What is our "Core" for the future?

[HoopsterJones]

Nobody is seriously part of core for a contender on this team.

[SalmonsSuperfan]

You enjoying watching this team play? I’d like this team to be something more than a perpetual 10th seed personally.

So, you want them to be a perpetual bottom feeder getting their teeth kicked in fiending for a top 3 pick? I want them to develop players and have a nice young core mixed in with veterans and not "sell high" a young player coming into his own for picks 21-30.

I think the team needs a majority of its players to be on rookie deals and we need a star at least as good as Butler. We just need a reset, that’s not being a perpetual bottom feeder but it is taking a step back to hopefully take two forward. Our team isn’t even treadmillling as a 4th-7th seed, which would also be undesirable, the ceiling of this team is the 8th seed. I don’t think you can rely on free agency too much either to build a team, unfortunately the way the nba is is that you need a star to win and I want the team to be put into a position to get a star via the draft. That requires draft picks, not even “young players” like Reeves.
I’d like to see the Bulls take influence from the Heat and Thunder. The Thunder got “lucky” by following the same sustainable practices for years and putting themselves in that position to get lucky. They traded their guys at the right time for maximum return. The Heat are perpetual winners and don’t actually have a tier 1 superstar but they are very savvy in the draft and scouting the g league it would seem. They didn’t really bottomfeed at all but it also looks like their ceiling is limited despite two finals appearances in the last couple years.

Anyway, anything to me is better than where the Bulls are at now. I think most NBA fans would agree we made some foolish mistakes that put us in this position and that there isn’t a future with this “core” especially not if we award another giant contract next year to a mediocre player like Pat Williams.

[jnrjr79]

You enjoying watching this team play? I’d like this team to be something more than a perpetual 10th seed personally.

Am I the only one on this board who is enjoying this season (since Coby ascended)? I see so much doom and gloom around here, and I get it when discussing the future but this season has been fun lately. We're 17-11 during that stretch.

I'm not so sure I'd go as far as "fun," but I've gone from not watching to watching, so I'd at least deem the team interesting, due to Coby's ascent. At this point, I'm not sure it can be "fun" until the Zach situation is resolved.

As to the OP's question, I would say only Coby has the chance to be a member of a future "core," insofar as that term means one of the top few players on a good team. Other guys might be around, but I'm not sure they'll be core.

Pat Williams might also have that potential (and his defensive metrics do show a lot of impact there), but I can't quite get myself to declare him a potential future core guy. I don't know a lot of players that have had such a low motor/high level of passivity and later been able to flip the mental switch.

[dougthonus]

So you have maybe 1 starter quality player and 100m?

If that's how this ends up, it would be the worst GM performance in NBA history.

Ok... that's a little bit of hyperbole. I would have to research every horrible GM in history. But you get the idea.

If you're honest with yourself, it's probably true that of that list of four guys (Zach, DeMar, Vuc, Ball), there is a really reasonable chance that 0 of them are quality starters next year, at most, it's likely that 2 of them are (Zach/DeMar), and to the extent two of them might be, neither are likely quality enough to justify their current cost (perhaps DeMar's cost will drop tremendously as a FA).

[Guru]

So you have maybe 1 starter quality player and 100m?

If that's how this ends up, it would be the worst GM performance in NBA history.

Ok... that's a little bit of hyperbole. I would have to research every horrible GM in history. But you get the idea.

If you're honest with yourself, it's probably true that of that list of four guys (Zach, DeMar, Vuc, Ball), there is a really reasonable chance that 0 of them are quality starters next year, at most, it's likely that 2 of them are (Zach/DeMar), and to the extent two of them might be, neither are likely quality enough to justify their current cost (perhaps DeMar's cost will drop tremendously as a FA).

Thats not being honest at all. 3 of the 4 are obvious starters on most NBA teams.

[dougthonus]

So you have maybe 1 starter quality player and 100m?

If that's how this ends up, it would be the worst GM performance in NBA history.

Ok... that's a little bit of hyperbole. I would have to research every horrible GM in history. But you get the idea.

If you're honest with yourself, it's probably true that of that list of four guys (Zach, DeMar, Vuc, Ball), there is a really reasonable chance that 0 of them are quality starters next year, at most, it's likely that 2 of them are (Zach/DeMar), and to the extent two of them might be, neither are likely quality enough to justify their current cost (perhaps DeMar's cost will drop tremendously as a FA).

Thats not being honest at all. 3 of the 4 are obvious starters on most NBA teams.

I guess it depends what you mean by "quality" starters, I would view a quality starter as one who would be in the top 3 on an above average team, and well, Ball can't play so he's obviously out, there's no way Vuc is a top 3 starter on a good team, and it's questionable whether DeMar or Zach would be next year. With this year's performance, perhaps neither, perhaps one of them. With last year's performance or the year before, then for sure both of them.

[Guru]

If you're honest with yourself, it's probably true that of that list of four guys (Zach, DeMar, Vuc, Ball), there is a really reasonable chance that 0 of them are quality starters next year, at most, it's likely that 2 of them are (Zach/DeMar), and to the extent two of them might be, neither are likely quality enough to justify their current cost (perhaps DeMar's cost will drop tremendously as a FA).

Thats not being honest at all. 3 of the 4 are obvious starters on most NBA teams.

I guess it depends what you mean by "quality" starters, I would view a quality starter as one who would be in the top 3 on an above average team, and well, Ball can't play so he's obviously out, there's no way Vuc is a top 3 starter on a good team, and it's questionable whether DeMar or Zach would be next year. With this year's performance, perhaps neither, perhaps one of them. With last year's performance or the year before, then for sure both of them.

Why would we say quality starters are one of the 3 best players on a team when there are 5 starters? This logic doesn't follow

[kyrv]

The only core player on the roster is Coby White. Vuc isn't good enough, Zach is probably on his way out now or in the summer, and Demar and Patrick are expiring. Caruso doesn't play enough minutes usually to be a "core" guy. That's everybody worth mentioning.

If I had to pick someone I'd also pick Coby, and I like him, not sure I would declare anyone as a core player. Just not a great roster today and projects to be worse next season.

[Stratmaster]

You enjoying watching this team play? I’d like this team to be something more than a perpetual 10th seed personally.

So, you want them to be a perpetual bottom feeder getting their teeth kicked in fiending for a top 3 pick? I want them to develop players and have a nice young core mixed in with veterans and not "sell high" a young player coming into his own for picks 21-30.

I think the team needs a majority of its players to be on rookie deals and we need a star at least as good as Butler. We just need a reset, that’s not being a perpetual bottom feeder but it is taking a step back to hopefully take two forward. Our team isn’t even treadmillling as a 4th-7th seed, which would also be undesirable, the ceiling of this team is the 8th seed. I don’t think you can rely on free agency too much either to build a team, unfortunately the way the nba is is that you need a star to win and I want the team to be put into a position to get a star via the draft. That requires draft picks, not even “young players” like Reeves.
I’d like to see the Bulls take influence from the Heat and Thunder. The Thunder got “lucky” by following the same sustainable practices for years and putting themselves in that position to get lucky. They traded their guys at the right time for maximum return. The Heat are perpetual winners and don’t actually have a tier 1 superstar but they are very savvy in the draft and scouting the g league it would seem. They didn’t really bottomfeed at all but it also looks like their ceiling is limited despite two finals appearances in the last couple years.

Anyway, anything to me is better than where the Bulls are at now. I think most NBA fans would agree we made some foolish mistakes that put us in this position and that there isn’t a future with this “core” especially not if we award another giant contract next year to a mediocre player like Pat Williams.

The Bulls have played at a .607 pace for the last 28 games.

That's the equivalent of being the 6 seed in the East. 5 seed in the west.

That is cherry picking, of course. But generally speaking is the teams that end the season hot who win in the playoffs. Nobody cares that you started the season 1-5.

Which is just another indicating the Bulls screwed the pooch on this, allowing their head coach to alienate Lavine and continue to "develop" Williams. This team should be a 4 or 5 seed. It's also why it was idiotic to panic and write the team off.

But it's likely too late now. Despite the record, it's all in a shambles, expecting Coby White to somehow carry the team to the playoffs.


Sent from my SM-S911U using RealGM mobile app

[Stratmaster]

So you have maybe 1 starter quality player and 100m?

If that's how this ends up, it would be the worst GM performance in NBA history.

Ok... that's a little bit of hyperbole. I would have to research every horrible GM in history. But you get the idea.

If you're honest with yourself, it's probably true that of that list of four guys (Zach, DeMar, Vuc, Ball), there is a really reasonable chance that 0 of them are quality starters next year, at most, it's likely that 2 of them are (Zach/DeMar), and to the extent two of them might be, neither are likely quality enough to justify their current cost (perhaps DeMar's cost will drop tremendously as a FA).

Zach, Demar and Caruso. And possibly White.

Sent from my SM-S911U using RealGM mobile app

[Stratmaster]

If you're honest with yourself, it's probably true that of that list of four guys (Zach, DeMar, Vuc, Ball), there is a really reasonable chance that 0 of them are quality starters next year, at most, it's likely that 2 of them are (Zach/DeMar), and to the extent two of them might be, neither are likely quality enough to justify their current cost (perhaps DeMar's cost will drop tremendously as a FA).

Thats not being honest at all. 3 of the 4 are obvious starters on most NBA teams.

I guess it depends what you mean by "quality" starters, I would view a quality starter as one who would be in the top 3 on an above average team, and well, Ball can't play so he's obviously out, there's no way Vuc is a top 3 starter on a good team, and it's questionable whether DeMar or Zach would be next year. With this year's performance, perhaps neither, perhaps one of them. With last year's performance or the year before, then for sure both of them.

Well, by definition then, a team could never have more than 3.

Sent from my SM-S911U using RealGM mobile app

[dougthonus]

Why would we say quality starters are one of the 3 best players on a team when there are 5 starters? This logic doesn't follow

What do you define as a non-quality starter then? I mean I guess there is room for semantics here one way or the other, we could call it a starter who is in the top 15 players starting at his position? In that case Vuc is also still clearly a no, and it's a maybe for Zach/DeMar, both yes the previous year, both playing much worse this year.

[dougthonus]

]Well, by definition then, a team could never have more than 3.

Why could a team not have 3 players that would be a top 3 starter on an above average team? It's effectively saying a player in the top 150. I'm sure our guys may make some lists due to name recognition and stat totals, but all three of these guys may potentially fit into these categories:

1: Play no defense
2: Score inefficiently
3: Demand a ton of on-ball action
4: Bonus for Vuc/DeMar - can't shoot the three

I have reasonable belief that Zach will bounce back from whatever is going on, but the two are in massive decline at points in their career arc where massive decline is likely. No one wants or needs players like this, but they are the kind of players everyone overrates for a long time, because their stat totals look okay long after their impact doesn't.

[Guru]

Why would we say quality starters are one of the 3 best players on a team when there are 5 starters? This logic doesn't follow

What do you define as a non-quality starter then? I mean I guess there is room for semantics here one way or the other, we could call it a starter who is in the top 15 players starting at his position? In that case Vuc is also still clearly a no, and it's a maybe for Zach/DeMar, both yes the previous year, both playing much worse this year.

A quality starter is a player you aren't looking to replace or someone who settles the position. Caruso-White-DeRozan-Lavine are all quality starters. There are 30 teams and they should be starting somewhere in the league.

I think it's semantics as you say. For me you get to steady and then build.

[sco]

What does "Core" even mean? Its a fun word to say for those us us clinging to hope for this team's future as the present is terrible, I suppose.

The core of this franchise is us remaining millennials still stuck on the ghost of Jordan and the fun teams of Hinrich, Gordon, Rose, Jimmy and Jo who came to follow. But this team? I don't have any love for anything to do with these teams beyond the aforementioned nostalgia of players come to pass. I still loosely follow the team because of those prior teams, and my latent nostalgia for the logo, sport and city i live in and love.

Great point. The term is overused today. I couldn't remember a season in the last 10 that I would have same core for this team to end the season that I had to start it. The question with this team is how many of these guys would I not mind watching next season, but that's not what I would call a core (btw the answer right now is only Coby and Caruso).

[dougthonus]

A quality starter is a player you aren't looking to replace or someone who settles the position. Caruso-White-DeRozan-Lavine are all quality starters. There are 30 teams and they should be starting somewhere in the league.

I think it's semantics as you say. For me you get to steady and then build.

If "starting somewhere in the league" is quality starter, then there are 150 quality starters in the league (150 starting players) and a non-quality starter does not exist, but again semantics.

I think next year that you would not want DeRozan to start. He doesn't defend at all and does a lot of things that hurt your offense (high clock usage, slows down the team, heavy isolation play, no longer an efficient scorer, can't shoot or space the floor, not a good off ball player). If DeMar could rebound to last year's performance, that would no longer be true. Then he created a lot more high efficient volume offense, but at his age, it's really unlikely that this is just a blip in the radar and he rebounds. It's likely that next year is worse than this year, where he's on the fringe of that list now.

To correct most post from earlier, I'd say a quality starter would be one I view as a top 90 player not 150 (did some bad math there), which is more or less probably the number of guys who should definitely start while the other guys are more fringe.

As I said, I leave room for DeMar / Zach to potentially be quality starters, but there is significant doubt for both. You could make the case neither are quality starters this year given their overall lack of offensive efficiency and lack of other meaningful skills they bring to the table. Like do you view DeAngelo Russell as a quality starter? You can argue he's as good as Zach or DeMar this year, and I don't think the Lakers view him as a quality starter.

A lot of the thoughts on Zach/DeMar are anchoring to previous performance and assuming we'll get that again, if we do, yes. Both were really good the previous two years, but who knows what you'll get in the future. With DeMar, I would say it's highly likely that it's over. With Zach? Who knows. He seems to have had nagging injuries every year for awhile now, maybe they're taking their toll, maybe he's just fed up with the team, hard to say what happens with him in the future, but he's looking more like Kevin Martin than James Harden.

[League Circles]

Why would we say quality starters are one of the 3 best players on a team when there are 5 starters? This logic doesn't follow

What do you define as a non-quality starter then? I mean I guess there is room for semantics here one way or the other, we could call it a starter who is in the top 15 players starting at his position? In that case Vuc is also still clearly a no, and it's a maybe for Zach/DeMar, both yes the previous year, both playing much worse this year.

A quality starter is a player you aren't looking to replace or someone who settles the position. Caruso-White-DeRozan-Lavine are all quality starters. There are 30 teams and they should be starting somewhere in the league.

I think it's semantics as you say. For me you get to steady and then build.

By this logic we are one starter away from being "all set".

But we're not. I love Demar but he's declining and expiring and outright bad on defense.

I love Caruso but he's often injured and not a very good offensive player.

White is thoroughly good.

Zach is playing poorly this year but hopefully will bounce back.

We basically have two "quality" starters that we shouldn't theoretically need to replace: White plus half of Zach and half of Caruso.

[Guru]

Its a tough argument that Caruso isn't a quality starter.

[League Circles]

Its a tough argument that Caruso isn't a quality starter.

Well, he's never been a regular starter or played big minutes in his career, is often injured, and provides very little on offense, so it's not that tough. But more importantly, he, Zach and Demar can't ALL be quality starters, because none of them can play the 4 at a quality level and White is the 1.

[Ctownbulls]

Coby only, especially because of his contract.