Bulls squandered – Former Bulls executive vice president Arturas Karnisovas handed out contracts and made draft/trade choices, but the biggest flaw, the piece argues, was failing to maximize the 2025 and 2026 draft windows. It points to missed chances in the 2025 slot and highli
The Bulls’ draft window is supposed to come once every season, a clean chance to stockpile future value. Instead. rehashing what former executive vice president Arturas Karnisovas got wrong has started to feel less like debate and more like inevitability—contracts handed out. draft picks chosen. trades completed. and a pattern that critics say never truly caught up with what was coming.
The piece’s central complaint is blunt: Karnisovas. it argues. didn’t understand the talent coming in both the 2025 and 2026 draft classes. or how to set the organization up to take as many “bites at the apple” as possible. Yes. the Bulls did land a second first-round pick early in his tenure thanks to the Lauri Markkanen deal—but the argument here is that the result was more driven by what the Trail Blazers did to make that pick finally kick in than by anything the Bulls specifically engineered.
Then comes the sharper frustration. The Bulls selected No. 12 in ’25, but the piece says they “blew an opportunity” to pick much higher after finishing 15–5 to end the regular season. Instead. it argues they chose Noa Essengue. described as “damaged goods” with a bum shoulder—an investment the piece frames as avoidable when the upside available in that draft range was larger.
That sets up the question the piece says matters most: which class is better—2025 or 2026. The answer, as presented, is that both are loaded, just loaded differently. The ’25 group is described as more top heavy. The ’26 class is described as having serious depth. and the piece pushes the idea that a combined draft—if both classes were merged—would make a top 10 feel “interesting. ” even with ’26 still an unknown.
From there, the piece lists prospects ranked across the two classes:
At No. 10 is Mikel Brown Jr. (’26), a 6-5 point guard praised for shooting depth and court vision, with a warning that he can have “LaMelo Ball moments” and chase the highlight instead of higher-substance play—yet still seen as having star potential.
No. 9 goes to Collin Murray-Boyles (’25). After an up-and-down rookie regular season, the piece says he looked like he had found something in the first postseason, potentially giving Scottie Barnes a “running mate.” His 22-point Game 3 against the Cavaliers is cited as the eye-opener.
No. 8 is Darryn Peterson (’26). The Kansas guard is ranked here, the piece says, because of a strange freshman season on tape and a lack of production in “all the load-management nights.” Talent-wise, Peterson is said to have the ability to jump into the top five, but needs to prove it.
No. 7 is Caleb Wilson (’26), a 6-10 forward described as a nightly highlight waiting to happen, with comps to Shawn Kemp that the piece frames as ambitious. Still, it says there’s no question he’ll play above the rim offensively and defensively.
No. 6 is Cameron Boozer (’26). presented as arriving with unusual momentum after what the piece calls one of the more historic college debuts. Boozer. it says. won AP National Player of the Year. led Duke to a 35-3 record. and reached an Elite Eight appearance—positioned here as a better athlete than critics think.
No. 5 is VJ Edgecombe (’25). The rookie, the piece notes, looked worn down in the sweep by the Knicks, but its view pivots to his playoff output against the favored Celtics in Round 1. It highlights a 30-point performance in Game 2 and 23 points in Game 7, describing two-way star potential.
No. 4 is AJ Dybantsa (’26). The piece says the BYU product’s scoring led the nation at 25.5 points and positioned him as the No. 1 player in a deep class, with eight 30-plus scoring games. It insists he’s more than just a scorer.
No. 3 is Kon Knueppel (’25). The piece says Knueppel became the first rookie to lead the NBA in three-point shooting and helped turn the Hornets from “punch line” to play-in team. It calls him a high-IQ player who could have won Rookie of the Year—except that his former college teammate had something to say about that.
No. 2 is Dylan Harper (’25). The piece says Knueppel had the better regular season than Harper. but focuses on what Harper has done off the bench for the Spurs during their run to the Finals. It says his production is “beyond impressive. ” and even adds that he seems to have finally hit a wall in the last week. while still averaging 16.3 points through four Finals games.
And at No. 1 is Cooper Flagg (’25). The piece describes Flagg as becoming the youngest player in league history to score at least 35, 40, 45, and 50 points. It also points to “versatile rookie performances” since LeBron James’ first season and claims Flagg has a chance to be the next face of the league.
The through-line back to the Bulls is hard to miss in the way the facts are arranged: the argument isn’t only that decisions were made—it’s that the Bulls’ approach to the 2025 and 2026 windows didn’t match the opportunity the talent seemed to offer.
By placing the prospects side by side across No. 12 ’25 and the deeper pool implied in ’26. the piece frames the real stake in the picks themselves: this wasn’t just about where the Bulls selected. but about how they were positioned to stockpile value across multiple chances. In that view, the missed opportunities don’t fade with time—they simply become easier to name.
Chicago Bulls Arturas Karnisovas 2025 draft class 2026 draft class Lauri Markkanen Noa Essengue Cooper Flagg Dylan Harper AJ Dybantsa VJ Edgecombe Kon Knueppel sports news