Players Only
After the first game of the season, featuring an indifferent effort against the precocious Thunder, the Chicago Bulls held a players-only meeting. They aired grievances, assigned blame, took ownership, and moved on to game 2. So, what's the big deal? Are these players-only meetings not a reasonable default option for collectively navigating conflicts and minimizing silos? Nikola Vucevic, the Bulls' starting center, called the conversation "constructive," sharing that it was "really good for us to have this." According to multiple sources, Zach Lavine addressed his teammates assertively after the game, attempting to hold them accountable for not playing with enough purpose: "I don't think we played with enough heart. And that's on us. It's unacceptable." It's true that accountability begins with ownership, but ownership is a wash without action. the construction of this Bulls roster curbs the potential for the type of change that the players discussed in the locker room. Sure, the team can play with more heart, and sure, the players and coach can improve their interpersonal dynamics, but the roster limitations remain the same. A few games later, Lavine took matters into his own hands, scoring 51 points without an assist.
A meeting is only as good as its facilitators. For the Bulls, a players-only meeting likely means the voices responsible for driving the conversation and eliciting others' voices are Lavine, DeRozan, and Vucevic. Lavine, a career scorer whose body language often communicates messages of disinterest marked by raised eyebrows, hands on hips, and a lack of off-ball movement, is not necessarily a prime candidate for translating a message about heart and togetherness into tangible action. DeRozan, while recognized as a solid teammate, is not known as a vocal leader. And Vucevic, an unselfish teammate, has been the most discordant with head coach Billy Donovan. In addition to these characteristics that call into question their proclivity for leadership is the play on the court. The chasm between capable veterans and young players is palpable in Chicago. DeRozan and Lavine are seasoned scorers who are at their best when the ball is in their hands. Vucevic has a tremendous feel for the game but is not a lead distributor who can involve the young guys. So players like Ayo Dosunmu, who showed early pick-and-roll promise during his first year, and Patrick Williams are relegated to the corner to watch the same teammates who question their heart operate on an island.
In restorative practices, the fundamental component known as "Fair Process" is often cited when discussing what makes a meeting transformative. Fair Process occurs when members of a community, organization, or team have a safe space to voice their opinions and share their concerns. But it doesn't end there. Those voices also help drive change and inform implementation efforts. In essence, the leadership takes these voices seriously. Lastly, expectations are clarified, and consequences are spelled out if expectations are not met. When applying this component to the Chicago Bulls, it's reasonable, given the eye test, to assume that if the voices of the Ayo's, Pat Williams, Dalen Terry and Coby White were heard and affirmed, then viewers would start to notice some change. Unfortunately, this has not occurred. Lavine and DeRozan are back to begrudgingly taking turns on offense, and Donovan has maintained this status quo to placate the veterans, while the young guys continue to remain confined in the corner. Aside from the occasional Coby White hot streak, which reinforces the "me first" ethos of this Bulls squad, everyone else under 25 remains underutilized and difficult to evaluate for scouts.
Raja Bell, on the Ringer NBA Show's Real Ones Podcast, shares that players-only meetings normally take place for two reasons:
So that the players can air their grievances towards one another and lean into interpersonal conflict as a means to resolve issues.
So that the players can discuss issues about the coaching staff in the purpose of initiating a change in leadership.
What is unprecedented is for a meeting of this sort to occur after game one of the season. It suggests that the areas of improvement most needed were neglected during the offseason and that the culture setters are incapable of creating a cohesive and unified environment. Charles Barkley and the TNT crew mocked the meeting, and numerous podcasts questioned both its functionality and timing. One of the best measures of how good of a basketball eye-test taker you are is to watch if the players on the court seem to be sharing the ball. In Chicago, sharing the ball seems to be a painstaking effort, one that is perfunctory but not profound. Herein lies the disconnect; that the players in a lead role fail to practice what they preach. This article is not a commentary on the likability of the players in question. Derozan has championed the league's efforts to comprehensively address mental health issues, candidly and openly speaking on his challenges with depression/anxiety in commercials and interviews. This is most certainly a form of leading by example. And If anything, this article attempts to grade my eye test which asks the following questions:
a.) Do the Bulls players appear engaged and happy?
b.) Do the leaders on the team engage others and uplift them?
c.) Is the coach fluid and adaptable?
If your answer is a resounding "no" to all of these questions, it's reasonable to conclude that one Player's Only meeting is nothing more than a desperate attempt to mitigate unmanageable dysfunction.
Betting tip: Bet on Billy Donovan as the first coach to be fired at 2/1, plus odds! His immediate competitor, Wes Unseld Jr., also can't coach, but that's by design.
Sports card tip: Buy low on some of the Chicago Bulls' young players. In the event that the Bulls blow it up, they will finally have a chance to emerge from the basement.
