2017-18 official NBA discussion thread

[Jenksismyhero]

Given the value that Indiana got for George and Cleveland got for Kyrie, I'm not sure how anyone can say that the Bulls "blew" the deal. If the argument is they should not have dealt him in the first place, fine, but the return was good, if not great in comparison.

 

 

[Chicago White Sox]

I just don't see how they ever get two stars. They'll tank this year, get one high draft pick, and immediately sign B tier free agents and be stuck in NBA hell for the foreseeable future. Maybe if GarPax wasn't around I'd more faith.

[Balta1701]

I just don't see how they ever get two stars. They'll tank this year, get one high draft pick, and immediately sign B tier free agents and be stuck in NBA hell for the foreseeable future. Maybe if GarPax wasn't around I'd more faith.

I know it's not going to happen, but the Bulls are actually in a really, really good position for the FA market next year. The Salary Cap in 2016 was expected to balloon again in 2017 and that didn't happen - as a consequence all those 2016 deals are extra terrible and that has knocked a bunch of teams out of having cap space.

“Just five teams are currently expected to have cap space (Hawks, Bulls, Mavericks, Pacers, Lakers), according to projections by Real GM’s Keith P. Smith, though a handful of other teams could create space.”

 

The Atlanta Hawks, Chicago Bulls, Dallas Mavericks and Indiana Pacers all have projected lottery picks next season and the Lakers hope to add two max contracts. All five of these teams could look massively different. But the rest of the league may enter a forced holding pattern.

It's not going to happen because of the FO, but a competent front office would be in a spectacular position to compete for a star next year.

[Balta1701]

Given the value that Indiana got for George and Cleveland got for Kyrie, I'm not sure how anyone can say that the Bulls "blew" the deal. If the argument is they should not have dealt him in the first place, fine, but the return was good, if not great in comparison.

By the bolded you mean "a package far better than what the Bulls got for Butler"? The George deal, yeah that was comparable to the return the Bulls got. The other? Vastly better.

[Buehrle>Wood]

Given the value that Indiana got for George and Cleveland got for Kyrie, I'm not sure how anyone can say that the Bulls "blew" the deal. If the argument is they should not have dealt him in the first place, fine, but the return was good, if not great in comparison.

Cavs got a mega package that blew the bulls return out of the water. I'm confused

[southsider2k5]

Given the value that Indiana got for George and Cleveland got for Kyrie, I'm not sure how anyone can say that the Bulls "blew" the deal. If the argument is they should not have dealt him in the first place, fine, but the return was good, if not great in comparison.

 

Cleveland got an incredible deal for Kyrie. That is the type of deal we should have gotten. They got a star, they got players, and a top of the draft pick. That was phenomenal.

[Boogua]

So have people not really been paying attention to this whole IT hip thing? Certainly doesn't seem like it.

[Chisoxfn]

I know it's not going to happen, but the Bulls are actually in a really, really good position for the FA market next year. The Salary Cap in 2016 was expected to balloon again in 2017 and that didn't happen - as a consequence all those 2016 deals are extra terrible and that has knocked a bunch of teams out of having cap space.

It's not going to happen because of the FO, but a competent front office would be in a spectacular position to compete for a star next year.

And had we waited a year, we'd have been in that position with Jimmy Butler's steal of a contract (a guy who, need I remind everyone, legitimately wanted to be in Chicago). It was beyond stupid, but alas, it is what it is. At this point, I hope this path works as well as the pro-tankers think it will.

[Chisoxfn]

Cleveland got an incredible deal for Kyrie. That is the type of deal we should have gotten. They got a star, they got players, and a top of the draft pick. That was phenomenal.

Originally...yes...after all these medical reports, I am less convinced of such.

[jenksycat]

Originally...yes...after all these medical reports, I am less convinced of such.

 

If that pick ends up being top 3 it's still better than what we got. Still in disbelief we threw in our 1st rounder for that deal.

[bmags]

Originally...yes...after all these medical reports, I am less convinced of such.

 

Just imagine if it turned out IT was coming off of a torn ACL!

[Boogua]

Just imagine if it turned out IT was coming off of a torn ACL!

That hip issue sounds much worse than a torn acl. Not to mention the guy is 5'9 and relies primarily on quickness and is already a terrible defender.

[bmags]

That hip issue sounds much worse than a torn acl. Not to mention the guy is 5'9 and relies primarily on quickness and is already a terrible defender.

 

Lavine also relies on athleticism. I think there is way too much assumption in bulls camp that he comes back as the same player. ACL injuries in basketball have not been kind.

[Jenksismyhero]

Cleveland got an incredible deal for Kyrie. That is the type of deal we should have gotten. They got a star, they got players, and a top of the draft pick. That was phenomenal.

 

They got a short, 28 or 29 year old PG "star" who can't play defense and who has legitimate hip problems on a one year deal. He's not even going to play a full season. They're going to have to decide whether to offer him a max deal, or near max deal, to be their franchise player once Lebron leaves. I wouldn't want the Bulls to be in that position a year from now. That's a hard, hard pass.

 

They got a 27 year old Jae Crowder, an ok role player who can't shoot very well and has had his own problems with injuries (ankle) that Celtics fans will tell you limited his defense (the one reason you would want him)

 

They got Ante Aizic, someone who will probably never play.

 

And they got the Brooklyn pick, which may or may not be great. The Nets won't be good, but the east will be super s***ty and the Nets have no incentive to tank. The Bulls, Pacers, Hawks, Kings, Magic are going to be worse. Are the Lakers really going to win 25-30 games? It'll be a lottery pick, but not necessarily a top 7 pick.

 

On the other hand, the Bulls got Zach Lavine, a 22 year old super-athlete who averaged 19, 3 and 3 last year and has consistently gotten better each year he's played. The ACL tear is worrisome but plenty of guys have come back from it. They also got a big, beefy PG prospect that had a bad rookie season playing under Thibs (not uncommon) but still has tons of potential, and the #7 pick in the draft who at worst will be Niko 2.0, i.e., an ok role player.

 

I don't see how, in any way, this is a substantially worse deal than what the Celtics got.

[Jenksismyhero]

Lavine also relies on athleticism. I think there is way too much assumption in bulls camp that he comes back as the same player. ACL injuries in basketball have not been kind.

 

Maybe years ago but it's not a death sentence. Guys like Al Jefferson, Baron Davis, Kyle Lowry, Wade, etc. have come back and played at an elite level.

 

edit: I thought Wade tore his ACL but I guess not. Scratch him off the list.

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by JenksIsMyHero

[thxfrthmmrs]

They got a short, 28 or 29 year old PG "star" who can't play defense and who has legitimate hip problems on a one year deal. He's not even going to play a full season. They're going to have to decide whether to offer him a max deal, or near max deal, to be their franchise player once Lebron leaves. I wouldn't want the Bulls to be in that position a year from now. That's a hard, hard pass.

 

They got a 27 year old Jae Crowder, an ok role player who can't shoot very well and has had his own problems with injuries (ankle) that Celtics fans will tell you limited his defense (the one reason you would want him)

 

They got Ante Aizic, someone who will probably never play.

 

And they got the Brooklyn pick, which may or may not be great. The Nets won't be good, but the east will be super s***ty and the Nets have no incentive to tank. The Bulls, Pacers, Hawks, Kings, Magic are going to be worse. Are the Lakers really going to win 25-30 games? It'll be a lottery pick, but not necessarily a top 7 pick.

 

On the other hand, the Bulls got Zach Lavine, a 22 year old super-athlete who averaged 19, 3 and 3 last year and has consistently gotten better each year he's played. The ACL tear is worrisome but plenty of guys have come back from it. They also got a big, beefy PG prospect that had a bad rookie season playing under Thibs (not uncommon) but still has tons of potential, and the #7 pick in the draft who at worst will be Niko 2.0, i.e., an ok role player.

 

I don't see how, in any way, this is a substantially worse deal than what the Celtics got.

 

If there was as a misinformed and biased post, this would be it.

[Jenksismyhero]

If there was as a misinformed and biased post, this would be it.

 

What a well thought out response.

[bmags]

Wade tore his meniscus, not ACL. The only player that comparably relies on athleticism like Lavine is Lowry and Jabari Parker, and Parker has had multiple leg problems now. IT is probably in trouble, but the Bulls also got damaged goods. But most importantly, they got an unprotected pick from a terrible team.

 

Yeah, the east is bad, but look at this roster:

http://www.espn.com/nba/team/roster/_/name/bkn/brooklyn-nets

[Jenksismyhero]

What other deal was out there btw? I love to criticize the Bulls FO as much as anyone else (I was clearly on the side arguing that trading Butler for just about ANY deal was a dumb move), but I think people are complaining about other hypothetical returns that simply were not there. I think they did the best they could and it's a pretty decent return relative to what these other teams got for their star players. That's all i'm saying.

Edited September 15, 2017 by JenksIsMyHero

[jenksycat]

What other deal was out there btw? I love to criticize the Bulls FO as much as anyone else (I was clearly on the side arguing that trading Butler for just about ANY deal was a dumb move), but I think people are complaining about other hypothetical returns that simply were not there. I think they did the best they could and it's a pretty decent return relative to what these other teams got for their star players. That's all i'm saying.

 

We'll never know, but I would have just held on to him rather than give him up for the s*** return we got. I don't see any possible way the return could have been worse and there was no reason to make a panic move at that point is my argument

[bmags]

What other deal was out there btw? I love to criticize the Bulls FO as much as anyone else (I was clearly on the side arguing that trading Butler for just about ANY deal was a dumb move), but I think people are complaining about other hypothetical returns that simply were not there. I think they did the best they could and it's a pretty decent return relative to what these other teams got for their star players. That's all i'm saying.

 

I hate statements like this. This has been going on for years in this thread. The assumption that what has transpired was inevitable.

 

This organization "did their best" to try and put together a championship roster and failed. "Did their best" to hire good coaches and failed. "Did their best" to trade for superstars and failed. "Did their best" to sign top free agents and failed. But when they "did their best" to trade a top 15 player in the game and did demonstrably worse than a championship winning front office with a comparable asset that did better, it's "What more could the bulls have done?"

 

They could have acquired better assets for years. They could have drafted other, better assets for years. They could have trade Butler sooner. They could have traded Butler later.

 

 

[thxfrthmmrs]

What a well thought out response.

 

1) Cleveland traded a defensive liability in Kyrie himself. Significant downgrade in that department? No.

 

2) Role players like Crowder gets overlooked, but his +/- past 2 years look pretty good.

 

3) Player like Zizic may never play in there NBA. Well, you MAY very well be wrong

 

4) Nets is bad, at no worst top 5.

 

6) Need this forum to remind you how players who rely on athleticism come back from ACL injuries?

 

7) Markkanen at no worst is Niko 2.0, who has absolutely received no interest in this offseason.

 

8) Dunn is literally the second worst rookie in the league last season. He was old, and thought as a reach by most.

 

9) We gave up Jimmy Butler who is no doubt a borderline Top 10 player on the league. Unlike George he has at least 2 years left on his deal. THEN we had to give up our first rounder too? GMAB.

 

Let's say Cavs ended up getting the 7th pick in 2018 draft, would you trade IT, Crowder, Zizic and he 16th pick for Lavine and Dunn? Not to mention Cavs will almost certainly get better than 7th pick, and Butler > Irving. The two trades are not even close.

[Kyyle23]

What other deal was out there btw? I love to criticize the Bulls FO as much as anyone else (I was clearly on the side arguing that trading Butler for just about ANY deal was a dumb move), but I think people are complaining about other hypothetical returns that simply were not there. I think they did the best they could and it's a pretty decent return relative to what these other teams got for their star players. That's all i'm saying.

 

The front office pretty much said they jumped at the first offer they liked. Thats pretty bad. And when you put everything in perspective, including the Taj/McBuckets trade, they have hamstrung this team for the foreseeable future.

 

Prior to all of this, people said that no free agents would come to the bulls(and they didnt, aside from a washed up Wade who is coasting on a golden parachute). Why does anyone think that all this cap space after next year is gonna change that? Like anyone doesnt know that the front office f***s over coaching staffs and players alike?

 

Garbage. All of it. None of us should give the bulls the time of day this season

[Jenksismyhero]

I hate statements like this. This has been going on for years in this thread. The assumption that what has transpired was inevitable.

 

This organization "did their best" to try and put together a championship roster and failed. "Did their best" to hire good coaches and failed. "Did their best" to trade for superstars and failed. "Did their best" to sign top free agents and failed. But when they "did their best" to trade a top 15 player in the game and did demonstrably worse than a championship winning front office with a comparable asset that did better, it's "What more could the bulls have done?"

 

They could have acquired better assets for years. They could have drafted other, better assets for years. They could have trade Butler sooner. They could have traded Butler later.

 

I don't disagree with any of this except for the "demonstrably worse" comment. I still don't see the return being "demonstrably worse" than what Cleveland got.

 

[bmags]

I don't disagree with any of this except for the "demonstrably worse" comment. I still don't see the return being "demonstrably worse" than what Cleveland got.

 

If you think the purpose of trading Butler is to get equal NBA talent I guess I could see that, but if the purpose is to get the best future assets to set off rebuilding a championship team, I don't know how you don't see the unprotected Nets pick as an example of the single most important thing the bulls needed to start collecting. Instead at the end of draft night they had less picks than when they started.

 

How they are still around...