season. I think that could get them to cough up a pick swap and some seconds to sell back to them later.
also brings to mind how dumb the Zach Collins extension was, as I can't see the Lakers wanting him even though they're desperate for center depth
I like the idea, but we need a full on first from the Lakers, a swap's not going to cut it because there's about a 90% chance that they're always better than us.
I also don't think a late first is at all unreasonable for giving them Smith + taking on $20M of useless money.
Really, the Bulls could have collected a couple of late firsts in this last draft for less.
This is probably a dumb question, but can a team trade transferrable swaps? So let's say the Bulls get a Lakers swap. And then they trade that swap, plus Patrick, Powell, and Okoro to the Spurs for Fox and 3 regular firsts. So then that swap would be between the Lakers and Spurs, not Lakers and Bulls. Is that legal?
I'm not gonna die on the "Okoro is good" hill but I'm higher on Okoro than many here (his intensity and defense are good for regular season wins). Hard to say he benefitted from the Billy system when the two previous years he was a core member of a Cavs team that won 112 games combined (and he started close to half of that team's games). Yeah, they gave up on him but mostly because he's overpaid for what he brings... which is less suited for playoff ball.
But, of course I don't want Graham to hang onto him or Jones or Smith just to chase wins! Though at the same time, dumping those guys for other teams' scraps sounds equally unappealing. I'd prefer to send them out in good deals, but if we can't get a decent return, I'd rather see Caleb and the youngsters learn by playing alongside team-oriented professionals.
Completely unrelated to anything, but is this something either team should do?
Matas + Jalen Smith for VJ Edgecombe and Dominick Barlow
I love Matas, but he and Caleb basically play the same position. Edgecombe plays a more complementary position. Also, he's got one more year of rookie contract than Matas has left, and if we're being honest about it, he's got the higher ceiling. But he's smaller.
This seems like the sort of deal that would help both teams. Matas would be a really good fit for the Sixers, and could fill a variety of roles for them. And he's good enough that you can't just dismiss the idea that he might really break out. Smith would help eliminate the obvious problems the Sixers have with size.
For us, it'd give us another year of rope to extend our rebuild before we start to get expensive, and give us maybe a better long-term solution at the guy to pair with Caleb. Maybe the best possible solution. I think VJ could be a multi-time all-star, and I think his game and attitude would mesh fairly well with Caleb.
It'd also open up a bit more room to keep Giddey here long-term, even though he's not my fav, he would fit the new roster quite a bit better.
Bulls
G- VJ, Jones, Dillingham
G- Powell, Okoro, Atwell
F- Giddey, Pat, Swain
F- Wilson, Miller, Barlow
C- Claxton, Collins, Essengue
That's push our rebuild ahead by a couple years, and at the same time, keep us cheaper for another year. I realize I've got massive faith in Edgecombe, but you'd have to think this would at least tempt the Sixers.
I'd do that deal, I'd even add in those 2nd round picks swaps we got from Indiana. I'm not real confident that Philly would be interested, they seem to be high on Edgecombe. But maybe they like Buzelis too.
As much as I love Matas, I'd do this in a heartbeat. Like you said, Edgecombe likely has the higher ceiling (and is arguably already better) and he fits next to Wilson better than Buzelis does. Fitting guys next to Wilson should probably be this team's top priority.
I do wonder if Philly would do a straight swap like what you mentioned though. Maybe Chicago sweetens it with some seconds/swaps like Gorditadogg suggested.
The reasons we'd want VJ are the same reasons the Sixers would want to hang onto him. He's also key to their future core, so they'll stay a contender after Embiid's legs fall off and LeBron rides off into the sunset.
And while Smith would certainly have appeal for Philly, I'm not sure other teams around the league see Matas as a "win now" piece.
But if Philly had any interest, I would be more than willing to throw in a future 1st (2029 or later), and a 1st round pick swap (2030 or later), and a few 2nds to get this done.
Obviously true, but I do think they have a unique reason to consider it. They do have a possible championship contender, and Lebron is not a passive guy about wanting to make the most of it. There's going to be a lot of pressure for them to do something
I agree that Philly should go all in, even if it takes sending out VJ. I just think they might have their sights set higher than Matas is they're dangling a potential future superstar in VJ.
I would do this in an instant but i think Philly is really really high on Edgecombe(for good reason). You would have to include a first at least...they might even want 2.
I kinda wanna see how Matas/Wilson vibe together. If Matas can be a 38% from 3 on like 6 attempts then i like the future fit. It would be cool to have two 6'9' forwards who can offer shot blocking, good 3 point shooting and plus athleticism. Maybe like Wagner/Banchero but with dudes that can actually shoot
I do think Matas and Caleb can play together and be good, but if there's an opportunity because the old guys in Philly don't care about the future, then that's the sort of thing we should jump at.
I agree with the basic concept of your post. The Bulls need to be patient, develop our young players, and work to add more young talent. Sam Quinn made a similar point recently. He says the East is going to be very strong this year and next, but many of the top teams are aging and will be on the wane two years from now. We need to be looking to be ready to move up then as they fall.
According to Michael R, AK convinced him in February that they needed to reset the roster, and so he approved the trade deadline strategy Karnisovas carried out. So I think Bulls management was already planning for a rebuild when they interviewed for GMs. I don't think Graham talked them into it, but he was smart enough to make sure he was given the discretion to focus on the future, and not be accountable for winning in the near term.
I also appreciate the strategy Graham had for filling out the rotation. We don't have young prospects at shooting guard or center, so it made sense to sign quality veterans at those spots. Claxton can anchor the defense and Powell can carry the scoring load, taking pressure off our youngsters.
I do think Graham could have been even more aggressive with that strategy, because I believe that you help young players get better by teaching them how to win, not by watching them fail. Players develop better by learning to play bigger roles on competitive teams, more than by getting starter minutes on teams that lose.
So yes, winning as a marker for success is irrelevant, and even unproductive to the extent that we are sacrificing development for wins. But, because developing players means teaching them how to win, losing is unproductive too.
If we end up in the relegation zone, that's not necessarily bad. But if we end up in the play-in, with Wilson, Buzelis and Giddey being major contributors, and our other young players getting minutes and showing promise, that would be even better.
Losing is something we should be willing to put up with, but it's not a strategy.
"But, because developing players means teaching them how to win, losing is unproductive too."
This is a contentious assertion in some circles, but one that I agree with. Some armchair GMs (and some real GMs) think of team building as almost like a board game where the only goal is to collect assets/pieces. But creating and sustaining a winning culture is important, too. We've seen a lot of franchises bottom out for years and then, despite an procuring an influx of talent and picks, have a really hard time getting back to the business of winning games.
Now, I'm not saying there's a definitive answer as to how to balance operating with a winning mindset while also taking advantage of the opportunities that come with being a losing team (selling off players for assets, taking on bad contracts for draft capital, securing better lottery odds). But in my opinion it's important to acknowledge that there is a balance required.
Now, of course the Reinsdorfs seem to see the concept of balance differently (benefits of being young and cheap and getting more chances to draft marketable potential superstars, vs. the drawbacks of empty seats at the UC and fan apathy/revolt) so I'm not sure exactly how the calculus works when you're a Bulls GM.
I definitely tilt toward asset accumulation and, further, I think "development" and "winning culture" are, about 95% of the time, total BS.
I look at the Spurs and the Thunder. They're basically the most obvious role models for how to build the best possible teams and:
1. They were and continue to be aggressive about accumulating assets first and then figuring it out from there.
2. They were both shameless and very strategic tankers. And doing so had no downside for the "development" or "culture" they've established.
A few specific things:
1. "Development" largely doesn't happen in games. I'd say that "Experience" happens in games. Experience is learning how/when to apply skills. Development is improving skills. That happens through training and practice.
2. Experience is not worthless, but just playing a guy who sucks ass neither develops them nor gives them the best possible experience. But I think as long as you get ~1000+ minutes, you get diminishing returns after that.
3. My one exception to "winning culture" is that you do need enough veterans to make the young players' experience valuable. Just having Caleb out there with a bunch of two-way guys would probably not give the best experience. Likewise, forcing Caleb to play off the ball isn't going to jump start his development toward being an on-ball guy like Tatum or KG.
4. Caleb is the guy who is an outlier in terms of the EXPERIENCE he needs. Usually you shouldn't be force-feeding a guy on-ball reps, but he's an outlier talent, we've got nothing else going for us, and it'll speed him up. Plus he's got a killer mentality.
5. "Winning Culture" almost always takes on the mindset of the dominant players if you let it. Caleb has winning built in. If anything, I don't want him to be "aww shucks" deferential to a bunch of journeymen.
Thus, I think the Bulls can and should be more aggressive in getting the players that are ultimately going to team with Caleb now. In the long run, it's hard to do this, and the likely result of putzing around with guys you know don't have a future here is that you miss some opportunities.
You make some good points and while I don't fully agree on everything, #3 is where our thoughts converge. It's just hard to know where to draw the line on "crap players around your youngsters".
OKC is interesting as they only had 2 sub-40 win seasons since 2010 and those were under their current championship coach.
On the flipside there are teams like Miami who don't tank but stay relevant (e.g., as superstar destinations) despite flailing around in play-in seasons because they are seen as committed to winning. And they tend to draft players who succeed in their system and become flippable assets.
Yeah, not sure how I feel about these rumors. Mathurin is young and I'm not totally opposed to taking a swing on a young guy on a cheap deal. But he hasn't exactly been amazing so far in his career. He can clearly score but that seems to be about it. I don't really want another low BBIQ shooter on this team after years of Zach.
I feel like the Bulls would have to offer too much to keep the Clippers from matching, which then makes it not worth it. If they could get him on a three year deal for like $30 million, then that's totally fine by me. I just don't think that's a possibility.
Haha I meant to write "scorer" but didn't notice it until later when I was on the app and couldn't edit it. But yeah, not very interested in Mathurin unless it's a screaming good deal.
With RFAs I usually take these reports with a grain of salt -- the player's camp trying to drum up interest to incentivize their current team to up its offer.
But this one seems a little different -- first, not sure that Stein is the type to get used as a "tool" like that. Second, we don't have anywhere near the cap space to offer Mathurin what he'd want (I'm sure the Clips' current offer is better than our room exception, and even the qualifying offer is only $600K below what we'd offer in year one). If for some reason Benedict was dumb enough to sign a 3/$30 offer from the Bulls, the Clippers' FO would pop champagne and match before the ink dried.
Yes, Mathurin is certainly very SLAP-py and Graham's interest is plausible.... so maybe this is just a warning shot from his camp that he might actually sign his qualifying offer with the intent to ink a blockbuster deal with the Bulls NEXT year and be lost for nothing?
Alternatively, this could also be a ploy by the team and/or Mathurin to drum up sign-and-trade interest. If they've got some other non-Bulls GM kicking the tires on a S&T, both the Clippers and Mathurin would want to create some leverage for a bidding war (using Stein as the conduit to stoke credibility).
Or, it could literally be that Stein stalked Summer League for quotes/scoops and realized he has to ration them to keep providing paid content throughout the dry summer months. One day he was chatting it up with Graham and Bryson said "oh, yeah, Mathurin, I'm really high on that kid's future" and it was filed away for a late July "Stein Line" report.
Here's a question: Is Mathurin really a "SLAP" guy? He's described as a non-shooting iso scorer who gets to the line, but having watched him in Indy, I don't actually think he's some kind of superlative athlete.
If you watch him a lot, he actually doesn't blow by or power through guys. He's quick, but he's a lot more effective driving off a pick or screen or, (rarely) moving off the ball.
In short, he needs help.
I also think he fits the mold of what the Bulls have liked and done for twenty+ years. They like their big college big guards who they scout at draft time, and then don't pay much attention to pro scouting, so they just keep thinking guys like this are worth more than they are because they were high on them 4-5 years before.
Mathurin was an athletic MONSTER at Arizona. He possessed jaw-dropping explosiveness and was the best pure athlete in his class.
Has he really harnessed/showcased those qualities as a pro? Probably not. But go back to watch his college highlights and read pre-draft profiles, and he was as SLAPpy as a guard can get
Thats college. In the pros Mathurin is a somewhat above average athlete....maybe 7/10. He is quick and has shiftiness but yea he is not jumping over dudes or going beast mode thru them
>>any realistic chance the Bulls have of acquiring Mathurin is via a sign-and-trade as the franchise looks to improve its roster and stay out of the relegation zone while rebuilding in the upcoming season. Chicago’s new coaching staff is also said to be fond of Mathurin, HoopsHype has learned. <<
I don't know if Scotto is just inferring or if that's sourced information, but my whole thesis for this post is that Bryson Graham should be only thinking about "improve its roster" (and asset base) and maybe a Mathurin trade does that, but it shouldn't be to "stay out of the relegation zone"
I know it's a really low bar, but it's nice having a GM (or whatever the actual title is) that is pretty openly valuing flexibility and short-term contracts during a stated rebuild. It's pretty much the complete opposite of what AK was doing.
Given how NBA games are officiated, such that so many are close at the end, a team with good defenders and good shooters of 3's and free throws, can make it a coinflip who wins these close ones. Caleb, Matas, Josh, Powell and Claxton should get their share.
My guess is that the roster is pretty-well set but the rotation will be wide open, basically at tryouts during camp. Yeah, they'll have to earn PT in 26-27, just as it was in 25-26 under Tiago with Portland and Billy with Chicago.
Also, Splitter showed at Portland that he wants to win, even if it costs them in the upcoming draft. For the Bulls I'd take the over on wins for the season, and let the Devil take the hindmost.
Hard to say if the Bulls are a relegation team. If healthy and they don't dump Jones, Smith, Powell, and Okoro during the season, then they probably have enough talent and depth to stay out.
If Swain and Essengue are both bad and/or in the G League, then that hurts short term a little, with a bigger impact long term.
Obviously, most of the season is going to hinge on Buzelis and Wilson. If Buzelis doesn't improve, then this team probably doesn't have enough top end talent to be an even play-in level team. If Wilson isn't at least a solid starter, same deal.
Sched is brutal early on. Have to go through the Raptors, Celts twice, Knicks twice, Sixers twice and the Spurs within the first 10 games. What a buzzsaw.
Sylvain Francisco (1,78m 28 y.o. French point guard, impact player within Euroleague) says the Bulls offered 2 guaranteed years, on a french basketball media. The deal was not made because of waiting for Lebron's decision. Francisco had a July 20 deadline for his own decision and opted for Panathinaikos.
While I would love to see him get a chance in the NBA, I wonder what would have been his usage within the Bulls...
Even though he’s not great, I can’t imagine Mathurin is thrilled with a modest contract like that. Due to a handful of reasons, it feels like the NBA’s middle class is on life support. Being a mediocre RFA is a legitimate problem right now.
I think both Mathurin and Kuminga have player options on the second year of their contracts. My guess is both chose the destinations they did because they knew they'd get ample playing time as starters and plan to opt out of their contracts after the season is over in hopes of then securing larger, longer contracts next summer. Not saying it'll necessarily work, but that's likely what they're doing.
So now you're galaxy-braining for tanking since it can't work. Makes sense. We can all still count more teams that tanked their way to success than those that were never bad.
It's also funny that I said Norman Powell was the exact type of player a tanking team would target because they're not good enough to move the win total that much, but they are good enough and have enough specific skills to be of value to contending teams at the deadline. Throw in that people can throw out his intangibles of "developing" younger players as a key value of his, and voila.
The Bulls have all the points of a tanking team: youth that "demands" to play; bloated short-term veteran contracts, that can be traded; rookie head coach, no pressure to win. People love it. Now that tanking can't actually be a proven strategy for getting a championship-contending roster, that is. Now it's smart.
What? I'm literally saying don't think about it. They should play youth because that's the right thing to do for their development, not because it will win or lose games. You're conflating tanking (a method) versus rebuilding (a goal).
Good point about how the Bulls should maybe not even want a top 5 pick next year.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think they’re currently one of the three worst teams in the league.
I’d put Brooklyn, Washington (not buying Trae Young and AD turning things around), Milwaukee, Sacramento, and New Orleans as five teams that I think can finish with worse records. Yes, I understand all those teams will be trying now, but I still see them being bad.
Could the Bulls be a relegation team? It’s possible, and because the 2027 draft is bad, there might be no real downside to that outcome. I think we’ll get to April with six teams, including the Bulls, hovering around the relegation zone. Ultimately though, I think the Bulls will avoid it.
And they could avoid the relegation zone and still get a top-5 pick
Brooklyn should be better than us...
If Trae and AD stay moderately healthy, they will be better
If they dont trade Trey and Zion is moderately healthy, they could be better too
the only real locks to be worse are SAC and Milwaukee in my opinion
I agree with you, it's a different question of 'who will finish with a worse record' and 'who has a worse roster'. The Bulls may have the worst roster if all these other suspect teams are more healthy - with SAC and MIL being close but certainly not a lock
I'd add the jazz the list of the possibly worse
The Jazz have actual expectations for next year! They still have Lauri! They traded three first round picks for JJJ! They have a coach who everyone says is good entering his fifth year!
Shouldn’t we anticipate they stop rebuilding sometime this decade?
The Jazz and Pacers will be interesting this season. They're both awful teams adding back 2 proven good performers (JJJ and Lauri) or just 1 (Haliburton) and a promising rookie. I wonder how much impact that will have on 20-something win teams.
Pacers also added Zubac
Pacers added Zubac but subtracted Myles Turner and Benedict Mathurin from their 2024 Finals team, and Siakam is 2 years older (will turn 33 before the season ends). And the Pacers don't have a promising rookie. A healthy Halliburton/Zubac/Siakam core with the vets around them should definitely keep them in playoff contention but there are a lot of things that could go wrong and put them right back where they were last season.
I also have Pacers on fraudwatch, though I also did every playoff round during their finals run...
I think they're ready to stop rebuilding I just don't believe in them. I don't think much of Lauri, he scores for bad teams, lets see how he does with real expectations
I think VERY little of Lauri as a winning player. It's crazy that two of the most prominent "scores for bad teams" players of this century were both traded to the Bulls in the same deal.
For what is worth, Lauri has been quite dominant with his national team against relevant FIBA competition (european tournament). I don't think he is à a franchise player, but as a fringe All Star and 2 or 3 option on contending team I do believe he is legit.
He did score on bad teams though, but never chose them first ^^
keep in mind: New Orleans, Milwaukee and Brooklyn don't own their picks. So they truly do not care if they're in the relegation zone or not, I suppose in theory they don't want a top-5 pick due to that '3 years in a row' thing that would affect their potential 2028 pick.
and I'm thinking all teams have the same philosophy to where they aren't going to bother with standings manipulation. They aren't going to intentionally lose, but they aren't going to, like, trade for a veteran to win enough to be out of the bottom-3. It'll just be the more generic team building goals of either going for the playoffs or get young players who are hopefully good.
IMO you really don't want to be bottom three because that means lack of talent PLUS organizational incompetence. I would hope Tiago plus what looks like some intriguing young talent would be better than traditional nincompoop orgs like NJ, Sac, Pels, Wiz almost by default and outside of any draft positioning considerations.
not necessarily, could just mean bad luck
I'll get more into this the closer we get to the start of the season, but I think people are not enough prepared for the possibility that next year Caleb is bad at helping the Bulls win games. Like, really bad. Like, notably bad even for a rookie. Obviously not saying it will happen or anything like that. Just that I think the chances are higher than people likely believe.
I'll be curious to see your take on notably bad. He'll certainly be a net negative on impact metrics, like 90% of rookies, but of course high usage/low efficiency could make him a real hand grenade.
I don't doubt part of my 'don't sweat being bottom-3' philosophy is cope for this possibility
and why the Bulls (and us fans) shouldn't be worried about a bad regular season record if it's a byproduct of Caleb Wilson playing a lot
People see what players did in college and think they should be able to have the same success in the pros. So they have unrealistic expectations.
That said, I agree with you that most rookies, even the top ones, will be below average starters their first year. What makes me hope Caleb is an exception is the prospect for him to be a positive defender right out of the gate. Graham and Splitter have both said they want to focus on that side of the ball, and Wilson's SLAP-iness can really help him there.
Did you think he was a good defender in SL?
He was very active and athletic. He got a bunch of blocks. The Bulls as a whole looked very disorganized to me. They didn't have much of a scheme going. A lot of iso on offense and a lot of chasing guys around screens on defense. Pretty haphazard.
I didn't go to SL this time, but I watched all the Bulls games on TV. They were hard to watch.
After summer league I have slightly higher hopes for this team than I did earlier. I think Caleb Wilson is going to be an instant floor-raiser who won't need 1-2 "development years" before he meaningfully contributes. Meaning that playing him lots of minutes isn't going to mean sacrificing potential wins -- he'll be an essential part of many of the wins we do achieve. Now, if we also commit to getting Swain and Essengue 20+ minutes a game, that's a different story -- but I have a feeling that's not the plan (Noa getting benched in SUMMER LEAGUE reveals part of that story).
For this team, even more than most years, the results are going to come down to health & availability. A healthy bounce-back year from Claxton could be impactful, but we'll struggle up front if he doesn't regain his previous form. I think the pre-hamstring-injury Giddey last year was also an impactful player, but he was never quite the same when slightly hobbled. Powell's getting up there in years, so his physical status is a wildcard as well.
Tre Jones, Jalen Smith, and Okoro are all strong bench pieces who contribute to wins. Matas Buzelis is no longer the face of the rebuild, but he's raised his game every year and isn't close to his ceiling yet. This could be a breakout year, but even marginal improvement puts him on a path toward being a significant player in the league.
If we play most of our games with most of those top 8 players (noted above) getting most of the key minutes, I think we have a good shot to hit 30 wins.
But of course, not all availability is related to health -- we need to also factor in potential trades that could send some of our winning players to other teams, so that's another wildcard. It's very possible we're on a 30-win pace at the trade deadline but end up at 24-58 or something.
But if we have lots of games with many of the guys above on the bench in street clothes (or playing in different uniforms), we could see 2nd/3rd quarter lineups like "Dillingham/Swain/PWill/Miller/Collins", and in that case it's going to be a struggle to crack 20 wins. So we'll see...
Oh -- and as a reminder, if you're looking at some of the other lower-tier rosters around the league to compare against ours, remember that a lot of those teams are going to be decimated by injuries as well. Essentially the "bottom 10" standings at the end of the year are going to be determined by real injuries vs. fake injuries now and going forward.
I agree with your thoughts, the only thing I would point out is that, without the incentives for tanking this year, the bad teams will win more games. I expect the worst team will have 25 wins.
You know, I've thought about this a lot (and looked back at the standings in previous years) and I definitely see the potential that ~25 wins will be the floor, but I can also see a couple of teams with injuries/etc. just totally crashing out, for the same reason you mentioned -- one, two, or three "actually terrible" teams are going to get creamed by all 27 or 28 or 29 other teams who range from "elite" to "not good, but trying".
If 25 wins is the floor, that will also mean a LOT of teams will be jockeying in the 27-33 win range. And there may also be fewer teams who reach the 50-win and 60-win thresholds, as the good/great teams won't have those 20-25 games where they can just "phone in" wins against tanking teams.
So, per everything above, I think there will probably be a couple elite teams, a couple bottom-dwellers who can't escape relegation for whatever reason, and then a general "flattening" of the standings across the board, where everyone moves a little bit closer to the middle. It's gonna be such an interesting dynamic.
Yes, for example if Randolph gets hurt and Porter gets traded, the Nets could struggle to get to 25. But for the most part the bad teams should be able to steal a few more wins from the good teams, just because they will be trying.
Jalen Smith a rumored target of the Lakers (per Dan Woike of The Athletic) though no rumor of actual talks
I think all of him, Jones, and (especially) Okoro should not be counted on to be winning players either. They're not good enough to assume consistency year-to-year IMO, and I think they were helped by Billy Donovan's system.
I think they are good to have around as 'good veterans' on and off the court for Caleb+Matas, but certainly hope Graham isn't holding on to them - all of them - to help them win a few regular season games. This is kind of what he failed to do all offseason so I'm not holding my breath, but I think they could help the Lakers and take back more money and worse players and maybe get a 1st pick swap (an outright first likely impossible)
Okoro+Smith
for
Vanderbilt+Hardy+LaRavia+Knecht (Bulls waive somebody preseason)
saves the Lakers $7.4M this year and $13.2M (Vanderbilt PO) next season. I think that could get them to cough up a pick swap and some seconds to sell back to them later.
also brings to mind how dumb the Zach Collins extension was, as I can't see the Lakers wanting him even though they're desperate for center depth
I like the idea, but we need a full on first from the Lakers, a swap's not going to cut it because there's about a 90% chance that they're always better than us.
I also don't think a late first is at all unreasonable for giving them Smith + taking on $20M of useless money.
Really, the Bulls could have collected a couple of late firsts in this last draft for less.
They don't have a first to trade outright I don't believe
Also new lottery rules make the 'better than us' less of a factor in the draft order (though if they always make the playoffs that negates it)
I'd take Carr + a pick swap that converts to seconds if it doesn't convey
This is probably a dumb question, but can a team trade transferrable swaps? So let's say the Bulls get a Lakers swap. And then they trade that swap, plus Patrick, Powell, and Okoro to the Spurs for Fox and 3 regular firsts. So then that swap would be between the Lakers and Spurs, not Lakers and Bulls. Is that legal?
Yes, the language in those trades is 'most favorable' goes to original swap, then you trade 2nd most favorable
I'm not gonna die on the "Okoro is good" hill but I'm higher on Okoro than many here (his intensity and defense are good for regular season wins). Hard to say he benefitted from the Billy system when the two previous years he was a core member of a Cavs team that won 112 games combined (and he started close to half of that team's games). Yeah, they gave up on him but mostly because he's overpaid for what he brings... which is less suited for playoff ball.
But, of course I don't want Graham to hang onto him or Jones or Smith just to chase wins! Though at the same time, dumping those guys for other teams' scraps sounds equally unappealing. I'd prefer to send them out in good deals, but if we can't get a decent return, I'd rather see Caleb and the youngsters learn by playing alongside team-oriented professionals.
In Okoro's case you're right it's not so much Billy's system more that Billy plays a bunch of veteran guards
Completely unrelated to anything, but is this something either team should do?
Matas + Jalen Smith for VJ Edgecombe and Dominick Barlow
I love Matas, but he and Caleb basically play the same position. Edgecombe plays a more complementary position. Also, he's got one more year of rookie contract than Matas has left, and if we're being honest about it, he's got the higher ceiling. But he's smaller.
This seems like the sort of deal that would help both teams. Matas would be a really good fit for the Sixers, and could fill a variety of roles for them. And he's good enough that you can't just dismiss the idea that he might really break out. Smith would help eliminate the obvious problems the Sixers have with size.
For us, it'd give us another year of rope to extend our rebuild before we start to get expensive, and give us maybe a better long-term solution at the guy to pair with Caleb. Maybe the best possible solution. I think VJ could be a multi-time all-star, and I think his game and attitude would mesh fairly well with Caleb.
It'd also open up a bit more room to keep Giddey here long-term, even though he's not my fav, he would fit the new roster quite a bit better.
Bulls
G- VJ, Jones, Dillingham
G- Powell, Okoro, Atwell
F- Giddey, Pat, Swain
F- Wilson, Miller, Barlow
C- Claxton, Collins, Essengue
That's push our rebuild ahead by a couple years, and at the same time, keep us cheaper for another year. I realize I've got massive faith in Edgecombe, but you'd have to think this would at least tempt the Sixers.
I'd do that deal, I'd even add in those 2nd round picks swaps we got from Indiana. I'm not real confident that Philly would be interested, they seem to be high on Edgecombe. But maybe they like Buzelis too.
As much as I love Matas, I'd do this in a heartbeat. Like you said, Edgecombe likely has the higher ceiling (and is arguably already better) and he fits next to Wilson better than Buzelis does. Fitting guys next to Wilson should probably be this team's top priority.
I do wonder if Philly would do a straight swap like what you mentioned though. Maybe Chicago sweetens it with some seconds/swaps like Gorditadogg suggested.
How many picks are the Bulls throwing in?
The reasons we'd want VJ are the same reasons the Sixers would want to hang onto him. He's also key to their future core, so they'll stay a contender after Embiid's legs fall off and LeBron rides off into the sunset.
And while Smith would certainly have appeal for Philly, I'm not sure other teams around the league see Matas as a "win now" piece.
But if Philly had any interest, I would be more than willing to throw in a future 1st (2029 or later), and a 1st round pick swap (2030 or later), and a few 2nds to get this done.
Obviously true, but I do think they have a unique reason to consider it. They do have a possible championship contender, and Lebron is not a passive guy about wanting to make the most of it. There's going to be a lot of pressure for them to do something
I agree that Philly should go all in, even if it takes sending out VJ. I just think they might have their sights set higher than Matas is they're dangling a potential future superstar in VJ.
I would do this in an instant but i think Philly is really really high on Edgecombe(for good reason). You would have to include a first at least...they might even want 2.
I kinda wanna see how Matas/Wilson vibe together. If Matas can be a 38% from 3 on like 6 attempts then i like the future fit. It would be cool to have two 6'9' forwards who can offer shot blocking, good 3 point shooting and plus athleticism. Maybe like Wagner/Banchero but with dudes that can actually shoot
I do think Matas and Caleb can play together and be good, but if there's an opportunity because the old guys in Philly don't care about the future, then that's the sort of thing we should jump at.
I'm with you. VJ has a higher chance of being great than Matas.
I could see VJ being 80% of what Ant Edwards is one day
I agree with the basic concept of your post. The Bulls need to be patient, develop our young players, and work to add more young talent. Sam Quinn made a similar point recently. He says the East is going to be very strong this year and next, but many of the top teams are aging and will be on the wane two years from now. We need to be looking to be ready to move up then as they fall.
According to Michael R, AK convinced him in February that they needed to reset the roster, and so he approved the trade deadline strategy Karnisovas carried out. So I think Bulls management was already planning for a rebuild when they interviewed for GMs. I don't think Graham talked them into it, but he was smart enough to make sure he was given the discretion to focus on the future, and not be accountable for winning in the near term.
I also appreciate the strategy Graham had for filling out the rotation. We don't have young prospects at shooting guard or center, so it made sense to sign quality veterans at those spots. Claxton can anchor the defense and Powell can carry the scoring load, taking pressure off our youngsters.
I do think Graham could have been even more aggressive with that strategy, because I believe that you help young players get better by teaching them how to win, not by watching them fail. Players develop better by learning to play bigger roles on competitive teams, more than by getting starter minutes on teams that lose.
So yes, winning as a marker for success is irrelevant, and even unproductive to the extent that we are sacrificing development for wins. But, because developing players means teaching them how to win, losing is unproductive too.
If we end up in the relegation zone, that's not necessarily bad. But if we end up in the play-in, with Wilson, Buzelis and Giddey being major contributors, and our other young players getting minutes and showing promise, that would be even better.
Losing is something we should be willing to put up with, but it's not a strategy.
"But, because developing players means teaching them how to win, losing is unproductive too."
This is a contentious assertion in some circles, but one that I agree with. Some armchair GMs (and some real GMs) think of team building as almost like a board game where the only goal is to collect assets/pieces. But creating and sustaining a winning culture is important, too. We've seen a lot of franchises bottom out for years and then, despite an procuring an influx of talent and picks, have a really hard time getting back to the business of winning games.
Now, I'm not saying there's a definitive answer as to how to balance operating with a winning mindset while also taking advantage of the opportunities that come with being a losing team (selling off players for assets, taking on bad contracts for draft capital, securing better lottery odds). But in my opinion it's important to acknowledge that there is a balance required.
Now, of course the Reinsdorfs seem to see the concept of balance differently (benefits of being young and cheap and getting more chances to draft marketable potential superstars, vs. the drawbacks of empty seats at the UC and fan apathy/revolt) so I'm not sure exactly how the calculus works when you're a Bulls GM.
I definitely tilt toward asset accumulation and, further, I think "development" and "winning culture" are, about 95% of the time, total BS.
I look at the Spurs and the Thunder. They're basically the most obvious role models for how to build the best possible teams and:
1. They were and continue to be aggressive about accumulating assets first and then figuring it out from there.
2. They were both shameless and very strategic tankers. And doing so had no downside for the "development" or "culture" they've established.
A few specific things:
1. "Development" largely doesn't happen in games. I'd say that "Experience" happens in games. Experience is learning how/when to apply skills. Development is improving skills. That happens through training and practice.
2. Experience is not worthless, but just playing a guy who sucks ass neither develops them nor gives them the best possible experience. But I think as long as you get ~1000+ minutes, you get diminishing returns after that.
3. My one exception to "winning culture" is that you do need enough veterans to make the young players' experience valuable. Just having Caleb out there with a bunch of two-way guys would probably not give the best experience. Likewise, forcing Caleb to play off the ball isn't going to jump start his development toward being an on-ball guy like Tatum or KG.
4. Caleb is the guy who is an outlier in terms of the EXPERIENCE he needs. Usually you shouldn't be force-feeding a guy on-ball reps, but he's an outlier talent, we've got nothing else going for us, and it'll speed him up. Plus he's got a killer mentality.
5. "Winning Culture" almost always takes on the mindset of the dominant players if you let it. Caleb has winning built in. If anything, I don't want him to be "aww shucks" deferential to a bunch of journeymen.
Thus, I think the Bulls can and should be more aggressive in getting the players that are ultimately going to team with Caleb now. In the long run, it's hard to do this, and the likely result of putzing around with guys you know don't have a future here is that you miss some opportunities.
You make some good points and while I don't fully agree on everything, #3 is where our thoughts converge. It's just hard to know where to draw the line on "crap players around your youngsters".
OKC is interesting as they only had 2 sub-40 win seasons since 2010 and those were under their current championship coach.
On the flipside there are teams like Miami who don't tank but stay relevant (e.g., as superstar destinations) despite flailing around in play-in seasons because they are seen as committed to winning. And they tend to draft players who succeed in their system and become flippable assets.
number 5 reminds me of when Joakim got squashed down by some over-the-hill veterans on the team.
Don't bother for the outcome of next season, watch it ! And have Nice NBA holidays, you all ^^
Stein is saying Graham is a “significant fan” of Mathurin.
Interesting. Doesn’t feel like nothing for a national reporter to say something like that.
I would guess the Clippers will match any reasonable offer he gets, but you never know.
Yeah, not sure how I feel about these rumors. Mathurin is young and I'm not totally opposed to taking a swing on a young guy on a cheap deal. But he hasn't exactly been amazing so far in his career. He can clearly score but that seems to be about it. I don't really want another low BBIQ shooter on this team after years of Zach.
I feel like the Bulls would have to offer too much to keep the Clippers from matching, which then makes it not worth it. If they could get him on a three year deal for like $30 million, then that's totally fine by me. I just don't think that's a possibility.
Well, don't worry, he's a low BBIQ non-shooter.
Haha I meant to write "scorer" but didn't notice it until later when I was on the app and couldn't edit it. But yeah, not very interested in Mathurin unless it's a screaming good deal.
With RFAs I usually take these reports with a grain of salt -- the player's camp trying to drum up interest to incentivize their current team to up its offer.
But this one seems a little different -- first, not sure that Stein is the type to get used as a "tool" like that. Second, we don't have anywhere near the cap space to offer Mathurin what he'd want (I'm sure the Clips' current offer is better than our room exception, and even the qualifying offer is only $600K below what we'd offer in year one). If for some reason Benedict was dumb enough to sign a 3/$30 offer from the Bulls, the Clippers' FO would pop champagne and match before the ink dried.
Yes, Mathurin is certainly very SLAP-py and Graham's interest is plausible.... so maybe this is just a warning shot from his camp that he might actually sign his qualifying offer with the intent to ink a blockbuster deal with the Bulls NEXT year and be lost for nothing?
Alternatively, this could also be a ploy by the team and/or Mathurin to drum up sign-and-trade interest. If they've got some other non-Bulls GM kicking the tires on a S&T, both the Clippers and Mathurin would want to create some leverage for a bidding war (using Stein as the conduit to stoke credibility).
Or, it could literally be that Stein stalked Summer League for quotes/scoops and realized he has to ration them to keep providing paid content throughout the dry summer months. One day he was chatting it up with Graham and Bryson said "oh, yeah, Mathurin, I'm really high on that kid's future" and it was filed away for a late July "Stein Line" report.
Here's a question: Is Mathurin really a "SLAP" guy? He's described as a non-shooting iso scorer who gets to the line, but having watched him in Indy, I don't actually think he's some kind of superlative athlete.
If you watch him a lot, he actually doesn't blow by or power through guys. He's quick, but he's a lot more effective driving off a pick or screen or, (rarely) moving off the ball.
In short, he needs help.
I also think he fits the mold of what the Bulls have liked and done for twenty+ years. They like their big college big guards who they scout at draft time, and then don't pay much attention to pro scouting, so they just keep thinking guys like this are worth more than they are because they were high on them 4-5 years before.
Mathurin was an athletic MONSTER at Arizona. He possessed jaw-dropping explosiveness and was the best pure athlete in his class.
Has he really harnessed/showcased those qualities as a pro? Probably not. But go back to watch his college highlights and read pre-draft profiles, and he was as SLAPpy as a guard can get
Thats college. In the pros Mathurin is a somewhat above average athlete....maybe 7/10. He is quick and has shiftiness but yea he is not jumping over dudes or going beast mode thru them
I guess that’s what I see. But went back and looked at his play type splits and he’s bad at ISO. Pretty good if he’s getting a pick though
I don’t understand the vision when I am already worried about Caleb not soaking up enough of those.
Dunks don't tell the whole story of athleticism but this reel is impressive. https://youtu.be/QECn_6JXRUQ?is=yOyprkSetRGvg5Vu
Michael Scotto (HoopsHype) on Friday:
>>any realistic chance the Bulls have of acquiring Mathurin is via a sign-and-trade as the franchise looks to improve its roster and stay out of the relegation zone while rebuilding in the upcoming season. Chicago’s new coaching staff is also said to be fond of Mathurin, HoopsHype has learned. <<
I don't know if Scotto is just inferring or if that's sourced information, but my whole thesis for this post is that Bryson Graham should be only thinking about "improve its roster" (and asset base) and maybe a Mathurin trade does that, but it shouldn't be to "stay out of the relegation zone"
If you rearrange things a bit, you can see that Bryson Graham is really quite similar to ... Bryon Hagan Srn...
Posted this above…. https://x.com/TheSteinLine/status/2083228764809343216
Here's an update on the Mathurin buzz. Bulls interest might be exaggerated.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7484371/2026/07/31/bennedict-mathurin-bulls-free-agent-nba/?unlocked_article_code=1.2FA.3Gva.a6IT6O1vN_l2&source=user_shared_article&smid=ta-ios-share
I know it's a really low bar, but it's nice having a GM (or whatever the actual title is) that is pretty openly valuing flexibility and short-term contracts during a stated rebuild. It's pretty much the complete opposite of what AK was doing.
Given how NBA games are officiated, such that so many are close at the end, a team with good defenders and good shooters of 3's and free throws, can make it a coinflip who wins these close ones. Caleb, Matas, Josh, Powell and Claxton should get their share.
My guess is that the roster is pretty-well set but the rotation will be wide open, basically at tryouts during camp. Yeah, they'll have to earn PT in 26-27, just as it was in 25-26 under Tiago with Portland and Billy with Chicago.
Also, Splitter showed at Portland that he wants to win, even if it costs them in the upcoming draft. For the Bulls I'd take the over on wins for the season, and let the Devil take the hindmost.
Hard to say if the Bulls are a relegation team. If healthy and they don't dump Jones, Smith, Powell, and Okoro during the season, then they probably have enough talent and depth to stay out.
If Swain and Essengue are both bad and/or in the G League, then that hurts short term a little, with a bigger impact long term.
Obviously, most of the season is going to hinge on Buzelis and Wilson. If Buzelis doesn't improve, then this team probably doesn't have enough top end talent to be an even play-in level team. If Wilson isn't at least a solid starter, same deal.
https://x.com/TheSteinLine/status/2083228764809343216
If they can shed Pwill and make this move I’d feel some positive movement
I can't imagine the Clippers would want to take him back, but I guess stranger things have happened.
Claxton made it onto a Ringer article. Michael Pina seems to think he might bounce back on a 'fun' Chicago team:
https://www.theringer.com/2026/08/05/nba/analytics-paolo-banchero-alperen-sengun-brandon-ingram
This Bulls schedule video is amazing.
https://youtu.be/eBHOMh1BPe0
Sched is brutal early on. Have to go through the Raptors, Celts twice, Knicks twice, Sixers twice and the Spurs within the first 10 games. What a buzzsaw.
Sylvain Francisco (1,78m 28 y.o. French point guard, impact player within Euroleague) says the Bulls offered 2 guaranteed years, on a french basketball media. The deal was not made because of waiting for Lebron's decision. Francisco had a July 20 deadline for his own decision and opted for Panathinaikos.
While I would love to see him get a chance in the NBA, I wonder what would have been his usage within the Bulls...
Mathurin signed a 2 year deal with the Pelicans. Personally I'm glad. I don't think he's any good and giving him a contract would be a mistake.
I wasn’t particularly interested either.
Even though he’s not great, I can’t imagine Mathurin is thrilled with a modest contract like that. Due to a handful of reasons, it feels like the NBA’s middle class is on life support. Being a mediocre RFA is a legitimate problem right now.
And somehow, Pat’s contract keeps looking worse.
I think both Mathurin and Kuminga have player options on the second year of their contracts. My guess is both chose the destinations they did because they knew they'd get ample playing time as starters and plan to opt out of their contracts after the season is over in hopes of then securing larger, longer contracts next summer. Not saying it'll necessarily work, but that's likely what they're doing.
Shams said Kuminga passed up a 3 year 36 million dollar deal starting for the Lakers. Real betting on himself hours
Holy... If that's true, it's kind of crazy he chose the Timberwolves over LA.