RealGM

Stratmaster wrote:

Ice Man wrote:

Stratmaster wrote:You don't think Billy is part of that decision?

Let's put it this way: I've not before heard of blaming the coach for a team having a roster hole.

Lol. Ok. Whatever. Then you haven't watched sports.

You think the coach has no say in the type of players the front office goes out and gets?

Maybe in the most dysfunctional, horrible management relationships in sports; or for that matter any type of business in the world.

Like I said a long time ago, believe people when they tell you who they are the first time. Billy lives and loves small ball; until, of course, it fails miserably and he starts scurrying to cover his tracks.

Sent from my SM-S911U using RealGM mobile app

A couple of thoughts here. First, my impression is NBA head coaches generally have a lot less say over roster makeup than, say, NFL coaches, so I'm not sure how much Billy's input matters here. But more than that, it's the GM's job to overrule the head coach if the head coach has bad ideas about roster construction, so the buck ultimately stops with AKME here.

jnrjr79 wrote:

Stratmaster wrote:

Ice Man wrote:
Let's put it this way: I've not before heard of blaming the coach for a team having a roster hole.

Lol. Ok. Whatever. Then you haven't watched sports.

You think the coach has no say in the type of players the front office goes out and gets?

Maybe in the most dysfunctional, horrible management relationships in sports; or for that matter any type of business in the world.

Like I said a long time ago, believe people when they tell you who they are the first time. Billy lives and loves small ball; until, of course, it fails miserably and he starts scurrying to cover his tracks.

Sent from my SM-S911U using RealGM mobile app

A couple of thoughts here. First, my impression is NBA head coaches generally have a lot less say over roster makeup than, say, NFL coaches, so I'm not sure how much Billy's input matters here. But more than that, it's the GM's job to overrule the head coach if the head coach has bad ideas about roster construction, so the buck ultimately stops with AKME here.

Billy won't play the bigger players he does have.

Sent from my SM-S911U using RealGM mobile app

For what it's worth, AKME and BD seem to all be on the same page. They have such a strong relationship that I think both sides are running roster thoughts back and forth to each other. It's the polar opposite of Thibs and Gar. If Donovan wanted more size, we'd probably have it.

As a side note, I went back to look at old articles BD's hiring to see if we ever said anything about him being able to weigh in on the roster. Couldn't find anything, but found this gem:

“Oh, damn, we got Billy Donovan as our next coach,” Bulls guard Zach LaVine said as he discovered the news while playing a video game on a livestream. “Wow. That’ll be good … really good coach.”

HomoSapien wrote:For what it's worth, AKME and BD seem to all be on the same page. They have such a strong relationship that I think both sides are running roster thoughts back and forth to each other. It's the polar opposite of Thibs and Gar. If Donovan wanted more size, we'd probably have it.

As a side note, I went back to look at old articles BD's hiring to see if we ever said anything about him being able to weigh in on the roster. Couldn't find anything, but found this gem:

“Oh, damn, we got Billy Donovan as our next coach,” Bulls guard Zach LaVine said as he discovered the news while playing a video game on a livestream. “Wow. That’ll be good … really good coach.”

Is very sad to watch infatuation wear off, isn't it?

This was an interesting thread. Some things never change. Continuity!

viewtopic.php?t=2177607

Sent from my SM-S911U using RealGM mobile app

The entire positionless and versatility thing has always been very much from AK. His comments on why we drafted Patrick (and also Dalen) are the most insight we've gotten on how he's constructed the team. I don't think he's anti-size, if we had Wemby I'm sure he'd play him obviously, but he values positionless & switchability and unless you have stars those are usually F types like Patrick vs 7' rim runners / shotblockers. And Vuc is the best he could get in a center at the deadline.

I don't think his philosophy is 100% wrong, arguably the two biggest successes this year Boston & OKC are versatile positionless teams with 1 big center. It's debatable but Jalen Williams is OKC's "PF" at 6' 5". But this requires extremely loaded teams talent-wise. The disadvantages of going small are more than made up by playing both Brown & Tatum without having to bench one, or starting Jalen Williams without going with a more traditional bigger PF who isn't as talented. But in Chicago we don't have any talent at the PF position worth going small and losing rebounding & rim protection & matching up better against guys like Giannis. It's not like we can't find a 6' 10" guy who can provide 10 ppg, 1.4 threes per game, and 1 assist.

The coaching part of why small/positionless works is shooting a ton of 3s or fast pace...we are 24th in 3 pointers and 29th in pace. So our style of play doesn't make sense for this team construction either.

kodo wrote:The entire positionless and versatility thing has always been very much from AK. His comments on why we drafted Patrick (and also Dalen) are the most insight we've gotten on how he's constructed the team. I don't think he's anti-size, if we had Wemby I'm sure he'd play him obviously, but he values positionless & switchability and unless you have stars those are usually F types like Patrick vs 7' rim runners / shotblockers. And Vuc is the best he could get in a center at the deadline.

I don't think his philosophy is 100% wrong, arguably the two biggest successes this year Boston & OKC are versatile positionless teams with 1 big center. It's debatable but Jalen Williams is OKC's "PF" at 6' 5". But this requires extremely loaded teams talent-wise. The disadvantages of going small are more than made up by playing both Brown & Tatum without having to bench one, or starting Jalen Williams without going with a more traditional bigger PF who isn't as talented. But in Chicago we don't have any talent at the PF position worth going small and losing rebounding & rim protection & matching up better against guys like Giannis. It's not like we can't find a 6' 10" guy who can provide 10 ppg, 1.4 threes per game, and 1 assist.

The coaching part of why small/positionless works is shooting a ton of 3s or fast pace...we are 24th in 3 pointers and 29th in pace. So our style of play doesn't make sense for this team construction either.

This team is so poorly constructed as it’s divided.

Vuc and DDR have the most usage and slowest pace.

Everyone else plays best with pace and we would shoot way more 3s without DDR and Vuc.

DuckIII wrote:

Donkedave wrote:4 years/44m
Flashes don’t mean bugger all it’s all about progress.
Yes he’s playing “out of position” for most of it but not worth a massive contract just because he was pick 4 and “has potential”. Progress hasn’t shown he’s worth big $$
8(TO),10m (TO) 12(TO) 14(PO)
Don’t get me wrong I’d love to see myself proved wrong I just don’t see it right now.

That would be amazing but obviously he’ll never lock himself in to 4 years at that amount. Also you can’t have team options year after year like that.

Yeah seems can only have 2 years in a row for TO
Was a little boozed up when I posted this!
But thinking more like the 3/42-45 range
13m/15m(TO)/17m(PO) something like that could work?

Giannis has never given Pat a 40 piece so there is that.

All the frustration we have about him, it's never on defense. We certainly miss him on defense. Blame Billy or AKME for that.

Either way, who out there would be an upgrade on defense over Pat and not pay 16+ mil a year?

To me I always wrestle with if you have a guy better on offense (more aggressive etc ), maybe a better rebounder etc, but worse defender and worse 3pt shooter.

Would that be better? In my opinion, it is not.

I think we are buying time to see if we can actually get more help in that position or wait till he actually fully blooms. Pun intended.

kodo wrote:The entire positionless and versatility thing has always been very much from AK. His comments on why we drafted Patrick (and also Dalen) are the most insight we've gotten on how he's constructed the team. I don't think he's anti-size, if we had Wemby I'm sure he'd play him obviously, but he values positionless & switchability and unless you have stars those are usually F types like Patrick vs 7' rim runners / shotblockers. And Vuc is the best he could get in a center at the deadline.

I don't think his philosophy is 100% wrong, arguably the two biggest successes this year Boston & OKC are versatile positionless teams with 1 big center. It's debatable but Jalen Williams is OKC's "PF" at 6' 5". But this requires extremely loaded teams talent-wise. The disadvantages of going small are more than made up by playing both Brown & Tatum without having to bench one, or starting Jalen Williams without going with a more traditional bigger PF who isn't as talented. But in Chicago we don't have any talent at the PF position worth going small and losing rebounding & rim protection & matching up better against guys like Giannis. It's not like we can't find a 6' 10" guy who can provide 10 ppg, 1.4 threes per game, and 1 assist.

The coaching part of why small/positionless works is shooting a ton of 3s or fast pace...we are 24th in 3 pointers and 29th in pace. So our style of play doesn't make sense for this team construction either.

Having a garbage shooting profile sure makes things worse.

The lack of rim protection also hurts. Vuc's free cheese. And in exchange for easy buckets, he punishes you with 27% wide open 3P shooting.

I hate pinning it all on one guy, but Vuc's been a truly terrible addition to this team, with seemingly worse repercussions every year. He has his skills and moments, at the cost of many others. But I think AK was very literal when he said Vuc will be here for a very long time. Hopefully in a 6th man role? Cause he'd be good at that. Although he'll still lose his match-up with Mo Wagner.

Thing about this Bulls team is they literally just need a great player. Somebody who could either create easy baskets on the regular, or score/defend/swiss-army it. At the end of the day, that's the fact.

But if we're talking about single-quickest upgrade (which may or may not be worth it), I believe that upgrading C would be it. Vuc i'd say is a bottom-10 team C. There are many mid-tier Cs who will be on the chop block. I personally don't find them worth pursuing at anything other than a bargain cost, but that's the reality.

Stratmaster wrote:You think the coach has no say in the type of players the front office goes out and gets?

If Billy is to be blamed for the Bulls being small, then is to be credited for the Bulls signing Lonzo (great move), signing Caruso (almost as great), and signing DDR (also very good). Yet nobody on this board, including you, has ever credited Billy for those decisions.

That is because GMs sign players.

Ice Man wrote:

Stratmaster wrote:You think the coach has no say in the type of players the front office goes out and gets?

If Billy is to be blamed for the Bulls being small, then is to be credited for the Bulls signing Lonzo (great move), signing Caruso (almost as great), and signing DDR (also very good). Yet nobody on this board, including you, has ever credited Billy for those decisions.

That is because GMs sign players.

That's dodging the point. I never said Billy chooses the specific players. I said he is a huge part of pushing the philosophy.

Are Lonzo, Caruso or Demar big men? How the hell does that prove Billy isn't pushing small ball?

Sent from my SM-S911U using RealGM mobile app

Stratmaster wrote:

Ice Man wrote:

Stratmaster wrote:You think the coach has no say in the type of players the front office goes out and gets?

If Billy is to be blamed for the Bulls being small, then is to be credited for the Bulls signing Lonzo (great move), signing Caruso (almost as great), and signing DDR (also very good). Yet nobody on this board, including you, has ever credited Billy for those decisions.

That is because GMs sign players.

That's dodging the point. I never said Billy chooses the specific players. I said he is a huge part of pushing the philosophy.

Are Lonzo, Caruso or Demar big men? How the hell does that prove Billy isn't pushing small ball?

Sent from my SM-S911U using RealGM mobile app

You’re missing the point that he can only play who’s available or who AKME acquires.

PJSteven22 wrote:

Stratmaster wrote:

Ice Man wrote:
If Billy is to be blamed for the Bulls being small, then is to be credited for the Bulls signing Lonzo (great move), signing Caruso (almost as great), and signing DDR (also very good). Yet nobody on this board, including you, has ever credited Billy for those decisions.

That is because GMs sign players.

That's dodging the point. I never said Billy chooses the specific players. I said he is a huge part of pushing the philosophy.

Are Lonzo, Caruso or Demar big men? How the hell does that prove Billy isn't pushing small ball?

Sent from my SM-S911U using RealGM mobile app

You’re missing the point that he can only play who’s available or who AKME acquires.

Chicken or the egg, eh? I'm not missing anything.

The discussion was does Billy have a say in the type of players the Bulls acquire. Billy's love for small ball was a thing in OKC before he ever came here. But you think it is just a coincidence that since he got here, the Bulls have shed all their big men other than Vuc and Drum? You think it's a coincidence that the Bulls have only 2 players over 6'8" and that Billy refused to play one of them any real minutes until Drummond performed so well in limited minutes that it was apparent Billy had been an imbecile to keep him on the bench?

Do you really think that Billy has been begging AKME to get a couple bigger players and AKME are just ignoring him? And that Billy is fine with taking all the heat for the team without raising hell with the front office?

FFS, Billy got a secret extension. But you don't think he has any say?

Sent from my SM-S911U using RealGM mobile app

I'm still at 12-15 per. Ideally closer to 12 on average.

Axl Rose wrote:I'm still at 12-15 per. Ideally closer to 12 on average.

I wouldn't throw a fit at 12. 9 sounds better...but what's a few million between friends?

Sent from my SM-S911U using RealGM mobile app

Pat's contract is just going to be for way more than people think IMO.

I predict 4/80 to 4/90.

Unless the news is disastrous about his injury in July (seems unlikely), then they'll treat the injury like it never happened and pay him based on perceived current upside with no additional injury risk. Whatever value that number is, that's what he'll get.

dougthonus wrote:Pat's contract is just going to be for way more than people think IMO.

I predict 4/80 to 4/90.

So much for getting him on the cheap because of his injury ... that would be a helluva lot of money for a 13/5 guy (per 36 minutes). But sure, I can believe it. Teams will give big second contracts to high draft picks to haven't yet delivered, based on potential.

Ice Man wrote:

dougthonus wrote:Pat's contract is just going to be for way more than people think IMO.

I predict 4/80 to 4/90.

So much for getting him on the cheap because of his injury ... that would be a helluva lot of money for a 13/5 guy (per 36 minutes). But sure, I can believe it. Teams will give big second contracts to high draft picks to haven't yet delivered, based on potential.

In the end, Pat doesn't have a lot of things going for him in some respects, but the things he has are the two most important things in the NBA. He can hit open 3s and he's a versatile defender.

dougthonus wrote:

Ice Man wrote:

dougthonus wrote:Pat's contract is just going to be for way more than people think IMO.

I predict 4/80 to 4/90.

So much for getting him on the cheap because of his injury ... that would be a helluva lot of money for a 13/5 guy (per 36 minutes). But sure, I can believe it. Teams will give big second contracts to high draft picks to haven't yet delivered, based on potential.

In the end, Pat doesn't have a lot of things going for him in some respects, but the things he has are the two most important things in the NBA. He can hit open 3s and he's a versatile defender.

You are usually more right than me on these things, but the one factor that we have on our side is that he is a RFA. I'm a big believer in the market dampening effect of FO's saying that they'll match any offers. Pat will be coming off a season that was more in line with Ayo's last season than Coby's. Those two things coupled with the fact that Pat will go into free agency after a season-ending injury and not having a chance to show he's healthy, could work in the Bulls favor.

sco wrote:You are usually more right than me on these things, but the one factor that we have on our side is that he is a RFA. I'm a big believer in the market dampening effect of FO's saying that they'll match any offers. Pat will be coming off a season that was more in line with Ayo's last season than Coby's. Those two things coupled with the fact that Pat will go into free agency after a season-ending injury and not having a chance to show he's healthy, could work in the Bulls favor.

I don't know that he's going to have a lot of other bidders, but I don't know that it will matter. This FO hasn't found a way to negotiate hard on anyone yet, why do you think they'll start with the guy who was their first draft pick, whom they've never even brought in a competitor to his minutes and gifted a starting role to, and made untouchable in trades?

I just can't see them strong arming him at all. They're going to have a proactive, market deal for him on day 1 of FA IMO.