Denver fires their coach and GM less than two years after winning a championship and the Bulls give their front office and coaching staff lifetime jobs for making the play-in.
You're worse than "cup half empty." You're "the cup is shattered on the floor." You fail to: a) realize that every season, 29 or maybe 28 NBA teams are trash, and b) find joy in the game. BTW, the game IS unwatchable ... all 3's and dunks, either profiling or whining for foul calls. In 2024-25, the Bulls overachieved, without Caruso, Drummond, DeRozan and LaVine ... bitter dregs for you.
You totally missed the irony and sarcasm in my reply. The Bulls are rebuilding in place. The NBA needs some structural changes, like move the 3-point line back a foot or two, call T's for excessive griping, call palming and steps, bury the Euro-step, and shut off the organ, PA system and piped in crowd noise while the ball is in play. How about adjusting the salary cap and trade regs to actually promote equity? Otherwise, AKME seems to believe that churning the roster is a fool's errand. He's likely also forbidden by Reinsdorf to take a deep tank. The paying customers are entertained by a competitive game. A few years ago with Ball & Co., they did try to dominate. Given their recent moves and current posture, today their arrow is pointing up.
I can see a difference of opinion, but IMHO, AKME came in to pull the Bulls out of the GarPax dumpster. Maybe GarPax were allowed to tank but if so, it lasted too long. A year or so after arriving AKME turned broken eggs into an omelet by accuiring Vucevic, DeRozan, Caruso and Ball. A few years later they're "patiently" rebuilding while winning enough to make the play-ins and not enough to get a top-4 pick. They can't tank again until they've been truly competitive for a while.
I have no inside info. I'm stating my opinion based on what I've seen. But I've read numerous articles and blog posts opining about AKME as if they were mindreaders or flies on the wall. I'm not buying the doom and gloom.
The problem is how are you going to become competitive when you have so many poor trades, bad draft picks, over market contracts, and no stockpile of picks.
Baring a playoff miracle this Bulls team looks far from competitive despite a streak of Ws at the end of the season.
That's old news. They they have some youth with upside, some picks and cap space, but there's still a long way to go. A lot of teams have issues and very few stay on top for long, so there's opportunities.
You're claiming that you can divine or intuit AKME's motives and ambitions, and you're overlooking that very few teams are consistently great. Also, many but not all fans are excessively happy when their team wins and angry when they lose. Veteran players frequently say that it's good to maintain an even keel ... not too high, not too low. I am disappointed by the slow pace. I actually don't see a good trade of Vucevic this offseason; maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. But they have a pick, and some salary cap, and a some tradeable depth, and some youth with upside. The cup is half full.
“the team is only going to improve, and doesn’t need big swings to do so”
This is the most frustrating part of all of this. It spits in the face of NBA history and insults the intelligence of fans.
Decades of history has told us that keeping a “mediocre at best” team together for years doesn’t suddenly result in a leap in performance. This league is defined by superstars. If you don’t have one, your top priority should be getting one.
Any self-respecting owner would recognize that AK is in over his head. But the problem is that the Reinsdorfs encourage this behavior. They view the Bulls like a stable, conservative stock portfolio. No major risks, no big investments. Just avoid playing the game of major highs and lows and watch the value of your investment steadily rise.
AK is not the Reinsdorf’s team president. He’s their money manager. And as far as they’re concerned, he’s doing a great job.
Getting some experience in a close play-in loss will bring the core group some much-needed exposure, and as long as the fans bring the appropriate energy I can see this translating into a marked improvement next year due to internal progress vis-a-vis incremental gains on the margins as opposed to splashy media-fueled talent acquisitions.
I also think yfbb is overly pessimistic. But he's also mostly correct. As long as I can see a path, and there is one, I'm going to hold out hope that AKME stumbles into it. When the gripes about the game on the court lead to palming and traveling complaints, I tune casuals out. That's ridiculous. The game and players are clearly the best it/they have ever been.
I feel like the suggested $15 mil /per is plenty for Giddey. Most likely outcome is he turns back into a pumpkin next year and you're paying that amount for a guy you're trying to replace in the starting lineup. Already have Pat Williams for that.
I think it is going to be at least $25MM. I don't know why he would sign for less. Everyone else in his class that's any good is getting $30. If we try to lowball him he will just play out his option.
if he wants to forego that, it's $11M for one season. He does gain trade veto power.
but is that really a risk? The Bulls would still have bird rights and cap space in 2026, and while more other teams will as well they can just give him the same offer then after more certainty of his projection
the downside is that next season he plays so well he leaves on a max contract. That is very unlikely and still his incumbent team would have an advantage to retain him (unless he gets really upset and is willing to take less to stick it to the Bulls?)
4) In the last 20 games, Giddey has been out 5. 3 - 2 in those 5. 1 loss CLE, 1 loss HOU, but they played a very good HOU team close. No real evidence of drop off with Giddey out.
These last 20 games (13 - 7) have been great, better style, better competitiveness (apologies for using AKME language) but what does AKME attribute that to?
Here are my turnaround attributions:
1) Zach is gone
2) Coby White as a lead is a for real fringe all-star, with great intangibles.
3) Mickey Mouse March
4) Actually the trade return was good and was an upgrade in all 3 spots.
5) Giddey can rebound good for a guard on a team that lacks rebounding where they should have it.
A lot of Giddey's value comes from rebounding, and to build around that skill would be insane. AKME can see that... right?
I agree that the second best thing is debatable. That's how bad this front office is. You need a super special draft talent to imagine a path to success.
Would you trade the Bulls getting Cooper Flagg for the FO getting canned and then we get #1 overall next year? With no clue who that #1 might be, I'm thinking yes.
In reality, we'll get AK plus the 10 pick this year and AK plus somewhere between the 9 pick and the 12 pick next year.
per Ricky, next year has two studs (including a Boozer scion) that are if not as good as Flagg at least franchise-changers
I was wrong on this for this season, but am making another prediction: if the Bulls roll out this plucky March group for next full season, they will win under 25 games and have a very good (though not top-4) lottery position
The first two are completely irrelevant. Contrary to what is being said, nobody actually thinks this team has the potential to be more than what it is, and nobody is all that entertained.
I don't think Giddey is totally worthless, but I do think he's closer to $15M than $25M. I don't think I'd go over $20M/year. I think he's gettable to a decent long term deal closer to the lower end because I don't think there's a market for him.
I think both he and Coby are like 3rd or 4th best guys at their absolute best. But most likely 4-6th.
If I were looking to build a team employing those two guys and Matas, I'd be looking to fill in with guys in the following archetypes (Note: I'm purposely not looking at obviously the best players in the league... everyone looks good playing next to Luka).
1. A center in the mode of Hartenstein or Porzingis (flexible, two way player) or Lively (athletic help defender). Absolute best case scenarios would be guys in the mold of AD or Mobley or JJJ, although I'd say most of those guys are really kind of PFs)
2. A Guard who can shoot and isn't a train wreck defensively (Desmond Bane maybe Jalen Suggs if his shot comes around)
3. A high level guard/forward who can defend flexibly and not be shit on offense. OG or maybe eventually Brandon Miller
G- Bane
G- Coby/Giddey
F- Matas
F- OG
C- Hartenstein
None of those guys are all-stars... put it all together and you have, what? A 40-45 win team tops.
agreed on 'identity'. AK is placing a value judgement on this - it's good they're playing fast and shooting threes irrespective of results. But the true identity of a team comes from getting better talent, not the other way around.
it's good that they are playing a style best suiting their talent! because they lack talent, especially defensively, they need to speed up the game and shoot more threes.
luckily (?) AK is just spinning what he can, and if they trade for Zion they will not say he fits their style but they'll change the style to fit him. If they roll out this same team with a $30M Josh Giddey, they will keep with this bullshit that they have a formula of out-running teams that aren't trying (congrats)
Queen looks like the opposite of a paint protector to me. And not really a lottery level pick to me. Undersized height and wingspan, doesn't block shots, and an over 20 year old freshman.
Vooch is 43rd out of 44 qualified centers in free throw rate. Everyone around him either only shoots 3s or is a rookie. But I guess you're paying for the paint defense. The complete unwillingness to draw contact is just a bonus.
It's becoming clear that Lonzo is out for good, having hurt his wrist signing a contract extension too fast for AK to take it back. Another feather in their cap, no need for a first rounder (now pick #19) no sir.
It’s looking like AK’s tenure is ultimately going to be defined by his unwillingness to move on from players at the right time.
He kept DeRozan and Caruso at least half a season too long.
He kept LaVine at least a year too long.
He’s keeping Vucevic at least a year and a half too long.
He paid to keep Williams when it would have been smarter to let him walk.
He paid to keep Ball when it would have been smarter to trade him.
In total how much money and potential draft picks have been wasted these past couple of years due to his insistence on keeping the team together? And what is there to show for it? A couple of play-in wins?
The play-in tournament is a Bulls fan’s worst nightmare. It’s prevented the Bulls from ever having to accept their failures.
You missed another biggie... Drummond. We got nothing for him leaving.
The only one I think I disagree with is Ball. I'd have been totally fine with him being traded, but I'm good with the re-signing, as well. At $10M/yr, with a team option for the second year, it's a low cost gamble for a player who is excellent when he is on the court. What would we have gotten for him in a trade? I can't imagine much.
I'd much rather see AKME make more gambles like this, than spend the same (or more) money on known mediocre players.
that's still a good amount of money for a player that was out for 2 years and still hasn't proved that he can stay on the court for meaningful periods of time.
Who else could you get that would be a better gamble? He has a reasonably high upside and can be traded as an expiring (not that I expect AKME to make intelligent trades).
Hollinger reported that the Bulls were offered a first round pick for Ball.
I like Lonzo a lot, but if I’m being truly objective about this, it doesn’t make sense for a perennial play-in team to choose an often injured non-superstar veteran over a first round pick. It’s just a bad team building decision.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think specific details ever came out. Hollinger just reported “According to a league source, the Bulls had a firm offer to get a first-round pick and take on future money for Lonzo Ball and extended him instead.”
I’d argue that any kind of a first round pick offer for a veteran with a troubling injury history on an expiring deal is one that a team going nowhere would be smart to take.
The Grizzlies gave away that pick to offload Marcus Smart. Who is, himself, a guy the Bulls might have been able to rehab into another pick a year down the road.
And Jake Laravia who is an actual PF who shoots 40% on threes.
Trying to trade players at their absolute high value is an impossible standard, but if that's what you go by you must think Presti really sucks. He traded Giddey at his all time low value, to get Caruso, who will never play 2000 minutes again, and will never be worth more than when we traded him.
Trading players at their absolute peak certainly is difficult, but trading them when they are a positive asset on a team that can't really make use of them is not.
Also, your Presti example isn't as good as you think it is. Presti traded a player he had no use for for a player who plays a very meaningful role on the team, even though that role isn't that big.
Your Presti example is actually a perfect example of what AK should have done. He should have understood when Zach, DeMar, Vooch, AC, Lonzo, Drummond, etc. no longer held value to the Bulls but would hold value to other teams and traded them when that became apparent, even if it wasn't necessarily an "equal" return.
Trades don't need to net you the maximum return. That's been one of AK's biggest issues. He thinks he needs to get the absolute best return possible, so he backs out of trades that he thinks don't give him that. Sometimes addition by subtraction is just as important as maximizing your return.
"He traded Giddey at his all time low value, to get Caruso, who will never play 2000 minutes again, and will never be worth more than when we traded him."
Let me rephrase your quote above: "He traded Giddey, who he had practically no use for, for a player that has helped make them one of the best defensive teams of all-time and made them a title favorite for years to come."
Caruso alone doesn't make them one of the best defensive teams ever or a title contender, but he plays an important part in those things. Giddey did not. So yes, you could argue that the Thunder traded a better player for a worse player, but they traded a player they didn't need for one they did. That's something AK has refused to do for much of his time in Chicago.
What you just said makes more sense than your original post. Yes, in the context that Giddey didn't fit as a playmaker on a team that has SGA, it made sense to trade him. Caruso has value as a defensive specialist with OKC.
On the other side, Caruso had low value to us, and so we traded him for a young player with lots of upside, that can be very useful to us going forward.
We sold high on a player with no use to us and bought low on a player who could be very useful. Seems like a great trade to me.
I haven't made any original posts on this article, so I'm not 100% sure what you're referring to there.
But with regard to the Giddey/Caruso trade, I don't think it was a horrible trade. The problem was that they didn't sell high on Caruso. They could have, and just about every national analyst agrees, asked for more from OKC in return.
My problem was never with the return of Giddey. My problem was that they were trading a guy with immense interest from teams around the league for a guy who had just been played off the court and didn't get any additional picks.
It's just strange behavior from AK. He'll refuse to make other trades because he feels he's not getting enough in return but then the trades he does make, he usually gets less than just about everyone thinks he should have gotten.
Yeah, everyone is missing the forest for the trees there, I think. In retrospect AK probably wishes he held out for a top-55 protected 2nd rounder so all the writers would shut up about that.
> So yes, you could argue that the Thunder traded a better player for a worse player...
You could, but you shouldn't.
I continue to be amazed people seem to turn "guy couldn't play next to the likely league MVP" as some sort of selling point. It's really not.
What is our path to being an even average team? Compared to other young players in their age range, except maybe for Matas, our guys are solidly in the "journeyman" category.
So, uh, the Bulls are resting Coby tonight against the Cavs? And Vuc is questionable with “calf soreness injury management”?
They’re seemingly not trying to win this game, which seems insane. They’re 0.5 game ahead of the 10 seed. They’re 1.0 game back of the 8 seed and 2.0 games back of the 7 seed. They’re not in a position at this stage of the season to just throw a game away.
So let me see if I got this right. In a year where it made sense for them to blow it up and tank, they instead tried all year and got another play-in spot. And now with four games left and seeding on the line, Billy (after spending all season lecturing about the importance of trying to win) is sending the message that they’re ok with playing in the 9 vs 10 game instead of going for the 7 vs 8 game.
It’s hard to not conclude that this season has been an insult to this fan base.
I agree that it's insulting. I disagree that it's insane.
Chances of winning this game are slim and they have a back to back with Miami tomorrow. The Miami game is winnable, the Cleveland game would need an impeccable, full-out performance. Let's give EJ Liddell some burn.
It’s insane given the context of the messaging we’ve been getting from Billy all season.
He’s been captain of the “trying to win every game matters” ship this season. And now with four games left and at least a chance to move up in the play-in standings, Billy’s focusing on strategic resting?
Even though I disagreed with the notion of pushing for the play-in tournament, I could at least respect a coach trying to win every game. Now even that is shaky. So it’s important to try to win every game in a season that’s likely going nowhere, except the games that you don’t think you have a good chance of winning? Sounds like a great way to be a 38 win team every year.
Yeah, I mean I get that the Bulls probably aren’t going to win tonight. It’s just the bigger picture that’s driving me nuts.
Like, what are we doing here? Why is Billy spending all season talking about how important winning is and now when he at least has a slight chance to go into the Miami matchup with a one game lead, he’s instead just resigning himself to going into that game with their records tied?
Mitchell isn’t playing and Cleveland just lost at home to the Kings. If you’re really trying to win every game, wouldn’t you believe a victory tonight is at least somewhat possible? Why not start Coby and then rest him for the last quarter or two if the game gets out of hand?
Idk. Just seems like sudden loser behavior from a coach that previously hasn’t been accepting that his team isn’t good all season long.
Well, yes that’s true. The strategic rest is insane mainly because it’s the opposite of what Billy has been saying all year.
This is why I’m pushing back against the idea that things might be trending up for this team overall. The guys in charge appear to just be shrugging their shoulders and aiming for a 9 vs 10 play-in game for a third straight year. It’s as if their goal is to do just enough to keep the Reinsdorfs happy without aiming too high because that might result in a failure that they can’t explain away.
So Atlanta lost last night. Meaning if the Bulls would have tried against Cleveland and won, they’d be tied for the 8 seed right now.
They likely wouldn’t have won even if most of their starters played, but I subscribe to the idea that nothing represents the AK era more than this team choosing to prioritize being the home team in a 9 vs 10 play-in game over the opportunity to try and climb up in the standings.
Eli at BN Bulls threw out the theory that the Bulls are focusing on getting Jerry his play-in revenue, so basically they’d rather host the 9 vs 10 game than travel for the 7 vs 8 game. And I think everyone here would agree that’s probably not a theory! That’s probably what’s happening! Because if they get that play-in revenue, nothing else matters! Everyone gets to keep their job.
It would be great if one reporter who covered the Bulls tried to make a story out of what’s going on here. But nope. This front office successfully lulled them into a state of apathy.
I agree with what you're saying; however, if the Bulls had won last night, they'd still be a half game behind Atlanta since they have one more loss than Atlanta does.
But overall, resting their players last night really makes no sense, unless they genuinely believe they can't get to the 7/8 seed and they want to guarantee they stay the 9 seed for a home play-in game.
Because if you think about it, if they make it to the 8 seed, they would guarantee themselves at least one home game. If they win the play-in as the 8 seed, obviously they don't get a home play-in game, but they'd guarantee themselves at least two home playoff games. If they lose the 7/8 play-in game, they would then host the second play-in game against whoever wins the 9/10 game. Plus, they give themselves two shots at making the playoffs as opposed to one.
Regardless, resting their players last night made no sense in terms of play-in seeding. It also made no sense with Billy preaching all season that every game is important. If they're all important, why rest four starters?
You’re right, they’d still be a half game back. Good catch. But they’d be closer nonetheless, which I would think matters for a coach who wants to win every game.
Good points about the home games.
So either Billy has no faith is his team’s ability to climb the standings or he’s so focused on the game against Miami that he’s not thinking about any of these other big picture points that could matter.
The only possibility I can think of is that either the FO or ownership mandated sitting the starters last night. Their reasoning being they know the team has clinched a play-in spot, so they want their guys as rested as possible to hopefully win their play-in game(s) and make the playoffs.
Denver fires their coach and GM less than two years after winning a championship and the Bulls give their front office and coaching staff lifetime jobs for making the play-in.
yup: https://www.bleachernation.com/bulls/2025/04/08/chicago-bulls-loyal-fault/
You're worse than "cup half empty." You're "the cup is shattered on the floor." You fail to: a) realize that every season, 29 or maybe 28 NBA teams are trash, and b) find joy in the game. BTW, the game IS unwatchable ... all 3's and dunks, either profiling or whining for foul calls. In 2024-25, the Bulls overachieved, without Caruso, Drummond, DeRozan and LaVine ... bitter dregs for you.
So your take is he’s too pessimistic to realize almost every team is bad and he should find joy in a game that you believe is unwatchable?
You totally missed the irony and sarcasm in my reply. The Bulls are rebuilding in place. The NBA needs some structural changes, like move the 3-point line back a foot or two, call T's for excessive griping, call palming and steps, bury the Euro-step, and shut off the organ, PA system and piped in crowd noise while the ball is in play. How about adjusting the salary cap and trade regs to actually promote equity? Otherwise, AKME seems to believe that churning the roster is a fool's errand. He's likely also forbidden by Reinsdorf to take a deep tank. The paying customers are entertained by a competitive game. A few years ago with Ball & Co., they did try to dominate. Given their recent moves and current posture, today their arrow is pointing up.
I can see a difference of opinion, but IMHO, AKME came in to pull the Bulls out of the GarPax dumpster. Maybe GarPax were allowed to tank but if so, it lasted too long. A year or so after arriving AKME turned broken eggs into an omelet by accuiring Vucevic, DeRozan, Caruso and Ball. A few years later they're "patiently" rebuilding while winning enough to make the play-ins and not enough to get a top-4 pick. They can't tank again until they've been truly competitive for a while.
I have no inside info. I'm stating my opinion based on what I've seen. But I've read numerous articles and blog posts opining about AKME as if they were mindreaders or flies on the wall. I'm not buying the doom and gloom.
The problem is how are you going to become competitive when you have so many poor trades, bad draft picks, over market contracts, and no stockpile of picks.
Baring a playoff miracle this Bulls team looks far from competitive despite a streak of Ws at the end of the season.
That's old news. They they have some youth with upside, some picks and cap space, but there's still a long way to go. A lot of teams have issues and very few stay on top for long, so there's opportunities.
I didn’t miss your point. I do disagree with it, though.
AK is operating in the same league as every other GM/President, yet most of them aren’t settling for the play-in every year.
If the league made major changes, AK would then aim for the middle of the new version of the NBA.
The problem is that this front office has no big ambitions. That has nothing to do with the way the league operates as a whole.
You're claiming that you can divine or intuit AKME's motives and ambitions, and you're overlooking that very few teams are consistently great. Also, many but not all fans are excessively happy when their team wins and angry when they lose. Veteran players frequently say that it's good to maintain an even keel ... not too high, not too low. I am disappointed by the slow pace. I actually don't see a good trade of Vucevic this offseason; maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. But they have a pick, and some salary cap, and a some tradeable depth, and some youth with upside. The cup is half full.
“the team is only going to improve, and doesn’t need big swings to do so”
This is the most frustrating part of all of this. It spits in the face of NBA history and insults the intelligence of fans.
Decades of history has told us that keeping a “mediocre at best” team together for years doesn’t suddenly result in a leap in performance. This league is defined by superstars. If you don’t have one, your top priority should be getting one.
Any self-respecting owner would recognize that AK is in over his head. But the problem is that the Reinsdorfs encourage this behavior. They view the Bulls like a stable, conservative stock portfolio. No major risks, no big investments. Just avoid playing the game of major highs and lows and watch the value of your investment steadily rise.
AK is not the Reinsdorf’s team president. He’s their money manager. And as far as they’re concerned, he’s doing a great job.
Getting some experience in a close play-in loss will bring the core group some much-needed exposure, and as long as the fans bring the appropriate energy I can see this translating into a marked improvement next year due to internal progress vis-a-vis incremental gains on the margins as opposed to splashy media-fueled talent acquisitions.
I also think yfbb is overly pessimistic. But he's also mostly correct. As long as I can see a path, and there is one, I'm going to hold out hope that AKME stumbles into it. When the gripes about the game on the court lead to palming and traveling complaints, I tune casuals out. That's ridiculous. The game and players are clearly the best it/they have ever been.
I am going to be so pissed off when the Bulls outbid an imaginary market with nonexistent cap space to the tune of 4yrs and $20-25mil per yr.
I feel like the suggested $15 mil /per is plenty for Giddey. Most likely outcome is he turns back into a pumpkin next year and you're paying that amount for a guy you're trying to replace in the starting lineup. Already have Pat Williams for that.
I think it is going to be at least $25MM. I don't know why he would sign for less. Everyone else in his class that's any good is getting $30. If we try to lowball him he will just play out his option.
if he wants to forego that, it's $11M for one season. He does gain trade veto power.
but is that really a risk? The Bulls would still have bird rights and cap space in 2026, and while more other teams will as well they can just give him the same offer then after more certainty of his projection
the downside is that next season he plays so well he leaves on a max contract. That is very unlikely and still his incumbent team would have an advantage to retain him (unless he gets really upset and is willing to take less to stick it to the Bulls?)
Ok, point taken.
Don’t threaten me with a good time
All signs point to AKME overpaying Giddey. It's what they do. I've got some optimism though:
1) Donovan sat him down the stretch in the Mavs game. Teams can still take advantage of Giddey. Hopefully Donovan and AKME are talking about this.
2) Lonzo is signed, and he is a guard. AKME likes to fill out a roster, and having played 1/3 of a season in 3 years is irrelevant.
3) The may luck into the Lithuanian again. Kasparas through the draft would give the Bulls a full complement of guards.
4) In the last 20 games, Giddey has been out 5. 3 - 2 in those 5. 1 loss CLE, 1 loss HOU, but they played a very good HOU team close. No real evidence of drop off with Giddey out.
These last 20 games (13 - 7) have been great, better style, better competitiveness (apologies for using AKME language) but what does AKME attribute that to?
Here are my turnaround attributions:
1) Zach is gone
2) Coby White as a lead is a for real fringe all-star, with great intangibles.
3) Mickey Mouse March
4) Actually the trade return was good and was an upgrade in all 3 spots.
5) Giddey can rebound good for a guard on a team that lacks rebounding where they should have it.
A lot of Giddey's value comes from rebounding, and to build around that skill would be insane. AKME can see that... right?
I agree that the second best thing is debatable. That's how bad this front office is. You need a super special draft talent to imagine a path to success.
Would you trade the Bulls getting Cooper Flagg for the FO getting canned and then we get #1 overall next year? With no clue who that #1 might be, I'm thinking yes.
In reality, we'll get AK plus the 10 pick this year and AK plus somewhere between the 9 pick and the 12 pick next year.
per Ricky, next year has two studs (including a Boozer scion) that are if not as good as Flagg at least franchise-changers
I was wrong on this for this season, but am making another prediction: if the Bulls roll out this plucky March group for next full season, they will win under 25 games and have a very good (though not top-4) lottery position
Pina's column is weird. He notes 3 positives:
* More 3s
* Faster
* Giddey makes teammates better on offense.
The first two are completely irrelevant. Contrary to what is being said, nobody actually thinks this team has the potential to be more than what it is, and nobody is all that entertained.
I don't think Giddey is totally worthless, but I do think he's closer to $15M than $25M. I don't think I'd go over $20M/year. I think he's gettable to a decent long term deal closer to the lower end because I don't think there's a market for him.
I think both he and Coby are like 3rd or 4th best guys at their absolute best. But most likely 4-6th.
If I were looking to build a team employing those two guys and Matas, I'd be looking to fill in with guys in the following archetypes (Note: I'm purposely not looking at obviously the best players in the league... everyone looks good playing next to Luka).
1. A center in the mode of Hartenstein or Porzingis (flexible, two way player) or Lively (athletic help defender). Absolute best case scenarios would be guys in the mold of AD or Mobley or JJJ, although I'd say most of those guys are really kind of PFs)
2. A Guard who can shoot and isn't a train wreck defensively (Desmond Bane maybe Jalen Suggs if his shot comes around)
3. A high level guard/forward who can defend flexibly and not be shit on offense. OG or maybe eventually Brandon Miller
G- Bane
G- Coby/Giddey
F- Matas
F- OG
C- Hartenstein
None of those guys are all-stars... put it all together and you have, what? A 40-45 win team tops.
agreed on 'identity'. AK is placing a value judgement on this - it's good they're playing fast and shooting threes irrespective of results. But the true identity of a team comes from getting better talent, not the other way around.
it's good that they are playing a style best suiting their talent! because they lack talent, especially defensively, they need to speed up the game and shoot more threes.
luckily (?) AK is just spinning what he can, and if they trade for Zion they will not say he fits their style but they'll change the style to fit him. If they roll out this same team with a $30M Josh Giddey, they will keep with this bullshit that they have a formula of out-running teams that aren't trying (congrats)
We definitely could use a paint protector. Derrick Queen would be nice to get. Maluach will be gone most likely.
Queen looks like the opposite of a paint protector to me. And not really a lottery level pick to me. Undersized height and wingspan, doesn't block shots, and an over 20 year old freshman.
Yeah, Queen isn't your guy if you're looking for paint protection.
yea Queen is a poor paint protector/defender. He is pretty much an undersized offense only 5....no thanks
Vooch is 43rd out of 44 qualified centers in free throw rate. Everyone around him either only shoots 3s or is a rookie. But I guess you're paying for the paint defense. The complete unwillingness to draw contact is just a bonus.
credit to Giddey, he was essentially a guard version of Vuc on his and has really raised his FTAr
Sounds like my ex-wife
You guys--I think I have play-in fever. Is there an ointment for it?
Lotion, maybe? A little post-nut clarity should clear up that play-in fever quickly.
It's becoming clear that Lonzo is out for good, having hurt his wrist signing a contract extension too fast for AK to take it back. Another feather in their cap, no need for a first rounder (now pick #19) no sir.
It’s looking like AK’s tenure is ultimately going to be defined by his unwillingness to move on from players at the right time.
He kept DeRozan and Caruso at least half a season too long.
He kept LaVine at least a year too long.
He’s keeping Vucevic at least a year and a half too long.
He paid to keep Williams when it would have been smarter to let him walk.
He paid to keep Ball when it would have been smarter to trade him.
In total how much money and potential draft picks have been wasted these past couple of years due to his insistence on keeping the team together? And what is there to show for it? A couple of play-in wins?
The play-in tournament is a Bulls fan’s worst nightmare. It’s prevented the Bulls from ever having to accept their failures.
You nailed it.
You missed another biggie... Drummond. We got nothing for him leaving.
The only one I think I disagree with is Ball. I'd have been totally fine with him being traded, but I'm good with the re-signing, as well. At $10M/yr, with a team option for the second year, it's a low cost gamble for a player who is excellent when he is on the court. What would we have gotten for him in a trade? I can't imagine much.
I'd much rather see AKME make more gambles like this, than spend the same (or more) money on known mediocre players.
that's still a good amount of money for a player that was out for 2 years and still hasn't proved that he can stay on the court for meaningful periods of time.
Who else could you get that would be a better gamble? He has a reasonably high upside and can be traded as an expiring (not that I expect AKME to make intelligent trades).
Hollinger reported that the Bulls were offered a first round pick for Ball.
I like Lonzo a lot, but if I’m being truly objective about this, it doesn’t make sense for a perennial play-in team to choose an often injured non-superstar veteran over a first round pick. It’s just a bad team building decision.
Do you recall the details of that offer? If they were really offered a first, then yeah. I agree. They should have taken that and run.
A first that is likely to defer until it turns into a 2nd is a different matter. Either decision would be fine with me.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think specific details ever came out. Hollinger just reported “According to a league source, the Bulls had a firm offer to get a first-round pick and take on future money for Lonzo Ball and extended him instead.”
I’d argue that any kind of a first round pick offer for a veteran with a troubling injury history on an expiring deal is one that a team going nowhere would be smart to take.
The Grizzlies gave away that pick to offload Marcus Smart. Who is, himself, a guy the Bulls might have been able to rehab into another pick a year down the road.
And Jake Laravia who is an actual PF who shoots 40% on threes.
But they're not in that business.
Oof. Yeah. That seems like a no-brainer. Of course AKME didn't take the deal.
Why were the Grizzlies so hell bent on getting rid of Marcus Smart?
Lonzo has much more rehab potential than Smart does.
https://www.blogabull.com/p/trade-deadline-reporting-reveals
Thanks. Any idea why the Grizzlies so hell bent on getting rid of Marcus Smart?
Plus you already have seven other veteran guards
they shoulda traded Pat after year 3. they coulda still got a late 1st for a couple teams.
Vuc shoulda been gone.
Trying to trade players at their absolute high value is an impossible standard, but if that's what you go by you must think Presti really sucks. He traded Giddey at his all time low value, to get Caruso, who will never play 2000 minutes again, and will never be worth more than when we traded him.
Trading players at their absolute peak certainly is difficult, but trading them when they are a positive asset on a team that can't really make use of them is not.
Also, your Presti example isn't as good as you think it is. Presti traded a player he had no use for for a player who plays a very meaningful role on the team, even though that role isn't that big.
Your Presti example is actually a perfect example of what AK should have done. He should have understood when Zach, DeMar, Vooch, AC, Lonzo, Drummond, etc. no longer held value to the Bulls but would hold value to other teams and traded them when that became apparent, even if it wasn't necessarily an "equal" return.
Trades don't need to net you the maximum return. That's been one of AK's biggest issues. He thinks he needs to get the absolute best return possible, so he backs out of trades that he thinks don't give him that. Sometimes addition by subtraction is just as important as maximizing your return.
"He traded Giddey at his all time low value, to get Caruso, who will never play 2000 minutes again, and will never be worth more than when we traded him."
Let me rephrase your quote above: "He traded Giddey, who he had practically no use for, for a player that has helped make them one of the best defensive teams of all-time and made them a title favorite for years to come."
Caruso alone doesn't make them one of the best defensive teams ever or a title contender, but he plays an important part in those things. Giddey did not. So yes, you could argue that the Thunder traded a better player for a worse player, but they traded a player they didn't need for one they did. That's something AK has refused to do for much of his time in Chicago.
What you just said makes more sense than your original post. Yes, in the context that Giddey didn't fit as a playmaker on a team that has SGA, it made sense to trade him. Caruso has value as a defensive specialist with OKC.
On the other side, Caruso had low value to us, and so we traded him for a young player with lots of upside, that can be very useful to us going forward.
We sold high on a player with no use to us and bought low on a player who could be very useful. Seems like a great trade to me.
I haven't made any original posts on this article, so I'm not 100% sure what you're referring to there.
But with regard to the Giddey/Caruso trade, I don't think it was a horrible trade. The problem was that they didn't sell high on Caruso. They could have, and just about every national analyst agrees, asked for more from OKC in return.
My problem was never with the return of Giddey. My problem was that they were trading a guy with immense interest from teams around the league for a guy who had just been played off the court and didn't get any additional picks.
It's just strange behavior from AK. He'll refuse to make other trades because he feels he's not getting enough in return but then the trades he does make, he usually gets less than just about everyone thinks he should have gotten.
Yeah, everyone is missing the forest for the trees there, I think. In retrospect AK probably wishes he held out for a top-55 protected 2nd rounder so all the writers would shut up about that.
> So yes, you could argue that the Thunder traded a better player for a worse player...
You could, but you shouldn't.
I continue to be amazed people seem to turn "guy couldn't play next to the likely league MVP" as some sort of selling point. It's really not.
What is our path to being an even average team? Compared to other young players in their age range, except maybe for Matas, our guys are solidly in the "journeyman" category.
Definitely agree.
Anyone watch the NCAA Championship? UF won our first CBB Natty since Billy Donovan left!!!
I'm practically doing backflips right now.
Congrats! I was living in Jax for the first two. Everyone there were huge UF fans. I could wear my Illini orange and blue and fit right in.
So, uh, the Bulls are resting Coby tonight against the Cavs? And Vuc is questionable with “calf soreness injury management”?
They’re seemingly not trying to win this game, which seems insane. They’re 0.5 game ahead of the 10 seed. They’re 1.0 game back of the 8 seed and 2.0 games back of the 7 seed. They’re not in a position at this stage of the season to just throw a game away.
So let me see if I got this right. In a year where it made sense for them to blow it up and tank, they instead tried all year and got another play-in spot. And now with four games left and seeding on the line, Billy (after spending all season lecturing about the importance of trying to win) is sending the message that they’re ok with playing in the 9 vs 10 game instead of going for the 7 vs 8 game.
It’s hard to not conclude that this season has been an insult to this fan base.
I agree that it's insulting. I disagree that it's insane.
Chances of winning this game are slim and they have a back to back with Miami tomorrow. The Miami game is winnable, the Cleveland game would need an impeccable, full-out performance. Let's give EJ Liddell some burn.
It’s insane given the context of the messaging we’ve been getting from Billy all season.
He’s been captain of the “trying to win every game matters” ship this season. And now with four games left and at least a chance to move up in the play-in standings, Billy’s focusing on strategic resting?
Even though I disagreed with the notion of pushing for the play-in tournament, I could at least respect a coach trying to win every game. Now even that is shaky. So it’s important to try to win every game in a season that’s likely going nowhere, except the games that you don’t think you have a good chance of winning? Sounds like a great way to be a 38 win team every year.
Giddey and Huerter are out too. Charlotte beat them up pretty good.
Yeah, I mean I get that the Bulls probably aren’t going to win tonight. It’s just the bigger picture that’s driving me nuts.
Like, what are we doing here? Why is Billy spending all season talking about how important winning is and now when he at least has a slight chance to go into the Miami matchup with a one game lead, he’s instead just resigning himself to going into that game with their records tied?
Mitchell isn’t playing and Cleveland just lost at home to the Kings. If you’re really trying to win every game, wouldn’t you believe a victory tonight is at least somewhat possible? Why not start Coby and then rest him for the last quarter or two if the game gets out of hand?
Idk. Just seems like sudden loser behavior from a coach that previously hasn’t been accepting that his team isn’t good all season long.
I agree that it's incongruous, but the insane part has been Ballcoach Billy all season, not this strategic rest
it's a reminder that he and AK are not true believers, just spinning for their jobs
Well, yes that’s true. The strategic rest is insane mainly because it’s the opposite of what Billy has been saying all year.
This is why I’m pushing back against the idea that things might be trending up for this team overall. The guys in charge appear to just be shrugging their shoulders and aiming for a 9 vs 10 play-in game for a third straight year. It’s as if their goal is to do just enough to keep the Reinsdorfs happy without aiming too high because that might result in a failure that they can’t explain away.
yup! I know you're not new here, so I don't need to ask lol
they are pointing to every success (whether meaningful or not) as to distract from their failures (any long-term plan).
it's working for them! Billy is probably going to get an extension.
We going to the play-in
So Atlanta lost last night. Meaning if the Bulls would have tried against Cleveland and won, they’d be tied for the 8 seed right now.
They likely wouldn’t have won even if most of their starters played, but I subscribe to the idea that nothing represents the AK era more than this team choosing to prioritize being the home team in a 9 vs 10 play-in game over the opportunity to try and climb up in the standings.
Eli at BN Bulls threw out the theory that the Bulls are focusing on getting Jerry his play-in revenue, so basically they’d rather host the 9 vs 10 game than travel for the 7 vs 8 game. And I think everyone here would agree that’s probably not a theory! That’s probably what’s happening! Because if they get that play-in revenue, nothing else matters! Everyone gets to keep their job.
It would be great if one reporter who covered the Bulls tried to make a story out of what’s going on here. But nope. This front office successfully lulled them into a state of apathy.
I agree with what you're saying; however, if the Bulls had won last night, they'd still be a half game behind Atlanta since they have one more loss than Atlanta does.
But overall, resting their players last night really makes no sense, unless they genuinely believe they can't get to the 7/8 seed and they want to guarantee they stay the 9 seed for a home play-in game.
Because if you think about it, if they make it to the 8 seed, they would guarantee themselves at least one home game. If they win the play-in as the 8 seed, obviously they don't get a home play-in game, but they'd guarantee themselves at least two home playoff games. If they lose the 7/8 play-in game, they would then host the second play-in game against whoever wins the 9/10 game. Plus, they give themselves two shots at making the playoffs as opposed to one.
Regardless, resting their players last night made no sense in terms of play-in seeding. It also made no sense with Billy preaching all season that every game is important. If they're all important, why rest four starters?
You’re right, they’d still be a half game back. Good catch. But they’d be closer nonetheless, which I would think matters for a coach who wants to win every game.
Good points about the home games.
So either Billy has no faith is his team’s ability to climb the standings or he’s so focused on the game against Miami that he’s not thinking about any of these other big picture points that could matter.
The only possibility I can think of is that either the FO or ownership mandated sitting the starters last night. Their reasoning being they know the team has clinched a play-in spot, so they want their guys as rested as possible to hopefully win their play-in game(s) and make the playoffs.
Playoffs = $$$
game thread for tonight vs Heat? the pre-play-in tournament game?
respond with likes.
GOOD ENOUGH
https://open.substack.com/chat/posts/cc857fd4-72cf-4ede-894b-451093f9f207