Non-sarcastic reasons to stand pat at the trade deadline Edit: And that’s what happened

[eierluke]

There is no realistic possibility to get anybody with star potential (= top 5 pick to me) we could reach with a trade. So yes, why not stand pat.
Management made a terrible signing with Zach and further missed the point in time to trade him. Next time he could be traded is once he is an ending contract. The good point however is that he really tried to adapt his game - even though his BBIQ is limited he tried. He won't become the player he by physical talent could be, but at least he did not behave like a diva.
We have to live with zach beeing here until his contract year, it is like it is.
Agreed that stupid trading around won't bring a a title soon. Our little hope is to draft someone like Giannis or Kawi with a late lotto pick.

If only owner, management and coach could change I'd at least be more comfortable to endure our almost hopeless future ...

[ChiTownHero1992]

Can't think of a single reason.

even the reasoning of "trade offers might not be good enough" at this point any offer is likely a move in the right direction, it would get AKME to admit they were wrong, it would open the door for further trades, and it resets this horribly constructed roster

[jnrjr79]

All of this.

I also think, and have done past analysis to support my thinking, but in general teams enter the tax to keep a conteding/winning team together. In the majority of cases - a team is already a contender before needing to pay the tax.

The internet at large seems to be very focused on ownership's (because it is more than just one person) desire to avoid the tax.

The much bigger issue being that we haven't come close (aside from the early 2010's) of building an actual contender.

We're all mad about step 2, while overlooking our inability to achieve step 1.

I think it's also a "grass is always greener on the other side thing" to believe the majority of other franchises have been more successful than us.

If you measure success by championships, well then 11 team have won a championship since we last did, so 11 teams have been more successful - everyyone else is a loser.

19 teams have made 2 or more Conference Finals since 1999. Sometimes this is just due to seeding (aka in what round to you run into LeBron).

Getting off track - but our inability to build a contender isn't due to financial restraints. Bad team building and injuries have been far bigger issues.

Bingo. A lot of posters seem to think the Bulls are bad because they are cheap. They definitely have earned the reputation for cheapness, but the primary reason the Bulls are bad is that the front office has performed badly. I hope nobody believes that AKME would have put together a championship-contending roster if only they were permitted to pay the luxury tax. They haven't shown they can assemble a roster of players that would make you want to pay it in the first place.

AKME isn't bad because the Bulls won't pay the luxury tax, but that does limit what they can do. For example, two years ago I wanted the Bulls to sign Isaiah Hartenstein, but quickly realized that doing so would put the Bulls into the tax. He signed a 2 year 16 million dollar deal with the Knicks. At the time I thought he could back up Vucevic and start from time to time. Then when Vucevic is a free agent he could walk and Hartenstein becomes the starter.

The year before that I suggested signing Jalen Smith who the Pacers got for 3 years 15 million dollar deal. He would add size to a team that needs it.

Both of them are solid role players and would make a difference on this roster.

Aside from the luxury tax the other part of the Bulls ownership being "cheap" is excepting a team that's competitive, but not a serious contender. They don't seem to be willing to take some risks and try a different direction.

If prime Michael Jordan was here then sure they'd pay him, but even when they did Reinsdorf complained about it.

I agree the Bulls are cheap and that involves limitations. But the point here is the Bulls are not an Isaiah Hartenstein away from being good. Far from it.

[drosestruts]

I can get not trading Caruso because the future picks are likely very late firsts, and he acts so much like a coach on the Court, you want that influence on younger players. Plus, he’s under contract.

DeMar… assuming even a late first is offered, is harder. The option after this season will be to give him 30+ M per year, probably for 3 years… or let him walk. Not to mention that ISO DDR fails pretty hard most of the time, when attempted to close games, and seems to get in the way of other players.

Vuc probably has no value. Drummond probably can net you a 2nd rounder or 2… but would the Bulls go out and get another player, or risk injury (and negatively impact development) by playing, say, Phillips there? Or Pat when he comes back? Not to mention, if the Bulls can keep Andre relatively cheap long term, he is one of the best backup Cs in the league.

Sigh.

Why is the options for DeMar 3/$90m or let him walk.

We have his bird rights - who would we be competing against to sign him? What teams are projected to even have $30m in cap space?

Teams that even could have $30m in cap space if they move off all cap holds of veteran players and declined all non-guranteed deals:

1. Pistons
2. 76ers - would require renoucning a lot of veteran players
3. Magic
4. Hornets
5. Jazz
6. Raptors
7. Pacers - if they renounce Siakam
8. Spurs

Which of these teams do we think would outbid us for DeMar? Cause these are the only 8 with enough potential space to even do so.

For the same reason we paid Vuc for 20+ M per season.

I don't follow. Vuc last year made $22m, now he makes $18m. This is your evidence for thinking we'll sign DeMar (currently making $27m) for $30m?

The logic isn't connecting for me.

[drosestruts]

people, in my opinion incorrectly, think we have to be bad to be good.

A lot of the conversation this season has been around the development and growth we've seen from both Coby White and now Ayo Dosunmu. I'm of the opinion that some, and we can debate how much, of this development is due in part to veterans like DeRozan and Caruso being on the team and actively working with these young players.

My hypothesis is that if we trade guys like Caruso and DeRozan, we will be negatively impacting the continued development of players like Coby White and Ayo Dosunmu, but also players like Patrick Williams, Dalen Terry, and Justin Philips.

Some may not care about the development of these players, and instead prefer different hypotehtical young players for whatever reason. To me that's just resetting the clock, we have countless examples of players needing time to develop. The old thinking of "you are who you are by year 3" is outdated and clearly wrong.

If we want to see what the ceiling of players like Coby, Ayo, Williams, Terry, and Phillips are - then we need veterans like DeRozan and Caruso here guiding them and providing examples of the work it takes to actually develop.

This belief is mainly tied to guys like DeRozan and Caruso though. If the front office receives offers for Vucevic, Drummond, Craig, Carter, or LaVine - and they're good offers (or in the case of Vuc literally anything) I'd pull the trigger.

I'm much more reluctant and hesitant to trade Caruso and DeRozan.

Coby, Ayo and Patrick Williams have played with DeRozan and Caruso for 2 and a half seasons. How many more years do they have to play under them to fully develop? At what point are they good enough to develop with or without them?

That's the big question - and i don't have the answer.

[drosestruts]

All of this.

I also think, and have done past analysis to support my thinking, but in general teams enter the tax to keep a conteding/winning team together. In the majority of cases - a team is already a contender before needing to pay the tax.

The internet at large seems to be very focused on ownership's (because it is more than just one person) desire to avoid the tax.

The much bigger issue being that we haven't come close (aside from the early 2010's) of building an actual contender.

We're all mad about step 2, while overlooking our inability to achieve step 1.

I think it's also a "grass is always greener on the other side thing" to believe the majority of other franchises have been more successful than us.

If you measure success by championships, well then 11 team have won a championship since we last did, so 11 teams have been more successful - everyyone else is a loser.

19 teams have made 2 or more Conference Finals since 1999. Sometimes this is just due to seeding (aka in what round to you run into LeBron).

Getting off track - but our inability to build a contender isn't due to financial restraints. Bad team building and injuries have been far bigger issues.

Bingo. A lot of posters seem to think the Bulls are bad because they are cheap. They definitely have earned the reputation for cheapness, but the primary reason the Bulls are bad is that the front office has performed badly. I hope nobody believes that AKME would have put together a championship-contending roster if only they were permitted to pay the luxury tax. They haven't shown they can assemble a roster of players that would make you want to pay it in the first place.

I don't think anybody here thinks that they are bad because they are cheap. It's well known that they're bad because AKME has done an abysmal job. The Reinsdorfs also happen to be cheap. Remember getting rid of Korver when we were contenders? Completely embarrassing move.

Honestly, no, I don't remember that.

I remember they traded Kyle Korver in the summer of 2012 before a season in which the Bulls played without Derrick Rose for an entire year, won 45 games, and got bounced in the 2nd round.

I would not describe that as trading Korver to duck the tax while being in contention.

[cubd8]

What do you got? I hope this is not a debating thread. I know virtually everyone thinks there should at least be a reset if not a full rebuild. I’m included in that group. However, I think there can be logic in decisions I don’t personally agree with and it doesn’t mean those who disagree (AKME/ownership possibly) are idiots. I hope we can discuss that here.

Some things that come to mind:

Current vets are valuable for leadership.
The team has played better since the terrible start.
Possible trade returns may not be good enough.
If they make the play-in, anything can happen.
If the team were ever healthy, they would be better.

I don't know their cap/draft picks status well enough, but I would suppose there is some (or could be some) benefit to letting the season play out. What would be better for the Bulls - trade DeRozan for an asset now or let him walk (or sign and trade) this summer?

Is this the wrong year to trade into a weaker draft?

Will having the full off-season mean more potential teams to deal with?

[drosestruts]

a number of trade partners could have much more assets to trade this summer.

The Lakers for instance - can currenly only trade one future 1st (2029)

Once the 2024 draft passes they'd then be able to trade the 2025, 2029, and 2031 picks

This is just one example of "Buyers" potentially have more assets to buy with in the summer than they do now.

[samwana]

What do you got? I hope this is not a debating thread. I know virtually everyone thinks there should at least be a reset if not a full rebuild. I’m included in that group. However, I think there can be logic in decisions I don’t personally agree with and it doesn’t mean those who disagree (AKME/ownership possibly) are idiots. I hope we can discuss that here.

Some things that come to mind:

Current vets are valuable for leadership.
The team has played better since the terrible start.
Possible trade returns may not be good enough.
If they make the play-in, anything can happen.
If the team were ever healthy, they would be better.

I don't know their cap/draft picks status well enough, but I would suppose there is some (or could be some) benefit to letting the season play out. What would be better for the Bulls - trade DeRozan for an asset now or let him walk (or sign and trade) this summer?

Is this the wrong year to trade into a weaker draft?

Will having the full off-season mean more potential teams to deal with?

There are always good players in the draft and I rather take a chance on a draft pick over losing him for nothing or even worse extending him.

[Dan Z]

Bingo. A lot of posters seem to think the Bulls are bad because they are cheap. They definitely have earned the reputation for cheapness, but the primary reason the Bulls are bad is that the front office has performed badly. I hope nobody believes that AKME would have put together a championship-contending roster if only they were permitted to pay the luxury tax. They haven't shown they can assemble a roster of players that would make you want to pay it in the first place.

AKME isn't bad because the Bulls won't pay the luxury tax, but that does limit what they can do. For example, two years ago I wanted the Bulls to sign Isaiah Hartenstein, but quickly realized that doing so would put the Bulls into the tax. He signed a 2 year 16 million dollar deal with the Knicks. At the time I thought he could back up Vucevic and start from time to time. Then when Vucevic is a free agent he could walk and Hartenstein becomes the starter.

The year before that I suggested signing Jalen Smith who the Pacers got for 3 years 15 million dollar deal. He would add size to a team that needs it.

Both of them are solid role players and would make a difference on this roster.

Aside from the luxury tax the other part of the Bulls ownership being "cheap" is excepting a team that's competitive, but not a serious contender. They don't seem to be willing to take some risks and try a different direction.

If prime Michael Jordan was here then sure they'd pay him, but even when they did Reinsdorf complained about it.

I agree the Bulls are cheap and that involves limitations. But the point here is the Bulls are not an Isaiah Hartenstein away from being good. Far from it.

My point is that if you don't have financial limitations that gives you more options to make moves. Hartenstein isn't going to turn the Bulls a contender, but he will improve the team. You limit their options and that makes it harder to build a contender. In a way it's a catch-22.

[Dan Z]

Bingo. A lot of posters seem to think the Bulls are bad because they are cheap. They definitely have earned the reputation for cheapness, but the primary reason the Bulls are bad is that the front office has performed badly. I hope nobody believes that AKME would have put together a championship-contending roster if only they were permitted to pay the luxury tax. They haven't shown they can assemble a roster of players that would make you want to pay it in the first place.

I don't think anybody here thinks that they are bad because they are cheap. It's well known that they're bad because AKME has done an abysmal job. The Reinsdorfs also happen to be cheap. Remember getting rid of Korver when we were contenders? Completely embarrassing move.

Honestly, no, I don't remember that.

I remember they traded Kyle Korver in the summer of 2012 before a season in which the Bulls played without Derrick Rose for an entire year, won 45 games, and got bounced in the 2nd round.

I would not describe that as trading Korver to duck the tax while being in contention.

I don't know if the move specifically avoided the tax, but it was a cost cutting move.

The Chicago Bulls have traded Kyle Korver to the Atlanta Hawks in a move that saves the team money and ends Korver's two-year run with the team.

https://www.espn.com/chicago/nba/story/_/id/8164492/chicago-bulls-trade-shooter-kyle-korver-atlanta-hawks

[drosestruts]

I don't think anybody here thinks that they are bad because they are cheap. It's well known that they're bad because AKME has done an abysmal job. The Reinsdorfs also happen to be cheap. Remember getting rid of Korver when we were contenders? Completely embarrassing move.

Honestly, no, I don't remember that.

I remember they traded Kyle Korver in the summer of 2012 before a season in which the Bulls played without Derrick Rose for an entire year, won 45 games, and got bounced in the 2nd round.

I would not describe that as trading Korver to duck the tax while being in contention.

I don't know if the move specifically avoided the tax, but it was a cost cutting move.

The Chicago Bulls have traded Kyle Korver to the Atlanta Hawks in a move that saves the team money and ends Korver's two-year run with the team.

https://www.espn.com/chicago/nba/story/_/id/8164492/chicago-bulls-trade-shooter-kyle-korver-atlanta-hawks

To be clear I wasn't saying it wasn't a cost cutting move, I'm saying the description of the move being ""getting rid of Korver when we were contenders" due to Reinsdorfs cheapness is inaccurate, as we were not contenders that year.

It changes the entire context around the move.

Cost cutting move - yes

Cost cutting move while contenders - no

And I think there's a big difference between the two.

[RSP83]

Does this count? Or am I still too jaded lol

Read on Twitter

Crazy. Either Chicagoan really loves their basketball team or they have nothing better to do.

[Evil_Headband]

Does this count? Or am I still too jaded lol

Read on Twitter

Crazy. Either Chicagoan really loves their basketball team or they have nothing better to do.

Or the Bulls have a really big arena.

[Dan Z]

Honestly, no, I don't remember that.

I remember they traded Kyle Korver in the summer of 2012 before a season in which the Bulls played without Derrick Rose for an entire year, won 45 games, and got bounced in the 2nd round.

I would not describe that as trading Korver to duck the tax while being in contention.

I don't know if the move specifically avoided the tax, but it was a cost cutting move.

The Chicago Bulls have traded Kyle Korver to the Atlanta Hawks in a move that saves the team money and ends Korver's two-year run with the team.

https://www.espn.com/chicago/nba/story/_/id/8164492/chicago-bulls-trade-shooter-kyle-korver-atlanta-hawks

To be clear I wasn't saying it wasn't a cost cutting move, I'm saying the description of the move being ""getting rid of Korver when we were contenders" due to Reinsdorfs cheapness is inaccurate, as we were not contenders that year.

It changes the entire context around the move.

Cost cutting move - yes

Cost cutting move while contenders - no

And I think there's a big difference between the two.

They won 50 games and finished in 1st place during Korver's last year with the Bulls, but in the playoffs against Philly Rose got hurt. I guess they thought that without Rose they were done?

The real reason why they weren't contenders is because Miami had a "super team".

[drosestruts]

I don't know if the move specifically avoided the tax, but it was a cost cutting move.



https://www.espn.com/chicago/nba/story/_/id/8164492/chicago-bulls-trade-shooter-kyle-korver-atlanta-hawks

To be clear I wasn't saying it wasn't a cost cutting move, I'm saying the description of the move being ""getting rid of Korver when we were contenders" due to Reinsdorfs cheapness is inaccurate, as we were not contenders that year.

It changes the entire context around the move.

Cost cutting move - yes

Cost cutting move while contenders - no

And I think there's a big difference between the two.

They won 50 games and finished in 1st place during Korver's last year with the Bulls, but in the playoffs against Philly Rose got hurt. I guess they thought that without Rose they were done?

The real reason why they weren't contenders is because Miami had a "super team".

Correct. Absolutley - without Rose they were no longer contenders so the team wasn't worth paying the tax for.

They were contenders in 2011-12. Unfortunately Rose tore his ACL in the playoffs

2012-13 with Rose injured they trade Korver to evade the tax

2013-14 with Rose back they are a luxury tax team has ownership believes that with Rose back they are contenders (Rose would unfortunately go on to hurt himself again).

[jnrjr79]

Does this count? Or am I still too jaded lol

Read on Twitter

Crazy. Either Chicagoan really loves their basketball team or they have nothing better to do.

Huge population + largest stadium in NBA + fairly ingrained basketball culture + it's a thing to do in a cold weather city in the winter

[ScrantonBulls]

To be clear I wasn't saying it wasn't a cost cutting move, I'm saying the description of the move being ""getting rid of Korver when we were contenders" due to Reinsdorfs cheapness is inaccurate, as we were not contenders that year.

It changes the entire context around the move.

Cost cutting move - yes

Cost cutting move while contenders - no

And I think there's a big difference between the two.

They won 50 games and finished in 1st place during Korver's last year with the Bulls, but in the playoffs against Philly Rose got hurt. I guess they thought that without Rose they were done?

The real reason why they weren't contenders is because Miami had a "super team".

Correct. Absolutley - without Rose they were no longer contenders so the team wasn't worth paying the tax for.

They were contenders in 2011-12. Unfortunately Rose tore his ACL in the playoffs

2012-13 with Rose injured they trade Korver to evade the tax

2013-14 with Rose back they are a luxury tax team has ownership believes that with Rose back they are contenders (Rose would unfortunately go on to hurt himself again).

Rose was supposed to come back during the season. That's what was expected by the Bulls. They WERE contenders with that expectation. Nobody knew Rose and his squad would pull that BS and hold him out the entire season.

Korver was dumped when the team was a contender.

[greenl]

Only one I can think of is that the upcoming draft is so weak that it ruins the incentive to trade players for draft capital. But otherwise I got nothing.

[bledredwine]

Because we’re the Bulls.

Oh wait, that’s sarcastic. I’ve got nothing.