Pretty large ESPN story which entertainingly juxtaposed "LaVine has also felt singled out during film sessions and feels like he has taken too much blame for the team's losing during his tenure -- which has produced one playoff appearance in seven years -- despite other roster failings, sources told ESPN." with "He's never won, he's done it his way the whole way and never won," a team source told ESPN. "If he's interested in winning, he'll do what's asked of him. And if he's motivated to not be here, one way is to come, be compliant and be who he is."
It's a "relationship" between two dislikable parties who treat each other badly.
Part of what makes them both so dislikable is that even though it's obvious there's no immediate way out of their predicament but to suck it up and be nice to each other, they still can't help themselves but to act like assholes.
I'm a lot more sympathetic to Zach here. People think unrealistically about this stuff. Zach has played a certain way for a while. It has led to him receiving high level professional awards, and made him rich and famous beyond his wildest dreams. Changing his style of play is risky. It's a sacrifice. It's the Bulls responsibility to prove to him that that risk is worth it. Is it? What is the upside they're selling him on? I mean, I think it's pretty clear no one on this site would buy what they're selling. Why should we expect any different from Zach? All these Eversley quotes in the article, for example-- they are all absolute drivel. I'm agitated just reading them. What kind of mind is convinced by this?
It's also not clear what do they want him to do. Some of the stuff we wish he would do (be a Klay clone, for example) are not things that can be turned on and off, exactly. They need to be developed . Other things, like his defense, are a function of will, but are they talking about that? It doesn't sounds like they are.
I just have no interest in weighing out the he-said/she-said stuff. In any particular snapshot in time during an ongoing fight between a couple of unlikeable people/groups, a different side is going to look like the bigger asshole at the moment.
It might even be possible that one side is always a bigger asshole than the other. But ultimately, I think, so what? These guys are two bad tastes that taste worse together.
All that can be true. Lavine complaining about being singled out in flim sessions is 13 year old teenage level nonsense.
I doubt the Bulls were askinghim change his entire game. It sounds like they want to commit to playing more off ball and defending. That is just basic basketball stuff.
I do agree with that and think his benching by Donovan was not something to stew over for years either. Though I could see reason to wonder why Nikola Vucevic of all players DOES get the star treatment from BD
I like how Collier seems to have interviewed exactly two people and then the only thing that isn't an empty platitude is a statement that Zach needs to shut up and behave, attributed to "a team source."
I found that quote interesting too. So they wanted to dismantle the entire roster and make huge changes like they did in 2021, but that clearly didn't happen. And I believe they're later quoted as being satisfied with how this summer turned out. You can have one or the other, but not both, AKME.
I think they're similar in that it was a lot of changes. But the 2021 changes were to get good. The 2024 changes were to...well, not get bad, but get younger
this pretty much all rides on Josh Giddey becoming an All-NBA point guard lol
That quote just leapt off the screen for me. "He's never won." Wow. An all-you can eat banquet for Zach haters and FO haters, two groups to which I proudly belong.
I give Collier credit in not just jotting down AKME and calling it reporting like the local guys did
but demerit for this analysis: "it's unclear whether their young core is talented enough to match other young rising East teams like Indiana, Cleveland and Orlando."
I wish sometimes that I was a drag performer, because only in full make-up and a gigantic beehive wig could I capture the level of "girl pleasssse" facial expressions that this quote deserves.
Eversley is the real star of the write-up, though. In one quote, he says they're not going to bottom out and win 15 games. (Umm, why not?) In another quote, he admits they can't win enough to keep Demar. (Which is like, what, 36 wins?) So 20-35 wins is the sweet spot?
It's crazy. Everything he says is incoherent pabulum. Demar had to go because he wanted to win. He's joining the 9th best team in the Western Conference. As you say, it's like, 24-34 wins? Yeah, man. They call it The Golden Runway.
"We've gone young. We've got players who are experienced and give us a greater opportunity to have a longer runway for sustainability to winning meaningful games for a longer time."
It was so good/bad that Collier decided to use it twice.
That is an amazing sentence. It's the lyric poetry of corporate comms. Eversley isn't just our guy who can "talk to the players" (coughs), he can also whip that boardroom into a frenzy of interdepartmental cooperation. It's like the news reports in Orwell's 1984, which are obligated to report non-stop victories to whip up patriotic hysteria without actually giving them hope that the war will ever end.
I'm going to paint this on the wall of my gym. Every morning when I stare at those fucking weights I'm going to say to myself that I am giving myself the opportunity to have a longer runway for sustainability to win meaningful games for a longer time. I'm actually going to make this a keyboard macro so I can just type a key and repeat it.
Jerry, this is no longer just a phase. This is my religion. To giving myself the opportunity to have a longer runway for sustainability to win meaningful games for a longer time.
This deserves a more-than-like button. The Bulls should really just have bots do the press-facing parts of this job, the outcome would be similar. Wildly, I think that the bots would probably be more successful in the basketball part
This is a man who cut his teeth on the job with superstar executive Bryan Colangelo! I really don't remember the selling point on ME...he had agent clout? He was good with players?
He worked under one of the worst executives in the league, TWICE. His other position was with the Wizards under another bad-gm-summit wunderkind in Ernie freaking Grunfeld. This organization destroys my soul
That ESPN story is going to be a thing -- lots of off-the-record quotes that probably aren't too hard to trace back.
I have zero problem with a large market (which we still are) team not sinking to the absolute bottom of the league. It SHOULD be unnecessary in Chicago. What they are doing now with a mid-build isn't a dumb idea, IMO, except as everyone knows:
- They should have started sooner, ESPECIALLY when Coby emerged and they did better without Zach than with him. They owe DDR nothing, as they showed this off-season.
- They should have got some picks from OKC. They maybe could have done better with SAS as well (but I don't think a pick swap in Wembayama's prime is a better haul that two second round picks today, as pundits are saying)
- On the beat reporter thing, why have we not had a list of the top offers for Zach, last deadline and now, so we can see what they are actually doing. That is gettable for a good beat reporter and would let us know more clearly where there head is.
- Bringing back Zach, especially post-ESPN article, is insane. Go do a Lakers deal now, they are equally trying to get off of DeAngelo Russel's one-year deal, don't ask for too much else (Austin Reaves) and let's just move on fully.
Warriors offered Moody and Wiggins,right? Everyone else offered nothing for Zach and a 1st rounder. Lakers Are not giving us Reaves, that deal would have been made in a minute.
Wiggins has 2 years plus a player option at $30m+ per, they shouldn't take that on. I'm curious what crap was offered that could be off the books ASAP. Russell is expiring; Rui has two years at $19m per (ouch); Gabe Vincent 2 at $11m, manageable or tradeable. I liked to Detroit for Bognodavic and Joe Harris, two expirings, last trade deadline.
I meant ask for anybody BUT Reaves, I agree that's a no-deal.
completely agree. I saw other sites had it more like 27 which is closer but also too high
they are going to suck so bad, and I predict the beat will declare it a success because of lottery balls even if it was done counter to their intent. AKME can't lose! (except in NBA games)
Patrick and Giddey will get more touches, so their PPG will go up, and the team can raise the banner as Development Champs, and people will actually believe it because they're in a twisted stockholm syndrome with a professional sports team.
I'm trying to find the fucks to give to fully express what a dark place this franchise is in. They just sold off their two best players and didn't get a single 1st round pick. Almost no one wants what's left under contract. They still have a deficit of picks despite being totally asset poor. The team Karnisovas inherited had all their picks and Markkanen, Carter, Gafford and Coby on rookie contracts and Zach making $19.5 million a year. The one positive asset they have right now is Coby, who (1) I'm not sure teams rate as highly as we do, and (2) whose value for what it is is supercharged by his contract, which is however very short and becomes less valuable by the month.
This situation is also going to get worse based on the deals and extensions Karnisovas has yet to make. We have to price-in another year of terrible decisions and directionless noodling. Hire Bob Myers out of the ESPN studio tomorrow and give him a blank check and he'd still need a few seasons of turning FA signings and cap room into trade bait to try to get enough players that other teams would even be interested in, much less compete against. This is bad, and short of Jimmy Butler-like transformational ascendancies, it's not going to get good for a long time.
I feel that the draft lottery is somehow still to blame for it not sinking in to the fanbase how dire this situation is. Every article should lead with dismay at the management team still being in charge.
I suppose that's good reason for mismanaged NBA franchises to keep that system like it is.
I'm trying to figure out this "We didn't get any draft picks" criticism of the Caruso trade. Giddey is better than any draft pick we've had since Jimmy in 2011. (Not to disparage Buzelis, but it is too early to tell what his future will be.)
So why is it a bad thing to get a good 20-year old?
This is a strange reply. I think what I said was pretty clear: if you're going to trade your top 2 players, you should get first round picks back.
Giddey being "better than any draft pick we've had since Jimmy Butler" obscures the fact that this clown was the guy making the pick: he's not better than Tyrese Halliburton, who was available where Patrick Williams was taken.
Secondly, I think a vanishingly small number of people would take Giddey over Lauri Markkanen. It's not even true in "players they actually took" terms.
Third, Sam Presti said after the trade that Giddey basically said he wasn't coming off the bench and would like a trade. A player that is (a) being benched (b) wants to be traded (c) has clear flaws in his game just exposed on national television over the course of three weeks in the spring and (d) needs to be extended within the next 18 months is the very definition of a "distressed asset." You buy low on those, particularly when the team holding it is one looking to add final pieces to a playoff team. They needed Caruso far more than we needed Giddey, who neither the Bulls or OKC needed at all.
Fourth, a team trading their best two players is rebuilding, and needs as many assets as possible, partly to trade them for future picks. Cap space, free agency, even the draft should be 100% oriented toward a future bounty. That is, after all, how OKC got all those picks in their pocket and how Brooklyn is picking up the pieces.
Fifth, I'm not sure where the good 20 year old is: whether Giddey is "good" is up for debate but he's not 20. He'll be 22 at the start of the season, which is old for a draft pick in 2024. His contract status wastes the years when drafted players are by cap rules a bargain, enabling teams to make more out of their cap space - to, for instance, absorb bad contracts in exchange for picks as, again OKC did and Brooklyn is doing.
That's why you want first round picks when you're trading your best two players.
I go back and forth, but I think they've hit the sour spot of being uncompetitively bad, but still probably better than most of the teams below them.
I guess I'd put it like this:
1. Unless they really pull out all the stops to tank, they seem like they're head and shoulders above the real bottom dwellers, Washington and Detroit. And Brooklyn, who took a big and purposeful step down from last year's 32 win team.
2. They're in a the same middle of the road they were last year with Atlanta (36), Charlotte (21) and Toronto (25) wins. Atlanta is about the same, but Charlotte and Toronto, I think, were both really trying hard to lose last year and will probably at least start out trying to win this year. On paper, they probably have more talent and ability than the Bulls.
From a pure back of the envelope calculation, the average of the Bulls last year (39 wins) and these other three teams comes out to 30.25 wins.
The Nets dropping from 32 wins to 20-25 puts another 7-12 wins up for grabs too.
For the Bulls this year, unfortunately, wins are going to be easy to come by I think.
I guess I don't see them in the same tier as Atlanta or Charlotte this year. I also don't see them in the same tier as WAS or BKN, because I expect those to be the worst two teams in the league. I think they are in the DET tier. By point differential only 17 game difference between them. DET got better. Bulls lost their best offensive and defensive players and replaced them with weirder, much worse players. I was thinking about the four factors. I'm not sure they'll be average in a single one. That's what a sub-30 win team looks like.
It's an interesting question for those who find figuring out shitty teams to be interesting.
What I see is the Bulls were a 40 win team that lost their two best players but are theoretically getting back two guys who, while they aren't as good as the two they lost, they're probably both decent starters if healthy. Obv I agree that the fit is still weird and probably worse.
1- Coby (Giddey)
2- Zach, Ayo
3- Giddey (and Pat, Matas, Ayo, etc....)
4- Pat, Craig, Matas
5- Vuc, Smith
But... I can see Coby/Zach/Giddey/Pat being 4/5ths of not complete trash. It's not that I think they're horrible, it's just that there's no interesting upside there. I wouldn't be surprised if, were they healthy and motivated, these guys are a "competent" 30-35 win team.
I'd be utterly shocked if they were ever more than that. Med(iocre) floor and Med ceiling. And yeah, in the likely event that they trade Zach the first chance they get, or he just dogs it or gets hurt, they are in the 20-25 range.
But... I don't expect LaMelo Ball or Mark Williams to do anything until I see them do it in Charlotte, and that might be the same for Trae Young on the Hawks. I feel like the Hawks are probably superior based on just have a lot of guys, but if they lose Trae for another 30 games, what good will it do them?
Detroit... I have no idea.
1- Cade, Sasser
2- Ivy, Beasley, THJ
3- Fonteccio, Ausar, Holland
4- Harris, Reed
5- Stewart, Duren
That's a lot of guys, and interesting talent-wise, but it still seems like an utter mess of guys who can't shoot with a couple of guys who can only shoot tossed in for good measure.
Yeah, you're right about Charlotte. They're in the Bulls/Detroit tier. Here's a fun question: how likely is it that Coby, assuming he does not improve at all, is nevertheless the Bull's best player this year?
50/50? I’m not a Zach fan, but if he’s actually healthy I think he’s still better. I think Coby is a much easier player to play with though. He probably fits in pretty well to almost any situation.
But yeah, with DeMar gone, I think they’ll give Zach carte blanche to do what Zach does until they can trade him.
Since everyone else is talking about the ESPN article... My favorite part was Marc Eversley doubling down on the whole "we owed it to DeMar to go for the play-in one more time" thing that AK said during Summer League. That was so widely criticized after AK said it. I guess it shouldn't surprise me that this front office is so far removed from reality that literally no one has told them it was a really stupid thing to say and they should probably try to sweep it under the rug instead of doubling down on it.
It also had the most detail I've seen on the Zach vs. FO/coaches situation, which MikeDC talks a little more about in his comments. The TL;DR version is basically that Zach is sick of this organization not winning but also not willing to change the way he plays, even if it may mean winning more. Then AK is super angry that Zach can tell this isn't a serious organization and the team he built is never going to win anything.
it makes sense for LaVine to participate in training camp and have state media say he's "looking healthy" and "ready to contribute". I happen to believe other NBA teams know this already and Klutch can convince them, but whatever helps helps
no way he's in the rotation to start the season though.
Maybe KC Johnson should see this and before coming at humble fan bloggers for calling Zach unprofessional, recognize 'the narrative' is coming from his (and Zach's) employer
"It was short of a full trade request, but it still irked Karnisovas, sources told ESPN, a slight perceived as LaVine not being committed to sticking with the team."
But he's very professional in how he's not committed to sticking with the team and the epitome of the professional NBA player who's not interested in winning.
they’re so dumb how can the average observer do anything but side with Zach? i think it’s nonsense to say that teams don’t want him—they don’t want his contract. he’s not a purely net negative player. flawed yes, but i keep thinking about the stat that like 70% of nba teammates over his career aren’t in the league anymore or whatever. this week has reminded me that he has a gold medal! 8 years ago zach was tyrese haliburton.
i know i’m not making a new point—this front office keeps proving themselves to be incredibly stupid and directionless. they’re right to hide, talking to the media just makes me side with zach. it’s not his fault they gave him a monster albatross contract and proceeded to build The League’s Most 35-Win roster.
Admittedly that incident was in November 2022, nearly two years ago. I don't think he'd do it today, in these specific circumstances, though he'd probably feel the same way.
It's dumb things are at the point where it feels like the Bulls are daring him not to report. Collier reported that Donovan met him in LA this month but he seems to have bigger problems than his beef with Donovan, whatever the extent of it. Vegas is pretty close to LA, seems like if you actually wanted this handled, a meeting with the front office probably could be arranged when at least one of the bobsy twins were speccing out another Summer of Drell.
Instead it feels like a game of chicken. Am I wrong?
If you are, it's because for a real game of Chicken, one side needs to be able to win.
I think this is more of a prisoner's dilemma. Both sides would be better off if they cooperated with each other and found a trade.
But... there's no trade to be found that would suit both the Bulls and Zach. So they just sit there and be shitty with each other and wait for circumstances to change.
Sheez GV, why are you being obtuse. SA got the pick for taking on Barnes' salary. Bulls are trying to get rid of dead weight, not add more.
Yeah sure, the Hayward trade didn't work out for OKC. They were hoping he had a little bit left in the tank and could help them down the stretch, but it turns out he was washed. If Tre Mann sticks in the NBA, that will be a win for Charlotte.
Even if Hayward had done well for OKC though, it still wouldn't really change things for Charlotte because he wasn't adding value on the Hornets roster anyway. If Hayward had helped the Thunder get to the Finals, and then signed a 2/$50m deal with the Sixers, would that have made the trade any worse for Charlotte? I don't think so. Do you?
1. Obtuse? Taking on Barnes for the swap is a no-brainer — just like San Antonio had no great use for the "dead weight" of Thaddeus Young in 2021 but took him and our pick anyway when we acquired DeMar DeRozan from them. (Spoiler: they got a 1st rounder for Thaddeus Young.)
San Antonio could have also involved a third team because they were "trying to get rid of dead weight, not add more," but they didn't because San Antonio isn't fucking stupid.
2. Feel like I made my point on Charlotte and nobody else seems to be having difficulty comparing two separate trades and the players involved and the return and understanding the point I was trying to make. For more information, please re-read.
I understand all your points, I just don’t agree with them. I do give you credit for reading about Hayward retiring and weaving that into your meandering arguments. Bravo!
Chicago, after trading both Caruso and DeMar DeRozan and not getting a first-round pick in either deal (and watching the San Antonio Spurs get the best asset, a 2031 pick swap from the Kings, in the DeRozan deal)"
Aside from boilerplate trolling from gorditadog, nobody is arguing for these moves. And gorditadog doesn't believe his own arguments, it's just boilerplate trolling.
FWIW, both Danny and Nate on Dunc'd On gave the Bulls an F+* for their offseason, and that was (intending, anyway) to ignore prior context and just treat this transaction period on its own merit.
Nate's take on Buzelis when I listened to the Summer League recap. It was basically... Buzelis looked fine to me, but that's in the context of me having him rated quite a bit lower than the consensus. He's active, which is good, but he gets the ball taken out of his hands too much and can't shoot. He'll be ok defensively, but hard to see how to play him offensively until/unless this stuff gets cleaned up.
They can't vote LAL #1 cause the work for ESPN...but having all these hope for a LBJ title run and coming up short has to be up there, no one expected much out of the Bulls
What's the bullish case for Giddey? Like, I made a bullish case for Coby on the old site centered around his age and his track record as a shooter. And that his flowering shooting could really change the game for him, unlocking other skills that by themselves aren't enough to make Coby a good player. So I am looking for concrete answers with some specificity (I'll give my own in a bit). And I do not want to hear there is none. That's stupid. And anyways, it's kind of sort of what I already believe so it's also boring. None of that shit.
The one thing that seems to be expected is offensive speed and flow. His vision and willingness to pass without dribbling or spending time on the ball encourages a fast paced offense with contagious passing.
If you attach +35% 3pt shooting, a plus 15% trb% (both numbers that would be on trend for career development) and some intelligent off ball defense that results in 2+ stocks per game then he can be a plus player.
Last season his on-off was positive (+0.5) on a good team which indicates that he's climbed the young player learning curve and has a platform to build on. He's seen statistical growth each year, the bullish case is that he keeps that improvement.
But the real coup for Giddey would be to develop a great relationship with Vuc that helps develop a late career efficiency renaissance.
Cherry on top would be consistent drippy lobs to high fliers Matas, Terry, Phillips and of course PWill.
Man, I'm trying to do this without being a jackass, because I keep looking for things and then realizing why I don't think they'll work out.
I guess the optimistic case is:
* He's shown consistent growth as a shooter, going from terrible to... marginally acceptable. If he can turn the corner into being a guy who opponents don't just leave open (maybe 35-36% on decent volume the next couple years, he'll be a much more threatening player.
* I think he's much more of a 3 than a 1. His TO% (>15% every year) and A/TO ratios and general handle look to me like that of a guy who's more of a good connective player than a pure PG. He's consistently right at 2:1 and turns the ball over a pretty fair amount for a guy who's not super high usage. That's not a strength you say? Well, no. But I'd flip it around and say that if you stop looking at him as a 1 and start looking at him as a 3 who can really find guys and pass it to them, you might be putting him into a good role for him.
In thinking this out, I came across a couple ideas.
1. Less likely. Have a 3 who generates a lot of assists and can't shoot? Sounds a little like DeMar. Except, well, Giddey turns it over a ton, can't create his own shot, and gets to the line like... Vuc instead of like DeMar. Like never.
2. A little more likely. How far away is he from Lonzo Ball? Well, Lonzo by the time he reached the Bulls had developed from a really sketchy shooter to a really good one. I think it's conceivable that Giddey can do that.
Defensively, obviously the comparison breaks down. Lonzo was a really strong defensive player from basically day 1. Good on the ball defense, plus good at disrupting and getting possessions (steals, deflections, etc). Giddey isn't. I don't think he's complete trash. He seems to contest ok and he's big enough to at least be an obstacle. Positionally he's probably average. He's decidedly below average at generating turnovers and disruptions.
So what does that get us? Well, what I get to is we might get the offensive side of Lonzo if Giddey puts in insane time on his shot. Which is a nice player to have, especially if you have guys who can create around him. Defensively though he's nothing special at all, so when I say Lonzo, realize I'm only talking about on offense.
I'm probably overreacting a little bit, but Joel Embiid doesn't seem nearly as good when the refs don't call a foul every time he even looks at the rim.
To be fair to him, he had absolutely nowhere to throw that inbounds pass and Australia didn't have any timeouts. I understand drawing up a play for Mills but no one else even tried to get open when it was clear Mills was covered.
I have to agree with Diabolo. I just don't see how Giddey panicked right there. According to the ref, Giddey had used up four seconds before passing, and that ref was counting incredibly slow.
I've watched the replay multiple times and literally no one even tries to get themselves open other than Mills. Basically as Giddey is passing the ball, Duop Reath finally starts to make a move away from Jokic but it's already way too late.
If you want to say Giddey had some bad turnovers late in the game, be my guest. He absolutely did. And while the SLOB turnover was obviously bad, it also wasn't really on him. Why choose that one to focus on other than the fact that he's known for his skill at SLOB passing?
1. Being one of the best players on an Olympic team isn't easy and he handled himself well for the most part. He was inconsistent, but so was Patty Mills who could be considered Australia's other best player and is far more experienced.
2. As expected, his passing ability is going to be a welcome sight in Chicago. With that being said, he can't really manipulate defenses with his scoring ability which makes passing more difficult for him (ie. lots of turnovers). I wouldn't consider DeMar a great passer, but he was good at collapsing defenses and hitting the open man. Giddey is going to have a harder time doing that until he becomes a better scorer.
3. Speaking of scoring, that three ball is UGLY. Patton's going to have his work cut out for him. He did shoot the three well during Australia's run, but I'm going to go off of his previous three years of shooting it poorly in the NBA. Him developing a consistent three point shot should probably be the top priority for him.
4. I don't think Giddey will ever be a great defender. He lacks athleticism and I'm not sure he necessarily wants to be a good defender. With that being said, he does seem to have pretty good instincts and can be pretty effective playing passing lanes. If the Bulls can sort of hide him on defense (not going to be possible with a starting backcourt of Giddey, White and LaVine), I could see him being a solid help defender.
5. He's also a good rebounder thanks to his size and good instincts. Coupled with the fact that he likes to get out in transition, I'm excited to see a more up tempo style of play this coming season. The Bulls will bleed points on defense, but maybe their offense will start to resemble the rest of the league a little bit.
I'm trying to be fair to Giddey. It's not his fault that AK is an idiot and made a terrible trade for him, and I'm trying to remind myself of that when watching him play. I genuinely hope he can turn himself into a pretty solid player and be a good addition to this team. We'll just have to wait and see.
Whenever you take a big PG who can pass, I immediately think of Jason Kidd in New Jersey — a guy who can crash the boards and lead the break and frankly it's really hard to defend that no matter what era or style of play. (Kidd obviously wasn't a giant by stature but always played big from the time he was at Cal.)
The difference is that Jason Kidd played with Kenyon Martin and Jason Collins, who were okay with a PG "stealing" their uncontested rebounds that big men usually get to pad their stats, in exchange for getting the ball on the break. And it helped that they were immediately a Finals team in a weak East, so everyone could see it was working. Vuc gets almost all of the Bulls uncontested rebounds, and the Double Double Machine Championship belt seems really important to him. Just like touches were important to him a year ago (and he answered his haters by shooting a blistering 29% from 3.)
There's not going to be much "fit" at the start of this year but again this is a classic Karnisovas/Eversley handicap. Here you have a possible advantage that other teams will have to account for but you have a 34 year old center *literally* standing in the way for no good reason.
Aside from that, Giddey really only has to shoot about 38%ish from 3 to become at least an above average PG, though that's easier said than done. I just think shooting is part of the PG job description now, if you can't do it you're like a 6'6" center. Every few years someone will have a tiny center or a bad-shooting PG that will work but... nobody really wants that.
Lonzo is a great example of your final paragraph. As soon as he developed a three, he was instantly so much better. While Giddey's form is particularly bad from three, it's definitely not as bad as Lonzo's was. Hopefully he can make a similar jump within the next few years.
Giddey's defense will always pale in comparison to Lonzo's, but his overall offense could be significantly better than Lonzo's if he develops a three. The problem is Lonzo was great at being effective without requiring the ball in his hands - something that is especially useful when you're not a top 1 or 2 player on a good team. I think Giddey will likely always need the ball in his hands to be effective. The problem is I'm not sure he'll ever be a #1 or 2 on a good team.
He's so young that I'm willing to see how he grows, but there is a slight fear in the back of my mind that he could be our next Zach LaVine. A guy that is really good at what he does, but he requires the ball in his hands, and he's not good enough to be a first or second option on a good team because his game is fairly one dimensional. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
I think the comparisons to Lavine are very premature. Him needing the ball in his hands is a clear concern, but at 21 he seems a lot more mature than Lavine is at 29. Giddey was willing to do his best off ball last year, even when it hurt his personal stats a lot and didn't complain when he was benched. He also handled the allegations against him as well as anyone could.
Contrast that to Zach throwing a tantrum after he was benched and getting surgery to avoid the Detroit trade.
Those behaviors make me think Giddey has the maturity to understand he needs to work on his weaknesses and will do what is best for the team, even if it isn't the best for him in the short term.
He'll probably never be as good off ball as he is on ball, but I feel like he will put the work in to get notably better.
Sorry, I guess I probably wasn't clear in my previous comment. I'm not saying I think Giddey WILL be like Zach. I was just saying there's a small fear that it could happen. And I should also clarify I don't mean that in terms of Giddey being like Zach as a person. I mean he could potentially be like Zach in the sense that he could be very good at what he does, but because he needs the ball in his hands to do it, he would kind of cap how good his team can be.
Again, not saying I expect that to happen. It's far too soon to even entertain that idea. Just saying there is a small fear it could eventually happen if he can't learn to be more productive off-ball.
I was trying to allay that fear a bit by showing that he has a much better and more team oriented attitude that Lavine. That attitutde should translate into working more on what the coaches will ask of him (likely things that will make him better off-ball & on defense).
He obviously still has to succeed in that development, but he seems likely to put the effort in.
I certainly hope so, but I'd still say it's too early to know that for sure. Zach was basically the same age as Giddey is now when he was traded to the Bulls. Nobody thought of him as a potential bad egg at that time and no one had reason to.
I'm not trying to say Giddey is, or will become, the same as Zach, but the biggest mark against Zach's reputation is probably him asking to be traded. Giddey has also asked to be traded. I'd even say Zach's was more justifiable. He's played for a joke of an organization for so long. Giddey asked to be traded from one of the best teams in the league.
Again, I'm not saying Giddey will become LaVine (nor do I expect him to) and I don't even necessarily have a problem with him asking to be traded from a situation that didn't really fit him. I'm just saying he's not exactly a shining example of a team-first guy.
Seeing that you're not a good fit with the rest of the roster and looking to move on after the end of the season is very different from throwing a tantrum during the season.
Ty Abbott joined Chicago in 2020 as part of a 'hiring spree' (relative term in 'dorf teams). As he came from Philadelphia I assume he was close with Marc Eversley.
The only official or unofficial Bulls comment on this has been from Zach LaVine, heh. Maybe looking to reconnect soon on the Lakers?
https://t.co/6B4tc5BrlJ
Pretty large ESPN story which entertainingly juxtaposed "LaVine has also felt singled out during film sessions and feels like he has taken too much blame for the team's losing during his tenure -- which has produced one playoff appearance in seven years -- despite other roster failings, sources told ESPN." with "He's never won, he's done it his way the whole way and never won," a team source told ESPN. "If he's interested in winning, he'll do what's asked of him. And if he's motivated to not be here, one way is to come, be compliant and be who he is."
Well fuck, this is the kind of thing I was bemoaning didn't exist. Maybe it was a response?!?
that sourced quote should give even more ammo for Zach to hold out lol. why can't the front office 'be compliant' and make a fucking trade
they even admitted earlier in the post that DeMar couldn't win here anymore. Yet somehow Zach will?
I don't have any sympathy for either side.
It's a "relationship" between two dislikable parties who treat each other badly.
Part of what makes them both so dislikable is that even though it's obvious there's no immediate way out of their predicament but to suck it up and be nice to each other, they still can't help themselves but to act like assholes.
there's also no urgency on either side because they're both under contract for a long time and don't have to actually produce results to get paid
I'm a lot more sympathetic to Zach here. People think unrealistically about this stuff. Zach has played a certain way for a while. It has led to him receiving high level professional awards, and made him rich and famous beyond his wildest dreams. Changing his style of play is risky. It's a sacrifice. It's the Bulls responsibility to prove to him that that risk is worth it. Is it? What is the upside they're selling him on? I mean, I think it's pretty clear no one on this site would buy what they're selling. Why should we expect any different from Zach? All these Eversley quotes in the article, for example-- they are all absolute drivel. I'm agitated just reading them. What kind of mind is convinced by this?
It's also not clear what do they want him to do. Some of the stuff we wish he would do (be a Klay clone, for example) are not things that can be turned on and off, exactly. They need to be developed . Other things, like his defense, are a function of will, but are they talking about that? It doesn't sounds like they are.
right, and if he wasn't going to be a Klay clone with DeMar in the Steph role, what's in it for him to do it with Josh Giddey?
I just have no interest in weighing out the he-said/she-said stuff. In any particular snapshot in time during an ongoing fight between a couple of unlikeable people/groups, a different side is going to look like the bigger asshole at the moment.
It might even be possible that one side is always a bigger asshole than the other. But ultimately, I think, so what? These guys are two bad tastes that taste worse together.
All that can be true. Lavine complaining about being singled out in flim sessions is 13 year old teenage level nonsense.
I doubt the Bulls were askinghim change his entire game. It sounds like they want to commit to playing more off ball and defending. That is just basic basketball stuff.
I do agree with that and think his benching by Donovan was not something to stew over for years either. Though I could see reason to wonder why Nikola Vucevic of all players DOES get the star treatment from BD
couldn't agree more. both parties suck.
I like how Collier seems to have interviewed exactly two people and then the only thing that isn't an empty platitude is a statement that Zach needs to shut up and behave, attributed to "a team source."
there's also the team source saying AK said "We need to have a summer like 2021"
that kind of insight should not leak!
Also, AK like Uncle Rico for this one summer where he put together a half-season of above-average basketball
I found that quote interesting too. So they wanted to dismantle the entire roster and make huge changes like they did in 2021, but that clearly didn't happen. And I believe they're later quoted as being satisfied with how this summer turned out. You can have one or the other, but not both, AKME.
I think they're similar in that it was a lot of changes. But the 2021 changes were to get good. The 2024 changes were to...well, not get bad, but get younger
this pretty much all rides on Josh Giddey becoming an All-NBA point guard lol
I was hoping for a smoking gun quote in the past from AK, ME, or (who it sounds like to me) John Paxson saying "compliant"
just seems like a really distinctively weird way to phrase things that shouldn't be too hard to figure out
(but alas couldn't find it)
(edited to add I could see Sam Smith saying this, he works for the team after all)
I would love if it was BD3.
That quote just leapt off the screen for me. "He's never won." Wow. An all-you can eat banquet for Zach haters and FO haters, two groups to which I proudly belong.
Tibs' jersey back said COMMUNICATION
I give Collier credit in not just jotting down AKME and calling it reporting like the local guys did
but demerit for this analysis: "it's unclear whether their young core is talented enough to match other young rising East teams like Indiana, Cleveland and Orlando."
I wish sometimes that I was a drag performer, because only in full make-up and a gigantic beehive wig could I capture the level of "girl pleasssse" facial expressions that this quote deserves.
Yas queen
Eversley is the real star of the write-up, though. In one quote, he says they're not going to bottom out and win 15 games. (Umm, why not?) In another quote, he admits they can't win enough to keep Demar. (Which is like, what, 36 wins?) So 20-35 wins is the sweet spot?
It's crazy. Everything he says is incoherent pabulum. Demar had to go because he wanted to win. He's joining the 9th best team in the Western Conference. As you say, it's like, 24-34 wins? Yeah, man. They call it The Golden Runway.
Well, 20 to 30 wins may be enough to be top 10 in the draft anyway.
My favorite jumble of nonsense was this:
"We've gone young. We've got players who are experienced and give us a greater opportunity to have a longer runway for sustainability to winning meaningful games for a longer time."
It was so good/bad that Collier decided to use it twice.
Let's chart that one on the whiteboard:
1. A greater opportunity
2. For a longer runway
3. For sustainability
4. To win meaningful games
5. For a longer time.
That is an amazing sentence. It's the lyric poetry of corporate comms. Eversley isn't just our guy who can "talk to the players" (coughs), he can also whip that boardroom into a frenzy of interdepartmental cooperation. It's like the news reports in Orwell's 1984, which are obligated to report non-stop victories to whip up patriotic hysteria without actually giving them hope that the war will ever end.
I'm going to paint this on the wall of my gym. Every morning when I stare at those fucking weights I'm going to say to myself that I am giving myself the opportunity to have a longer runway for sustainability to win meaningful games for a longer time. I'm actually going to make this a keyboard macro so I can just type a key and repeat it.
Jerry, this is no longer just a phase. This is my religion. To giving myself the opportunity to have a longer runway for sustainability to win meaningful games for a longer time.
This deserves a more-than-like button. The Bulls should really just have bots do the press-facing parts of this job, the outcome would be similar. Wildly, I think that the bots would probably be more successful in the basketball part
This is a man who cut his teeth on the job with superstar executive Bryan Colangelo! I really don't remember the selling point on ME...he had agent clout? He was good with players?
He worked under one of the worst executives in the league, TWICE. His other position was with the Wizards under another bad-gm-summit wunderkind in Ernie freaking Grunfeld. This organization destroys my soul
That ending really made me laugh. Oh it's perfectly crystal clear
I'm on team "LaVine Compliance".
I seem to remember the desire to be more “compliant” was voiced about Thibs. Or maybe it was Ron Adams. It was a while ago though.
Don’t forget Joakim Noah! The Bulls are the oldest of old schools.
And why change? Like LaVine, when what you’ve always done makes you tons of me, why change?
It's awesome, cuz I'm now on both Team LaVine Compliance AND Team LaVine Complaints. I need to order a #8 custom jersey with COMPLY in the name slot.
That ESPN story is going to be a thing -- lots of off-the-record quotes that probably aren't too hard to trace back.
I have zero problem with a large market (which we still are) team not sinking to the absolute bottom of the league. It SHOULD be unnecessary in Chicago. What they are doing now with a mid-build isn't a dumb idea, IMO, except as everyone knows:
- They should have started sooner, ESPECIALLY when Coby emerged and they did better without Zach than with him. They owe DDR nothing, as they showed this off-season.
- They should have got some picks from OKC. They maybe could have done better with SAS as well (but I don't think a pick swap in Wembayama's prime is a better haul that two second round picks today, as pundits are saying)
- On the beat reporter thing, why have we not had a list of the top offers for Zach, last deadline and now, so we can see what they are actually doing. That is gettable for a good beat reporter and would let us know more clearly where there head is.
- Bringing back Zach, especially post-ESPN article, is insane. Go do a Lakers deal now, they are equally trying to get off of DeAngelo Russel's one-year deal, don't ask for too much else (Austin Reaves) and let's just move on fully.
Warriors offered Moody and Wiggins,right? Everyone else offered nothing for Zach and a 1st rounder. Lakers Are not giving us Reaves, that deal would have been made in a minute.
Wiggins has 2 years plus a player option at $30m+ per, they shouldn't take that on. I'm curious what crap was offered that could be off the books ASAP. Russell is expiring; Rui has two years at $19m per (ouch); Gabe Vincent 2 at $11m, manageable or tradeable. I liked to Detroit for Bognodavic and Joe Harris, two expirings, last trade deadline.
I meant ask for anybody BUT Reaves, I agree that's a no-deal.
The Detroit deal was their way out but of course that got fucked up
no, that was the Bulls offering it and Warriors turning it down
I think the only way they were taking Zach was if Caruso was attached
I never heard that the Warriors offered anything.
I think that was what the Bulls asked for from the Warriors lol.
Man, ESPN bets has their O/U as 30.5 wins. I just think that's way too high. I think this team wins like 24 games.
completely agree. I saw other sites had it more like 27 which is closer but also too high
they are going to suck so bad, and I predict the beat will declare it a success because of lottery balls even if it was done counter to their intent. AKME can't lose! (except in NBA games)
Patrick and Giddey will get more touches, so their PPG will go up, and the team can raise the banner as Development Champs, and people will actually believe it because they're in a twisted stockholm syndrome with a professional sports team.
and then people will quickly turn on Giddey after he gets a $30M/yr contract extension for being a triple-double machine
I'm trying to find the fucks to give to fully express what a dark place this franchise is in. They just sold off their two best players and didn't get a single 1st round pick. Almost no one wants what's left under contract. They still have a deficit of picks despite being totally asset poor. The team Karnisovas inherited had all their picks and Markkanen, Carter, Gafford and Coby on rookie contracts and Zach making $19.5 million a year. The one positive asset they have right now is Coby, who (1) I'm not sure teams rate as highly as we do, and (2) whose value for what it is is supercharged by his contract, which is however very short and becomes less valuable by the month.
This situation is also going to get worse based on the deals and extensions Karnisovas has yet to make. We have to price-in another year of terrible decisions and directionless noodling. Hire Bob Myers out of the ESPN studio tomorrow and give him a blank check and he'd still need a few seasons of turning FA signings and cap room into trade bait to try to get enough players that other teams would even be interested in, much less compete against. This is bad, and short of Jimmy Butler-like transformational ascendancies, it's not going to get good for a long time.
Reinsdorf say "blank check" and stopped reading
I feel that the draft lottery is somehow still to blame for it not sinking in to the fanbase how dire this situation is. Every article should lead with dismay at the management team still being in charge.
I suppose that's good reason for mismanaged NBA franchises to keep that system like it is.
I'm trying to figure out this "We didn't get any draft picks" criticism of the Caruso trade. Giddey is better than any draft pick we've had since Jimmy in 2011. (Not to disparage Buzelis, but it is too early to tell what his future will be.)
So why is it a bad thing to get a good 20-year old?
This is a strange reply. I think what I said was pretty clear: if you're going to trade your top 2 players, you should get first round picks back.
Giddey being "better than any draft pick we've had since Jimmy Butler" obscures the fact that this clown was the guy making the pick: he's not better than Tyrese Halliburton, who was available where Patrick Williams was taken.
Secondly, I think a vanishingly small number of people would take Giddey over Lauri Markkanen. It's not even true in "players they actually took" terms.
Third, Sam Presti said after the trade that Giddey basically said he wasn't coming off the bench and would like a trade. A player that is (a) being benched (b) wants to be traded (c) has clear flaws in his game just exposed on national television over the course of three weeks in the spring and (d) needs to be extended within the next 18 months is the very definition of a "distressed asset." You buy low on those, particularly when the team holding it is one looking to add final pieces to a playoff team. They needed Caruso far more than we needed Giddey, who neither the Bulls or OKC needed at all.
Fourth, a team trading their best two players is rebuilding, and needs as many assets as possible, partly to trade them for future picks. Cap space, free agency, even the draft should be 100% oriented toward a future bounty. That is, after all, how OKC got all those picks in their pocket and how Brooklyn is picking up the pieces.
Fifth, I'm not sure where the good 20 year old is: whether Giddey is "good" is up for debate but he's not 20. He'll be 22 at the start of the season, which is old for a draft pick in 2024. His contract status wastes the years when drafted players are by cap rules a bargain, enabling teams to make more out of their cap space - to, for instance, absorb bad contracts in exchange for picks as, again OKC did and Brooklyn is doing.
That's why you want first round picks when you're trading your best two players.
It's funny. Some dead-enders on Real GM think the Bulls are a 38-40 win team bc all they've done is switch out Derozan for Zach.
They lost their 2 best players. This is a 25 win team that wants to be a 25 win team.
I go back and forth, but I think they've hit the sour spot of being uncompetitively bad, but still probably better than most of the teams below them.
I guess I'd put it like this:
1. Unless they really pull out all the stops to tank, they seem like they're head and shoulders above the real bottom dwellers, Washington and Detroit. And Brooklyn, who took a big and purposeful step down from last year's 32 win team.
2. They're in a the same middle of the road they were last year with Atlanta (36), Charlotte (21) and Toronto (25) wins. Atlanta is about the same, but Charlotte and Toronto, I think, were both really trying hard to lose last year and will probably at least start out trying to win this year. On paper, they probably have more talent and ability than the Bulls.
From a pure back of the envelope calculation, the average of the Bulls last year (39 wins) and these other three teams comes out to 30.25 wins.
The Nets dropping from 32 wins to 20-25 puts another 7-12 wins up for grabs too.
For the Bulls this year, unfortunately, wins are going to be easy to come by I think.
I guess I don't see them in the same tier as Atlanta or Charlotte this year. I also don't see them in the same tier as WAS or BKN, because I expect those to be the worst two teams in the league. I think they are in the DET tier. By point differential only 17 game difference between them. DET got better. Bulls lost their best offensive and defensive players and replaced them with weirder, much worse players. I was thinking about the four factors. I'm not sure they'll be average in a single one. That's what a sub-30 win team looks like.
It's an interesting question for those who find figuring out shitty teams to be interesting.
What I see is the Bulls were a 40 win team that lost their two best players but are theoretically getting back two guys who, while they aren't as good as the two they lost, they're probably both decent starters if healthy. Obv I agree that the fit is still weird and probably worse.
1- Coby (Giddey)
2- Zach, Ayo
3- Giddey (and Pat, Matas, Ayo, etc....)
4- Pat, Craig, Matas
5- Vuc, Smith
But... I can see Coby/Zach/Giddey/Pat being 4/5ths of not complete trash. It's not that I think they're horrible, it's just that there's no interesting upside there. I wouldn't be surprised if, were they healthy and motivated, these guys are a "competent" 30-35 win team.
I'd be utterly shocked if they were ever more than that. Med(iocre) floor and Med ceiling. And yeah, in the likely event that they trade Zach the first chance they get, or he just dogs it or gets hurt, they are in the 20-25 range.
But... I don't expect LaMelo Ball or Mark Williams to do anything until I see them do it in Charlotte, and that might be the same for Trae Young on the Hawks. I feel like the Hawks are probably superior based on just have a lot of guys, but if they lose Trae for another 30 games, what good will it do them?
Detroit... I have no idea.
1- Cade, Sasser
2- Ivy, Beasley, THJ
3- Fonteccio, Ausar, Holland
4- Harris, Reed
5- Stewart, Duren
That's a lot of guys, and interesting talent-wise, but it still seems like an utter mess of guys who can't shoot with a couple of guys who can only shoot tossed in for good measure.
Yeah, you're right about Charlotte. They're in the Bulls/Detroit tier. Here's a fun question: how likely is it that Coby, assuming he does not improve at all, is nevertheless the Bull's best player this year?
50/50? I’m not a Zach fan, but if he’s actually healthy I think he’s still better. I think Coby is a much easier player to play with though. He probably fits in pretty well to almost any situation.
But yeah, with DeMar gone, I think they’ll give Zach carte blanche to do what Zach does until they can trade him.
Since everyone else is talking about the ESPN article... My favorite part was Marc Eversley doubling down on the whole "we owed it to DeMar to go for the play-in one more time" thing that AK said during Summer League. That was so widely criticized after AK said it. I guess it shouldn't surprise me that this front office is so far removed from reality that literally no one has told them it was a really stupid thing to say and they should probably try to sweep it under the rug instead of doubling down on it.
It also had the most detail I've seen on the Zach vs. FO/coaches situation, which MikeDC talks a little more about in his comments. The TL;DR version is basically that Zach is sick of this organization not winning but also not willing to change the way he plays, even if it may mean winning more. Then AK is super angry that Zach can tell this isn't a serious organization and the team he built is never going to win anything.
I believe it was actually Eversley saying that in summer league too.
I think this article is a lot of that summer league scrum plus a few extra bits (so, anything more than what the local reporters were able to do)
Ahh that's my bad.
Eversley on LaVine's injury:
"Coming out of camp, he wasn't right. Him going down early in the season proved that."
...is he saying that Zach was playing hurt (undisclosed) to start the year and that's why he stunk and the team was 5-14?
Or that he got hurt and that proved he was gonna get hurt(?). Even MORE reason for Zach not to participate in training camp this year.
i've reconsidered:
it makes sense for LaVine to participate in training camp and have state media say he's "looking healthy" and "ready to contribute". I happen to believe other NBA teams know this already and Klutch can convince them, but whatever helps helps
no way he's in the rotation to start the season though.
Maybe KC Johnson should see this and before coming at humble fan bloggers for calling Zach unprofessional, recognize 'the narrative' is coming from his (and Zach's) employer
"It was short of a full trade request, but it still irked Karnisovas, sources told ESPN, a slight perceived as LaVine not being committed to sticking with the team."
But he's very professional in how he's not committed to sticking with the team and the epitome of the professional NBA player who's not interested in winning.
they’re so dumb how can the average observer do anything but side with Zach? i think it’s nonsense to say that teams don’t want him—they don’t want his contract. he’s not a purely net negative player. flawed yes, but i keep thinking about the stat that like 70% of nba teammates over his career aren’t in the league anymore or whatever. this week has reminded me that he has a gold medal! 8 years ago zach was tyrese haliburton.
i know i’m not making a new point—this front office keeps proving themselves to be incredibly stupid and directionless. they’re right to hide, talking to the media just makes me side with zach. it’s not his fault they gave him a monster albatross contract and proceeded to build The League’s Most 35-Win roster.
None of us are making new points, it would be amazing to have something to make new points about.
That's probably how KC Johnson feels most of the time (not that he's trying that much)
Man both sides suck. Mark Eversley has always come off as an empty suit to me and this article doubles down on that.
Zach bristling at the tiny bit of coaching Donovan does is super annoying.
The Bulls should go back to keeping their mouths shut. No organizational discipline
Admittedly that incident was in November 2022, nearly two years ago. I don't think he'd do it today, in these specific circumstances, though he'd probably feel the same way.
It's dumb things are at the point where it feels like the Bulls are daring him not to report. Collier reported that Donovan met him in LA this month but he seems to have bigger problems than his beef with Donovan, whatever the extent of it. Vegas is pretty close to LA, seems like if you actually wanted this handled, a meeting with the front office probably could be arranged when at least one of the bobsy twins were speccing out another Summer of Drell.
Instead it feels like a game of chicken. Am I wrong?
If you are, it's because for a real game of Chicken, one side needs to be able to win.
I think this is more of a prisoner's dilemma. Both sides would be better off if they cooperated with each other and found a trade.
But... there's no trade to be found that would suit both the Bulls and Zach. So they just sit there and be shitty with each other and wait for circumstances to change.
Sheez GV, why are you being obtuse. SA got the pick for taking on Barnes' salary. Bulls are trying to get rid of dead weight, not add more.
Yeah sure, the Hayward trade didn't work out for OKC. They were hoping he had a little bit left in the tank and could help them down the stretch, but it turns out he was washed. If Tre Mann sticks in the NBA, that will be a win for Charlotte.
Even if Hayward had done well for OKC though, it still wouldn't really change things for Charlotte because he wasn't adding value on the Hornets roster anyway. If Hayward had helped the Thunder get to the Finals, and then signed a 2/$50m deal with the Sixers, would that have made the trade any worse for Charlotte? I don't think so. Do you?
1. Obtuse? Taking on Barnes for the swap is a no-brainer — just like San Antonio had no great use for the "dead weight" of Thaddeus Young in 2021 but took him and our pick anyway when we acquired DeMar DeRozan from them. (Spoiler: they got a 1st rounder for Thaddeus Young.)
San Antonio could have also involved a third team because they were "trying to get rid of dead weight, not add more," but they didn't because San Antonio isn't fucking stupid.
2. Feel like I made my point on Charlotte and nobody else seems to be having difficulty comparing two separate trades and the players involved and the return and understanding the point I was trying to make. For more information, please re-read.
I understand all your points, I just don’t agree with them. I do give you credit for reading about Hayward retiring and weaving that into your meandering arguments. Bravo!
Well most people don't find it quite proper to play with themselves in public, but I think if you're enjoying it, I'll just give you a hand!
I remember when you were funny. Now all you've got are sour insults.
Saw this ESPN Insider article today:
https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/40669074/nba-offseason-survey-best-worst-most-shocking-moves
"Who Had the Worst Offseason?
Denver Nuggets: 6 votes
Chicago Bulls: 5
LA Clippers: 4
Los Angeles Lakers: 1
....
Chicago, after trading both Caruso and DeMar DeRozan and not getting a first-round pick in either deal (and watching the San Antonio Spurs get the best asset, a 2031 pick swap from the Kings, in the DeRozan deal)"
Aside from boilerplate trolling from gorditadog, nobody is arguing for these moves. And gorditadog doesn't believe his own arguments, it's just boilerplate trolling.
FWIW, both Danny and Nate on Dunc'd On gave the Bulls an F+* for their offseason, and that was (intending, anyway) to ignore prior context and just treat this transaction period on its own merit.
*they like Buzelis
Nate's take on Buzelis when I listened to the Summer League recap. It was basically... Buzelis looked fine to me, but that's in the context of me having him rated quite a bit lower than the consensus. He's active, which is good, but he gets the ball taken out of his hands too much and can't shoot. He'll be ok defensively, but hard to see how to play him offensively until/unless this stuff gets cleaned up.
They can't vote LAL #1 cause the work for ESPN...but having all these hope for a LBJ title run and coming up short has to be up there, no one expected much out of the Bulls
What's the bullish case for Giddey? Like, I made a bullish case for Coby on the old site centered around his age and his track record as a shooter. And that his flowering shooting could really change the game for him, unlocking other skills that by themselves aren't enough to make Coby a good player. So I am looking for concrete answers with some specificity (I'll give my own in a bit). And I do not want to hear there is none. That's stupid. And anyways, it's kind of sort of what I already believe so it's also boring. None of that shit.
Make the bullish case for Giddey.
The one thing that seems to be expected is offensive speed and flow. His vision and willingness to pass without dribbling or spending time on the ball encourages a fast paced offense with contagious passing.
If you attach +35% 3pt shooting, a plus 15% trb% (both numbers that would be on trend for career development) and some intelligent off ball defense that results in 2+ stocks per game then he can be a plus player.
Last season his on-off was positive (+0.5) on a good team which indicates that he's climbed the young player learning curve and has a platform to build on. He's seen statistical growth each year, the bullish case is that he keeps that improvement.
But the real coup for Giddey would be to develop a great relationship with Vuc that helps develop a late career efficiency renaissance.
Cherry on top would be consistent drippy lobs to high fliers Matas, Terry, Phillips and of course PWill.
Man, I'm trying to do this without being a jackass, because I keep looking for things and then realizing why I don't think they'll work out.
I guess the optimistic case is:
* He's shown consistent growth as a shooter, going from terrible to... marginally acceptable. If he can turn the corner into being a guy who opponents don't just leave open (maybe 35-36% on decent volume the next couple years, he'll be a much more threatening player.
* I think he's much more of a 3 than a 1. His TO% (>15% every year) and A/TO ratios and general handle look to me like that of a guy who's more of a good connective player than a pure PG. He's consistently right at 2:1 and turns the ball over a pretty fair amount for a guy who's not super high usage. That's not a strength you say? Well, no. But I'd flip it around and say that if you stop looking at him as a 1 and start looking at him as a 3 who can really find guys and pass it to them, you might be putting him into a good role for him.
In thinking this out, I came across a couple ideas.
1. Less likely. Have a 3 who generates a lot of assists and can't shoot? Sounds a little like DeMar. Except, well, Giddey turns it over a ton, can't create his own shot, and gets to the line like... Vuc instead of like DeMar. Like never.
2. A little more likely. How far away is he from Lonzo Ball? Well, Lonzo by the time he reached the Bulls had developed from a really sketchy shooter to a really good one. I think it's conceivable that Giddey can do that.
Defensively, obviously the comparison breaks down. Lonzo was a really strong defensive player from basically day 1. Good on the ball defense, plus good at disrupting and getting possessions (steals, deflections, etc). Giddey isn't. I don't think he's complete trash. He seems to contest ok and he's big enough to at least be an obstacle. Positionally he's probably average. He's decidedly below average at generating turnovers and disruptions.
So what does that get us? Well, what I get to is we might get the offensive side of Lonzo if Giddey puts in insane time on his shot. Which is a nice player to have, especially if you have guys who can create around him. Defensively though he's nothing special at all, so when I say Lonzo, realize I'm only talking about on offense.
Bullish on him becoming a Vuc small fwd. Not Bullish on him dropping his excessive um habit. Also not Bullish on Bulls.
I'm probably overreacting a little bit, but Joel Embiid doesn't seem nearly as good when the refs don't call a foul every time he even looks at the rim.
Giddey is the SLOB wizard no more. A devastating SLOB turnover to seal Australia's doom.
To be fair to him, he had absolutely nowhere to throw that inbounds pass and Australia didn't have any timeouts. I understand drawing up a play for Mills but no one else even tried to get open when it was clear Mills was covered.
Yeah, if you've only got two scorers, it's sorta weird to make one the in-bounder unless they're going to get the ball back. He still panicked.
He didn't panick. He literally had no choice to make that pass or it was a 5 second violation.
I have to agree with Diabolo. I just don't see how Giddey panicked right there. According to the ref, Giddey had used up four seconds before passing, and that ref was counting incredibly slow.
I've watched the replay multiple times and literally no one even tries to get themselves open other than Mills. Basically as Giddey is passing the ball, Duop Reath finally starts to make a move away from Jokic but it's already way too late.
If you want to say Giddey had some bad turnovers late in the game, be my guest. He absolutely did. And while the SLOB turnover was obviously bad, it also wasn't really on him. Why choose that one to focus on other than the fact that he's known for his skill at SLOB passing?
Thoughts on Giddey now that Australia is done:
1. Being one of the best players on an Olympic team isn't easy and he handled himself well for the most part. He was inconsistent, but so was Patty Mills who could be considered Australia's other best player and is far more experienced.
2. As expected, his passing ability is going to be a welcome sight in Chicago. With that being said, he can't really manipulate defenses with his scoring ability which makes passing more difficult for him (ie. lots of turnovers). I wouldn't consider DeMar a great passer, but he was good at collapsing defenses and hitting the open man. Giddey is going to have a harder time doing that until he becomes a better scorer.
3. Speaking of scoring, that three ball is UGLY. Patton's going to have his work cut out for him. He did shoot the three well during Australia's run, but I'm going to go off of his previous three years of shooting it poorly in the NBA. Him developing a consistent three point shot should probably be the top priority for him.
4. I don't think Giddey will ever be a great defender. He lacks athleticism and I'm not sure he necessarily wants to be a good defender. With that being said, he does seem to have pretty good instincts and can be pretty effective playing passing lanes. If the Bulls can sort of hide him on defense (not going to be possible with a starting backcourt of Giddey, White and LaVine), I could see him being a solid help defender.
5. He's also a good rebounder thanks to his size and good instincts. Coupled with the fact that he likes to get out in transition, I'm excited to see a more up tempo style of play this coming season. The Bulls will bleed points on defense, but maybe their offense will start to resemble the rest of the league a little bit.
I'm trying to be fair to Giddey. It's not his fault that AK is an idiot and made a terrible trade for him, and I'm trying to remind myself of that when watching him play. I genuinely hope he can turn himself into a pretty solid player and be a good addition to this team. We'll just have to wait and see.
Whenever you take a big PG who can pass, I immediately think of Jason Kidd in New Jersey — a guy who can crash the boards and lead the break and frankly it's really hard to defend that no matter what era or style of play. (Kidd obviously wasn't a giant by stature but always played big from the time he was at Cal.)
The difference is that Jason Kidd played with Kenyon Martin and Jason Collins, who were okay with a PG "stealing" their uncontested rebounds that big men usually get to pad their stats, in exchange for getting the ball on the break. And it helped that they were immediately a Finals team in a weak East, so everyone could see it was working. Vuc gets almost all of the Bulls uncontested rebounds, and the Double Double Machine Championship belt seems really important to him. Just like touches were important to him a year ago (and he answered his haters by shooting a blistering 29% from 3.)
There's not going to be much "fit" at the start of this year but again this is a classic Karnisovas/Eversley handicap. Here you have a possible advantage that other teams will have to account for but you have a 34 year old center *literally* standing in the way for no good reason.
Aside from that, Giddey really only has to shoot about 38%ish from 3 to become at least an above average PG, though that's easier said than done. I just think shooting is part of the PG job description now, if you can't do it you're like a 6'6" center. Every few years someone will have a tiny center or a bad-shooting PG that will work but... nobody really wants that.
Lonzo is a great example of your final paragraph. As soon as he developed a three, he was instantly so much better. While Giddey's form is particularly bad from three, it's definitely not as bad as Lonzo's was. Hopefully he can make a similar jump within the next few years.
Giddey's defense will always pale in comparison to Lonzo's, but his overall offense could be significantly better than Lonzo's if he develops a three. The problem is Lonzo was great at being effective without requiring the ball in his hands - something that is especially useful when you're not a top 1 or 2 player on a good team. I think Giddey will likely always need the ball in his hands to be effective. The problem is I'm not sure he'll ever be a #1 or 2 on a good team.
He's so young that I'm willing to see how he grows, but there is a slight fear in the back of my mind that he could be our next Zach LaVine. A guy that is really good at what he does, but he requires the ball in his hands, and he's not good enough to be a first or second option on a good team because his game is fairly one dimensional. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
I think the comparisons to Lavine are very premature. Him needing the ball in his hands is a clear concern, but at 21 he seems a lot more mature than Lavine is at 29. Giddey was willing to do his best off ball last year, even when it hurt his personal stats a lot and didn't complain when he was benched. He also handled the allegations against him as well as anyone could.
Contrast that to Zach throwing a tantrum after he was benched and getting surgery to avoid the Detroit trade.
Those behaviors make me think Giddey has the maturity to understand he needs to work on his weaknesses and will do what is best for the team, even if it isn't the best for him in the short term.
He'll probably never be as good off ball as he is on ball, but I feel like he will put the work in to get notably better.
Sorry, I guess I probably wasn't clear in my previous comment. I'm not saying I think Giddey WILL be like Zach. I was just saying there's a small fear that it could happen. And I should also clarify I don't mean that in terms of Giddey being like Zach as a person. I mean he could potentially be like Zach in the sense that he could be very good at what he does, but because he needs the ball in his hands to do it, he would kind of cap how good his team can be.
Again, not saying I expect that to happen. It's far too soon to even entertain that idea. Just saying there is a small fear it could eventually happen if he can't learn to be more productive off-ball.
You were clear. I think I wasn't.
I was trying to allay that fear a bit by showing that he has a much better and more team oriented attitude that Lavine. That attitutde should translate into working more on what the coaches will ask of him (likely things that will make him better off-ball & on defense).
He obviously still has to succeed in that development, but he seems likely to put the effort in.
I certainly hope so, but I'd still say it's too early to know that for sure. Zach was basically the same age as Giddey is now when he was traded to the Bulls. Nobody thought of him as a potential bad egg at that time and no one had reason to.
I'm not trying to say Giddey is, or will become, the same as Zach, but the biggest mark against Zach's reputation is probably him asking to be traded. Giddey has also asked to be traded. I'd even say Zach's was more justifiable. He's played for a joke of an organization for so long. Giddey asked to be traded from one of the best teams in the league.
Again, I'm not saying Giddey will become LaVine (nor do I expect him to) and I don't even necessarily have a problem with him asking to be traded from a situation that didn't really fit him. I'm just saying he's not exactly a shining example of a team-first guy.
> and didn't complain when he was benched
Demanding a trade is a huge complaint!
Seeing that you're not a good fit with the rest of the roster and looking to move on after the end of the season is very different from throwing a tantrum during the season.
It's the mature way to handle the situation.
It's exactly the same thing, dressed up in a bunch of weasel words.
Pretty good speech from Billy Donovan to the UF football team. The edit includes a lot of footage of a very young Joakim Noah from his UF days. https://x.com/GatorsFB/status/1821189603459756535
Bulls losing another staff member this summer under cover of obscurity
https://www.silverscreenandroll.com/2024/8/7/24215831/lakers-ty-abbott-director-player-development-chicago-bulls-jj-redick-coaching-staff
Ty Abbott joined Chicago in 2020 as part of a 'hiring spree' (relative term in 'dorf teams). As he came from Philadelphia I assume he was close with Marc Eversley.
The only official or unofficial Bulls comment on this has been from Zach LaVine, heh. Maybe looking to reconnect soon on the Lakers?
Bulls and KC have responded to my complaints, threw the latter a bone to report E’Twaun Moore has been hired as a scout