2013-2014 Chicago Bulls Thread

[Andy]

Good, the "I HOPE THE CUBS LOSE FOR BETTER DRAFT PICKS" crowd wasn't annoying enough during baseball season, I'm glad this crap can go on essentially year-round now.

[Guest]

Good, the "I HOPE THE CUBS LOSE FOR BETTER DRAFT PICKS" crowd wasn't annoying enough during baseball season, I'm glad this crap can go on essentially year-round now.

 

In basketball it makes a lot more sense to tank.

[Andy]

Good, the "I HOPE THE CUBS LOSE FOR BETTER DRAFT PICKS" crowd wasn't annoying enough during baseball season, I'm glad this crap can go on essentially year-round now.

 

In basketball it makes a lot more sense to tank.

I know it does. Makes the NBA feel like a gigantic waste of time when there are 4-6 teams that have a chance and 24-26 teams that should be tanking. Not the league's fault, of course, it's the nature of the sport, but really, what's the point of paying attention if you're not a fan of one of the 4-6?

[Guest]

Good, the "I HOPE THE CUBS LOSE FOR BETTER DRAFT PICKS" crowd wasn't annoying enough during baseball season, I'm glad this crap can go on essentially year-round now.

 

In basketball it makes a lot more sense to tank.

I know it does. Makes the NBA feel like a gigantic waste of time when there are 4-6 teams that have a chance and 24-26 teams that should be tanking. Not the league's fault, of course, it's the nature of the sport, but really, what's the point of paying attention if you're not a fan of one of the 4-6?

 

There isn't much of one unless there's some player you like to watch or want to watch develop or something.

 

So, yeah...I'm pretty much not watching and hoping they lose because I want them to be really good as quickly as possible.

[gscool89]

There's nothing worse in the NBA than just making the playoffs. It's called NBA Hell. In the NBA, tanking is way more important than any other sport because it's so reliant on individuals as opposed to team.

[Guest]

There's nothing worse in the NBA than just making the playoffs. It's called NBA Hell. In the NBA, tanking is way more important than any other sport because it's so reliant on individuals as opposed to team.

 

To be fair, after experiencing 99-2004, I was ecstatic to be in NBA hell.

[Guest]

Good, the "I HOPE THE CUBS LOSE FOR BETTER DRAFT PICKS" crowd wasn't annoying enough during baseball season, I'm glad this crap can go on essentially year-round now.

 

In basketball it makes a lot more sense to tank.

 

Exactly.

[cubbyvirus00]

I'm waiting for Noah and Gibson to have their feet fall off and for Captain Kirk to cut his head off shaving.

[Soul]

Good, the "I HOPE THE CUBS LOSE FOR BETTER DRAFT PICKS" crowd wasn't annoying enough during baseball season, I'm glad this crap can go on essentially year-round now.

 

In basketball it makes a lot more sense to tank.

 

Exactly.

 

The original idea behind the lottery was to "fix" this, wasn't it?

 

If so, I'd say it didn't work.

[bukie]

Good, the "I HOPE THE CUBS LOSE FOR BETTER DRAFT PICKS" crowd wasn't annoying enough during baseball season, I'm glad this crap can go on essentially year-round now.

 

In basketball it makes a lot more sense to tank.

 

Exactly.

 

The original idea behind the lottery was to "fix" this, wasn't it?

 

If so, I'd say it didn't work.

That is because every time some team wins the lottery with bad odds, they continue to make the odds worse for the less bad teams and better for the bad teams to combat it. It's counter-intuitive.

[bukie]

Of course, the other side of the extreme would be giving everyone that doesn't make the playoffs the same lottery odds, and then you'd see a different kind of tanking (like what's going on in the Atlantic division so far).

[KingCubsFan]

Good, the "I HOPE THE CUBS LOSE FOR BETTER DRAFT PICKS" crowd wasn't annoying enough during baseball season, I'm glad this crap can go on essentially year-round now.

 

In basketball it makes a lot more sense to tank.

 

Exactly.

 

The original idea behind the lottery was to "fix" this, wasn't it?

 

If so, I'd say it didn't work.

There's only so much they can do. As others have said, it's just the nature of the sport. And unlike baseball or football, it is nearly impossible to find a diamond in the rough in a basketball draft. Once you get out of the Top 3 or (in a good year) 5 picks, you're basically drafting role players.

[Andy]

Of course, the other side of the extreme would be giving everyone that doesn't make the playoffs the same lottery odds, and then you'd see a different kind of tanking (like what's going on in the Atlantic division so far).

They definitely need to repair the problem somehow. I think I recall a recent Bill Simmons podcast where he and Steve Kerr floated the idea where the odds would work something like a bell curve and teams 17-20 and teams 27-30 would have the worst odds, which in theory would discourage tanking and encourage making the playoffs. That's a decent plan but I'm sure these tank-loving front offices would figure out a way to game that system as well.

[gscool89]

There's nothing worse in the NBA than just making the playoffs. It's called NBA Hell. In the NBA, tanking is way more important than any other sport because it's so reliant on individuals as opposed to team.

 

To be fair, after experiencing 99-2004, I was ecstatic to be in NBA hell.

Yeah but this team already has the pieces. You have Nikola Mirotic coming over soon, hopefully a healthy Derrick Rose, Jimmy Butler, and you'll have the cap room to add another player to that mix along with the lottery pick.

[WrigleyField 22]

I'm not convinced tanking is really that big of a deal, or even can be "solved", but what about a mixed system of weighted and equal chances.

 

Like what if the first pick in the draft was a straight 1/14 odds. Picks 2-4 would then be weighted, similar to the old system, with 5 and after not being in the lottery. Everyone would still get their weights ahead of time, you'd just drop out the chances of the winning team after the first lotto. Basically assigning a separate group of lotto numbers. Or to get even a little more complicated, make it an increasingly favorable scale, and lottery all the way out to 7 or 8. So the worst team may start with a 7% chance, then a 15%, then 35%, etc. This general idea though would basically discourage all out tanking, but also encourage some playoff tanking, though I'm not sure exactly how likely that would be, especially since you'd be tanking for an all or nothing chance. The shifting scale would be particularly perplexing from audit perspective as numbers are pre-assigned.

 

The alternative is to keep the 1-3 lottery format, but then extend the lottery format all the way from 4-14 with equal or increasingly equal odds. So as a the #30 team, if you miss out on your roughly 65% chance of top three, you are then thrown to the chances and just as likely to end up 4th as 14th. From a risk perspective not a huge deterrent, but a little bit, since you no longer have your #4 fail safe. And for the fringey teams, you're still keeping their jackpot odds low and thus their playoff tank incentive low.

 

Or also open up the 1st round losers to the lottery, definitely at decreased odds though. Perhaps a second tiered lottery starting at 8 or 9.

[apete6]

Ok, so say it's after the season you are the GM of a lottery team that has, say, the 7th best chance in the lottery. This team has been bad for a long time, has a bad fan base and no real hope of being great in the future unless they get a top-3 pick. do you trade your lottery pick (before the actual lottery drawing) to the Bulls for an injured Derrick Rose and his $20MM/year contract?

 

So, basically, do Michael Jordan and the Bobcats trade the 7th best chance in the lottery for Derrick Rose in May 2014?

[WrigleyField 22]

Yes they do, and the Bulls don't.

[apete6]

Yes they do, and the Bulls don't.

 

That's kind of what I was thinking, too, but it would be an interesting call. If the Cubs would have traded Mark Prior for Miguel Tejada or whatever that proposed deal was in 2005, they might have won the title in 07 or 08 even though about 1% of Cubs fans would have done it at the time.

 

This entire DRose situation is going to be a fascinating 30 for 30 someday, regardless of if it ends up positive or negative for him.

[Sammy Sofa]

There's only so much they can do. As others have said, it's just the nature of the sport. And unlike baseball or football, it is nearly impossible to find a diamond in the rough in a basketball draft. Once you get out of the Top 3 or (in a good year) 5 picks, you're basically drafting role players.

 

Would further limiting the college issue help? If players can't be drafted until after 3 or 4 years instead of what it is now (2 years, right?) might that help make the draft deeper in terms of talent?

[WrigleyField 22]

But we wouldn't even be trading for Tejada. We'd be trading for the chance to draft This Guy (Chosen only because he's # 7 on their list)

 

Depending on how badly we want to tank, maybe we can also get This Guy and if we're lucky can combine those two to get This Guy

 

Bottom line we're not getting This Guy

 

I'm keeping Derrick Rose. If he is a Mark Prior, he at least won't stand in our way of eventually striking lottery gold one day.

[Guest]

...If players can't be drafted until after 3 or 4 years instead of what it is now (2 years, right?) might that help make the draft deeper in terms of talent?

I take it basketball isn't one of your primary sports...

 

College can be a "one and done".

[Sammy Sofa]

...If players can't be drafted until after 3 or 4 years instead of what it is now (2 years, right?) might that help make the draft deeper in terms of talent?

I take it basketball isn't one of your primary sports...

 

College can be a "one and done".

 

I don't follow college sports at all.

[WrigleyField 22]

There's only so much they can do. As others have said, it's just the nature of the sport. And unlike baseball or football, it is nearly impossible to find a diamond in the rough in a basketball draft. Once you get out of the Top 3 or (in a good year) 5 picks, you're basically drafting role players.

 

Would further limiting the college issue help? If players can't be drafted until after 3 or 4 years instead of what it is now (2 years, right?) might that help make the draft deeper in terms of talent?

I don't really think so. You'll see a little bit of a dry spell for a while, then maybe one or two wild drafts from all the guys forced back, and then it would just even out.

 

I think getting rid of the college rule altogether might be more helpful. Back before the rule, tanking and picking a high school player was so risky it wasn't even a good bet. Having that extra year of review against exponentially better opponents has made the scouting pool much less risky.

[Sammy Sofa]

There's only so much they can do. As others have said, it's just the nature of the sport. And unlike baseball or football, it is nearly impossible to find a diamond in the rough in a basketball draft. Once you get out of the Top 3 or (in a good year) 5 picks, you're basically drafting role players.

 

Would further limiting the college issue help? If players can't be drafted until after 3 or 4 years instead of what it is now (2 years, right?) might that help make the draft deeper in terms of talent?

I don't really think so. You'll see a little bit of a dry spell for a while, then maybe one or two wild drafts from all the guys forced back, and then it would just even out.

 

I think getting rid of the college rule altogether might be more helpful. Back before the rule, tanking and picking a high school player was so risky it wasn't even a good bet. Having that extra year of review against exponentially better opponents has made the scouting pool much less risky.

 

Hmmm. Yeah, I was mulling it over in my head after my first post and the extra years really wasn't seeming like any kind of long term solution. It's just frustrating how the drafts end up having so few impact players or value picks.

[apete6]

But we wouldn't even be trading for Tejada. We'd be trading for the chance to draft This Guy (Chosen only because he's # 7 on their list)

 

Depending on how badly we want to tank, maybe we can also get This Guy and if we're lucky can combine those two to get This Guy

 

Bottom line we're not getting This Guy

 

I'm keeping Derrick Rose. If he is a Mark Prior, he at least won't stand in our way of eventually striking lottery gold one day.

 

Excellent response. That was exactly what I was thinking as well. Only Wiggins and Parker, IMO, are franchise changers. Randle and Smart are excellent players, but wouldn't be the long term franchise player like Rose was? is? could still be?

 

Edit: I obviously don't know enough about Exum to make any logical argument one way or the other on him.

Edited November 26, 2013 by apete6