Bulls offseason

[Splendid Splinter]

Serious LOL at Kyrie playing for the Bulls.

 

I'm pulling for the Lakers to trade for George, by the way. My guess is George IS dealt, prior to the draft.

 

What dampers my excitement on a Butler trade, is that the Bulls haven't yet worked out any top 10 draft picks, outside of Fox. There were rumors yesterday though, at least. But, I don't think they'd make a deal if they've not even worked these guys out. Guess there's a chance they did and it didn't make it onto the radar.

 

Why would they though? Just wait til next year and sign him unless the asking price is so low. I think Pacers will trade PG, just to another team.

[davell]

Serious LOL at Kyrie playing for the Bulls.

 

I'm pulling for the Lakers to trade for George, by the way. My guess is George IS dealt, prior to the draft.

 

What dampers my excitement on a Butler trade, is that the Bulls haven't yet worked out any top 10 draft picks, outside of Fox. There were rumors yesterday though, at least. But, I don't think they'd make a deal if they've not even worked these guys out. Guess there's a chance they did and it didn't make it onto the radar.

 

Why would they though? Just wait til next year and sign him unless the asking price is so low. I think Pacers will trade PG, just to another team.

 

In their case, I truly think they need him, in order to have a shot at other FA next year. To me, they need to guard against him winding up in Boston or wherever and falling in love and resigning with that team.

[davell]

 

1) Cleveland doesn't have the trade pieces

2) Why does this statement matter?

3) Our horsefeathering FO is going to listen to him and not trade him anywhere, because they are the horsefeathering worst.

[Outshined_One]

The Bulls seriously aren't bringing back Butler, Wade, and Rondo for another go-round are they?

 

*sighs*

 

Can't wait for them to overdraft a plodding upperclassman out of a big name program who can't shoot.

[Derwood]

What, we don't want Wade to exercise his $22 million option? :lol:

[David]

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1580597

 

This guy gets stuff (i mean in terms of the overall premise, not necessarily in the precision of the math/probabilities)

[Cubswin11]

As a Laker fan obviously yes, please I do this trade (saw it on a Real GM board) and think it's plenty for the Pacers for George with the limited leverage they have. It's light for the Bulls, imo, but not by much. Bulls fans how much more would have to be added? I think at least 1-2 future Lakers first round picks/swap rights and either the Bulls shouldn't be giving up 16 or get one of the Lakers picks in the 20s.

 

Lakers in: Jimmy Butler & Paul George

Lakers out: 2, Randle, Clarkson, Deng, Black, 27, 28

 

Chicago in: 2, Randle & Deng

Chicago out: Butler, 16

 

Indiana in: Clarkson, Black, 16, 27, 28

Indiana out: Paul George

[davell]

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1580597

 

This guy gets stuff (i mean in terms of the overall premise, not necessarily in the precision of the math/probabilities)

 

And what are the odds of turning into a championship contender over this stretch?

 

You'll get your wish. Our idiots will keep him. And you can find ways to get excited over being in NBA hell for the next 7 years he's here, plus the time after that, that it takes to get back towards the playoffs.

 

Bulls are the Mariners.

[SouthSideRyan]

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1580597

 

This guy gets stuff (i mean in terms of the overall premise, not necessarily in the precision of the math/probabilities)

 

And what are the odds of turning into a championship contender over this stretch?

 

You'll get your wish. Our idiots will keep him. And you can find ways to get excited over being in NBA hell for the next 7 years he's here, plus the time after that, that it takes to get back towards the playoffs.

 

Bulls are the Mariners.

 

Once they sign Tracy McGrady and Grant Hill, the dynasty will be good to go.

[davell]

As a Laker fan obviously yes, please I do this trade (saw it on a Real GM board) and think it's plenty for the Pacers for George with the limited leverage they have. It's light for the Bulls, imo, but not by much. Bulls fans how much more would have to be added? I think at least 1-2 future Lakers first round picks/swap rights and either the Bulls shouldn't be giving up 16 or get one of the Lakers picks in the 20s.

 

Lakers in: Jimmy Butler & Paul George

Lakers out: 2, Randle, Clarkson, Deng, Black, 27, 28

 

Chicago in: 2, Randle & Deng

Chicago out: Butler, 16

 

Indiana in: Clarkson, Black, 16, 27, 28

Indiana out: Paul George

 

Honestly, I'm not very high on Randle. Don't think most of the league is either. I think Butler probably garners value of 2 and Randle, without giving up 16 and certainly without having to take on Deng's deal.

 

Plus, in all honesty, I'd hope the Bulls would get multiple picks out of a Butler move. Even if its not the 2. Not sure what picks the Lakers have left to move, but odds are they're all late rounders.......

 

I WANT to trade Jimmy. But, it'd take 2, Randle, a pair of future 1sts, and Nance to get him for me to trade him to the Lakers. I much prefer what I could get from the Celtics, Suns, and even TWolves, to what the Lakers can offer.

[SpongeWorthy]

David do u realize the goal isnt to string together .500 low variance seasons

[David]

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1580597

 

This guy gets stuff (i mean in terms of the overall premise, not necessarily in the precision of the math/probabilities)

 

And what are the odds of turning into a championship contender over this stretch?

 

You'll get your wish. Our idiots will keep him. And you can find ways to get excited over being in NBA hell for the next 7 years he's here, plus the time after that, that it takes to get back towards the playoffs.

 

Bulls are the Mariners.

 

I get that meatbally desire to confuse activity with achievement and BLOW IT UP!!!! I really do, especially with the goofy ass season the Bulls just went through. And I get that the unknown and promise of the draft fools people into thinking the odds of success are better than they really are.

 

Your odds in basketball of having your team be in true championship contention in your entire lifetime are pretty low. It takes absurd luck, and it doesn't really matter how you try to get there. The Cavs got insanely lucky to both get the #1 pick in 2003 and to also have him be from the area (otherwise no way he goes back). The Warriors got insanely lucky with how everything played out with Curry before he became a superstar. Yeah, they drafted well aside from that...whatever the combination of skill/luck was there is debatable. Yeah, the Warriors have a great and smart FO and I'd love to trade with them, no doubt. Not gonna deny that. But they still needed lots of good fortune.

 

You can build a very good team though. That's not that hard. Keeping Butler and hoping he can get someone else to come here in the next 2 years likely has better odds of yielding a very good team than trading Butler to spin a very low probability wheel instead. Both have insanely low odds of resulting in a championship contender. Even if the odds of becoming pretty/very good are low with Butler and praying he can recruit someone, they're still probably higher than the magic blow it up button.

 

Anthony horsefeathering Davis...that would be a hell of a great outcome if we traded Butler for the best haul you could conceivably come up with. And the Pelicans are still horsefeathers every year.

Edited June 21, 2017 by David

[davell]

Holy horsefeathers. I think you just called the people wanting to blow it up meatballs. You're one of my favorite guys here. But, your basketball views are evidently irreparable.

[David]

Holy horsefeathers. I think you just called the people wanting to blow it up meatballs. You're one of my favorite guys here. But, your basketball views are evidently irreparable.

 

i'd like to see an actual logical argument instead of this from you.

 

you act like one route is idiotic and one is absolutely the right way to go.

 

i really don't think the math even close to on your side on that. at best, one is a marginally better route than the other, and i'm not really sure you can definitively state which one that is, as much as you seem to have dug your heels in.

[WrigleyField 22]

Inevitably this usually leads to a Catch 22. Almost always part of the argument to blow it up is the FOs inability to show they can build around Butler. Yet, blowing it up hands them the keys to do whatever, with a built in rebuild expectation.

 

I've watched so little basketball since 2012 I'm not sure I can even call myself a casual fan. So I can't say I have a passionate position on the matter, but I generally trust the opinions that say Butler is good enough to build a top team around.

[Andy]

If any fan base should be leery of the magic 'blow it up' strategy, fans of the 1999-04 Bulls ought to be. The Bulls did pretty decently in the draft in that span considering who was available for their picks - even if you factor out Brand because they stupidly traded him, Chandler, Hinrich, Deng and Gordon were all pretty good picks - and the team created from those picks got us all of 1 playoff series win.

 

Personally, I'd like to see Jimmy stay unless someone wants to pay through the nose in assets for him, but IMO neither path will mean much with GarPax running the show.

[Splendid Splinter]

As a Laker fan obviously yes, please I do this trade (saw it on a Real GM board) and think it's plenty for the Pacers for George with the limited leverage they have. It's light for the Bulls, imo, but not by much. Bulls fans how much more would have to be added? I think at least 1-2 future Lakers first round picks/swap rights and either the Bulls shouldn't be giving up 16 or get one of the Lakers picks in the 20s.

 

Lakers in: Jimmy Butler & Paul George

Lakers out: 2, Randle, Clarkson, Deng, Black, 27, 28

 

Chicago in: 2, Randle & Deng, 18

Chicago out: Butler

 

Indiana in: Clarkson, Black, 27, 28

Indiana out: Paul George, 18

 

I feel like this would've made more sense because I'm not sure how Pacers could only give up PG and nothing else with very little leverage while Bulls had to with 16th pick even though Butler has an extra year of control which makes him more valuable than PG imo. If anything, Pacers should be giving up their 18th and Bulls keep their 16th or at worst, make them switch picks.

 

EDIT: Or maybe just give Bulls one of 27/28 and Pacers keep 18.

Edited June 21, 2017 by Splendid Splinter

[David]

If any fan base should be leery of the magic 'blow it up' strategy, fans of the 1999-04 Bulls ought to be. The Bulls did pretty decently in the draft in that span considering who was available for their picks - even if you factor out Brand because they stupidly traded him, Chandler, Hinrich, Deng and Gordon were all pretty good picks - and the team created from those picks got us all of 1 playoff series win.

 

Personally, I'd like to see Jimmy stay unless someone wants to pay through the nose in assets for him, but IMO neither path will mean much with GarPax running the show.

i still think paxson is capable of some level of competence if he takes the reins back from gar.

 

who knows how much either guy is involved with what, but they have definitely seemed to become extra strange and stupid since it was reported that forman truly took control and paxson went hands off.

 

that said, paxson still would've had to sign off on whatever the hell he was doing.

 

i will never understand not trading gasol.

[SouthSideRyan]

The Pacers would be better off keeping George and their pick than doing that

 

ETA: Butler is nominally the more valuable asset thanks to his extra year of control, but he's not so much more valuable to get a true value pick, plus one better than anything the Pacers get, plus the only player of value being given up by the Lakers. Ultimately the Lakers are running away with that trade.

Edited June 21, 2017 by SouthSideRyan

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Your odds in basketball of having your team be in true championship contention in your entire lifetime are pretty low.

 

Good sport, definitely not completely broken.

[davell]

I'll try. But, we aren't going to agree. I prefer any chance at being great over mediocrity. You've said you'd prefer a .500 team to seeing some 15 win years.

 

 

Its about looking forward obviously. You don't need me to tell you that. I'm not going to use true math, because I don't think its as easy as looking at 10-15 years worth of picks and deciding the next time period is going to produce the same.....

 

With the new CBA, it makes it very hard to see a lot of major FA leaving their original franchise, before their true primes are over. You've got groups of players jumping into super teams. That's how you're going to win now

 

The city of Chicago isn't going to help, in that aspect. It never has in basketball. So, you're left with Jimmy. Who's a top 15ish player in the league. Sorry, he's not good enough to get guys coming to him. He's going to have to follow someone else around. He'll realize this in 2 seasons too. And leave this .500ish team for greener pastures. And then, you're stuck with this same rebuild, minus ANY assets to start out with.....

 

Or....You resign a 30 year old to a 200 mill contract and watch him decline, while not ever being able to get a true 2nd guy into town, much less a third, and you watch absolute mediocrity turn into sub .500 and this lasts for his entire next 7 years with a declining situation you're still going to have to dig out of after all of that....

 

Can you somehow add the players thru FA, to build WITH Jimmy? Sure. But, there's probably a lesser chance of that happening than the Bulls rebuilding and winning a title inside 7 years......

 

Why? Because no one wants to play here. Its just true. This organization has a horrible rep inside NBA circles. And its not going to be helped by Jimmy recruiting.....He's just not good enough.

 

So, what're the options, if you tank?

 

You're creating assets. You're getting tradable pieces. Outside of Jimmy, we don't have that. If you wanted to, you could trade Jimmy, suck for 2 years, and have enough assets to go back into the deep end of the pool, if you truly wanted to.....

 

You'd have what you got for him, two years of high picks not related to him, and future picks that are probably extremely high too....That alone could net you a couple of very high end pieces and you'd have cap room and maybe even a few other assets you developed during those years, that are capable players of some semblance....

 

Does that mean you can't totally whiff on picks? Sure. But, its hard to completely whiff during that small amount of time too.

 

You can just do a quick reset and see if the landscape allows for more than what it does currently. To me, that's rushing things, most likely. But, you can cash your chips in at any stage and go for it again.

 

Or you can develop your guys and slow play things obviously. But, the point is creating assets. You're sitting here with ONE right now. And no real cap space either.

 

Yeah, you'll suck if you trade him. But, you'll quickly have more assets than what you've got now. And flexibility on top of that. That leads to real possibilities. I'll take those small chances of being great, over being average every day of the week.

 

And if you keep Jimmy, that's what you are. And in two years, he's going to leave and you're in WORSE shape than you are currently, or you're Jim Hendry 2009 era, trying to cobble out a contender, with no elite talent and no real money to spend, for Jimmy's entire next deal.

[Splendid Splinter]

The Pacers would be better off keeping George and their pick than doing that

 

I agree. Just like Bulls are better off with keeping Butler and their pick in the other scenario. Just don't see a 3 way trade between those 3 teams.

Edited June 21, 2017 by Splendid Splinter

[David]

Your odds in basketball of having your team be in true championship contention in your entire lifetime are pretty low.

 

Good sport, definitely not completely broken.

 

i don't really see a way around it though. and it's how it's always been.

 

you have 5 guys and you can pretty much have your best player have the ball all the time if you want. just the nature of the game.

 

only way around it would be to go single elimination and turn it into a crapshoot.

[SouthSideRyan]

Your odds in basketball of having your team be in true championship contention in your entire lifetime are pretty low.

 

Good sport, definitely not completely broken.

 

I thought you were a Cavs fan.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Your odds in basketball of having your team be in true championship contention in your entire lifetime are pretty low.

 

Good sport, definitely not completely broken.

 

I thought you were a Cavs fan.

 

I am, and I spent mayyyybe 5 hours following/watching the NBA this season.

 

It wasn't always this broken, but even if the imbalance was close to that bad it was way more in the team's control. Now it's up to whoever the best players feel like playing with, which is cool for workers rights and all but makes for garbage competitive sport.