Khaman Maluach and the Bulls, Risk or Reward?
Zero Rebounds, Zero (new) Concerns
[Disclaimer: This started as “The Zero Rebound game did not change my view on Maluach, i still don’t want to draft him in the Top 12” and turned into a rant about the Chicago Bulls, who are rumored to have him high on their draft board. I’m sorry.]
Let’s just cut to the chase:
If I’m the Bulls, I’m not taking Khaman Maluach at 8. Not because I don’t see the upside—because I do. It has nothing to do with Khaman. I know my team, our development track record, and frankly, the amount of patience and infrastructure it would take to make this work. And that’s not us. The Bulls are pushing for the Play In in years, where it would’ve been okay to tank (Wemby/Amen/Ausar/Flagg/Peterson/Boozer/just to name a few…) - where and when would we even develop a prospect like Maluach?
Let’s give him his flowers first. You don’t just teach a 9'8 standing reach, fluidity, or the type of flashes he shows defending in space. You’re betting on raw clay—an NBA body in progress with some genuinely rare movement skills and touch indicators. He moves better than most rim protectors. The frame projects well once he fills out. And he’s already operated in pro environments despite only playing organized basketball for what, four or five years? That says something.
There’s a version of this story where Maluach becomes a mobile drop anchor who can also hedge, switch, and maybe even hit short-roll floaters. That version is extremely valuable. But that’s a big if.
The Bad
What really worries me isn’t the lack of polish—it’s how far behind he is in the things that should be translatable now. Rebounding instincts? They seem to come and go, without him understanding why. The Zero-Rebound-Game in the NCAA MM Semis is just one data point and it doesn’t represent an entire season worth of data points, but seeing the ball continuesly flop out of his hands has me questioning a few things, especially after thinking he has great hands, being able to catch all lobs (maybe a testament to his passers).
On top of that he has a thin frame? Still gets pushed around, which makes you wonder what position he can defend in the first two years. I’m not saying he should be able to guard the Jokics or Giannis’ of this world, nobody can, but could he out-rebound/ not get pushed around by Okongwu, Şengün or Gafford? I’m not questioning his willingness, but if he wants to contribute right away, that’s where he has to show up. Zach Edey, right now, is dominating teams with smaller Cs but disappears when he has to play the bigger ones. Is Maluach better/ worse than Zach?
Even if you love the tools, you're investing multiple developmental cycles before he contributes meaningfully. That’s fine—if you're OKC. Or Utah. Or a team playing with house money. The entire Bulls-community seems to be fixiated on Maluach at the 8th pick. But: Chicago has shown no interest in that (investing multiple developmental cycles).
The Chicago Problem: Context Matters Not
This is where team context kills dreams (i mean, mostly Bulls eager approach kills dreams, but that might be the salt in me talking). Because development isn’t a universal constant—it’s a variable. And Chicago hasn’t exactly aced that equation.
Let’s look at the track record:
Patrick Williams: Flashed the tools. Never became the guy we envisioned. He had a 20 point game recently, the first in what feels like 3 years…
Wendell Carter Jr.: Developed better the second he left.
Lauri Markkanen: We played him out of position, stunted his confidence, and watched him turn into an All-Star in Utah.
There’s more, i’m sure but there are not that many draft prospects we took high and developed into stars. Coby and Buzelis could be a change in that system though
So now I’m supposed to believe that we’ll take the rawest big in the class—one with real rebounding concerns, shaky positional instincts, and a playstyle that hasn’t grown into itself yet—and develop him into a two-way monster? Based on what?
If you take Maluach in Chicago, you're not just drafting a project. You're betting against years of organizational precedent on that position.
Mark Williams / Yves Missi Tier? Not Quite
You can argue that the NBA has shown it doesn’t value centers like it used to. Guys like Mark Williams and Yves Missi dropped in the draft despite being more polished defenders than Maluach is right now. They were further along physically, had better rebounding rates, and still had to fight for relevance.
If we think, Maluach is better right now than Duren/ Mark Williams were in 2022, then i’d see the 8th pick, but we could argue that the draft class was loaded, so let’s look at last years draft class:
If we think, he’s better than ClingKong and Zach Edey, again, the range is validate, but what about:
Let’s look at other Cs later in the draft:
I’m not saying “Don’t pick a C high in the draft”, it’s more along the lines of “A big in the draft, picked high, could be a worthwile pick, but so could be a big later in the draft, even as low as 22, especially if the player has to be developed.”
Final Thought: Right Player, Wrong Team
Would I consider Maluach in the lottery? Absolutely—if I’m San Antonio, Toronto, maybe even Washington, but more in the range around the 10th pick. You get him into the right developmental system, with patience and structure, and you could have something special in three years.
But in Chicago that’s a pass for me.
Maluach is a swing worth taking—for someone else. Not a top-10 pick for the Bulls. More like a developmental stash for an organization that’s already proven it can develop from scratch. If the Bulls are actually high on him and pick him, knowing fully well they’d tank for the 2026 draft class, i’d be all for it, but … it’s the Bulls. We’re pushing for mediocrity, because, at the end of the day, it’s about money.
The next question would be: Well, who do we like more in that range, if we get a high pick? Who’s upside is higher? Who’s reward is better?
I wish i knew…