I'm curious what your thoughts are on the Bulls' remaining strength of schedule, Matt.
You've mentioned a few times lately that you're not too concerned about them losing their pick because they have a bunch of flukey wins so far, which is true.
But they've also had a fairly tough schedule to start the year and have the second easiest remaining schedule or something like that. I'm not saying I think the Bulls are going to sneak their way into the sixth seed, but I'm also not super optimistic they're going to start losing at a much higher rate than they currently are.
It would be a very Bullsian move to hold onto Zach for the next six weeks to try to get a better deal and in-so-doing win themselves out of their pick, rather than trade him now for a slightly worse trade return but a better chance to keep the pick.
The pick should not be an end unto itself. Even if they get the pick this year, they'll still have to give it up next year. Yes this year's class might be deeper than most, but the chance that the Bulls get a player that turns out better than anything they already have is still small.
If I asked if we should intentionally lose 10 games just to get another Coby White would anybody say yes?
Not necessarily. If the Bulls truly want to reset (they don't, but they probably should), they should focus on being bad for the next several years.
In theory, they should probably be trying to be a bottom 5-8 team the next three years or so. If they are, they'd have a decent chance at three top 8 picks, which would give them the greatest chance at a couple young studs.
I don't mind bottoming out once, but we did that already. It was miserable. It's not the only way to build a team, it's not the only way to get a star, and it's not guaranteed to work. For every Philly there's a Detroit. For every OKC there's a Charlotte.
Philly and OKC both tanked hard _and_ acquired draft capital. Philly selected both Michael Carter-Williams and Embiid. OKC selected both Poku and Holmgren. If you don't have the additional draft capital then you just get Carter-Williams and Poku and now your already declining franchise with the weirdo TV deal is teetering even further.
I keep seeing people say we bottomed out or something of the sort, but I don't understand that. Are you talking about the four years after they traded Jimmy? If so, they didn't bottom out at all.
2017: 6th worst
2018: 4th worst
2019: 7th worst
2020: 8th worst
Did the Bulls get some unfortunate lottery luck during those years? Absolutely. But they also didn't minimize their chances of that happening by bottoming out.
And you are correct that tanking isn't guaranteed to work. It's definitely not. But what are the alternatives? I can only think of two.
The first being a star randomly decides they want to play for the Bulls. That hasn't happened in decades. And I don't mean an end-of-life Pau Gasol. I mean a legitimate superstar.
The second being the young players we currently have taking huge leaps and then adding complimenting pieces around them. Who on this team has a huge leap in them? Maybe Matas. I don't think anyone else does.
So yes, there's no guarantee a tank will work, but I like those chances much better than the alternatives.
Small leaps from the 11 players under 25 at least maintains a culture of trying to win and trying to get better. If you can maintain and grow that and selectively churn through your roster then a consolidating trade for a star becomes more possible and/or an FA signing of a star becomes more possible.
It's an indictment of the NBA that the basketball I watched in the Boylen era was not the worst basketball in the league.
They can never fully commit to tanking, especially a multi-year tank, while the Reinsdorfs own the team. It's too damaging to the bottom-line. They'll always have to compete just enough to keep bums in seats and hope to get lucky.
The one time they actually tanked from '99-'02 Krause got lucky and didn't have to convince Reinsdorf to go into a full rebuild, broader circumstances forced that on them. And it traumatized Jerry so much that a tank of that magnitude will never happen again.
To paraphrase Jordan Peterson, it depends on what you mean by "Coby White." Is Coby a franchise-changing player? No. But is he a young guy on a great deal who could get a positive return in a trade? Yes, I think so. The Bulls do need more of that. (Edited to add: this depends on which direction you think the franchise should go. I would vote to fire AKME and do a Nets/OKC-style rebuild and this would be a step in that direction)
You raise a good point about the pick. I guess my point is that it would be the epitome of AKME's tenure to want to retain the pick but then lose it unintentionally because they held onto Zach for too long pursuing a better deal. Or perhaps it's even MORE AKME to dither on the Zach deal, lose the pick, and then try to convince people that it wasn't their fault.
They could do something about it though. They should be heavily shopping both Coby and Ayo. Trading those two would get them the best return of any players on this team and also probably guarantee they keep their pick this year.
right, they could do something more drastic and that was my big problem with Gottlieb's take: not only would the Bulls not do this - and have not so far, and said they won't - but Gottlieb isn't asking for it either even with his 'concern' over the tank
I said before the season started and at least once or twice since why this team is more likely to win “flukey” games than other teams. Matt and others have a hard time distinguishing between bad, overpaid, mediocre, and terrible. Zach LaVine is overpaid (and I think he was overrated previously), but he is a legitimately decent player. Vucevic isn’t near that good, but he’s definitely not “bad,” just overrated. There’s a HIGE difference between Vucevic and Adama Sonago, for example.
Both are inconsistent, which is why they’re not “really good,” but they have the ability to get hot. Most of the time they’re average-ish and they play to their expectations. But unlike, say, Malik Beasley, LaVine has that fringe All Star level. 85% (made up number) LaVine might be like Beasley, which is why he’s not as good as Donovan Mitchell. But LaVine does have that next level he is able to access more than others. It’s those instances when instead of losing by 1 or 2 like usual, they’ll win by a couple.
They are a mediocre team, and their record will reflect that. But the range of projected wins is a range for more than one reason. For the Bulls, they don’t have the perfectly bell curve of expectations. On the win side, it isn’t quite as steep and is a longer tail than we’d expect. We should expect them to win closer to the higher range of projections.
Most projections I saw had them at 28-34 wins (though I admittedly don’t have this memorized). If they were 12-17, they’d be exactly on pace for 34 wins so saying they have a multitude of flukey wins isn’t really accurate at all.
Yeah, I was saying from the beginning of the year that the Bulls needed to try and trade Zach and Vooch as quickly as possible.
Even if the two of them are overrated/overpaid, they're both considerably better than their alternatives. They will absolutely lead to more wins than this team should be going for.
MPJ is not a piece for the future, or a piece for now, just a cheaper worse LaVine. It doesn't make the Bulls better in the short term or the long term. It just makes them cheaper.
It's always been the case that if Zach shows that he "Impacts Winning" enough to where teams want to trade for him, then it is also the case that the Bulls would be better off keeping him unless given a Harden level package back.
Last night was Zach's best game as a Bull, undeniably. It had scoring, defense (except for one glaring off-ball mistake) and low turnovers. This is his first season as the best plus/minus player on the team, a major turnaround, I say wait and let teams get more desperate. It's the Bulls that should be desperate here, desperate for a franchise changing return, and they should let Zach drive the pot up even further. The downside risk is just play-in mediocrity as these young players either prove themselves and improve or show that they're not NBA players.
I don't think that's true, because the "winning" Zach is impacting is not significant, and it is entirely Zach (and Vuc and Lonzo) and not actually due to improvement of the young players
whereas I think the young players can prove themselves just as easily, and perhaps even moreso, if Zach isn't taking minutes and shots. removing him doesn't make them the Wizards
> because the "winning" Zach is impacting is not significant
That's maybe in the eye of the beholder. Last year he was actively sabotaging the team, in previous years he needed to be hyper-efficient just to approach positive value due to his careless spacing out. This year, he seems more mentally available defensively AND he's hyper efficient on lower usage, it's all in the flow of the offense aside from a couple heat check moments. That's the type of "over-the-top" player teams want and should pay for. Bulls have the leverage, and without getting real assets back then they shouldn't be afraid to keep him.
Legler just said the Bulls should trade him just to "freshen things up" which is a type of non-thinking the Bulls are famous for but should resist.
meh I really don't think it's swaying suitors. In the same way that I don't think his poor play last year had teams thinking he was toast either
And I still don't think it's going to impact winning for this Bulls season. He's proven me wrong in that they won't be 22 wins bad. But still not even near average, let alone good.
so really the Bulls only have 'leverage' in that they can keep Zach because they are aimless and not trying (or know how) to win short term OR long term. That is a kind of leverage, in a way
but I have to keep reminding everyone that LaVine IS injury prone. That is a real risk to keeping him. We keep saying every year that his trade value can't get lower, but it very well can if he's hurt again.
Marc Stein is claiming that because the Nuggets have so little to trade, they're more likely to first try to turn Porter and Nnaji into "two starters" rather than one high salaried player. That's maybe not doable either (is there anyone really hot for Zeke Nnaji, much less for $8 million for another 4 years?) but I haven't thought too much about it. The tankers that have a lot of spare pieces are looking for draft picks that Denver doesn't have. If they don't want to put up Watson, Strawther or Braun then I don't know what kind of deals are out there.
Maybe Detroit? They have start-ish players that could be bundled together for Porter. Charlotte for Bridges & Grant Williams? Can't really see that these are much improvement, unless they think the bottom is going to fall out on Porter and they want to get ahead of it.
Edit: Also injuries have clearly ravaged him because Fanspo has the Pelicans down to only two Javontes on their payroll rather than 5: https://i.imgur.com/eihwPD1.png
Not that it changes your larger point, but Grant Williams is out for the year with an ACL tear. Bridges and Martin maybe? Not terribly compelling, either.
It's funny because Denver really has no picks to trade, it's not rhetorical. Every remaining first round pick can be a swap, but that's not going to be attractive to a Charlotte or Denver for awhile.
Not that it matters anyway. The Bulls wouldn't take salary for a swap with Sacramento, a team that has made the playoffs once in the last 19 years.
This brings me back to the Demar sign and trade...
Depending on whether or not they value fighting for the play-in, the Spurs could end up as sellers. They took on Barnes, had to hang on to some salary for the season, and got a first for their troubles. Now they may get another for moving him on. The Bulls could have done this! They'd have more stuff to attach to any Zach / Vuc dump.
This 'we only go into the tax for a championship level team' nonsense is that. Nonsense. A small temporary negative financial consequence in this case would have actually meant more precious future flexibility. I hate these guys
Spurs did exactly the same thing with Thad after the initial DeRozan deal. They somehow got a 1st from Toronto for him, despite barely playing him. Reinsdorf and his committee of dead people that own the team are some of the most penny wise/pound foolish human beings in sports. It's really never stopped being 1983 here.
I still think the team is going to collapse, how to beat them is easy (you pound it down their fucking throat and defend the perimeter) and Vuc either developed some kind of designer steroid that only affects his 3pt % or is having the flukiest season in history. I'm holding on to this one: razzle dazzle eventually fizzles out.
His 2pt % is also 100 points higher. He's fifth in the league in TS%. He should be come back player of the year just to emphasize how bad he was last year.
Welp, if we can beat the Celtics in their house, might as well go for it!!! Bulls need a defensive big. How about Coby/Lonzo for Jon Isaac and Anthony Black? Black is the anti-Giddy and you still have Ayo and THT. Let’s gooooo!!!!! 💪💪💪
The NBA really REALLY needs even odds for lotto teams. Getting a top three pick should be pure LUCK and not because you sucked hardest. So sick of the tanker wankers. Just win, baby, WIN!!!
"Said this on @CHSN__ pregame show last night but, at least as of now, Bulls have shown no interest in taking Zeke Nnaji contract in any talks surrounding Zach LaVine."
lol that was my first thought too. Yet the other day they were airing reruns of minor league baseball. Who is this channel for?
I suppose Saric was always destined to wind up a Bulls' trivia question and you could swap him and that injured first roundy guy for Nnaji. The Nuggets aren't playing any of them that much so it doesn't matter from that perspective but I assume they see a bundle with Porter as their one chance to rid themselves of that contract.
Marc Stein confirmed KC Johnson's report that a sticking point in a LaVine trade is Nnaji's contract
this is a silly thing to hold up a deal if operating under how they can logically reshape the team.
But literal "money" is a very important factor to AK, because it simply keeps ownership off his back for the otherwise-awful job he's doing if at least he's keeping payroll expenses low.
You should have a Zachapalooza open thread where people can come up with their own trade deals. We have smart people here, some wild cards, differing philosophies to make it engaging.
Item: Zach LaVine (expires 2026) for Duncan Robinson and Scary Terry (expire 2025)
Pros: Completely clear of this long municipal malaise by the end of next season at the worst. Easier to do things with two $20 million expirings than one $43 million with an extra year.
Cons: Help the Heat, probably. Scary Terry is bottoming out pretty bad this year. No picks, but I don't think the Bulls can demand any (unless they're of the "we give you two but one is conditional and you give us 3 but two are conditional" kind of swap).
I've only seen bits of a couple of Minnesota games but Gobert looked as bad as everyone used to pretend he was. Rudy is an even worse contract than Zach, about the same money but another year.
(I think he also can't be traded at all this year due to signing an extension in September. Yes, they extended him.)
With the constant derision by Matt of those of us who feel more significant steps back now can lead to greater leaps forward in the future, I have to come up with a similar derisive nickname for him.
I want to call it AKME-deluded. yfBB will never say he agrees with AKME (because they suck and agreeing with them is dumb), but I think the underlying philosophy is pretty identical:
1-losing sucks and should be avoided at all costs.
2-deliberately losing is lame and those who advocate it are stupid (and not a real fan?)
3-it’s better to take quarter-steps forwards (and maybe backwards) than to take 2 or 3 steps backwards to eventually take huge steps forward
4-it is easier (and more desirable?) to go from mediocre to Top 10 team than to go from terrible to Top 5 team
This is the AKME-deluded or “mid-level euphoria” of those whom hate tanking. It’s better to be mediocre and certain about being mediocre than stepping out of the comfort zone and taking a chance at being great.
I would likely still be annoyed if they actually took significant steps back with planned intent, because they shouldn't be in this position. But I'd understand it's the best of bad options especially after they botched the offseason
But my derision towards this season and tanking discussion is that they aren't taking significant steps. And then people are just whining about insignificant steps totally luck based, like how the Hornets are probably similarly talented but have injuries. And not even suggesting significant steps like losing a Zach trade ASAP or dealing Ayo or something.
This has been one of my arguments since before the season began. AKME should be placing as much emphasis on trading Coby and Ayo this season as they are on trading Zach and Vooch.
This can't really be stressed enough. The Bulls have two players that possess the rare combination of pay + performance that contenders really need and will pay for and they're apparently off-limits.
I don't want to trade them, but you shouldn't trade for players (Giddey) to replace your two highest value players but also insist on keeping those players. Either give them the reigns or don't.
I'm curious what your thoughts are on the Bulls' remaining strength of schedule, Matt.
You've mentioned a few times lately that you're not too concerned about them losing their pick because they have a bunch of flukey wins so far, which is true.
But they've also had a fairly tough schedule to start the year and have the second easiest remaining schedule or something like that. I'm not saying I think the Bulls are going to sneak their way into the sixth seed, but I'm also not super optimistic they're going to start losing at a much higher rate than they currently are.
It would be a very Bullsian move to hold onto Zach for the next six weeks to try to get a better deal and in-so-doing win themselves out of their pick, rather than trade him now for a slightly worse trade return but a better chance to keep the pick.
The pick should not be an end unto itself. Even if they get the pick this year, they'll still have to give it up next year. Yes this year's class might be deeper than most, but the chance that the Bulls get a player that turns out better than anything they already have is still small.
If I asked if we should intentionally lose 10 games just to get another Coby White would anybody say yes?
Not necessarily. If the Bulls truly want to reset (they don't, but they probably should), they should focus on being bad for the next several years.
In theory, they should probably be trying to be a bottom 5-8 team the next three years or so. If they are, they'd have a decent chance at three top 8 picks, which would give them the greatest chance at a couple young studs.
I don't mind bottoming out once, but we did that already. It was miserable. It's not the only way to build a team, it's not the only way to get a star, and it's not guaranteed to work. For every Philly there's a Detroit. For every OKC there's a Charlotte.
Philly and OKC both tanked hard _and_ acquired draft capital. Philly selected both Michael Carter-Williams and Embiid. OKC selected both Poku and Holmgren. If you don't have the additional draft capital then you just get Carter-Williams and Poku and now your already declining franchise with the weirdo TV deal is teetering even further.
I keep seeing people say we bottomed out or something of the sort, but I don't understand that. Are you talking about the four years after they traded Jimmy? If so, they didn't bottom out at all.
2017: 6th worst
2018: 4th worst
2019: 7th worst
2020: 8th worst
Did the Bulls get some unfortunate lottery luck during those years? Absolutely. But they also didn't minimize their chances of that happening by bottoming out.
And you are correct that tanking isn't guaranteed to work. It's definitely not. But what are the alternatives? I can only think of two.
The first being a star randomly decides they want to play for the Bulls. That hasn't happened in decades. And I don't mean an end-of-life Pau Gasol. I mean a legitimate superstar.
The second being the young players we currently have taking huge leaps and then adding complimenting pieces around them. Who on this team has a huge leap in them? Maybe Matas. I don't think anyone else does.
So yes, there's no guarantee a tank will work, but I like those chances much better than the alternatives.
Small leaps from the 11 players under 25 at least maintains a culture of trying to win and trying to get better. If you can maintain and grow that and selectively churn through your roster then a consolidating trade for a star becomes more possible and/or an FA signing of a star becomes more possible.
It's an indictment of the NBA that the basketball I watched in the Boylen era was not the worst basketball in the league.
They can never fully commit to tanking, especially a multi-year tank, while the Reinsdorfs own the team. It's too damaging to the bottom-line. They'll always have to compete just enough to keep bums in seats and hope to get lucky.
The one time they actually tanked from '99-'02 Krause got lucky and didn't have to convince Reinsdorf to go into a full rebuild, broader circumstances forced that on them. And it traumatized Jerry so much that a tank of that magnitude will never happen again.
To paraphrase Jordan Peterson, it depends on what you mean by "Coby White." Is Coby a franchise-changing player? No. But is he a young guy on a great deal who could get a positive return in a trade? Yes, I think so. The Bulls do need more of that. (Edited to add: this depends on which direction you think the franchise should go. I would vote to fire AKME and do a Nets/OKC-style rebuild and this would be a step in that direction)
You raise a good point about the pick. I guess my point is that it would be the epitome of AKME's tenure to want to retain the pick but then lose it unintentionally because they held onto Zach for too long pursuing a better deal. Or perhaps it's even MORE AKME to dither on the Zach deal, lose the pick, and then try to convince people that it wasn't their fault.
Bucks ruled out Lillard and Giannis tonight
Why won't the Bulls just lose anyway?!?!?
Tanking is tough when you're everybody else's night off.
This is on Chicago too. AK better be in the concourse apologizing. OK maybe just the suites.
It would be even more Bullsian if they did that and then nobody wanted Zach at the deadline...
Like Nikola Mirotic before him...
I think it's a marginal difference, and more importantly not anything they can do about it, thus the lack of 'concern'
They could do something about it though. They should be heavily shopping both Coby and Ayo. Trading those two would get them the best return of any players on this team and also probably guarantee they keep their pick this year.
right, they could do something more drastic and that was my big problem with Gottlieb's take: not only would the Bulls not do this - and have not so far, and said they won't - but Gottlieb isn't asking for it either even with his 'concern' over the tank
Gottlieb has seen the light: arguing against this trade now because the tank* is dead
*getting to top-5, not just keeping the pick
I said before the season started and at least once or twice since why this team is more likely to win “flukey” games than other teams. Matt and others have a hard time distinguishing between bad, overpaid, mediocre, and terrible. Zach LaVine is overpaid (and I think he was overrated previously), but he is a legitimately decent player. Vucevic isn’t near that good, but he’s definitely not “bad,” just overrated. There’s a HIGE difference between Vucevic and Adama Sonago, for example.
Both are inconsistent, which is why they’re not “really good,” but they have the ability to get hot. Most of the time they’re average-ish and they play to their expectations. But unlike, say, Malik Beasley, LaVine has that fringe All Star level. 85% (made up number) LaVine might be like Beasley, which is why he’s not as good as Donovan Mitchell. But LaVine does have that next level he is able to access more than others. It’s those instances when instead of losing by 1 or 2 like usual, they’ll win by a couple.
They are a mediocre team, and their record will reflect that. But the range of projected wins is a range for more than one reason. For the Bulls, they don’t have the perfectly bell curve of expectations. On the win side, it isn’t quite as steep and is a longer tail than we’d expect. We should expect them to win closer to the higher range of projections.
Most projections I saw had them at 28-34 wins (though I admittedly don’t have this memorized). If they were 12-17, they’d be exactly on pace for 34 wins so saying they have a multitude of flukey wins isn’t really accurate at all.
Yeah, I was saying from the beginning of the year that the Bulls needed to try and trade Zach and Vooch as quickly as possible.
Even if the two of them are overrated/overpaid, they're both considerably better than their alternatives. They will absolutely lead to more wins than this team should be going for.
MPJ is not a piece for the future, or a piece for now, just a cheaper worse LaVine. It doesn't make the Bulls better in the short term or the long term. It just makes them cheaper.
It's always been the case that if Zach shows that he "Impacts Winning" enough to where teams want to trade for him, then it is also the case that the Bulls would be better off keeping him unless given a Harden level package back.
Last night was Zach's best game as a Bull, undeniably. It had scoring, defense (except for one glaring off-ball mistake) and low turnovers. This is his first season as the best plus/minus player on the team, a major turnaround, I say wait and let teams get more desperate. It's the Bulls that should be desperate here, desperate for a franchise changing return, and they should let Zach drive the pot up even further. The downside risk is just play-in mediocrity as these young players either prove themselves and improve or show that they're not NBA players.
I don't think that's true, because the "winning" Zach is impacting is not significant, and it is entirely Zach (and Vuc and Lonzo) and not actually due to improvement of the young players
whereas I think the young players can prove themselves just as easily, and perhaps even moreso, if Zach isn't taking minutes and shots. removing him doesn't make them the Wizards
> because the "winning" Zach is impacting is not significant
That's maybe in the eye of the beholder. Last year he was actively sabotaging the team, in previous years he needed to be hyper-efficient just to approach positive value due to his careless spacing out. This year, he seems more mentally available defensively AND he's hyper efficient on lower usage, it's all in the flow of the offense aside from a couple heat check moments. That's the type of "over-the-top" player teams want and should pay for. Bulls have the leverage, and without getting real assets back then they shouldn't be afraid to keep him.
Legler just said the Bulls should trade him just to "freshen things up" which is a type of non-thinking the Bulls are famous for but should resist.
meh I really don't think it's swaying suitors. In the same way that I don't think his poor play last year had teams thinking he was toast either
And I still don't think it's going to impact winning for this Bulls season. He's proven me wrong in that they won't be 22 wins bad. But still not even near average, let alone good.
so really the Bulls only have 'leverage' in that they can keep Zach because they are aimless and not trying (or know how) to win short term OR long term. That is a kind of leverage, in a way
but I have to keep reminding everyone that LaVine IS injury prone. That is a real risk to keeping him. We keep saying every year that his trade value can't get lower, but it very well can if he's hurt again.
Marc Stein is claiming that because the Nuggets have so little to trade, they're more likely to first try to turn Porter and Nnaji into "two starters" rather than one high salaried player. That's maybe not doable either (is there anyone really hot for Zeke Nnaji, much less for $8 million for another 4 years?) but I haven't thought too much about it. The tankers that have a lot of spare pieces are looking for draft picks that Denver doesn't have. If they don't want to put up Watson, Strawther or Braun then I don't know what kind of deals are out there.
Maybe Detroit? They have start-ish players that could be bundled together for Porter. Charlotte for Bridges & Grant Williams? Can't really see that these are much improvement, unless they think the bottom is going to fall out on Porter and they want to get ahead of it.
Edit: Also injuries have clearly ravaged him because Fanspo has the Pelicans down to only two Javontes on their payroll rather than 5: https://i.imgur.com/eihwPD1.png
Resigning Zeke Nnaji was clearly a self-own of Felicio proportions.
Godbless his samba heart.
Not that it changes your larger point, but Grant Williams is out for the year with an ACL tear. Bridges and Martin maybe? Not terribly compelling, either.
Oh that's right, forgot about Williams.
It's funny because Denver really has no picks to trade, it's not rhetorical. Every remaining first round pick can be a swap, but that's not going to be attractive to a Charlotte or Denver for awhile.
Not that it matters anyway. The Bulls wouldn't take salary for a swap with Sacramento, a team that has made the playoffs once in the last 19 years.
I'm not clear why they listed LaVine and like six worse gunners for a MPJ deal yet not Jerami Grant from Portland
This brings me back to the Demar sign and trade...
Depending on whether or not they value fighting for the play-in, the Spurs could end up as sellers. They took on Barnes, had to hang on to some salary for the season, and got a first for their troubles. Now they may get another for moving him on. The Bulls could have done this! They'd have more stuff to attach to any Zach / Vuc dump.
This 'we only go into the tax for a championship level team' nonsense is that. Nonsense. A small temporary negative financial consequence in this case would have actually meant more precious future flexibility. I hate these guys
Spurs did exactly the same thing with Thad after the initial DeRozan deal. They somehow got a 1st from Toronto for him, despite barely playing him. Reinsdorf and his committee of dead people that own the team are some of the most penny wise/pound foolish human beings in sports. It's really never stopped being 1983 here.
People wanted Demar, people did not want Lavine for almost 2 seasons. Denver needs scoring, so his year is helping.
I still think the team is going to collapse, how to beat them is easy (you pound it down their fucking throat and defend the perimeter) and Vuc either developed some kind of designer steroid that only affects his 3pt % or is having the flukiest season in history. I'm holding on to this one: razzle dazzle eventually fizzles out.
His 2pt % is also 100 points higher. He's fifth in the league in TS%. He should be come back player of the year just to emphasize how bad he was last year.
Welp, if we can beat the Celtics in their house, might as well go for it!!! Bulls need a defensive big. How about Coby/Lonzo for Jon Isaac and Anthony Black? Black is the anti-Giddy and you still have Ayo and THT. Let’s gooooo!!!!! 💪💪💪
The NBA really REALLY needs even odds for lotto teams. Getting a top three pick should be pure LUCK and not because you sucked hardest. So sick of the tanker wankers. Just win, baby, WIN!!!
Here he comes... brace for it! 🌊🌊🌊
@KCJHoop
"Said this on @CHSN__ pregame show last night but, at least as of now, Bulls have shown no interest in taking Zeke Nnaji contract in any talks surrounding Zach LaVine."
Kind of sad KC knows nobody watches CHSN
lol that was my first thought too. Yet the other day they were airing reruns of minor league baseball. Who is this channel for?
I suppose Saric was always destined to wind up a Bulls' trivia question and you could swap him and that injured first roundy guy for Nnaji. The Nuggets aren't playing any of them that much so it doesn't matter from that perspective but I assume they see a bundle with Porter as their one chance to rid themselves of that contract.
This doesn't take into account real world Reindsbucks, but Bulls can waive and stretch Nnaji and lower his cap amt to $3.3M over 7 seasons
$3M is around what they're overpaying Pat. What they're overpaying Dalen Terry, probably a quarter of what they'll overpay Josh Giddey.
Marc Stein confirmed KC Johnson's report that a sticking point in a LaVine trade is Nnaji's contract
this is a silly thing to hold up a deal if operating under how they can logically reshape the team.
But literal "money" is a very important factor to AK, because it simply keeps ownership off his back for the otherwise-awful job he's doing if at least he's keeping payroll expenses low.
You should have a Zachapalooza open thread where people can come up with their own trade deals. We have smart people here, some wild cards, differing philosophies to make it engaging.
Item: Zach LaVine (expires 2026) for Duncan Robinson and Scary Terry (expire 2025)
Pros: Completely clear of this long municipal malaise by the end of next season at the worst. Easier to do things with two $20 million expirings than one $43 million with an extra year.
Cons: Help the Heat, probably. Scary Terry is bottoming out pretty bad this year. No picks, but I don't think the Bulls can demand any (unless they're of the "we give you two but one is conditional and you give us 3 but two are conditional" kind of swap).
https://i.imgur.com/3E6ZPWY.png
I should add that it is proper if the inclusion of Nnaji versus Saric is mere negotiation that will get resolved closer to the deadline.
Gobert for Zac?
https://sports.yahoo.com/anthony-edwards-timberwolves-offense-dont-223528105.html
I can't se either team doing that, but I'd go for it in a heartbeat.
Gobert is a giant dbag, no thanks
I've only seen bits of a couple of Minnesota games but Gobert looked as bad as everyone used to pretend he was. Rudy is an even worse contract than Zach, about the same money but another year.
(I think he also can't be traded at all this year due to signing an extension in September. Yes, they extended him.)
Is it just me or is this team considerably better when all of Giddey's minutes are given to Ayo, Phillips, and Matas?
Obviously they got destroyed tonight, but they just look so much better without Giddey out there. The defense at least looks okay now.
Ayo looks fantastic. He works with 1 foot of space like it's a mile. His offensive game has really improved.
With the constant derision by Matt of those of us who feel more significant steps back now can lead to greater leaps forward in the future, I have to come up with a similar derisive nickname for him.
I want to call it AKME-deluded. yfBB will never say he agrees with AKME (because they suck and agreeing with them is dumb), but I think the underlying philosophy is pretty identical:
1-losing sucks and should be avoided at all costs.
2-deliberately losing is lame and those who advocate it are stupid (and not a real fan?)
3-it’s better to take quarter-steps forwards (and maybe backwards) than to take 2 or 3 steps backwards to eventually take huge steps forward
4-it is easier (and more desirable?) to go from mediocre to Top 10 team than to go from terrible to Top 5 team
This is the AKME-deluded or “mid-level euphoria” of those whom hate tanking. It’s better to be mediocre and certain about being mediocre than stepping out of the comfort zone and taking a chance at being great.
I would likely still be annoyed if they actually took significant steps back with planned intent, because they shouldn't be in this position. But I'd understand it's the best of bad options especially after they botched the offseason
But my derision towards this season and tanking discussion is that they aren't taking significant steps. And then people are just whining about insignificant steps totally luck based, like how the Hornets are probably similarly talented but have injuries. And not even suggesting significant steps like losing a Zach trade ASAP or dealing Ayo or something.
Lol
https://x.com/Drew_H_Stevens/status/1871210584798376056
This is a consistent argument, much better than Will's last week
This has been one of my arguments since before the season began. AKME should be placing as much emphasis on trading Coby and Ayo this season as they are on trading Zach and Vooch.
This can't really be stressed enough. The Bulls have two players that possess the rare combination of pay + performance that contenders really need and will pay for and they're apparently off-limits.
They refuse to sell high.
I don't want to trade them, but you shouldn't trade for players (Giddey) to replace your two highest value players but also insist on keeping those players. Either give them the reigns or don't.
it would be a no brainer for any half decent FO but here we are....
Looks like Denver is saying the door was never even open to begin with:
https://www.denverpost.com/2024/12/23/michael-malone-nuggets-trade-rumors-michael-porter-jr-zach-lavine/