Update PG 4: Patrick Williams OUT For Season

[DuckIII]

In the big picture this is good news for the Bulls. It kills Pat’s feee agency and is highly likely to result in the QO to give another year to firm up an opinion on his game and value, or a sweetheart deal because Pat opts to take a few years of lower guaranteed money.

The only bad news in the long view is that to the extent there was an opportunity to include him to sweeten a larger deal this summer, that is now pretty much off the table.

NBA contracts are far from a perfect market, but his next contract will be given based on his market value factoring in all known risks and rewards. If you knew he was going to be much better in the future and you knew this injury wouldn't hamper him at all, then there would be no discount.

If he ends up on a cheap deal it will be because decision makers perceive there to be real risk. From a managerial perspective, Pat's now a high risk asset. High risk assets sometimes pay off in the way you state, but you always have the opportunity to take on high risk assets every year in many forms.

His outcomes having much greater variability and thus his price tag being cheaper is not a benefit in and of itself. It's only a benefit if the good outcomes happen despite the increased risks, but there's no reason to assume that. If that were true, then there would be no risks to begin with and the contract wouldn't be less (unless the risks were not real but imagined due to bias or something else).

So he still has to become good. Got it. I’d still rather find out on a cheaper deal.

[MrSparkle]

Fact is, Pat played 43 games, of which 13 had a game score below 3 ("terrible"). 11 games with a "good" game score. The rest (majority) are mediocre. https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/w/willipa01/gamelog/2024

Vassell comparatively had 3 such terrible games LAST YEAR and this year. He's got way more "great" games (20-32), way more "good" games (12-19), way more acceptable games (8-12), and way less putrid games (sub-8). https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/v/vassede01/gamelog/2024

It would be beyond idiotic paying this man more than $10M. I understand the age, the injury, the Demar/Vuc/Zach effect. But nevertheless, it would be very unfortunate if Pat got more than the MLE.

[dougthonus]

So he still has to become good. Got it. I’d still rather find out on a cheaper deal.

I think that misses the point. His odds of becoming good are also less.

If they weren't less, then he wouldn't be available for less money. Thus having a player who now has a lesser chance of becoming good at a cheaper price is not a positive in and of itself.

[GoBlue72391]

If they wanted to see Sanogo they would have seen him by now. There's been ample opportunity for him to play and they chose 6'4" Terry Taylor to play C over Sanogo.

It’s odd, right? It’s almost like they quickly signed an undrafted center lacking both an NBA physical profile and NBA athleticism who also has no redeeming NBA skills whatsoever.

No one saw that coming except for everyone but AK.

I mean, Sanogo and Taylor have played like 20 minutes each at C this year or something like that. Sanogo is strong as an ox and I believe has been successful in ncaa and g league. I'd like to see what he can do, even moreso frankly than Terry, Phillips, or Taylor.

It's pretty wild to me that you would rather get a look at an undersized, slow, unathletic, non-shooting, non-rim protecting, below-the-rim 90s style bigman than a tall lengthy wing with 3&D potential and a 43-inch vertical. But that's just me.

[Ben]

So he still has to become good. Got it. I’d still rather find out on a cheaper deal.

I think that misses the point. His odds of becoming good are also less.

If they weren't less, then he wouldn't be available for less money. Thus having a player who now has a lesser chance of becoming good at a cheaper price is not a positive in and of itself.

I think I get where he's coming from, though, at least at a psychological level. If I could buy two lottery tickets, both with the same potential payout but one costing $10 and better odds of winning, and one costing $2 with worse odds of winning-- winning being unlikely in either case-- I'd probably feel more at ease shelling out 2 bucks and still being able mentally to enjoy the prospect of a jackpot.

[GoBlue72391]

Regardless of what anyone thinks about Sanogo we just can’t trot out a 6’4” center. That’s a losing strategy (though we seem to embrace those). Sanogo has basically played one game and recorded 8 points and 6 rebounds in 9 minutes. Chances are he’s not a real NBA caliber player, but something can be said about just having size. I can live with Terry getting burn at the 4, but it’s just embarrassing when we let him play the 5. I don’t get what we are doing or why we constructed the roster this way. We feel like a JV team.

I'm not advocating for playing Taylor at the 5, just that I think we'll continue to do that when needed rather than giving Sanogo a chance.

Not sure if it's Billy or what, but this team has been allergic to even the thought of giving our end-of-the-bench developmental guys a chance for what seems like a few years now. You see good teams like the Heat finding diamonds in the rough with their two-way and undrafted guys, but we just never play any of ours.

I don't think Sanogo is good, but I'm fine throwing him out there instead of Taylor, I just don't think we will. Taylor has actually played fairly well as our emergency backup C in limited minutes, and Sanogo played well too in his one-game garbage time sample size.

[GoBlue72391]

If we resign him, it better be at a seriously steep discount value.

In the big picture this is good news for the Bulls. It kills Pat’s feee agency and is highly likely to result in the QO to give another year to firm up an opinion on his game and value, or a sweetheart deal because Pat opts to take a few years of lower guaranteed money.

The only bad news in the long view is that to the extent there was an opportunity to include him to sweeten a larger deal this summer, that is now pretty much off the table.

It's also bad news in that this injury might affect his development moving forward.

[GoBlue72391]

Regardless of what anyone thinks about Sanogo we just can’t trot out a 6’4” center. That’s a losing strategy (though we seem to embrace those). Sanogo has basically played one game and recorded 8 points and 6 rebounds in 9 minutes. Chances are he’s not a real NBA caliber player, but something can be said about just having size. I can live with Terry getting burn at the 4, but it’s just embarrassing when we let him play the 5. I don’t get what we are doing or why we constructed the roster this way. We feel like a JV team.

My guess is that with these low level young prospects, they have a (wise IMO) strategy where they will prioritize giving guys a chance based on who they need to make a decision on first. In this case, it's really Taylor and Terry who need to be decided on first. Taylor because he's not guaranteed for next year and Terry cause we have to decide on his 5.4 million dollar 4th year option at the start of next season. I'd guess both of these guys are currently not projected to be kept by the Bulls. Taylor cause he doesn't have enough promise to justify a roster spot for next year, and Terry cause he simply hasn't shown enough improvement to justify a not-insignificant 5.4 million dollar salary in 2025-26. I suspect he'll be getting regular burn the rest of the season to make sure that their inclination to decline his 4th year option isn't going to blow up in their face by him becoming a great player elsewhere.

Terry Taylor isn't the type of guy you spend time developing or making decisions on and risk the development of other guys with higher ceilings that could be playing.

Good orgs like the Heat play their two-way and undrafted guys and find diamonds in the rough. We don't.

[GoBlue72391]

Bulls will be strong next season. P.will is going to figure his role out. Lavine will be traded. Derozan will be back. Lonzo will be back. There going to get a steal draft pick. Drummond will be back. Coby and ayo will be a bit better. They suprise the NBA and become a top 5 team

I love some good fanfic, too.

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

Here’s how I’d have ranked the potential 2023-24 Pat Williams outcomes:

1) Strong two-way play that improves as the season goes on. Explosive flashes. Serious risk that he gets that $28M offer but we’re glad to have team control given what he’s shown.

2) A 4-6 week run of strong play before an injury cuts it short. Little chance of big contract but also longterm health concerns (our reality).

3) A typical Pat year: up and down play throughout a healthy season. An eye of the beholder free agent with some risk of a big offer. Much trepidation about matching it.

Setting Pat’s humanity aside, this injury has taken both the best and worst scenarios off the table from an asset management standpoint.

[dougthonus]

I think I get where he's coming from, though, at least at a psychological level. If I could buy two lottery tickets, both with the same potential payout but one costing $10 and better odds of winning, and one costing $2 with worse odds of winning-- winning being unlikely in either case-- I'd probably feel more at ease shelling out 2 bucks and still being able mentally to enjoy the prospect of a jackpot.

The lottery is a bit different in that the odds are so astronomical that it's not really a comparative example, but I take your point, that you'd rather just pay less due to the lack of certainty so if you are wrong the impact isn't as great.

I guess from an analytical standpoint, I'd put it this way:

If this injury likely won't affect Pat, and you believe you saw all the burgeoning signs of Pat about to break out, but not in a way that it was super obvious and is presently undervalued in the market but might have been obvious had he continued to play throughout the year and thus his price is set at current level but would have actually gone considerably up if he continued to play then this could be a blessing in disguise.

If you look at this injury and say it actually carries large risk. This is the foot version of what Lonzo had. He may not successfully come back from this at all, and furthermore, he was not actually playing all that great and I'm also not certain about how good he'll be, and I still have to pay him based on potential and take on this additional risk, then it's a huge negative.

I'm not sure which of those realities will play it in the market place related to price nor am I all that certain where I see Pat's direction if he stayed healthy. I definitely saw a lot more signs this year and was coming around to a more positive view but wasn't quite there yet

[League Circles]

It’s odd, right? It’s almost like they quickly signed an undrafted center lacking both an NBA physical profile and NBA athleticism who also has no redeeming NBA skills whatsoever.

No one saw that coming except for everyone but AK.

I mean, Sanogo and Taylor have played like 20 minutes each at C this year or something like that. Sanogo is strong as an ox and I believe has been successful in ncaa and g league. I'd like to see what he can do, even moreso frankly than Terry, Phillips, or Taylor.

It's pretty wild to me that you would rather get a look at an undersized, slow, unathletic, non-shooting, non-rim protecting, below-the-rim 90s style bigman than a tall lengthy wing with 3&D potential and a 43-inch vertical. But that's just me.

Well, we have a much bigger hole at C than on the wing, and Sanogo is certainly not undersized. Not sure he can be any slower, less athletic, less rim protecting etc than Vuc. Meanwhile Phillips would need to beat out guys like Patrick, Demar, Caruso, Zach to help us.

[League Circles]

Regardless of what anyone thinks about Sanogo we just can’t trot out a 6’4” center. That’s a losing strategy (though we seem to embrace those). Sanogo has basically played one game and recorded 8 points and 6 rebounds in 9 minutes. Chances are he’s not a real NBA caliber player, but something can be said about just having size. I can live with Terry getting burn at the 4, but it’s just embarrassing when we let him play the 5. I don’t get what we are doing or why we constructed the roster this way. We feel like a JV team.

My guess is that with these low level young prospects, they have a (wise IMO) strategy where they will prioritize giving guys a chance based on who they need to make a decision on first. In this case, it's really Taylor and Terry who need to be decided on first. Taylor because he's not guaranteed for next year and Terry cause we have to decide on his 5.4 million dollar 4th year option at the start of next season. I'd guess both of these guys are currently not projected to be kept by the Bulls. Taylor cause he doesn't have enough promise to justify a roster spot for next year, and Terry cause he simply hasn't shown enough improvement to justify a not-insignificant 5.4 million dollar salary in 2025-26. I suspect he'll be getting regular burn the rest of the season to make sure that their inclination to decline his 4th year option isn't going to blow up in their face by him becoming a great player elsewhere.

Terry Taylor isn't the type of guy you spend time developing or making decisions on and risk the development of other guys with higher ceilings that could be playing.

Good orgs like the Heat play their two-way and undrafted guys and find diamonds in the rough. We don't.

Not sure I exactly understand you, but FWIW, I'm not advocating that they play Taylor. I'm just suggesting that to whatever extent they do, it's just to confirm what they're hopefully already leaning towards, which is to cut him before free agency starts when I'm guessing his guarantee for next year might kick in. Then shortly thereafter they have to decide on Dalen Terry's significant 4th year option this fall. On the contrary, Phillips they have much longer to decide on, and I don't know how the rights to 2-way players works, but I'm guessing we retain some kind of right with guys like Sanogo and Bitim that also gives us more time to decide on them than we have on Taylor and Terry.

[MrSparkle]

I think on top of statistical data, I don’t actually like the way Pat plays. When I think of my favorite players (stars or roleplayers), they’re exciting. Fast instincts, aggressive, head always up.

On the star side: Manu, Jimmy, Ant

Roleplayers: Javonte, Beverley, Nocioni, Caruso

Franz, Deni - same age or younger, much more passion and fire. And heady decision making.

The “gentle giant” thing doesn’t really do it for me. Pat’s a very mechanical player who telegraphs his plays. So beyond his stats sucking, overpaying is a real leap of faith as he has a fundamentally Tim Thomas, Eddy Curry meets Nice Guy type of charisma.

[MikeDC]

In the big picture this is good news for the Bulls. It kills Pat’s feee agency and is highly likely to result in the QO to give another year to firm up an opinion on his game and value, or a sweetheart deal because Pat opts to take a few years of lower guaranteed money.

The only bad news in the long view is that to the extent there was an opportunity to include him to sweeten a larger deal this summer, that is now pretty much off the table.

NBA contracts are far from a perfect market, but his next contract will be given based on his market value factoring in all known risks and rewards. If you knew he was going to be much better in the future and you knew this injury wouldn't hamper him at all, then there would be no discount.

If he ends up on a cheap deal it will be because decision makers perceive there to be real risk. From a managerial perspective, Pat's now a high risk asset. High risk assets sometimes pay off in the way you state, but you always have the opportunity to take on high risk assets every year in many forms.

His outcomes having much greater variability and thus his price tag being cheaper is not a benefit in and of itself. It's only a benefit if the good outcomes happen despite the increased risks, but there's no reason to assume that. If that were true, then there would be no risks to begin with and the contract wouldn't be less (unless the risks were not real but imagined due to bias or something else).

So he still has to become good. Got it. I’d still rather find out on a cheaper deal.

There's no such thing as a "cheaper deal" for a guy who's not able to play. It's just dead money.
It's like crowing about what a great deal Lonzo Ball was signed to.

No matter what deal Pat signs, if he's got a career threatening injury, which this sounds like, it's going to be too much if he can't play.

[MrSparkle]

I can also just see AK blind-hope good-will paying Pat and having another high-chance deadweight on the cap for 4y. This FO has redefined the idea of big market patience for me.

[dougthonus]

One thing I will say, the latest stories out this morning (or at least I saw them this morning), are saying the surgery is to fix a stress fracture. I'm not a medical guy, but it was called a stress reaction yesterday. Maybe those mean the same thing, but a fracture feels like a bone problem with a pretty discreet treatment that has a high degree of certainty in recovery.

If the bone edema was caused by the stress fracture, and that is not an on-going problem, then the long term health prognosis here should be very positive and not be a large concern. Granted, that may be a few logical leaps, and you never know until he gets on the court, but this feels less likely to be a mystery scenario like Lonzo.

That said, Lonzo was initially diagnosed with a meniscus tear (if I'm not mistaken, but I'm going off memory) which sounds pretty common place too, so you never know how these things will progress for sure, but bad diagnosis is not the norm and a stress fracture feels like something that is far more likely to be a non factor going forward than a career hampering injury.

[DuckIII]

So he still has to become good. Got it. I’d still rather find out on a cheaper deal.

I think that misses the point. His odds of becoming good are also less.

If they weren't less, then he wouldn't be available for less money. Thus having a player who now has a lesser chance of becoming good at a cheaper price is not a positive in and of itself.

Your post is a multi-paragraph way of saying the player, even if signed on a perceived value deal, must at minimum live up to the deal signed in order for it to actually be a value. Which is inherently true of every contract of every type and therefore doesn't actually mean anything.

Its objectively better to have circumstances force a player to take a lesser deal when: (a) you want to sign that player (which the Bulls do); and (b) especially when his value is very much an open question. Then, of course, as you note in order for it to actually be a full success the player has to play in such a way as to earn the contract. But the lesser cost is an automatic good.

From the Bulls perspective, this Pat situation we are dealing with now is a benefit contractually.

[DuckIII]

It’s odd, right? It’s almost like they quickly signed an undrafted center lacking both an NBA physical profile and NBA athleticism who also has no redeeming NBA skills whatsoever.

No one saw that coming except for everyone but AK.

I mean, Sanogo and Taylor have played like 20 minutes each at C this year or something like that. Sanogo is strong as an ox and I believe has been successful in ncaa and g league. I'd like to see what he can do, even moreso frankly than Terry, Phillips, or Taylor.

It's pretty wild to me that you would rather get a look at an undersized, slow, unathletic, non-shooting, non-rim protecting, below-the-rim 90s style bigman than a tall lengthy wing with 3&D potential and a 43-inch vertical. But that's just me.

I would rather play Bitim at the 4 or 5 than Sanogo. Or any other player on the roster, regardless of their natural position, simply because the minutes are or more benefit to the organization than playing a total scrub who has no business anywhere near an NBA roster.

[DuckIII]

NBA contracts are far from a perfect market, but his next contract will be given based on his market value factoring in all known risks and rewards. If you knew he was going to be much better in the future and you knew this injury wouldn't hamper him at all, then there would be no discount.

If he ends up on a cheap deal it will be because decision makers perceive there to be real risk. From a managerial perspective, Pat's now a high risk asset. High risk assets sometimes pay off in the way you state, but you always have the opportunity to take on high risk assets every year in many forms.

His outcomes having much greater variability and thus his price tag being cheaper is not a benefit in and of itself. It's only a benefit if the good outcomes happen despite the increased risks, but there's no reason to assume that. If that were true, then there would be no risks to begin with and the contract wouldn't be less (unless the risks were not real but imagined due to bias or something else).

So he still has to become good. Got it. I’d still rather find out on a cheaper deal.

There's no such thing as a "cheaper deal" for a guy who's not able to play. It's just dead money.
It's like crowing about what a great deal Lonzo Ball was signed to.

No matter what deal Pat signs, if he's got a career threatening injury, which this sounds like, it's going to be too much if he can't play.

I agree that no contract value can be achieved by a player who can't play.