# Bulls on pace for 47 wins, #3 in East



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Not too shabby.

Looks like we might be back to where we were two years ago.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)




----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Not too shabby.
> 
> Looks like we might be back to where we were two years ago.



Except better. We now get on the fastbreak and we dont turn it over as much.


The first part of that may affect our defense stats, but if you ask me defense isnt necessarily portrayed altogether properly by stats anyway, so i dont care that much.

We're definitely a different type of team now, to be sure.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Not too shabby.
> 
> Looks like we might be back to where we were two years ago.


Except two years ago we didn't have as many wins up to this date, so actually we're doing better than we did two years ago.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Not too shabby.
> 
> Looks like we might be back to where we were two years ago.


I had a long repy to this that disappeared when the server crashed.:brokenhea 

Suffice it to say that the Bulls have been playing better than their record this year, while two years ago they played significantly worse than their record. That means they are a better team today than they were then -- much better actually.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I'm going to step out of character and defend K4E on this one, fellas. 

I think he's showing a little humor. He says "47 wins, 3rd best team in the East" all the time and he knows it, and today that is exactly what we are projected to be.

Its self-deprecating joke. Its a wink and a nod.

I think. :biggrin:


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Suffice it to say that the Bulls have been playing better than their record this year, while two years ago they played significantly worse than their record. That means they are a better team today than they were then -- much better actually.


I don't agree. That 47 win team started off poorly and had a surprisingly low point differential, but by the middle of the year I felt that we could have beaten any team in the league.

This year's team has a high point differential and should have a lot more wins, but I don't feel as confident. I would feel very shaky about going into a series against Washington, Cleveland, Miami (with Shaq), and maybe even Detroit. We're not that far off, though. I think if we traded for a semi-decent big man to take PJ's place (for example, Kurt Thomas, except he just got injured) we would easily be the favorites and better than what the 04-05 team would be today.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I'm going to step out of character and defend K4E on this one, fellas.
> 
> I think he's showing a little humor. He says "47 wins, 3rd best team in the East" all the time and he knows it, and today that is exactly what we are projected to be.
> 
> ...



I'll take your "location" quote into consideration for this post.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I'm going to step out of character and defend K4E on this one, fellas.
> 
> I think he's showing a little humor. He says "47 wins, 3rd best team in the East" all the time and he knows it, and today that is exactly what we are projected to be.
> 
> ...


I think so too. However, we ARE currently "on pace" for 47 wins...

hopefully, and climbing.

If the season ended today, we would have the second (not the third) best record in the eek: admittedly depleted) East, one game back of Cleveland (who, to put a monkey wrench in these sort of useless projections, have played two fewer games to date). Heck, we have even had impressive wins against West coast powerhouses, of late.

Hey, what I see here is an almost...not quite...glimmer of positive energy from one of the most jaded, cynical (and knowledgeable) fans ever to truly love the Bulls to the core.

I can only take that as a sign that good things are coming ahead.

:gopray:


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I think so too. Hoever, we ARE currently "on pace" for 47 wins...
> 
> hopefully, and climbing.
> 
> ...



WHAAAT!!!!!! We traded for Cap Space to settle for second??? WHAAAT???

j/k


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Not too shabby.
> 
> Looks like we might be back to where we were two years ago.



Not shabby at all!!!!

I think this team actually has a chance to win more than 47 games! Perhaps even 50! How exciting would that be?!!

Go BULLS!!!


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> I don't agree. That 47 win team started off poorly and had a surprisingly low point differential, but by the middle of the year I felt that we could have beaten any team in the league.
> 
> This year's team has a high point differential and should have a lot more wins, but I don't feel as confident. I would feel very shaky about going into a series against Washington, Cleveland, Miami (with Shaq), and maybe even Detroit. We're not that far off, though. I think if we traded for a semi-decent big man to take PJ's place (for example, Kurt Thomas, except he just got injured) we would easily be the favorites and better than what the 04-05 team would be today.


I agree with this. So far this year's team doesn't seem quite there, although the recent Spurs victory was quite impressive.

The 04-05 team, after it's awful start, played well on the road and well against other quality teams. We're starting to get there, but I want to see more before I pronounce this team "better".

The other thing is we're more reliant on a single, older big guy. We're also a bit smaller up front and more reliant on transition for scoring. It's good that we can run, but it'd be nice to have a better half court game in place because things will slow down in the playoffs.

I still think we slightly top 47 wins, and dependent on our health and matchups make it to the second round. Of course, with a healthy Curry and Deng, we might have made it to the second round back then too.

I'm not ready to say we'll make it out of the second round yet, at all. There's still a lot left for this team to show us.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I also consider it a HUGE positive that self-depreciating comments seem to be outnumbering bile-spewing potshots by a considerable margin lately.

Maybe that means we can ALL have more fun and maybe some of the Old-Time-Hockey legends of the board will start to trickle back into regular circulation.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> WHAAAT!!!!!! We traded for Cap Space to settle for second??? WHAAAT???
> 
> j/k


Settle down, Sparky. 

I said second IF the season ended today...

while we are on pace for 47 wins...and seemingly on the rise!

:rock:


As *Wynn!* would say:

"the Bull will never lose another game."

:yay: :yay: :yay: :yay: :yay:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Of course, some of the jaded and cynical have yet to profess belief.

But K4E has some other positive qualities that seperate him from the pack.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> The other thing is we're more reliant on a single, older big guy. We're also a bit smaller up front and more reliant on transition for scoring. It's good that we can run, but it'd be nice to have a better half court game in place because things will slow down in the playoffs.


I don't necessarily think we're more reliant on transition scoring than in 04-05. I realize that we don't have the reliable low-post scoring threat that we had in Curry, but I think that is offset by the improvment of Deng, Nocioni, and Gordon since that season.

Our pace factor has increased from 92.4 to 93.99 since that season, but our scoring has also increased from 94.5 ppg to 99.7 ppg. I don't think we're significantly better or worse in our half-court offense.

I think the aspect of the game where the 04-05 team that was better was their play at the end of close games, and I think that is the one obvious area where we need to see improvement throughout the rest of the season. Of course, Ben Gordon was the main reason for our success in close games in 04-05, so this team does have the potential to improve.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I'm going to step out of character and defend K4E on this one, fellas.
> 
> I think he's showing a little humor. He says "47 wins, 3rd best team in the East" all the time and he knows it, and today that is exactly what we are projected to be.
> 
> ...


I'm going to step out of character and disagree with you, Penguin. I don't think K4E is being self-deprecating at all. I think he's simply reminding us that this Bulls team, which has fairly high expectations, is doing no better than the Bulls of 2 years ago.

Others can argue that this team is better and cite other, somewhat unimportant statistics. I'm with K4E on this. This team hasn't accomplished anything. I can like them more than the '04-'05 team (which I do), but at minimum, they need to clearly become the best of the post-dynasty Bulls by winning more games than the teams that came before them. To be the best post-dynasty Bulls team, they don't need to win a playoff series, since the others didn't.

What I'm not sure of is whether winning a playoff series, regardless of the # of regular season wins, makes them the best post-dynasty Bulls team. Perhaps K4E can clarify.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

I'm more concerned about getting home court advantage in the play offs.
the third best record at the moment would probably get you the 5th play off seeding assuming Cavs and Pistons finish one-two


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Another big thing we have going for us is that we're basically in position to take over #1 seed in the East, if we step it up just a little bit. We weren't even close to #1 seed two years ago.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

transplant said:


> I'm going to step out of character and disagree with you, Penguin. I don't think K4E is being self-deprecating at all. I think he's simply reminding us that this Bulls team, which has fairly high expectations, is doing no better than the Bulls of 2 years ago.
> 
> Others can argue that this team is better and cite other, somewhat unimportant statistics. I'm with K4E on this. This team hasn't accomplished anything. I can like them more than the '04-'05 team (which I do), but at minimum, they need to clearly become the best of the post-dynasty Bulls by winning more games than the teams that came before them. To be the best post-dynasty Bulls team, they don't need to win a playoff series, since the others didn't.
> 
> What I'm not sure of is whether winning a playoff series, regardless of the # of regular season wins, makes them the best post-dynasty Bulls team. Perhaps K4E can clarify.


As for K4E's intent, I guess you guys could be right. I just thought it was kind of done in a joking matter. But, c'est la vie.

As for this team, I've still no doubts that the Bulls will equal or surpass the 50 win barrier. Frankly, I think they'll surpass it with ease. I still consider this to be a 52-54 win team. My belief is that the Bulls are on the verge of dominating the rest of the season (relative to the rest of the East, that is).

As for the playoffs:

First round exit = abject failure
Second round exit = acceptable, but marginally disappointing
ECF exit = an undeniably successful season
Finals exit = true glee
Ring = nirvana


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

In 2004-2005 the Bulls outscored the opposition by 1.1 points per game. This season they're outscoring them by 5.5 points per game.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> My belief is that the Bulls are on the verge of dominating the rest of the season (relative to the rest of the East, that is).


To go out on a ledge and barring any unforeseen circumstances, I'm going to say that they will!


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> As for the playoffs:
> 
> First round exit = abject failure
> Second round exit = acceptable, but marginally disappointing
> ...


I can agree with this, as long as the disappointment of a second round exit is truly only marginal. If yhey make it to the second round, they will have met my expectations, and while I always hope for more, what can I say...I think anything beyond getting to the second round this year is gravy, given the (continuing) development of our young "vets" like KH, Ben G, Luol and Noc, the promising rookies and the old timers like Ben W assimilating themselves.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I can agree with this, as long as the disappointment of a second round exit is truly only marginal. If yhey make it to the second round, they will have met my expectations, and while I always hope for more, what can I say...I think anything beyond getting to the second round this year is gravy, given the (continuing) development of our young "vets" like KH, Ben G, Luol and Noc, the promising rookies and the old timers like Ben W assimilating themselves.


Agreed on all counts. If we get swept by Washington in the second round, that won't constitute "abject failure" but just good old plain "failure" will describe it nicely.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Well, yeah...

If we got swept in a series, even the second round, that would suck.

So I will say I won't be more than marginally disappointed if we get to the second round and eventually lose -- as long as we don't get embarassed and swept.

Getting swept would sting.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Well, yeah...
> 
> If we got swept in a series, even the second round, that would suck.
> 
> ...


I think I misunderstood your post. Yes, if the Bulls lose in the second round, I will consider it a quality season but I will be very, very slimly, narrowly, marginally disappointed.

But if we get our asses handed to us in 4 games by what I would perceive as an inferior opponent, then the disappointment margin will grow considerably.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

A real championship contender should be able to beat the Washington Wizards in a 7 game series.

Winning a playoff series would be a decent accomplishment. 

That's not a satisfactory playoff run for a team with real expectations to "win now" though.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> A real championship contender should be able to beat the Washington Wizards in a 7 game series.
> 
> Winning a playoff series would be a decent accomplishment.
> 
> That's not a satisfactory playoff run for a team with real expectations to "win now" though.


Or any other team in the eastern conference for that matter. I like the Bulls chances against any eastern conference team, although I could see them losing a series to several teams, including Washington, as well.

If Ben Wallace comes to play the Bulls can beat anyone in the east. After that, pray for opponent injuries and great 3 point shooting, but don't expect the refs to give the Bulls Miami-like favors if they play Dallas, Houston or San Antonio.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Winning a playoff series would be a decent accomplishment.
> 
> That's not a satisfactory playoff run for a team with real expectations to "win now" though.


For those that hold this out as the expectation.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I suppose so, and if the Bulls really are legit Championship Contenders THIS YEAR, they should come out on top on that proposed 7 game series.

However, while I am certainly not comparing this Bulls squad to the First Dynasty or the Washington Wizards to the Bad Boy Pistons, that is somewhat my thinking in saying I won't be disappointed in our development as a young team if we show we can AT LEAST advance to the second round of the playoffs this year. Most championship teams -- the early Showtime Lakers and the early Bird Celtics being notable exceptions -- historically seem to go through a process of getting through and "learning to win" in the playoffs.

That is what I'm shooting for in what I will consider a "successful" season. If they can show me more and advance to the ECF or advance to the Finals or win a championship this year, I am ALL FOR IT!!!

But I'm not one to set expectations up for failure and take a young team with a slew of new players and put a burden on it that says Championship Now or You Suck.

I don't think that is reasonable and if they don't reach such a lofty goal THIS YEAR, I don't think it is reasonable to conclude that they are not a team built to contend for a championship.

And while I understand that the Ben Wallace era does have a limited shelf life, well..I don't think the team is built as nothing more than a single shot one and done.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> A real championship contender should be able to beat the Washington Wizards in a 7 game series.
> 
> Winning a playoff series would be a decent accomplishment.
> 
> That's not a satisfactory playoff run for a team with real expectations to "win now" though.



What do you define as a reasonable benchmark for this team to consider this year to be satisfactory/a success?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I found this interesting, from the SI piece on another thread...It ties into the idea of a learning process in the playoffs.



> • On whether Deng could become their leading star:
> 
> "That could be possibly the hardest thing there is to know in the league today. You've got a young player, you like him or you love him, to whatever the degree that your fondness of him is, and you try to estimate where that's going to go.
> 
> ...


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/ian_thomsen/01/18/jefferson.notes/4.html


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> our development as a young team


And what bothers me is that two years later, the same "young team" label is being used to diminish expectations.

The Bulls are a much more seasoned group than the one who had the 3rd best record in the east and were bounced by the Wizards two years ago. And, to top it off, the Bulls and Wizards were close in that series, and the Bulls were missing both Curry and Deng. I believe the Bulls win that series if Curry and Deng were healthy. 

It would be promising to see this group win a playoff series, and I'm of the opinion that this team is built to "win later," not "win now." Given this, the Wallace signing does not make a ton of sense to me, and I would rather have kept the twin towers so our young group is all in their prime together.

As it stands right now, I think that over time we'll see Wallace deteriorate while TT improves. The Knicks pick does not appear to be a saviour for our long term solution at center.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> And what bothers me is that two years later, the same "young team" label is being used to diminish expectations.


It is not being used to "diminish" expectations. It is being used to describe the very real circumstances of the team. To the extent that "diminishes" expectations, then perhaps rightly so as those expectations may very well be unrealistic in the first place.



> It would be promising to see this group win a playoff series, and I'm of the opinion that this team is built to "win later," not "win now." Given this, the Wallace signing does not make a ton of sense to me, and I would rather have kept the twin towers so our young group is all in their prime together.


This is interesting to me. Do you agree with Skiles' and TomB's premise that the playoffs are often a staggered learning experience and that limited successes in the short term enhance the potential for greater successes down the road (like with the early Dynasty Bulls)?



> As it stands right now, I think that over time we'll see Wallace detirotate while TT improves. The Knicks pick does not appear to be a saviour for our long term soluition at center.


It would be impossible to argue with you on either of these points.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> It is not being used to "diminish" expectations. It is being used to describe the very real circumstances of the team. To the extent that "diminishes" expectations, then perhaps rightly so as those expectations may very well be unrealistic in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Didn't Pax say flat out "I traded Curry because I know that I'll find our long-term solution at center with our Knicks pick in the 2007 draft"? Maybe I heard wrong.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> What do you define as a reasonable benchmark for this team to consider this year to be satisfactory/a success?


Based on where we were at two years ago, we should be considerably better now. As of right now, we're not. 

We were a young team which was #3 in the east with tons of upside. Just think how much Hinrich, Gordon, Nocioni, Deng, Curry and Chandler have improved their games since then. Much of that upside has been realized. Problem is, the rarest NBA skillets (productive 7 footers) have been shipped away. Eddy Curry is saving IT his job this season (just reading how IT is going to get an extension).

But, this is a subject that everyone is tired of talking about. But, my expectations of where the Bulls should be at will be forever tied to those moves.

-----------------------------------

Moving forward, looking at the current group and the reasoning behind all the players dumps and Cap Space building, we should at the very, very least get to the 2nd round and depending on the opponent, get past there as well.

How will the Bulls do? I can't say right now. I think they have a shot to beat many of the good teams in the east in a 7 game series if they have home court based on how the other teams are playing right now. 


For instance, do the Bulls beat the Magic right now in a 7 game series?
The Wizards?
The Pistons?
The Cavs?

I don't feel any more confident than saying "maybe."

Two years from now the Bulls will should be a better team if there are no more player dumps and TT develops as I think he will. I'm not sure how much better though, since I don't see how Wallace is replaced as he becomes ineffective. I think the Magic and Cavs will improve as well though. How do we gain some kind of competitive advantage over these teams? In my opinion, Paxson traded it away.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I'm going to step out of character and defend K4E on this one, fellas.
> 
> I think he's showing a little humor. He says "47 wins, 3rd best team in the East" all the time and he knows it, and today that is exactly what we are projected to be.
> 
> ...


:uhoh:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> It is not being used to "diminish" expectations. It is being used to describe the very real circumstances of the team.


I think its time for these guys to shed the "young team" crutch.

Wallace -- 11th year
Hinrich -- 4th year (plus much NCAA exp)
Gordon -- 3rd year (plus much NCAA exp)
Duhon -- 3rd year (plus much NCAA exp)
Deng -- 3rd year
Nocioni -- 3rd year (plus much int exp)
Brown -- 14th year
Allen -- 6th year
Sweetney -- 4th year





> This is interesting to me. Do you agree with Skiles' and TomB's premise that the playoffs are often a staggered learning experience and that limited successes in the short term enhance the potential for greater successes down the road (like with the early Dynasty Bulls)?


Of course. There is no guarantee a team goes to the next level though. The Bulls could end up like the Grizzlies were. Always in the first round. Or the Mark Price Cavs that Jordan always smoked. I think that group is the best comparison to the type of team the Bulls currently have. At least in terms of expected performance come playoff time.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I think its time for *these guys* to shed the "young team" crutch.


Yeah, but when you keep bringing up Curry you have to note that Thomas, a young player, is what what the Bulls got in return. Thomas, as expected will need some time to develop.

Plus, who are "these guys" you speak of?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> Thomas, as expected will need some time to develop.


"win later"

Let's hope we can replace Wallace.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> "win later"
> 
> Let's hope we can replace Wallace.


But what about the "young crutch" thing. And who is using the "young crutch" thing anyways?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Electric Slim said:


> Didn't Pax say flat out "I traded Curry because I know that I'll find our long-term solution at center with our Knicks pick in the 2007 draft"? Maybe I heard wrong.


I never heard anything like this.

Curry was traded due to his heart condition and the ensuing bad will over the DNA testing. It bothers me to no end that this seems largely ignored.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Plus, why is Ben Wallace your avatar?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Based on where we were at two years ago, we should be considerably better now. As of right now, we're not.
> 
> We were a young team which was #3 in the east with tons of upside. Just think how much Hinrich, Gordon, Nocioni, Deng, Curry and Chandler have improved their games since then. Much of that upside has been realized. Problem is, the rarest NBA skillets (productive 7 footers) have been shipped away. Eddy Curry is saving IT his job this season (just reading how IT is going to get an extension).
> 
> But, this is a subject that everyone is tired of talking about. But, my expectations of where the Bulls should be at will be forever tied to those moves.


Like you say, done to death, but the curve you project from 2 years ago is speculative, at best. Never forget that the burn of being moved may very well be a motivating factor for both those bigs that may or may not have been matched with staying put. Don't forget that as well as Ty is playing now, he sucked *** all of last year. nonetheless, kudos to Big Ed. I wish we could have kept him, but I was on management's side during DNA-gate and remain firmly there. I suspect, but can't prove, that Eddy hid his diet aid supplement from the Bulls' team docs and came clean (probably on advice) when the NY docs looked at him. I harp on Eddy's flaws, and don't bemoan his loss -- but I am on record as having hoped for resolution to DNA-gate and Eddy's re-signing. But as you say...its moving forward that is important. anyone can concoct all sorts of fantasy woulda coulda shouldas and project what glory would have befallen us "if only..." Its ultimately a futile and useless exercise.



> Moving forward, looking at the current group and the reasoning behind all the players dumps and Cap Space building, we should at the very, very least get to the 2nd round and depending on the opponent, get past there as well.
> 
> How will the Bulls do? I can't say right now. I think they have a shot to beat many of the good teams in the east in a 7 game series if they have home court based on how the other teams are playing right now.
> 
> ...


I think the Bulls have crafted a team that has a pretty damn good shot in "win now" mode. Knowing the learning curve of the playoffs, I am ready to give the Bulls a year with the current lineup to learn and gel. Would they be further along in that process if Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler were here? Maybe, maybe not. Would we have had a better record in '05-'06 if Eddy Curry was re-signed? Maybe, maybe not. But if we had a better record in '05'06, would we have the long term (potential)upside of Tyrus Thomas and Thabo Sefolosha? Well, no. We'd have a completely different scario from that draft. That's the weird thing when you play "what if" and mess with the time/space continuum...


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I never heard anything like this.
> 
> *Curry was traded due to his heart condition and the ensuing bad will over the DNA testing.* It bothers me to no end that this seems largely ignored.


Ahhhhhh, I see. I thought it was because Pax didn't feel like "winning now". :wink:


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I think its time for these guys to shed the "young team" crutch.
> 
> Wallace -- 11th year
> Hinrich -- 4th year (plus much NCAA exp)
> ...



How do you think the Bulls core players match up with respect to experience with, say, the NBA title winners of the last 10 years.

They're not as young, to be sure, but they're still more on the young side than the seasoned vet side. I do, however, agree with your general point that the "young team" label is used too often as a crutch. This is the team that was assembled and this is the team that has to perform. Do I expect improvement? Definitely. But I still have high expectations in the near-term as well.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> That's the weird thing when you play "what if" and mess with the time/space continuum...












GREAT SCOTT!!!!


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I think its time for these guys to shed the "young team" crutch.


You forgot to add Tyrus Thomas and Sefolosha to the list. Like it or not, the Bulls are a young team with 3 old pros (Wallace, Brown and Griffin). They will continue to be young for at least one or two more years. 

They're too young to win a championship this year without the old pros making extraordinary contributions. If Wallace and Brown (or whoever we get in trade for him) don't play as well as they have in prior years, the Bulls have no chance of winning much in the postseason. But there's a good chance these veterans are still hungry enough to give us a great effort in the postseason.

BTW, Curry has absolutely no playoff experience, and he won't be getting any this year either. In any case, Curry is not the kind of player who can lead a team to victory in a playoff series. Odds are he will be invisible when he gets into a seven game series with an opponent who takes time to game plan for his very limited repetoir of offensive moves, takes note of his near paralytic ability to pass out of a double team, and his inability to provide help defense.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> I think its time for these guys to shed the "young team" crutch.


Here's the deal, though. "Crutch" is your word. The age of the Bulls is an undeniable fact. It has to be considered in the big picture. 



> Of course.


Then I would suggest to you, that you have an answer to your question as to one of the reasons Ben Wallace was acquired. 

The other answer, in my opinion, is that the East is like Jenna Jameson - wide open.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I am ready to give the Bulls a year with the current lineup to learn and gel.


Its the same core lineup (duhon,hinrich, deng, gordon, nocioni) as the #3 in the east team from two years ago with two vets in Wallace and PJ to take the place of the towers.

Sorry, these guys are vets now, not NBA newbies that need entire years to "gel." Its basically the same core with Ben Wallace added. 

"Wait 'til next year" != "Win Now"

----


Ben Gordon is a much better basketball player now than he was two years ago.

Luol Deng is a much better basketball player now than he was two years ago.

Eddy Curry is a much better basketball player now than he was two years ago.


Andres Nocioni is a much better basketball player now than he was two years ago.

Kirk Hinrich is a better basketball player now than he was two years ago.

Tyson Chandler is a better basketball player now than he was two years ago.

If you consider it some type of "wild speculation" to project that as the individual players of a #3 in the east team become much better basketball players that the overall team will improve as well, then we'll just have to disagree.

I consider it "wild speculation" to attribute Curry's progress this year to any kind of sting from leaving the Bulls. What are you basing this opinion on?

1.) Eddy is a pretty laid back guy. Its one of the things he was ripped on while he was a Bull.
2.) Whatever "sting" would have been felt much more last year.
3.) Curry's improvement is due to his overall maturation as a player and to a coach/GM that is making sure to involve Curry. That's the much more reasonable explanation.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

McBulls said:


> In any case, Curry is not the kind of player who can lead a team to victory in a playoff series.


Curry would not be expected to "lead" the Bulls to victory any more than Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Nocioni or Chandler would have individually.

None of these guys are currently good enough to "lead" a team to victory in a playoff series.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> \ But as you say...its moving forward that is important. anyone can concoct all sorts of fantasy woulda coulda shouldas and project what glory would have befallen us "if only..." Its ultimately a futile and useless exercise.


I agree. I wish Curry was still a Bull, and I was a fan of his all along since the day he was drafted. 

But throghout the whole mess, my crazy *** believes that Paxson and Skiles are doing a good job and heading in the right direction. This isn't because I'm a "blind follower" who avoids challenging authority. 

I think anyone who feels the need to bring up Curry and Chandler and Crawford constantly are indirectly asking for the heads of Paxson, if they aren't doing so flat out.

Recently I've had great concers about the team due to the recent pathetic NJ losses, and I'm hoping the Bulls turn it up a notch. but it's sports, and not everything goes as planned. It's just plain silly to me to shout "THE SKY IS FALLING!! THE SKY IS FALLING" every week.

I would have like a better start to our new year, but I will be patient, and patience does not necessarily mean complacence.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> How do you think the Bulls core players match up with respect to experience with, say, the NBA title winners of the last 10 years.
> 
> They're not as young, to be sure, but they're still more on the young side than the seasoned vet side. I do, however, agree with your general point that the "young team" label is used too often as a crutch. This is the team that was assembled and this is the team that has to perform. Do I expect improvement? Definitely. But I still have high expectations in the near-term as well.


If you look at experience and NBA title winners the last 10 years, the Bulls are nowhere near built to win a championship, and our best hope is maybe 5 years down the road if we keep on with the current style of building a team.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Based on where we were at two years ago, we should be considerably better now. As of right now, we're not.
> 
> We were a young team which was #3 in the east with tons of upside. Just think how much Hinrich, Gordon, Nocioni, Deng, Curry and Chandler have improved their games since then. Much of that upside has been realized. Problem is, the rarest NBA skillets (productive 7 footers) have been shipped away. Eddy Curry is saving IT his job this season (just reading how IT is going to get an extension).
> 
> But, this is a subject that everyone is tired of talking about. But, my expectations of where the Bulls should be at will be forever tied to those moves.


Like you say, done to death, but the curve you project from 2 years ago is speculative, at best. Never forget that the burn of being moved may very well be a motivating factor for both those bigs that may or may not have been matched with staying put. Don't forget that as well as Ty is playing now, he sucked *** all of last year. nonetheless, kudos to Big Ed. I wish we could have kept him, but I was on management's side during DNA-gate and remain firmly there. I suspect, but can't prove, that Eddy hid his diet aid supplement from the Bulls' team docs and came clean (probably on advice) when the NY docs looked at him. I harp on Eddy's flaws, and don't bemoan his loss -- but I am on record as having hoped for resolution to DNA-gate and Eddy's re-signing. But as you say...its moving forward that is important. anyone can concoct all sorts of fantasy woulda coulda shouldas and project what glory would have befallen us "if only..." Its ultimately a futile and useless exercise.



> Moving forward, looking at the current group and the reasoning behind all the players dumps and Cap Space building, we should at the very, very least get to the 2nd round and depending on the opponent, get past there as well.
> 
> How will the Bulls do? I can't say right now. I think they have a shot to beat many of the good teams in the east in a 7 game series if they have home court based on how the other teams are playing right now.
> 
> ...


I think the Bulls have crafted a team that has a pretty damn good shot in "win now" mode. Knowing the learning curve of the playoffs, I am ready to give the Bulls a year with the current lineup to learn and gel. Would they be further along in that process if Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler were here? Maybe, maybe not. Would we have had a better record in '05-'06 if Eddy Curry was re-signed? Maybe, maybe not. But if we had a better record in '05'06, would we have the long term (potential)upside of Tyrus Thomas and Thabo Sefolosha? Well, no. We'd have a completely different scario from that draft. That's the weird thing when you play "what if" and mess with the time/space continuum...



> For instance, do the Bulls beat the Magic right now in a 7 game series?
> The Wizards?
> The Pistons?
> The Cavs?
> ...


You know what? I like our chances against any of them. Slam dunk for sure no brainer? No.

But Even the Dynasty teams had nail biter series agains Cleveland (multiple times) Detroit (multiple times) the Knicks (multiple times), Utah (multiple times).

You get the idea.

These Bulls sure as **** ain't as good as either of the Dynasty squads.

They are not as good as the Kobe/Shaq Lakers or the Showtime Lakers or the Bird Celtics. They lack a Hakeem like superstar to compare to the Rockets.

But I think they are a championship/near championship team now. I can't really predict how much closer to being a championship/near championship team they would be now if they had retained 1 or 2 or 3 of the C's. If I was a betting man, I would come down on the side of they would still not have a ring -- but at best would be one year closer. I think with the changes made and the addition of talent we otherwise would not have had, we are AS championship ready or at worst one year further off (and of course since neither EC nor TC has gained any playoff experience in their absence from the Bulls, and neither is truly threatening to this year, so its tough to guage...)

So this year's playoffs are a HUGE mystery.

Noone can predict how this young team, with little time to gel, will react. Certainly noone can predict how much better or worse the team would have reacted but for the Curry/Chandler moves.

We'll have to wait and see.

All I'm saying is I perceive the "playoff learning curve" as a real thing, and except for Ben Wallace, the current Bulls roster has scant playoff experience, and that factor may not be significantly changed if Eddy or Tyson were still here.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

McBulls said:


> In any case, Curry is not the kind of player who can lead a team to victory in a playoff series.


I think the "lead" thing is somewhat too ambiguous at times. If he leads in points, then I would say he's "leading" in something.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> If you look at experience and NBA title winners the last 10 years, the Bulls are nowhere near built to win a championship.


Well, except for the Pistons.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally Posted by *kukoc4ever*
> I think its time for these guys to shed the "young team" crutch.
> 
> Wallace -- 11th year
> ...


Uhhh...don't MOST of the players in the league have "much NCAA exp" and the (very minor % of the league who are ) prep-to-pro's get allowed the crutch of "didn't have the benefit of NCAA exp?")

I can recall 2 prep-to-pro's who's last name begins with C who certainly got that benefit of the doubt from their fanbase...and another C who was one and done (actually 1/2 and done) at Michigan who also got the benefit of the doubt on the "youth" thing...


The young team we have no is not dominating the league, but IS playing well.

Playoff time, as everyone knows, is a different breed of basketball.

Big Ben had better be dropping the science, since he is our been there/done that guy.

Even with that, it is likely, IMO, that the Bulls will have to live through it at least one more year, gettin through the first round and into the second.

If MJ and Pippen, Cartwright, Grant and Paxson needed that life experience before getting to Championship level, I can't begrudge any other team, Bulls included (not to mention the Mavericks, the Suns and any other "could be almost there" team you want to nominate) that accomodation before declaring them busts as a team.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> Well, except for the Pistons.


Pistons?

3 guys 27 or older in the starting lineup.
A bunch of old guys on the bench
4 of the 5 starters acquired in trades

They also peaked for just a couple/three years.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> If you look at experience and NBA title winners the last 10 years, the Bulls are nowhere near built to win a championship, and our best hope is maybe 5 years down the road if we keep on with the current style of building a team.


I remember reading sentiments like this before...

Most of them predicted the Lakers in 5 in 1991.

As in "You don't build a championship team by featuring a scoring title winner."

As Slim points out, the pundits said the 21st Century Pistons weren't "built to win a championship."

Making a champion is sort of like making a legend...the formula for doing so is often derived after the fact, not before.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> If you look at experience and NBA title winners the last 10 years, the Bulls are nowhere near built to win a championship, *and our best hope is maybe 5 years down the road if we keep on with the current style of building a team.*


2 years + 5 years = 7 years. Interestingly enough, thats how long it took MJ to win a championship.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Pistons?
> 
> 3 guys 27 or older in the starting lineup.
> A bunch of old guys on the bench
> ...


So your argument would go against, say, kukoc4ever's that the 2004 bulls (with Curry and Deng) would be championship contenders. Even now, if the Bulls had Curry, wouldn't we still be short on experience?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Uhhh...don't MOST of the players in the league have "much NCAA exp" and the (very minor % of the league who are ) prep-to-pro's get allowed the crutch of "didn't have the benefit of NCAA exp?)


Given that Chandler and Curry are two of the best 7 footers in the game, I think waiting until they are 23-24 years old to make a decision on them is the wise course of action.

There is a difference between a seasoned 3rd year Chris Duhon and a raw 3rd year player out of high school in terms of basketball experience. Its just a fact. If you want to ignore that, feel free.




> I can recall 2 prep-to-pro's who's last name begins with C who certainly got that benefit of the doulbt from their fanbase


And they are now two of the best big men in the game.

Too bad they are not on the Bulls.





> Even with that, it is likely, IMO, that the Bulls will have to live through it at least one more year, gettin through the first round and into the second.


If you are expecting a 2nd round playoff exit that does not jibe with your "championship/near championship" label.





> If MJ and Pippen, Cartwright, Grant and Paxson needed that life experience before getting to Championship level


We don't have that kind of talent. 

We have more Mark Price Cavs kind of talent, IMO. That was a solid team.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I remember reading sentiments like this before...
> 
> Most of them predicted the Lakers in 5 in 1991.
> 
> ...


So... ignore precedent? 

You do have to play the cards you're dealt, but you can look at the last 10 winners, or the last 20 winners and see what they have in common and (try to) do what they did to succeed.

The one thing that stands out to me among past winners is that every one of them, including Detroit (Ben Wallace) featured one of the top handful of players in the league, period.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> So your argument would go against, say, kukoc4ever's that the 2004 bulls (with Curry and Deng) would be championship contenders. Even now, if the Bulls had Curry, wouldn't we still be short on experience?


I don't think that's his argument.

What I consistently see him saying is that it makes no sense to sign Wallace to the big contract if you're not expecting to contend until he's even more washed up. <--- I say that because he's clearly on the downside of his career and significantly less a player than he was 3 or 4 years ago.

The correlary is that if you're not expecting to contend now and if you're building a team by letting young players gel together, then having young guys like Curry and/or Chandler fit better than Wallace.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

tb said:


> Noone can predict how this young team, with little time to gel


Strongly disagree.

We've seen this core in the playoffs the last two seasons.

We've seen Ben Wallace win NBA championships.

They have an entire NBA season to "gel."

No excuses.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I don't think that's his argument.
> 
> What I consistently see him saying is that it makes no sense to sign Wallace to the big contract if you're not expecting to contend until he's even more washed up. <--- I say that because he's clearly on the downside of his career and significantly less a player than he was 3 or 4 years ago.
> 
> The correlary is that if you're not expecting to contend now and if you're building a team by letting young players gel together, then having young guys like Curry and/or Chandler fit better than Wallace.


:clap:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> 2 years + 5 years = 7 years. Interestingly enough, thats how long it took MJ to win a championship.


We don't have a player on the floor who even resembles MJ in terms of talent or basketball IQ or performance. Nor do we have anyone who resembles Pippen.

Two top 50 players of all time. We have (and have had) guys starting who have trouble making the top 50 in the league today.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> They have an entire NBA season to "gel."


We're less than halfway through it, and IMO, despite some bumps in the road, we've come a long way since the season started. I don't think it's inconceivable that this team is Finals material by the time the season winds down. I do find it improbable that they'd be able to knock off the best team the West has to offer, however - the top teams out there are just a lot better than anyone in the east.

I don't necessarily think "anything less than a championship" is a failure - after all, only one team wins it. I want this team to win it all, of course, but advancing at least one round, hopefully to the ECF, and giving whatever team they may end up losing to a hell of a fight, would be satisfactory evidence that this team is on the right trajectory. Losing in the first round, or making the 2nd round and then getting hammered by, say, Cleveland or Detroit, would be disheartening and may create some doubt for me.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Given that Chandler and Curry are two of the best 7 footers in the game, I think waiting until they are 23-24 years old to make a decision on them is the wise course of action.
> 
> There is a difference between a seasoned 3rd year Chris Duhon and a raw 3rd year player out of high school in terms of basketball experience. Its just a fact. If you want to ignore that, feel free.
> 
> ...


Curry and Chandler, two of the best big men in the game? That's hyperbole by even the most understanding of circumstances. Besides the DNA/heart thing, one of the reasons we traded Curry was because he was severely lacking in two of the more important areas of basketball: rebounding and defense. From what I've seen of him this year, he hasn't substantially improved in either category. The reason Chandler got traded is b/c he was downright awful last year, and though his rebounding has bounced back, he still couldn't score on the aforementioned Jenna Jameson. I could name 25 power forwards/centers (big men) who I would take over Curry and Chandler. 

47 wins is a nice pace, but I believe the Bulls have played one of the hardest schedules so far in the league. That circus trip, especially with a team that added a lot of new faces, killed us early on. Other things to consider is how well we do at home (a sign of a good team), point differential (also a sign), and quality wins (against the Spurs, Pistons, etc.). The 47 win team of two years ago got by on playing tenacious defense, beating teams who were less disciplined, and sneaking up on some of the better teams. Now, I'd say we are close to being the most talented team in the East, and only a game away from having the best record in our conference. I know even guarded optimism is frowned upon here (one of the reasons I generally don't post), but remembering where the Bulls were only three years ago and realizing how close they are to being the best team in the East today, does make me smile. 

Frankly, I just want the "we could still have Curry and Chandler" thought process to cease. We could have, but we don't have them, and being tied for the 2nd best record in a conference where we used to finish dead last by a wide margin after only three years is a damn good situation. Especially when most of our core players are still fairly young.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> I could name 25 power forwards/centers (big men) who I would take over Curry and Chandler.


Please do. Could be interesting.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> Curry and Chandler, two of the best big men in the game?



I should say centers in game. Or 7 footers. Because "big men" is too subjective. I'll make an effort to stop writing "big men" since that's not what I'm getting at.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Given that Chandler and Curry are two of the best 7 footers in the game, I think waiting until they are 23-24 years old to make a decision on them is the wise course of action.
> 
> There is a difference between a seasoned 3rd year Chris Duhon and a raw 3rd year player out of high school in terms of basketball experience. Its just a fact. If you want to ignore that, feel free.


I'm not ignoring that fact. I agree with it. While I digressed ito some comments about prep to pros, the main point was that 3rd year pros, in general, are still young by NBA standards, since the overwhelming majority of NBA players got to year one following the gain of extensive NCAA experience -- most from top tier, established NCAA contenting teams.






> And they are now two of the best big men in the game.
> 
> Too bad they are not on the Bulls.


Eddy is a good low post scorer and Tyson is a good rebounder. They both always had those good traits. I am glad for them that each, as I type here now, seems to have elevated his game. To some extent. Sort of. Both show up on isolated plays on SportsCenter more often then before. Both have at least one really good glory stat.

Is their improvement getting older or is it the chip on the shoulder from getting moved?

Chicken or the egg?

We'll never know.

I wish them well. I cheer for Tyson when I watch NO/OKC. I'll cheer again for Eddy once the 2007 draft pick is established. 

We all have our mental visions for What Coulda Been. Your What Coulda Been seems to be rosier than mine.

Neither of us will ever be wrong about our vision.

and for all the talk of them being Top Centers -- well, as all know, they are both good at what they do good and bad at what they do bad. They both are good enough at the good things to be at or near the top in those individual stats and bad enough in their bad stats to be at the bottom of the league in those stats.

And neither has been good enough to lead their team to any discernable success...

So lets not get carried away.

Again.




> If you are expecting a 2nd round playoff exit that does not jibe with your "championship/near championship" label.


I'm saying the Bulls' season won't be a failure if we get into but ultimately don't get past round 2. This year.

I won't die of shock if we advanced.

But playoff experience is playoff experience. Most of our team has little of it and most teams who win championships do.

Maybe we will win without it. If not, its a stepping stone I can live with.







> We don't have that kind of talent.
> 
> We have more Mark Price Cavs kind of talent, IMO. That was a solid team.


and But For the Dynasty Bulls, one of the greatest, most dominating teams ever essembled, the Hot Rod Williams/Craig Ehlo/Brad Dougherty/Mark Price Cavs damn well might have won a championship or 2 -- IMO, those late 80's early 90's playoff series' -vs- Chicago were tougher than the Lakers, Blazers or Suns series' that ultimately gave us our first Threepeat. 

No, these Bulls don't Have Dynasty I or Dynasty II dominating talent.

Looking around the league, I don't necessarily see ANY team that is as ridiculously dominating as those teams -- Dallas, San Antonio and Phoenix are probably the closest.

I think you bring that Price Cav's team into the league today, they very well might come out with a title, so the comparison you bring is nothing to sneeze at.

Just a whole bunch more of the same kind of unprovable speculation? Absolutely.

But that is the way I see it.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Please do. Could be interesting.


Well, I can name 20.

Shaq
D. Howard
Duncan
Boozer
Randolph
B. Wallace
Gasol
Garnett
Bogut
JO
Amare
Camby
Yao
Odom
Nowitski
Beidrins
Brand
Kaman
Okur
Bosh
Okafor


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> We don't have a player on the floor who even resembles MJ in terms of talent or basketball IQ or performance. Nor do we have anyone who resembles Pippen.
> 
> Two top 50 players of all time. We have (and have had) guys starting who have trouble making the top 50 in the league today.


I know that. You've buttressed TomB's point about staggered playoff improvement wonderfully.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I know that. You've buttressed TomB's point about staggered playoff improvement wonderfully.


In your miind, perhaps.

There are a lot of teams that went up against the Bulls, like Seattle and Phoenix, who made it to the finals but never won. So much for the playoff improvement bit.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> Well, I can name 20.


Let's see your list of NBA centers. 

Both Curry and Chandler are centers. Legit 7 footers than play inside. Many of the players on your list below are not.

Do you really think Kaman is playing better than Curry this season?

(note: if people wonder why "talking points" are used, its b/c of situations like this. i'll be careful to stick to "centers" or "7 footers" from now on, since "big men" will be relentlessly picked apart and deviate away from the point i'm trying to make)


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Do you really think Kaman is playing better than Curry this season?


Not really. But putting him ahead of Curry on my list helps support my _agenda_. :biggrin:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Or 7 footers. Because "big men" is too subjective.


And "7 footers" is meaningless, arbitrary and deceptively narrows the field despite the fact that inch-count doesn't equate with how "big" a basketball player plays. 

"Big men" isn't subjective at all. It means every power forward and center in the NBA.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> In your miind, perhaps.
> 
> There are a lot of teams that went up against the Bulls, like Seattle and Phoenix, who made it to the finals but never won. So much for the playoff improvement bit.


That reminds me, there must be eraged fans on the Phoenix and Dallas boards demanding the championship that is rightfully theirs. Aren't there?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I don't think that's his argument.
> 
> What I consistently see him saying is that it makes no sense to sign Wallace to the big contract if you're not expecting to contend until he's even more washed up. <--- I say that because he's clearly on the downside of his career and significantly less a player than he was 3 or 4 years ago.
> 
> The correlary is that if you're not expecting to contend now and if you're building a team by letting young players gel together, then having young guys like Curry and/or Chandler fit better than Wallace.


Isn't the point of Ben Wallace to win now (as much as possible) AND to help transition the team into a successful playoff team since he has been there/done that?

AND the point is that we have players in place to keep it keeping on?

We can argue till we're blue in the fingers whether retaining Eddy and Tyson would put is in a better position for that continuity or not. As I say, they are good at what they do good and bad at what they do bad, and some see the centers half full and others see the centers half empty.

Que sera sera.

While a championship THIS YEAR would be great, are you really jumping on the bandwagon that says anything short of a championship THIS YEAR constitutes failure in the Bulls' program?

That is setting the bar awfully high -- like saying if the Suns don't win this year or the Mavs don't win this year, fire everyone and blow up the team.

This is a good team that has a winning record and seems to me to be on a trend to continue to increase that winning percentage as the season goes into and through the second half.

They seem a lock to make the playoffs and once they make it, I think they have as good a chance as any to make it through AT LEAST a round. Maybe more.

At this point, I'm ok with that.

I'll say this as well -- If the Bears don't win Sunday, I'll be disappointed -- more disappointed than I will be if the Bulls don't advance aout of the second round this year.

But if the Bears watch the superbowl from home, while I will be disappointed, I will NOT call their season a failure.

Nor will I call for any heads.

Its not exaclty comparing apples to apples, but you get the gist.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> And "7 footers" is meaningless, arbitrary and deceptively narrows the field despite the fact that inch-count doesn't equate with how "big" a basketball player plays.
> 
> "Big men" isn't subjective at all. It means every power forward and center in the NBA.


Isn't it a recent NBA trend to move away from the "You need a 7-footer" thing?


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> That is setting the bar awfully high -- like saying if the Suns don't win this year or the Mavs don't win this year, fire everyone and blow up the team.


Beat you to it by a matter of seconds. :biggrin:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> That reminds me, there must be eraged fans on the Phoenix and Dallas boards demanding the championship that is rightfully theirs. Aren't there?


You think we're at Phoenix' or Dallas' level as contenders?

The oddsmakers don't.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> In your miind, perhaps.
> 
> There are a lot of teams that went up against the Bulls, like Seattle and Phoenix, who made it to the finals but never won. So much for the playoff improvement bit.


I don't think losing to MJ invalidates the argument at all.

There isn't a Goliath on the order of the dynasty Bulls standing in anyone's way right now. And even if there were, that doesn't discount playoff improvement as a relevant factor in advancing deep into the playoffs. The Jazz took a while to make the finals, but they did, and they may have won back-to-back but for MJ and co. The Sonics had to get bounced in the first round in embarrassing fashion before they got to the finals. The Shaq Lakers got swept repeatedly before they won it all.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> "Big men" isn't subjective at all. It means every power forward and center in the NBA.


Fine. "centers" it is.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> You think we're at Phoenix' or Dallas' level as contenders?
> 
> The oddsmakers don't.


I absolutely do not. And you're missing my point. I'm poking fun at us here.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Isn't the point of Ben Wallace to win now (as much as possible)


The point is to win the NBA CHAMPIONSHIP.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

So... let's see the list of NBA centers and see where Curry and Chandler stack up.

If you would like to compare them to power forwards, go ahead, but that's not the position they play. Curry vs. Odom or Curry vs Nocioni or Curry vs. Bargnani seems pretty silly to me.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> I absolutely do not.


I agree.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> In your miind, perhaps.
> 
> There are a lot of teams that went up against the Bulls, like Seattle and Phoenix, who made it to the finals but never won. So much for the playoff improvement bit.


Well, exactly.

I don't see a Chicago Dynasty type team anywhere in the league right now...I've already conceded that San Antonio, Dallas and Phoenix are the closest thing to that.

Absent a ridiculously superior team like the Bulls in their Dynasty years, teams like Drexler's Blazers, Thunder Dan's Suns, Payton's Sonics and the Stockton/Malone Jazz probably would have a ring.

(and yes, the MJ "pushoff" was a good no-call for the last championship -- as I've said many times, check the reverse angle shot on the so-called- "push". Also, check the number of no-calls that went Utah's way that kept the game score close enough to matter in the last 3-4 minutes.

But once agiain, I digress...)


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> The point is to win the NBA CHAMPIONSHIP.


:frenchy:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:



> The point is to win the NBA CHAMPIONSHIP.


Duh.

One team does it every year.

Everyone else goes home.

So far Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler don't have any rings.

Neither do any of the current Bulls (in their time with the Bulls).

If I was a betting man, I'd put my money on the Bulls gaining a ring or more before Eddy or Tyson ever sniff at one.

So I like where we are at and (not that this thread origninally seemed to be another tired Pining Away thread) the absence of the C's does not seem to me to be all that significant.

Yup. The point is to win a championship. Every team has that point. Every year.

The Bulls are sitting pretty with a better chance than the vast majority of the league, IMO.

But if you call anything short of a title "failure" for your team every year, you must need a lot of alka-seltzer if you watch sports.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I agree.


And what's so terribly wrong with that? Those teams are fantastic, and have been rolling for years.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Isn't the point of Ben Wallace to win now (as much as possible) AND to help transition the team into a successful playoff team since he has been there/done that?


The point of Ben Wallace is so we don't have to play PJ Brown at C, I guess. There's little that points at "win now." We're winning at the same pace as we did without him.



> AND the point is that we have players in place to keep it keeping on?


Keep what keeping on? Being the 3rd or 4th best team in the conference?



> While a championship THIS YEAR would be great, are you really jumping on the bandwagon that says anything short of a championship THIS YEAR constitutes failure in the Bulls' program?


No, the season is a wash already (when it comes to winning a championship). We're not a contender. So to demand a championship out of a team that isn't good enough is silly. Whether the GM should be making moves to put us over the top is a whole different story.



> That is setting the bar awfully high -- like saying if the Suns don't win this year or the Mavs don't win this year, fire everyone and blow up the team.


Seems to me the Mavs went through this already and did dump a lot of players, including Finley and the guy who looks to be the 3-time MVP immediately after leaving.



> This is a good team that has a winning record and seems to me to be on a trend to continue to increase that winning percentage as the season goes into and through the second half.


This is a team that has been two steps forward, two steps back, two steps forward. That's by definition what the facts are; 47 wins -> 41 wins -> ~47 wins again. Two steps forward, one step back would be indicated by something like 47 wins -> 41 wins -> 50+ wins.



> They seem a lock to make the playoffs and once they make it, I think they have as good a chance as any to make it through AT LEAST a round. Maybe more.


It's not hard to be a lock in the Eastern Conference. Many sportswriters are calling it the worst conference in any sport in history. The real challenge is to be able to beat the elite teams in a 7 game series, let alone a team like the Wizards or pistons or whoever else we may face in the playoffs.



> At this point, I'm ok with that.


Does "Wait until next year" ever get old? This isn't the Cubs, but a team with something of a dynasty tradition.



> I'll say this as well -- If the Bears don't win Sunday, I'll be disappointed -- more disappointed than I will be if the Bulls don't advance aout of the second round this year.
> 
> But if the Bears watch the superbowl from home, while I will be disappointed, I will NOT call their season a failure.
> 
> ...


Kicker misses a field goal to tie or win the game. He's gone the next week. Wild Thing (Mitch Williams) gives up a clutch homer in the world series and he's gone. That's life in sports.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Duh.
> 
> One team does it every year.
> 
> Everyone else goes home.


Right... but falling into the trap of "its OK to win 45-50 games and make the playoffs" is a bad move IMO.

The goal should be to build a champion, not to be content with making the 2nd round.

Fine, let's say this Bulls team actually wins a playoff series this year. With the aging Wallace, how does this team project out being a champion in 2-3 years?

Other than Tyrus Thomas becoming a true star (FIRE PAX) I don't see it happening. 

The Wizards have built around the 1,2 and 3 position for years and are an exciting, strong team. They have a real star as well. But does anyone really think they can win the NBA Title this year?


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Duh.
> 
> One team does it every year.
> 
> Everyone else goes home.


Plus i would argue that winning an NBA Championship is not the "point" but the "ultimate goal" rather. Not every team in the NBA is in position to achieve that goal for a given year, and i guess there are a lot of "pointless" teams in the NBA now who should just fold their franchise.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The Bears are an elite NFL team.

The Bulls are not an elite NBA team.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Fine. "centers" it is.


If you want to narrow the field and render the discussion of Curry/Chandler value meaningless, then by all means do so. 

You just eliminated Duncan, Okafor, Boozer, Bosh, Brand and a host of other vastly superior big men (who play much, much "bigger" than Curry for example) from the discussion. 

If you want to argue that Curry and Chandler are better than Mark Blount, Tony Battie, and Brenda Haywood then have at it. You'll get no argument from me.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I don't think losing to MJ invalidates the argument at all.
> 
> There isn't a Goliath on the order of the dynasty Bulls standing in anyone's way right now. And even if there were, that doesn't discount playoff improvement as a relevant factor in advancing deep into the playoffs. The Jazz took a while to make the finals, but they did, and they may have won back-to-back but for MJ and co. The Sonics had to get bounced in the first round in embarrassing fashion before they got to the finals. The Shaq Lakers got swept repeatedly before they won it all.


So there's no reason we have to wait for an MJ-like talented player on this team to be in his 7th season. That Bulls team had to go through Celtics, Lakers, Pistons type teams to win.

I'm OK with that.

So much for the "buttressed" argument.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> Plus i would argue that winning an NBA Championship is not the "point" but the "ultimate goal" rather.


The point of every transaction that a NBA franchise makes, from the fans perspective, should be to increase their probability of winning the NBA championship, with future success being discounted appropriately when compared to current success.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Does "Wait until next year" ever get old? This isn't the Cubs, but a team with something of a dynasty tradition.



...............a dynasty out of the same group of players. We aren't the Lakers or the Celtics.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> (note: if people wonder why "talking points" are used, its b/c of situations like this. i'll be careful to stick to "centers" or "7 footers" from now on, since "big men" will be relentlessly picked apart and deviate away from the point i'm trying to make)


That's a patently unfair criticism. I think the normal, accepted definition of "big men" is 4s and 5s. That's not picking it apart. That's the normal reading of what you wrote.

Centers is different and you're right to identify them as a subset of "big men."


EDIT: I see you've addressed this already, so nevermind.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Even if the Bulls win it all this year, you could always argue that things would would be better next year if they had kept Chandler & Curry. And if the Oden-led Bulls win it all next year, you could argue that they'd have had a 3-peat if they had kept the 3Cs...

Some folks can be counted on to become gloomy when the glass is 10% empty.

The game is in the process of passing big postup centers by. They're hardly a factor in international basketball due to zones and a closer 3 point line. They're also becoming a dying species in the NBA as more players can hit the 3 pointer and zone defenses are more in use. 

One of the two centers we lost (Chandler) would have been a nice backup for an aging Wallace. The other should have not gotten much more playing time on the Bulls than Sweetney. It's no accident that the Bulls played as well when Curry was hurt as they did when he was starting or that defensive ratings improved after Curry left. 

Sweetney is a reasonable replacement for Curry. If you have an insatiable need for inside postup scoring, he can provide it. Unlike Curry, Sweetney can actually pass the ball pretty well and is a pretty good rebounder. He costs a lot less, and there's no indication that he'll drop dead during a game.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> If you want to argue that Curry and Chandler are better than Mark Blount, Tony Battie, and Brenda Haywood then have at it. You'll get no argument from me.


No kidding.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> So there's no reason we have to wait for an MJ-like talented player on this team to be in his 7th season. That Bulls team had to go through Celtics, Lakers, Pistons type teams to win.
> 
> I'm OK with that.
> 
> So much for the "buttressed" argument.


That doesn't make a lick of sense.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> Plus i would argue that winning an NBA Championship is not the "point" but the "ultimate goal" rather. Not every team in the NBA is in position to achieve that goal for a given year, and i guess there are a lot of "pointless" teams in the NBA now who should just fold their franchise.


There are a lot of teams that have no real chance to win. Bobcats are a pretty obvious example, as are the hawks.

Due to the way the CBA works, you can't just go out and buy a team. The effect is that you can easily build a 47-ish win team that never can go further and you're going to suck a long time because you're not stockpiling quality draft picks and lack a goto/star kind of player who can carry the team almost by himself (e.g. Kobe).

When we were losing, our draft picks were like #1, #2, #4, #7 at worse. While we're winning ~47 games, our draft picks are going to be like #16 or even worse. 

The team has been a revolvoing door when it comes to a lot of those #1, #2, #4 type picks as our GM dumps those guys for crap space and players who aren't very good.

We loaded up for bear and suffered through some pretty bad teams in the process. What did we sacrifice for? to get back to 47 wins again?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> The point of every transaction that a NBA franchise makes, from the fans perspective, should be to increase their probability of winning the NBA championship, *with future success being discounted appropriately when compared to current success.*


This is an interesting post, but I'm not really sure I understand the bolded part.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> That doesn't make a lick of sense.


The "it took jordan 7 years" argument makes no sense.

We don't have a jordan (or pippen), and we don't have to go through a 5-time champion Lakers team to win a championship, let alone a 2-time champ bad boys type Pistons team in our own conference. Or even the Bird-led Celtics.

So your argument seems to be that Hinrich (he's the oldest of our draftees) needs 7 years to get good enough for us to beat the Wizards?

Hint: the Wiz aren't those Pistons, Celtics, Lakers, etc.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> The point of every transaction that a NBA franchise makes, from the fans perspective, should be to increase their probability of winning the NBA championship, with future success being discounted appropriately when compared to current success.


I think the Bulls have a good young group of players that will be good for several years. I think Paxson has _intended_ to make the Bulls a championship team from day 1. If Curry is the be all/end all to you of all the Bulls futere championship hopes, then let me say that I think that's kind of silly. You cannot predict the future.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> There are a lot of teams that have no real chance to win. Bobcats are a pretty obvious example, as are the hawks.
> 
> Due to the way the CBA works, you can't just go out and buy a team. The effect is that you can easily build a 47-ish win team that never can go further and you're going to suck a long time because you're not stockpiling quality draft picks and lack a goto/star kind of player who can carry the team almost by himself (e.g. Kobe).
> 
> ...


It seems to me the team is still fairly loaded with high draft pick types.

Also, remember losing one #2 pick was due to too much fun on a two wheeler.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> If you want to narrow the field and render the discussion of Curry/Chandler value meaningless, then by all means do so.


Yes. Call me crazy, but I'd like to compare centers to centers.

Brand is a great player. He's not going to play center. Karl Malone was a great player. He's not going to play center. Odom is a great player. He's not going to play center.

Curry plays very big on the offensive end. That's why his FG% is so high.

Okafor plays center. Boozer does not. Brand does not. Duncan does (most of the time).

If you have a desire to widen the comparables to make Curry / Chandler look worse, feel free.

I've already said that "big men" does not reflect the point I was trying to make. "centers" does. (and yet, you bemoan the 'talking points." this is the very reason why they are used. did you really think i was trying to compare the skillset of eddy curry to lamar odom??)


When Eddy Curry plays NBA basketball, he's going to be the center on nearly every team in the league. Odom? He could be the 3. He could be the 4. In small-ball lineups he could play the 5 at times. 

If a team has a productive center, they are going to play them at center. If they don't they usually try to win via small-ball or have to play a stiff at that position. 






> If you want to argue that Curry and Chandler are better than Mark Blount, Tony Battie, and Brenda Haywood then have at it. You'll get no argument from me.


Right. A productive NBA center is a rare commodity. Blount, Battie and Haywood have been in the league for so many years for a reason. Teams are desperate for quality centers.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Boerwinkle, i have a proposition for you:

how about we sell your Mercedes and use the money to buy some old junker cars that'll sit up on blocks by the aligator pond in the back yard for a few years. In the mean time, you can drive a 1985 chevy we can get for cheap, but the padding in the seats is gone and the springs will jab you in the ***.

Then in a couple of years, we'll sell all this stuff and buy back your mercedes 2 years older. At a loss, of course.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> It seems to me the team is still fairly loaded with high draft pick types.
> 
> Also, remember losing one #2 pick was due to too much fun on a two wheeler.


Yeah, so are the clippers. What's their track record like?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> This is an interesting post, but I'm not really sure I understand the bolded part.


All else being equal, I'd prefer to win 1 NBA Championship this season versus 5 seasons from now.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yes. Call me crazy, but I'd like to compare centers to centers.
> 
> Brand is a great player. He's not going to play center. Karl Malone was a great player. He's not going to play center. Odom is a great player. He's not going to play center.
> 
> ...


OK, so we don't have Curry now. So now what? Why should any of us bother watching this team or posting on this board?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> OK, so we don't have Curry now. So now what?


Paxson should make moves to increase the Bulls chances to win the NBA CHAMPIONSHIP.

All else being equal, sooner rather than later.


(i think he could done much better on the tyson chandler trade, for instance)



> Why should any of us bother watching this team or posting on this board?


B/C you enjoy watching/talking about NBA basketball and want to see the Chicago Bulls win the NBA CHAMPIONSHIP.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> The "it took jordan 7 years" argument makes no sense.
> 
> We don't have a jordan (or pippen), and we don't have to go through a 5-time champion Lakers team to win a championship, let alone a 2-time champ bad boys type Pistons team in our own conference. Or even the Bird-led Celtics.
> 
> ...


What team in recent history has just sprung forth from the womb ready to win a championship immediately? As far as I can tell, they all suffered playoff setbacks for a few years before they hit paydirt. THAT'S the argument, and it makes plenty of sense. You can try to put words in our mouths about "needing 7 years to beat the Wizards" all you want, but it's neither here nor there.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> What team in recent history has just sprung forth from the womb ready to win a championship immediately? As far as I can tell, they all suffered playoff setbacks for a few years before they hit paydirt. THAT'S the argument, and it makes plenty of sense. You can try to put words in our mouths about "needing 7 years to beat the Wizards" all you want, but it's neither here nor there.


We haven't just sprung forth from the womb. This franchise has been around since the 1960s.

Cey argued that 7 years seems to be the "right" time frame for expectations based upon Jordan's career. It's year 4 and we haven't beaten the Wizards in the playoffs (or anyone else). That's in the Paxson era.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Yes. Call me crazy, but I'd like to compare centers to centers.


I do think its crazy. The impace a big man and the "bigness" with which he plays (insert joke here) is not even remotely contingent on whether he plays center or powerforward. 



> Brand is a great player. He's not going to play center. Karl Malone was a great player. He's not going to play center. Odom is a great player. He's not going to play center.


Brand and Malone not only "could" play center, but if they did they'd absolutely dominate and school Chandler and Brand. 



> Curry plays very big on the offensive end. That's why his FG% is so high.


I agree with that. He also defends the paint and a Spud Webbish clip. 



> Okafor plays center. Boozer does not. Brand does not. Duncan does.


Okafor slides to center, but he primarily plays power forward. He's not even listed as a center on the center starved allstar ballot. 

Duncan NEVER plays center. He absolutely refuses to play center and has made it a matter of public record. 



> If you have a desire to widen the comparables to make Curry / Chandler look worse, feel free.


I'm widing the comparables to get a complete picture of their value relative to other "big men" in the NBA. And if they were both Bulls, it seems to me one of them would be playing power forward in any event. 



> I've already said that "big men" does not reflect the point I was trying to make. "centers" does.


I know. Your point is to narrow the field of comparables to the position with the fewest quality players notwithstanding the fact that it excludes a much deeper and more talented batch of players that serve the exact same purpose Curry and Chandler do. 



> (and yet, you bemoan the 'talking points." this is the very reason why they are used)


I don't even remotely understand that. 



> Right. A productive NBA center is a rare commidity. Blount, Battie and Haywood have been in the league for so many years for a reason. Teams are desperate for quality centers.


I don't disagree with you at all. Its one of the reasons I like having Ben Wallace.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

I agree with *kukoc4ever!* and *DaBullz!* that Pax has intentionally sabotaged the franchise by trading away Curry, Chandler, and Crawford. Further, I'm pretty sure Pax was the one who encouraged Jay Williams to buy the bike.

With the DOMINATION that Curry and Chandler are now showing, I'm very excited to see the NBA finals this season. It will be difficult to decide who will win between the Knick and the Hornet, but it will definitely be an exciting series. With the most dominant 7 footers (and by that, I mean "centers", not "big men" or "power forwards") in the league, these two teams are no doubt going to crush all opposition.

No doubt the hearts of Ming, Okafor, Duncan, Big Ben, Sheed, Dwight, Bogut, Shaq, JO, Nowitzki, Garnett, Camby, Boozer, Bosh, Randolph, Biedrins, Ilgauskas, Gasol, Amare, Okur, Mourning, Dalembert, Bynum, Dampier, and Kaman all skip a beat when they know that they're going to have to face Tyson or Mr. Ed.

Damn you, Pax! Damn you.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> All else being equal, I'd prefer to win 1 NBA Championship this season versus 5 seasons from now.


I don't understand what that has to do with the bolded part. I'm not trying to trip you up or anything. I just don't understand what the bolded part means.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

Wynn said:


> I agree with *kukoc4ever!* and *DaBullz!* that Pax has intentionally sabotaged the franchise by trading away Curry, Chandler, and Crawford. Further, I'm pretty sure Pax was the one who encouraged Jay Williams to buy the bike.
> 
> With the DOMINATION that Curry and Chandler are now showing, I'm very excited to see the NBA finals this season. It will be difficult to decide who will win between the Knick and the Hornet, but it will definitely be an exciting series. With the most dominant 7 footers (and by that, I mean "centers", not "big men" or "power forwards") in the league, these two teams are no doubt going to crush all opposition.
> 
> ...


This is funny.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Cey argued that 7 years seems to be the "right" time frame for expectations based upon Jordan's career.


That is absolutely false. *You* are the one that projected "5 years" in the future as the best time. I never said that and I never agreed with you. 



> It's year 4 and we haven't beaten the Wizards in the playoffs (or anyone else). That's in the Paxson era.


This is undeniably true. Took MJ 3 playoff appearances to get out of the first round too, interestingly enough.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Yeah, so are the clippers. What's their track record like?


Wait, so you're complaining both that we didn't hang onto our high draft picks and that we're overstocked on high draft picks?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I do think its crazy. The impace a big man and the "bigness" with which he plays (insert joke here) is not even remotely contingent on whether he plays center or powerforward.


You really think that "bigness" of play is not correlated with position? I disagree wholeheartedly.

Centers player bigger than Power Forwards, on average.
Power Forwards play bigger than Small Forwards, on average.

Disagree?




> Brand and Malone not only "could" play center, but if they did they'd absolutely dominate and school Chandler and Brand.


Why did Utah choose to play a "stiff" like Greg Ostertag then?








> Okafor slides to center, but he primarily plays power forward. He's not even listed as a center on the center starved allstar ballot.


http://www.82games.com/0607/06CHA16C.HTM



> Duncan NEVER plays center. He absolutely refuses to play center and has made it a matter of public record.


http://www.82games.com/0607/06SAS12C.HTM




> I know. Your point is to narrow the field of comparables to the position with the fewest quality players notwithstanding the fact that it excludes a much deeper and more talented batch of players that serve the exact same purpose Curry and Chandler do.


Why do the Clippers and Spurs choose to start centers next to their PFs?

If Curry or Chandler was on the Spurs or Clippers, they would likely start or play the vast majority of their minutes at center. They are centers.

My point is to compare apples to apples. If you would like to compare Curry to Lamar Odom, feel free.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Wynn said:


> I agree with *kukoc4ever!* and *DaBullz!* that Pax has intentionally sabotaged the franchise by trading away Curry, Chandler, and Crawford. Further, I'm pretty sure Pax was the one who encouraged Jay Williams to buy the bike.
> 
> With the DOMINATION that Curry and Chandler are now showing, I'm very excited to see the NBA finals this season. It will be difficult to decide who will win between the Knick and the Hornet, but it will definitely be an exciting series. With the most dominant 7 footers (and by that, I mean "centers", not "big men" or "power forwards") in the league, these two teams are no doubt going to crush all opposition.
> 
> ...



:lol:

That says it all.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I don't understand what that has to do with the bolded part. I'm not trying to trip you up or anything. I just don't understand what the bolded part means.


Cake enjoyed today is better than cake enjoyed two years from now, all else being equal.

The value of cake enjoyed in the future should be discounted appropriately when attempting to compare the value of the two.

cake = nba championship


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

I posted it in Knicks/Lottery thread (which may become dubious) but it is worth noting that Eddy Curry has turned into Elton Brand minus 2 rebounds per game.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Cake enjoyed today is better than cake enjoyed two years from now, all else being equal.
> 
> The value of cake enjoyed in the future should be discounted appropriately when attempting to compare the value of the two.
> 
> cake = nba championship


Okay. I understand now.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Wynn said:


> I agree with *kukoc4ever!* and *DaBullz!* that Pax has intentionally sabotaged the franchise by trading away Curry, Chandler, and Crawford. Further, I'm pretty sure Pax was the one who encouraged Jay Williams to buy the bike.


It was crawford who bought him the bike. But no helmet. Go figure


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Its funny to rip on Curry and Chandler I guess.

In the end, the only reason I really care is b/c I think the Bulls would be better off with them playing vs. PJ Brown, Malik Allen, Tyrus Thomas and Mike Sweetney.

If Curry and Chandler were stiffs and we had really good replacements for them, I would not be paying it any mind.

The Bulls would be better off this season with one of those towers here versus the hodge podge of average NBA players that we have playing the 4/5 save for Wallace.

There is no way around it.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> We haven't just sprung forth from the womb. This franchise has been around since the 1960s.
> 
> Cey argued that 7 years seems to be the "right" time frame for expectations based upon Jordan's career. It's year 4 and we haven't beaten the Wizards in the playoffs (or anyone else). That's in the Paxson era.


Since there are 30 teams in the league, the odds of winning a championship in any given year are about 30:1. That means you're doing very well as a franchise if you manage to win 4 championships every century. 

The chances of winning it all in any 7 year period is less than 1:4; so Cey is a pretty tough task master.

In the last 40 years the Bulls were world champions six times. That's much better than average. 

They have a CHANCE (say 1:10) of winning it all this year. That's better than average. Much better than average given the age of the team.

Fans who have unreasonable expectations of their teams are gluttons for disappointment. Demands for certainty of winning a championship are unreasonable for fans of any team in the NBA at this time. The Bulls are not the exception, and won't be in the forseeable future unless they are lucky enough to land Oden or Durant next summer. 

The addition or subtraction of the 3 Cs has no effect on the "failure" of the Bulls to develope another dynasty after 7 years. None of those players are worthy of anything other than a seat on the bench of a dynasty team. So endless pining after their absence is a little silly, if championships are under discussion.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> I posted it in Knicks/Lottery thread (which may become dubious) but it is worth noting that Eddy Curry has turned into Elton Brand minus 2 rebounds per game.


Yeah, but why are the Knicks not winning then mister?!?!?!?!!?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Wait, so you're complaining both that we didn't hang onto our high draft picks and that we're overstocked on high draft picks?


I'm saying that you don't improve from 41 wins or 47 wins without adding more high draft picks.

The Spurs have been a good team for about 15 years, if not more. Most of the time, they were winning enough to make playoffs, but not championships. It's only when they had a rare season (or they tanked) where they qualified for the #1 pick in the draft did they go up a step to championship level. (They did this twice and drafted David Robinson the first time and Duncan the second - boy do they know how to tank and get the right ping pong ball bounces!)


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> It was crawford who bought him the bike. But no helmet. Go figure


Nice!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Since there are 30 teams in the league, the odds of winning a championship in any given year are about 30:1. That means you're doing very well as a franchise if you manage to win 4 championships every century.
> 
> The chances of winning it all in any 7 year period is less than 1:4; so Cey is a pretty tough task master.
> 
> ...


Geez, this is so bogus, I don't need to address the whole thing.

Every team in the league does not have a 30:1 shot to win it all at the beginning of the season. At the beginning of this season, the bobcats had a near zero chance and the spurs or mavs or suns had something nearer 100% chance.

The odds are never 100% (1:1), and I don't expect that.

But the odds are like 10:1 or 15:1 for the Bulls and that isn't good enough. Shouldn't we try every season to be 3:2 or whatever is as close to 1:1 as possible?

Though 15:1 and "wait until next year" is enough to get some people to root for the suits and pay for seats. Good enough from a business perspective.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Geez, this is so bogus, I don't need to address the whole thing.


I thought it was a terrific post.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

kukoc! said:


> Its funny to rip on Curry and Chandler I guess.
> 
> In the end, the only reason I really care is b/c I think the Bulls would be better off with them playing vs. PJ Brown, Malik Allen, Tyrus Thomas and Mike Sweetney.
> 
> ...


This is one of the few posts you've made where I feel like you are actually being sincere, and it deserves a sincere response. I don't think anyone on this thread actually feel like Curry or Chandler are stiffs. I know that I certainly don't. I do feel like you and a few others have highly overvalued their contributions to their respective teams. On the one side, you have a point producer and offensive threat in Curry. On the flip side, you have a shot altering and rebounding beast in Tyson. I've not seen anyone refute these arguments. The problem is that neither is even close to average on the other end of the floor. Both are turn-over and foul prone, and neither ever seemed to figure out how to play within the structure of the team when they were with the Bull. They both also seem to have a minimal effect on the overall record of their current clubs.

Both have great highlights. Unfortunately, their lowlights are also pretty spectacular.

I don't dispute you your enjoyment of the two. My problem is the constant whining that they are not here. It gets very old. Especially given the complete lack of evidence that either player has actually made a meaningful impact on the record of their team.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

McBulls said:


> The addition or subtraction of the 3 Cs has no effect on the "failure" of the Bulls to develope another dynasty after 7 years. None of those players are worthy of anything other than a seat on the bench of a dynasty team.


If we're using the Pistons model, we need an above average player at every position to make up for the lack of a true superstar.

Finding above average players that play the 4 and 5 is tough. You often have to take gambles to get one and then "overpay" to keep one.

We lack one at the 4/5. IMO, Curry or Chandler in their prime would fit right in on a "pistons model" team.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

McBulls said:


> Since there are 30 teams in the league, the odds of winning a championship in any given year are about 30:1. That means you're doing very well as a franchise if you manage to win 4 championships every century.
> 
> The chances of winning it all in any 7 year period is less than 1:4; so Cey is a pretty tough task master.
> 
> ...


This is a good reality check. The sense of "championship entitlement" around here bothers me sometimes. I'd imagine it's a result of being spoiled by one of the greatest dynasties and the greatest player of all time in the sport.

Don't get me wrong, the roster moves should all be made with an eye towards improving the club. But thinking your team should win the championship every 4 or 5 seasons is Crazy with a capital C.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> *Centers player bigger than Power Forwards, on average.*
> Power Forwards play bigger than Small Forwards, on average.
> 
> Disagree?


With the bolded part yes. I completely disagree. Thats kind of the point of everything I've been writing. In the modern NBA, I find the 4/5 to be largely a distinction with no difference. 



> Why did Utah choose to play a "stiff" like Greg Ostertag then?


Probably because Ostertag/Malone was a better combination than Malone/whoever the back up powerforward was. It is undeniable that the "biggest" big man on the Jazz was Malone, not the center. 



> http://www.82games.com/0607/06CHA16C.HTM
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.82games.com/0607/06SAS12C.HTM


I don't find those % for interchangeable positions to be credible. 



> Why do the Clippers and Spurs choose to start centers next to their PFs?


Because the Clippers have a good center. 

So Duncan is a power forward? Its because Tim Duncan doesn't like to play center. 



> If Curry or Chandler was on the Spurs or Clippers, they would likely start or play the vast majority of their minutes at center. They are centers.


I don't disagree with you at all. 



> My point is to compare apples to apples. If you would like to compare Curry to Lamar Odom, feel free.


No its not. Your point is to compare red apples to red apples because there are a few fresh ones in the bushel and the rest are rotten. But sitting right next to it is a full bushel of green apples, and they are fresh as can be.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Wynn said:


> I do feel like you and a few others have highly overvalued their contributions to their respective teams.


I think you use terms like DOMINATE, not me.



> On the flip side, you have a shot altering and rebounding beast in Tyson. The problem is that neither is even close to average on the other end of the floor.


Sounds like Ben Wallace to me. Dump him?



> Both are turn-over and foul prone


Both are able to stay on the floor for 30+ now. Fouls are less of an issue than when they were 19.



> They both also seem to have a minimal effect on the overall record of their current clubs.


The Knicks are a much better team this year versus last year with a productive Curry.

Have you taken a look at the lineup the Hornets are trotting out there right now before you make such a statement about Chandler? 



> Unfortunately, their lowlights are also pretty spectacular.


Explain. The Bulls lone winning season since Jordan (talking point, yes, but also quite true) were with Curry as the leading scorer and Chandler as the leading rebounder/shot blocker. The best highlights since MJ were from the team dominated by Curry and Chandler. I hope this years bunch can surpass that group.



> I don't dispute you your enjoyment of the two.


I enjoy the Bulls winning. 

Chandler or Curry is better than PJ Brown/Sweets/Allen/rookie Tyrus, yes?

If you enjoy the Bulls winning, you should want them here as well.

For whatever reason, you don't seem to want that.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> This is a good reality check. The sense of "championship entitlement" around here bothers me sometimes. I'd imagine it's a result of being spoiled by one of the greatest dynasties and the greatest player of all time in the sport.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, the roster moves should all be made with an eye towards improving the club. But thinking your team should win the championship every 4 or 5 seasons is Crazy with a capital C.


Personally, I don't expect them to win the championship every 4 or 5 seasons. I do expect them to try vs. trying to be a 47 win team.

The "reality check" bit is based upon a false premise - that there's an even chance of each team winning the championship.

For the same reason that saying that each of Tim Duncan, Malik Allen, PJ Brown, Mike Sweetney, and Marty Anddrews have an even chance of being MVP.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> With the bolded part yes. I completely disagree. Thats kind of the point of everything I've been writing. In the modern NBA, I find the 4/5 to be largely a distinction with no difference.


And yet, you don't see the same between 3/4 with many players?

Odom? Dirk? Bargnani? AK47?






> Probably because Ostertag/Malone was a better combination than Malone/whoever the back up powerforward was. It is undeniable that the "biggest" big man on the Jazz was Malone, not the center.


I disagree. Ostertag was clearly a larger man, and I think the Jazz played him due to his ability to take up space in the lane, his ability to block/alter shots and to put a large body on the opposing team's center.





> I don't find those % for interchangeable positions to be credible.



Why not?

(edit: ah, interchangable. well, you'll find that for every position. terry/hinrich pg/sg v carter/pp sg/sf odom/ak47 sf/pf duncan pf/c there are hybrids between all the positions. there are also pure plays. nash pg, r allen sg, melo sf, brand pf, curry c.)






> Because the Clippers have a good center.


Have you watched Kaman play this year?



> So Duncan is a power forward? Its because Tim Duncan doesn't like to play center.


He may claim he does not like to, but he fulfils the role of center on that team. At least as much as Oberto does.





> No its not. Your point is to compare red apples to red apples because there are a few fresh ones in the bushel and the rest are rotten. But sitting right next to it is a full bushel of green apples, and they are fresh as can be.


red apples = centers
green apples = pfs
yellow apples = sfs

I'd like to compare red apples to red apples. You are right, there are some hybrid players. Odom is clearly a different player than Curry though. Odom would almost never be a red apple on most NBA teams. Curry would rarely be a green apple on a NBA team. He'd never be a yellow apple.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Yikes! When I posted on this thread (about 80 posts ago), I was making the point that K4E probably wasn't being "self-deprecating" when he originated the thread. At this point, I may have the distinction of having made the only post on this thread which no one will dispute.:biggrin: 

I should probably quit while I'm ahead, but I've never been considered very bright.

My compliments to all the posters, including the "loyal opposition." The truth is that a number of the young '04-'05 Bulls have gotten discernably more productive over the past 2 years. Curry and Chandler happen to be two of them, and for better or worse, they don't play here anymore.

We probably could have kept Curry, but the OrganIzation didn't want to take the risk on his long-term health. We could have kept Chandler, but if we had, he'd be a high-paid backup who certainly wouldn't be as productive as he's been for the Hornets, and I'll speculate might have been an unhappy camper in his backup role.

Curry got his money and is appreciated for what he can do rather than being challenged to improve on his obvious weaknesses. The Hornets have given Chandler a perfect opportunity, and maybe in part because of the maturing cold slap in the face the Bulls administered, is making the most of it.

Curry and Chandler are clearly better off having left the Bulls' nest. Are the Bulls better off?

If Wallace was more consistently the beast I remember him being in Detroit, I might give an emphatic "YES." For me, Wallace has been a disappointment to date, and this in large part is why the Bulls are "only" on a pace to win 47 games and not 52+, and not generally considered to be the favorites in a weak EC. 

Being a management type, I can easily see myself making the same moves Paxson made. All of them were rational, including acquiring Wallace and trading Chandler. The fact that I would have done the same thing doesn't make Paxson right. Heck, I've hired lots of people for all the right reasons and turned out to be wrong. It happens. The problem Paxson has (and I didn't) was that everything he does is completely measurable. His team wins a certain # of games and loses a certain # of games.

In any case, this thread has made it clear that the speculation about what the Bulls might have been will continue, perhaps even if they make the championship and maybe even if they win it.

One thing that strikes me in all of this though is that, it seems that it appears that Chandler and Curry are both considered centers (as opposed to "big men"). Wallace, despite not being all that tall, is also a center...pretty much always has been. While it might be nice to think about what the Bulls would be like if they had all 3, only one could be the center who plays 35+ minutes, with the others relegated to role-player status. This being the case, doesn't it follow that a pertinent question is wheter the Bulls are best off with Wallace at center, or Curry at center, or Chandler at center?

As disappointed as I am in Wallace, for the next couple seasons, I'll take Wallace.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

transplant said:


> At this point, I may have the distinction of having made the only post on this thread which no one will dispute.:biggrin:


No. You didn't. I disputed it. And you were right. :biggrin:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> And yet, you don't see the same between 3/4 with many players?
> 
> Odom? Dirk? Bargnani? AK47?


Not with "many players", no. Some? Yes. 

Odom. AK47. Chapu. Marion. Those guys come to mind. 

The 3 is a wing position. 4/5 are for the bigs. 

In looking at the bigs, and seeing how many there are out there that I would take in a heartbeat over Curry or Chandler, I'm pretty confident that by the time Wallace is shot the Bulls will have rounded out the team with a competent big. And competent is all I consider Curry and Chandler to be. And as far as Curry is concerned, sometimes not even that. 

Wynn said something along the lines of that we aren't saying we don't like or value Curry and Chandler as players. For me, that isn't really true. I don't really value Curry very much and am quite pleased that we have Ben Wallace playing center and not him.

Despite Curry's solid offensive stats this season, I have absolutely no faith that he is a reliable long term solution for a team. I still believe that Zeke's faith in Curry will prove to be among his greatest of follies, and that is saying something. As I wrote in another thread yesterday, I expect Curry's conditioning to go the way of Shawn Kemp and Elvis Presley and whatever long term contract he signs will vastly outlive his usefullness as a player. 

And even today, with his force-fed offensive production, I don't consider him to have much of a meaningful net impact on the outcome of games. This has always been my opinion of him, and nothing I've seen this season has changed that. He's a little better. But the Knicks can have him.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> No. You didn't. I disputed it. And you were right. :biggrin:


In case I wasn't clear, I meant that no one could dispute my post NOW.

Not meaning to gloat, but self-deprecating :lol:


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Personally, I don't expect them to win the championship every 4 or 5 seasons. I do expect them to try vs. trying to be a 47 win team.


You and k4e seem to be the only ones convinced that the Bulls are content with merely trying to be a 47 win team. I think they're trying to build a team that can win championships. The fact that they are not favored to do that THIS year doesn't mean that's not the ultimate goal.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> You and k4e seem to be the only ones convinced that the Bulls are content with merely trying to be a 47 win team.


I don't think that they are actively trying to only win 47 games. I think the moves being made are making that outcome more likely. (not bringing back the towers, for instance).

There is something to say business - wise about a full house, which the Bulls now have again, even being a 1st round and out playoff team.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I've never said this.


It was an inference based on your criticism of recent Bulls transactions, etc.

if that's not how you feel, I apologize for putting words in your mouth.

edit: saw your clarification. Fair enough.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yeah, but why are the Knicks not winning then mister?!?!?!?!!?


Same reason Bulls did not win with Elton Brand either I guess.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

Wynn said:


> This is one of the few posts you've made where I feel like you are actually being sincere, and it deserves a sincere response. I don't think anyone on this thread actually feel like Curry or Chandler are stiffs. I know that I certainly don't. I do feel like you and a few others have highly overvalued their contributions to their respective teams. On the one side, you have a point producer and offensive threat in Curry. On the flip side, you have a shot altering and rebounding beast in Tyson. I've not seen anyone refute these arguments. The problem is that neither is even close to average on the other end of the floor. Both are turn-over and foul prone, and neither ever seemed to figure out how to play within the structure of the team when they were with the Bull. They both also seem to have a minimal effect on the overall record of their current clubs.
> 
> Both have great highlights. Unfortunately, their lowlights are also pretty spectacular.
> 
> I don't dispute you your enjoyment of the two. My problem is the constant whining that they are not here. It gets very old. Especially given the complete lack of evidence that either player has actually made a meaningful impact on the record of their team.


We could (perhaps _should_) write a book on all the great refutations issued around here to the IF ONLY ______ HAD NOT BEEN TRADED argument. This would top the list. I notice it went without response.

Great writing. Perhaps the forum would not have lost so many beloved members if there were not such caustic recriminations about the past. I am jazzed about the current and the future. 

Trading LeBron James or Dwight Howard for PJ Brown? I'll join you in the flame throwing.

But Tyson Chandler? C'Mon! He's not worth all that, even IF the Bulls have a need for his distinct talents.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> You and k4e seem to be the only ones convinced that the Bulls are content with merely trying to be a 47 win team. I think they're trying to build a team that can win championships. The fact that they are not favored to do that THIS year doesn't mean that's not the ultimate goal.


In truth, there are several points being made. One of them (I think) is that the moves Bulls management have made has kind of doomed them to mediocrity (47 or so wins).

I don't think anyone is saying that Pax/Skiles are trying to be only a good team.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

transplant said:


> I don't think anyone is saying that Pax/Skiles are trying to be only a good team.


It's almost what DaBullz said, verbatim. That's what I was taking issue with.



DaBullz said:


> Personally, I don't expect them to win the championship every 4 or 5 seasons. I do expect them to try *vs. trying to be a 47 win team.*


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> It's almost what DaBullz said, verbatim. That's what I was taking issue with.


You can also go back and quote me saying "the season is already a wash" (meaning we're doomed to be a ~47 win team)

And they're not trying to be a championship team, they're sticking with the status quo. I do think that qualifies as "trying to be a 47 win team" - which isn't a horrible thing, just not "trying to be champions every year they can."


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> You can also go back and quote me saying "the season is already a wash" (meaning we're doomed to be a ~47 win team)
> 
> And they're not trying to be a championship team, they're sticking with the status quo. I do think that qualifies as "trying to be a 47 win team" - which isn't a horrible thing, just not "trying to be champions every year they can."


I dispute the notion that the season is a wash, and I dispute the notion that they're sticking with the status quo. Signing the biggest FA avaiable isn't sticking to the status quo. We also still have a month until the trade deadline to shake up the status quo. 

Trying to be champions every year is very difficult to do. Only San Antonio has really pulled it off in recent memory. Most teams have to build, rebuild or reload in one way or another periodically and we're no different. I think Pax is trying to build a team that can be contenders consistently, but we might be a year or two (or a big, favorable trade) away (then again, we might not be that far away). You obviously don't think so. That's about the long and short of it. We'll probably just keep going in circles on this as usual.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I dispute the notion that the season is a wash, and I dispute the notion that they're sticking with the status quo. Signing the biggest FA avaiable isn't sticking to the status quo. We also still have a month until the trade deadline to shake up the status quo.
> 
> Trying to be champions every year is very difficult to do. Only San Antonio has really pulled it off in recent memory. Most teams have to build, rebuild or reload in one way or another periodically and we're no different. I think Pax is trying to build a team that can be contenders consistently, but we might be a year or two (*or a big, favorable trade*) away (then again, we might not be that far away). You obviously don't think so. That's about the long and short of it. We'll probably just keep going in circles on this as usual.


That's what I define as not being the status quo.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> That's what I define as not being the status quo.


That's fine. I just don't take the fact that he hasn't made such a trade yet to mean he isn't trying. I'd rather stand pat than make a big trade just to make one, and overpay for the "consolidation" piece.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> That's fine. I just don't take the fact that he hasn't made such a trade yet to mean he isn't trying. I'd rather stand pat than make a big trade just to make one, and overpay for the "consolidation" piece.


I see the team is on pace for ~47 wins and until/if something is done to change it, it's going to be ~47 wins.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I see the team is on pace for ~47 wins and until/if something is done to change it, it's going to be ~47 wins.


What was the 04-05 team "on pace" for at this point in their season? Not 47 wins. The rest of the games are yet to be played.

I see them as continuing to gradually improve (as they've done so far, overall) and cracking 50 wins, possibly earning home court for at least 2 rounds given the sorry state of the East. That's JMO. We'll see how it shakes out.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I see the team is on pace for ~47 wins and until/if something is done to change it, it's going to be ~47 wins.


What trade do you propose he make?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

The Truth said:


> What trade do you propose he make?


Bring back Jalen Rose and trade Hinrich for Antoine Walker.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> What was the 04-05 team "on pace" for at this point in their season? Not 47 wins. The rest of the games are yet to be played.
> 
> I see them as continuing to gradually improve (as they've done so far, overall) and cracking 50 wins, possibly earning home court for at least 2 rounds given the sorry state of the East. That's JMO. We'll see how it shakes out.


We have a .333 win % on the road, and even recent games aren't any better than that (1-2 this month, for example). We are 23-17 (.575) right now with 23 road games and 19 home games left. To win 50, we have to go 27-15 (.643) the rest of the way. (Only 5 teams in the whole NBA are playing .643 ball for half a season).

We've played 22 games at home, and 18 on the road, so the rest of the way is a bit stacked with road games. In fact, we have 9 road games in February, and 5 at home. It's going to be a "fun" month. 5-9 is in line with how the team's performed to date (.333 win % on the road, .772 at home).

We have 7 & 7 home/road games in March. 3 home, 5 away in April. It doesn't get a whole lot better.

You sure "gradual" improvement is going to do it?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The Truth said:


> What trade do you propose he make?


I don't propose he make any trade. We haven't gotten the good end of a player for player swap in a few years now.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> We have a .333 win % on the road, and even recent games aren't any better than that (1-2 this month, for example). We are 23-17 (.575) right now with 23 road games and 19 home games left. To win 50, we have to go 27-15 (.643) the rest of the way. (Only 5 teams in the whole NBA are playing .643 ball for half a season).
> 
> We've played 22 games at home, and 18 on the road, so the rest of the way is a bit stacked with road games. In fact, we have 9 road games in February, and 5 at home. It's going to be a "fun" month. 5-9 is in line with how the team's performed to date (.333 win % on the road, .772 at home).
> 
> ...


Of course I'm not sure. But I have faith in this team as its constructed. Maybe it's misplaced (I'm wrong about one thing or another every day, why not this?) - we'll have to see.

I appreciate the facts there, though. Getting to 50 will be a challenge. I just don't think we've seen a consistent stretch of this team's best ball yet, and I also think the last two Bulls' squads have closed their seasons on very high notes. Those things give me confidence that we'll end up around 50-52 wins.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Of course I'm not sure. But I have faith in this team as its constructed. Maybe it's misplaced (I'm wrong about one thing or another every day, why not this?) - we'll have to see.
> 
> I appreciate the facts there, though. Getting to 50 will be a challenge. I just don't think we've seen a consistent stretch of this team's best ball yet, and I also think the last two Bulls' squads have closed their seasons on very high notes. Those things give me confidence that we'll end up around 50-52 wins.


If you look at the home/road split and our current pace, we're on pace to win 44.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The Bulls are now on pace for 47 wins and are 4th in the East.

According to the Yahoo standings page we'd have the 5th seed.

The Bulls would face the Nets in the 1st round. Yuk. That would suck. At least we'd have home court.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> The Bulls are now on pace for 47 wins and are 4th in the East.
> 
> According to the Yahoo standings page we'd have the 5th seed.
> 
> The Bulls would face the Nets in the 1st round. Yuk. That would suck. At least we'd have home court.


The Nets are definitely a nightmare match-up for us. It's hard to describe just how badly Gordon was destroyed by Kidd and Carter posting up the past few games. Still, the Nets are the only team in the league with a huge backcourt that could take advantage of ours. And I think the Bulls would win, though it'd be tough.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> We have a .333 win % on the road, and even recent games aren't any better than that (1-2 this month, for example). We are 23-17 (.575) right now with 23 road games and 19 home games left. To win 50, we have to go 27-15 (.643) the rest of the way. (Only 5 teams in the whole NBA are playing .643 ball for half a season).
> 
> We've played 22 games at home, and 18 on the road, so the rest of the way is a bit stacked with road games. In fact, we have 9 road games in February, and 5 at home. It's going to be a "fun" month. 5-9 is in line with how the team's performed to date (.333 win % on the road, .772 at home).
> 
> ...


Based on past production, you may be right. 

At the same time, Skiles is at last starting a lineup that is effective offensively and defensively. Skiles has finally adjusted to other teams adjusting to our offense. Gordon and Hinrich are playing well simultaneously for the first time all season. Thomas has produced quality minutes in consecutive games. Thabo will (hopefully) eventually stop having rookie fouls called against him. Some improvement is evident already. 

Wallace is hurt and playing old (but Thomas has stepped up to fill). PJ Brown still sucks (but is tall and playing acceptable interior D). Duhon is in a slump (but the Bulls don't need him when Gordon and Hinrich are playing this well). 

It depends on your mindset, but I think there are a lot of reasons to be optimistic going forward. I would bet a large sum of money on the Bulls finishing with 50 or more wins.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Question:

Given that the season to date has been so topsy-turvy -- with the Bulls successes and failures coming in waves of highs and lows reflecting unusual circumstances -- the annual disaster of the Circus Trip and the Bulls' terrific run in their unusually long homestand --circumstances neither of which will be repeated in the second half of the season -- how does the record to date fare as a predictor of "pace" towards the Bulls' final record?

I mean I guess the fact that our current winning % is the same % we would have if we ended the season with 47 wins is interesting at some level. I guess with other teams or our team in other years there may be some significance to being "on pace" for whatever number (although with the Bulls that Circus Trip anomaly ALWAYS must be factored in). I just think that given the roller coaster ride this team was on early and that I see a team that is more settled now and going forward, I don't think our current winning % necessarily reflects a "pace" that has any predictive value.

If you, as I do, think the team is improving as the year goes on, it seems likely the Bulls win pace will accrue at a greater rate than Nov/Dec.

If you think they are getting worse or running out of gas, perhaps the rate goes down, in which case the season really WILL be a wash.

Frankly, I see this as a 50+ regular season win team this year, when all is said and done.


Sorry to go OT from the OT stuff and address what apears to have been the initial topic.

Carry on.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The troubling thing about the circus trip this season is that the Bulls did pretty well on it last season (3-3). 

It seemed like the circus trip curse was left in the rear view mirror as well.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

49
Beat Miami in 4
Lost to Detroit in 6


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

superdave said:


> 49
> Beat Miami in 4
> Lost to Detroit in 6



When is the parade?

Are they taking pre-orders yet for the highlight video?


2 years later. 2 more wins. yahoo.

Its good progress to win a playoff series, no doubt.

Let's hope Big Ben somehow stops his decline and that Tyrus develops rapidly.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> When is the parade?
> 
> Are they taking pre-orders yet for the highlight video?
> 
> ...


When is enough? Are you for real?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> When is enough? Are you for real?


Was I the one who bumped the thread?

If you are happy setting the bar low, feel free.

Its possible to enjoy a team and season and be less than ecstatic about the progress made over the LAST TWO SEASONS.


----------

