# So, even with Rose back, how are we not the 90s Pacers/Blazers/etc.



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

I know a lot of people want Rose back, including Paxson and the extension of the solo Paxson era, GarPax (since Forman does things just the way Paxson does and is therefore only a "general manager" in quotation marks). And of course Paxson wants him back. Remember, most of those who defend Paxson, Noah, Deng now are the same people who swore up and down that we were going to be someone pre-Rose built around the beloved core of Deng, Hinrich, Gordon and Noah. The summer Rose was drafted, it looked like that whole plan was going to die a slow painful death, as even people in this city were realizing it was just a desparate pipe dream. Paxson sold that whole idea during a very weak era in the NBA. Paxson has honestly always loved Rose for allowing Paxson to continue to love the rest of his guys, actually desparately overlove them - he can then use Rose's star to validate his love of Deng and Noah by bringing in the big regular season win totals.

My question to those clammoring for Rose is this. *How are we different from the Blazers of the 90s, Kings of the early 00s, Pacers of the 90s, Knicks of the early 90s, Cavs of the early 90s, etc. even WITH Rose?*

Those teams were all very much like this team. One superstar/one guy who could even sniff being a top 50 player all time and then a bunch of guys who would be the #3 player on legit championship juggernauts like the 91 Bulls, 00 Lakers, etc. 

If you like Noah, Boozer and Deng, and I like them two as THIRD options, can you honestly tell me that they are that much better than Buck Williams, Jerome Kersey and Terry Porter? That much better than Charles Oakley, Rolando Blackman and John Starks? That much better than Chuck Persons, Detlef Schrempf and Rick Smits? That much better than Brad Daugherty, Larry Nance and Gerald Wilkins? That much better than Mike Bibby, Vlade Divac and Peja Stojakovic?

I just find it odd that if you remove the 02 Kings, I listed teams that lost REPEATEDLY to the world champion Chicago Bulls, and yet IN CHICAGO you can find all of these fans who can't associate this team and this future with teams they used to watch Michael and ANOTHER top 50 guy just treat like children. 

Clammoring for Rose is great. Getting a legit #2 guy is essential.

And don't give me this cop out about the future free agency classes or how free agency is hard.

Kevin McHale was acquired via draft day trade
Scottie Pippen was acquired via draft day trade
Joe Dumars was selected with the 18th pick of the draft
Kobe Bryant was acquired via draft day trade
Clyde Drexler was acquired via midseason trade (by the 95 champion Rockets)
Tony Parker was selected with the 28th pick of the draft
Pau Gasol was acquired via midseason trade

So, this idea that "hey, can't blame Paxson... the #1 pick he would need to get a legit #2 dog is hard to get. You have to lose. Hey, can't blame Paxson, Lebron James didn't want to come here" ... it's a cop out. I could list other examples of #2s OR #3s who were better than anyone on this team save Rose who were acquired via trade.. Rasheed Wallace, Robert Parish, Bill Laimbeer.. the list is pretty long actually. In fact, #2 options acquired as the big free agent are the vast minority..


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

In a way, everything you said was accurate. I just don't think there are that many trades floating out there for legit #2 guys. Many of those deals you listed were in a different salary cap era where teams had more flexibility. Just look at what the Nets did to their franchise to acquire Deron and Joe Johnson. It ain't easy out there anymore. What legit #2 guy is out on the market right now that doesn't have major injury concerns (Bynum, Granger), slightly more minor injury concerns but major team chemistry question marks (Dwight), giant head case possibilities (Cousins), or flaws in their games that wouldn't mesh well with the current Bulls roster (Monta)? These types of quality players don't exactly grow on trees.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

RollWithEm said:


> In a way, everything you said was accurate. I just don't think there are that many trades floating out there for legit #2 guys. Many of those deals you listed were in a different salary cap era where teams had more flexibility. Just look at what the Nets did to their franchise to acquire Deron and Joe Johnson. It ain't easy out there anymore. What legit #2 guy is out on the market right now that doesn't have major injury concerns (Bynum, Granger), slightly more minor injury concerns but major team chemistry question marks (Dwight), giant head case possibilities (Cousins), or flaws in their games that wouldn't mesh well with the current Bulls roster (Monta)? These types of quality players don't exactly grow on trees.


I don't understand this undying willingness to say, "hey, if Paxson hasn't done it, then that just means it couldn't be done."

WHAT HAS THIS GUY EVER PROVEN??? I understand that Jerry Krause biffed the post Jordan thing to the point that Paxson was a great breath of fresh air, but at some point it's not enough to be "better than Krause." At some point, that aint saying much.

Those trades were brilliant trades in any era. And when you talk about deals for a legit #2 option, I will tell you this ... AT THE TIME THOSE GUYS WERE TRADED FOR, VERY FEW OF THEM IF ANY were thought of as current #2 guys or surefire #2 guys. 

Everyone seems to think that if you trade for a legit #2, it has to be a guy who is thought of in the same regard as Dwyane Wade right NOW. NO! Scottie Pippen was not thought of as ANYTHING when Jerry Krause traded for him.

And today is likely no different. The complimentary #2 star of tomorrow probably is a very young player TODAY who is CURRENTLY thought of with much less regard than Kevin Love, who will never be a legit #2 threat on a championship team because his FG% sucks. And getting a score on an individual possession is huge in the NBA. 

The trade of today that you could look back on in 20 years the same way you'd look at the Pippen or McHale trade is likely for someone more like a Demar Derozan or Demarcus Cousins than some current guy who is thought of as a big #2 star right now.

Paxson would impress me, whether it worked out or not, if he looked to #1 talents on bad teams.. guys who will never be #1 talents on great teams, but who could really shine if their role was more like "Scottie Pippen on a great team" than Michael Jordan. 

Deng, the Charlotte pick, Mirotic as the principle of a trade for Derozan would have me elated.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Don't get me wrong, I understand where you are coming from. Not a lot of big risks like that are taken in today's day and age. If Paxson were to package some assets for an Andre Drummond, a Derrick Williams, or an Enes Kanter type of guy with potential but no proven success or even trading up for a guy like Nerlens Noel coming off an injury, he would be taking a very uncommon risk. It's certainly not a horrible idea, but I also think teams do a better job of holding on to guys like that in this financial landscape.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Kevin Love's FG% is too low, but you want Demarcus Cousins and/or DeMar Derozan?


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

I'd look into moving Deng this off-season. I'm confident Butler can step in and be a good starter for us. Maybe something like Deng+Charlotte pick+Teague for Aldridge if Aldridge doesn't commit to re-signing with the Blazers, or if Love is available, Teague+Deng+Charlotte pick+Mirotic for Love. Re-sign a guy like Belinelli and see if you can bring back guys like Brewer or Korver for real cheap. Draft a backup C with our 1st rounder.

PG-Rose/Hinrich
SG-Belinelli?/Hinrich/FA?
SF-Butler/FA?
PF-Love or Aldridge/Gibson
C-Noah/Draft pick/Gibson

See if we can deal Boozer for other contracts to give us a bit of depth, if not amnesty him if Reinsdorf asks for it.


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

We don't have many assets to bring in a 2nd option unless we are willing to part Noah as part of the deal. Love would look nice next to Noah and Rose but Deng is not enough.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Dornado said:


> Kevin Love's FG% is too low, but you want Demarcus Cousins and/or DeMar Derozan?


Yes, although the way I view each is dramatically different. 

Kevin Love is 24. He's currently shooting a ridiculously low 35.2%. That's terrible for a 6'1" PG, let alone this savior of the jib crowd who is 6'10" 260. You do realize he's putting the ball in the basket like a joke, right? Love him all you want, but reality is still kind of reality. 

Love, the terrible joke of a potential #2 option.. the guy you'd have to be what Dan Bernstein calls "basketball dumb" to like (even though Bernstein ironically likes him) is currently shooting a FG% that is a startling 9.6% lower than what he shot at age 23 and 9.7% lower than his career average.

But yeah, he's going to scare the Miami Heat.

Now, you take DeRozan. He's 23. And I'd say that before age 26, each year is huge in terms of how you view potential. DeRozan is much less of a physical freak than Cousins, but there are a couple of benefits. First, he shoots 43.3%. Good? No. But both Love and DeRozan would have less of the burden on them as #2 options on the Bulls. Say that stepping down from #1 to #2 allowed them to choose their spots and benefit from Rose's presence, adding 4% to the FG% of each player. 

For DeRozan, that would put him at 47.3%, which would be right in line with what we came to expect from Scottie Pippen. PFs typically should shoot higher percentages than SFs anyway, because they play closer to the basket. 4% added to Love's FG% would put him at 39.2%, which would still be terrible for a 6'1" PG. 

Other benefits for DeRozan are easy. He'd cost less in trade. You likely would not have to pay for DeRozan what you would for Cousins. You'd pay him less than Cousins or a new contract for Love and therefore if it doesn't work out, you wash your hands clean pretty easily. 

Cousins is a whole different story. He isn't even going to be 23 until August, which is closer to next season than it is to the point at which the Bulls will be eliminated WITH Rose in the playoffs.

He's 6'11" 280 and two years younger than Love. He's at 45.7%, which, is kind of 10% higher than your boy Love that so many mediocrity-loving jib fans love to adore and defend. 

He's a very typical John Wooden style player. See, Bulls fans love coaches like D'Antoni, of whom guys like Paxson and Thibodeau are of similar beliefs - as in, the coach who de-emphasizes the individual offense at the center position and guys who believe in centers who run like Noah, instead of centers who win championships - and even Andrew Bynum was good enough at that size.

Tibs likely couldn't coach Cousins because he lacks the ability. A John Wooden disciple like Jackson/Winters or Riley could do it, because they know how. Thibodeau wants to live in a little box where he can do things his way and coach players of his style and it's just going to be easy to win a ring, but it never works that way. 

To trade for Cousins you'd need to be willing to commit to the commitment the Lakers made to Bynum. But if you do, and I know a lot of Bulls fans hate unproven talent of any kind because of being burned by Chandler and Curry, you could get a guy with Cousins physical talent over 50%. And teams with elite guards and centers who shoot 50% or more are good bets to win titles in any era. 

With Cousins you're going to have to pay more. I'd say the price would be Noah, the Charlotte pick, Mirotic and taking back other bad salary FROM Sacramento. And you'd have to be ready to commit. 

But I like Rose and Cousins way more than what we have and here's why. You win titles with thoroughbreds. That's what Lebron, Wade and Bosh are. That's what Michael and Scottie were.. Deng, Noah, Boozer and Love will never be physical thoroughbreds. Cousins is. Figure it out. It aint happening right now.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> My question to those clammoring for Rose is this. *How are we different from the Blazers of the 90s, Kings of the early 00s, Pacers of the 90s, Knicks of the early 90s, Cavs of the early 90s, etc. even WITH Rose?*..


Those teams were all better than this bulls team, even with Rose.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Those teams were all better than this bulls team, even with Rose.


Blazers of the '90s: 1 season winning 75% of their games

Kings of the '00s: Well hell, the last time that franchise won 75% of their games they were the Rochester Royals and the ball had laces.

Pacers of the 90s: No seasons winning 75% of their games.

Knicks of the '90s: No seasons winning 75% of their games.

Cavs of the '90s: No seasons winning 75% of their games.

*Bulls won 75% of their games in 2010-11 and 2011-12.
*

Just sayin'.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> Yes, although the way I view each is dramatically different.
> 
> Kevin Love is 24. He's currently shooting a ridiculously low 35.2%. That's terrible for a 6'1" PG, let alone this savior of the jib crowd who is 6'10" 260. You do realize he's putting the ball in the basket like a joke, right? Love him all you want, but reality is still kind of reality.
> 
> ...


The truth is I have many of the same doubts about Love that you have, some of them related to efficiency (and some of them related to defense). The problem is, you're too busy getting wrapped up in bullshit from years ago involving "jib" and posters you used to argue with that I had to read a bunch of bullshit about how I love Kevin Love (which I never said) before you got to the few salient points in your post. This is why people get irritated with you, for the record. 

DeRozan and Cousins are players that are similarly situated to Love... scorers on bad teams with some upside and some issues related to efficiency/defense. Comparing Love's worst season where he's missed much of the year with a broken hand isn't exactly a fair statistical comparison (why don't we look at their career numbers, and their TS%'s?). I don't mind Derozan as a player, but how the hell are you comparing him to Scottie Pippen? Becoming a 2nd option isn't going to magically make him able to shoot... (and again, we haven't really talked about defense). Cousins is intriguing, but he's inefficient and unathletic, and that's not a good combination. Maybe he can change that, but I don't think it is because he doesn't have the opportunities in Sacramento. I get being vehemently anti-Kevin Love I guess, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to be so vehemently in favor of other similar-to-lesser options at the same time.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

transplant said:


> Blazers of the '90s: 1 season winning 75% of their games
> 
> Kings of the '00s: Well hell, the last time that franchise won 75% of their games they were the Rochester Royals and the ball had laces.
> 
> ...


92 Blazers would mop the floor with this bulls team. 
Pacers with Miller and company?!
Knicks have the Jordan bulls problems, lol. Noah vs Ewing, not even close. 

Really, winning percentage is a weak argument and you know it .


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Really, winning percentage is a weak argument and you know it .


Maybe you're right, but sometimes I get tired of unsubstantiated opinion.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Dornado said:


> The truth is I have many of the same doubts about Love that you have, some of them related to efficiency (and some of them related to defense). The problem is, you're too busy getting wrapped up in bullshit from years ago involving "jib" and posters you used to argue with that I had to read a bunch of bullshit about how I love Kevin Love (which I never said) before you got to the few salient points in your post. This is why people get irritated with you, for the record.


Could care less what you think. Never have (and really, isn't that kind of obvious), never will and don't put any stock in it.

It's kind of ironic to me that you had that whole jib crowd and years later, even though they'll no longer bring up things they used to say about how it's "too early to be able to say that Hinrich won't be as good as Stockton" (that was a long thread back then) or how "this young core is going to contend" or they're no longer bragging about how Paxson is "oozing with oodles of assets"... they still very much are pro the establishment of this team. And any idea that means trading/ridding ourselves of Noah or Deng is shot down. But then they'll tell you they're not shooting it down because they supported the try hard Bulls in 2007. They're just shooting it down because it doesn't make sense for some other reason.

Then I see a guy like you who posts the exact same way as many of those jibsters do now, coming to many of the same conclusions, and you'll have to pardon me if I lump you in. 



> DeRozan and Cousins are players that are similarly situated to Love... scorers on bad teams with some upside and some issues related to efficiency/defense.


Yes, but one is two years younger and one is a year younger at an age where a year is huge. Players improve much MUCH more from 22 to 23 or 23 to 24 than they do from say 28 to 29. If Cousins is still shooting the same FG% when he's Love's age, I won't be so high on him.



> Comparing Love's worst season where he's missed much of the year with a broken hand isn't exactly a fair statistical comparison (why don't we look at their career numbers, and their TS%'s?).


I don't understand, are you suggesting that he broke his hand and then played and therefore that's why he is shooting a FG% that makes Jalen Rose during his time with the Bulls say "oh damn that's terrible!" He was averaging 18 PPG and 14 RPG. I'd say for the 18 games he played he was fine. 

Honestly, let's get a couple things out of the way. You're clearly passive aggressive and you like Kevin Love. I love the idea of throwing out the fact that you have doubts about Love, and then kind of defending him in the same post the same way someone who did not have doubts would. Secondly, in five years, he's only had one season that was any good from a FG% standpoint.

TS%? I want playoff players. In the playoffs, which Bulls fans have blinded themselves to, each individual possession becomes HUGE. Lebron is going to come down and get Miami a bucket darn near every time late in a close game and the Bulls will need someone to counter. If the Bulls are down 87-86 with 35.3 seconds left in the game, it doesn't do any good for a guy to say, "oh man, I just missed the shot that would have given us the lead, but it's all good, because after the game is over (you know, on what our next possession WOULD BEwithout fouling over and over), I'll hit a THREE to show you how good my FG% value really is!

Tell me about all of these great NBA legends who won championships by... late in playoff games, missing twos but then coming back to hit threes to make the other team envy their REAL FG%. I want to know about them. Is that what Jordan did the possession before he hit the shot to beat Utah or before Paxson hit the shot in 93? Or BOTH times did he say "damn, we need a basket, I'm going straight to the hole and blowing by the entire opposing team"...?

Some of you guys go on like you know so much, but you ignore an entire body of NBA history that tells you things like, "what kind of first options win" "what kind of team structure wins" "what kind of players make good 'second best players on a title team'".. it's all right there for you to view if you look at anything from Russell, Cousy, Sharman and Heinsohn to Reed, Frazier and Debusschere to Michael and Scottie, Shaq and Kobe and a ton of guys in between. 



> I don't mind Derozan as a player, but how the hell are you comparing him to Scottie Pippen?


I'm not. I simply said that that FG% I could envision him turning in with the heat off of him would be in the same range as Pippen.



> Becoming a 2nd option isn't going to magically make him able to shoot... (and again, we haven't really talked about defense).


It's not. His shooting ability won't change. What will change is the spacing. Bulls fans don't understand spacing. 

Andrew Bynum probably couldn't dribble past you or me, doesn't have much basketball skill and isn't any more athletic than Cousins. But he is 7'0" 285 and that's why he helped play a big role in fueling two NBA titles (and before you contest that, see the Lakers losing with Bynum hurt in 08 and then beating the Celtics with him in 2010). Why? Because he created space for the other Lakers. Leave Bynum to get up in Odom's face and Odom would float it right over to Bynum for an easy bucket. Thereby making Artest, Odom and their PG better than they would be with defense up in their face and help defense coming. 

It's like me asking you if Bill Wennington ever would have done anything without Michael Jordan on the team. 

Bynum provided space. Rose, to a degree provides space. Does he provide enough for Deng to be good enough for us to win a ring? No. A more athletic player who maybe just needs an easier lane to the basket to be able to hurt teams with penetration? My bet would be yes. 

So that's what you look for.. a guy who isn't a #1 because maybe he's really athletic but can't dribble by multiple defenders like Michael could. So you put him on a team with a player like Rose and he gets the open space he needs to gather himself and be a threat to finish with dunks and layups at the rim over frontcourt defenders. It doesn't mean that that guy got better, the conditions around him got better.



> Cousins is intriguing, but he's inefficient and unathletic, and that's not a good combination.


Of course he's inefficient. Coaches who teach players a back to the basket game are almost non-existent.. to the point where the Lakers had to get Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to teach Bynum because Bynum had been with coaches who wouldn't know the first thing of the brilliance of John Wooden... coaches like D'Antoni and Thibodeau. He needs to learn a baby hook and good post footwork. Shaq didn't get the post coaching he needed until after 96.

As far as him being unathletic, this is classic stuff that makes me wonder why you wonder why I group you with the jib crowd. Any big center is written off as "unathletic." Does athleticism help you when you're 245 lbs., couldn't hold your ground late in the playoffs in the post to save your life and Andrew Bynum, Shaq, Gasol or a player like that is just killing you in the post? 

He's 280 lbs. Is he athletic compared to Shaq at that weight? No. Shaq was a different animal. Is he athletic compared to Joakim Noah, who is only 245 lbs? No. Because he's 280. The question I'd ask is ... is he explosive for his size. Yes, he is. 



> Maybe he can change that, but I don't think it is because he doesn't have the opportunities in Sacramento. I get being vehemently anti-Kevin Love I guess, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to be so vehemently in favor of other similar-to-lesser options at the same time.


I'm in favor of any risk involving a relatively lesser known player just like Pippen and McHale and Bryant were relatively lesser known when they were acquired by the Bulls, Boston and LA.

If you have a better one, let me know. I might like it. But we need a thoroughbred and not somebody that people like from his UCLA days. We need someone who maybe has the physical ability to go toe to toe with a Wade, but who is being cast in the wrong role (i.e. #1 when they're really a #2) or who is in a bad situation. We need someone who can scare the Heat.

OR - what I suspect, you're of the mindset that this current team is good enough. If you are tell me. I'll think it's hilarious, but then we won't waste any more time. I wouldn't spend too much time arguing with you just like I wouldn't spend too much time arguing with a Nazi sympathizer, or someone who thinks Paterno "got a raw deal."


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

Man, your song never changes does it... 

You bash and bash and bash, then bash some more. You make GMing sound like the easiest job in the world, and if you're not winning a championship, you're a moron. 

Sign Cousins, sign Derozen, sign whoever, it's easy... So Forman calls and asks about Cousins and Sacramento asks for too much, or says he's not available... To you, that's not even a possibility. 

The fact that they didn't trade for him means they are not trying. 

You reference everything to the 90's,when the NBA was different... From the old years to the politics to the finances. 

Now I know I'm older than you, but I'm sure you're old enough to understand everything can't be compared equally all the time. 

Do the Bulls need help? Of course... Not many teams out there don't need help. We aren't the only team looking for a number 2. Now I think Noah is much more valuable then you think, but it's not his fault he's a number 2 on the Bulls. 

After this Rose injury, I'm optimistic with the approach of the Bulls. Between upcoming cap room, valuable draft picks, and a promising young euro player, I like the direction this team is going in the near future... I know you'll disagree... Save the post. 

Sent from my SGH-T999 using VerticalSports.Com App


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

The bottom line is that any team will be the "90's Blazers/Pacers/etc" (or worse) unless you have one of the top-flight players in the entire game AND some truly legit supporting players AND competent coaching.

When Rose is healthy the Bulls are very close to this formula; right on the cusp of tipping the scales. But getting another offensive star who is just a small notch worse than Rose yet better than anyone else on our roster...that is a tall order. To do that we will likely lose one of our other key pieces like Noah. 

Plus everything changed drastically when Rose tore his ACL. You already have the Heat to deal with in the East which was already hard enough to overcome, now you have a recovering superstar who might not even be in MVP form again for another season, if ever. The wise thing to do might just be to wait to go "all in" until Summer 2014. That is when Rose has a full season under his belt post-ACL injury, Boozer might get amnestied to free up cap room, Deng is a free agent, Mirotic will likely come over to take Boozer's place, and then we may know more about what the Charlotte draft pick will produce for either a rotation spot or trade chip. And, by that time the Heat dynasty may be starting to crack a little, e.g., Wade getting older.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

The problem with the line of thinking that "it's not worth getting Kevin Love because he's not as good as (insert top-50 all-time player here), and so he can't be our second option" is that all that matters is whether what/who you ship out is more valuable than him. You don't have to stop making the team better if you trade for Love, and swapping Boozer and some firsts for him makes Chicago better. 

Also, and I fully expect to be roundly shouted down for this, but Chicago may be one of the teams for which gambling on Eric Gordon and his knee may make some sense, if they can pick him up cheap. If he can put together 60 healthy games and a full playoff run, he can be the second scorer that Chicago needs. Now, go ahead and flame me.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Bogg said:


> The problem with the line of thinking that "it's not worth getting Kevin Love because he's not as good as (insert top-50 all-time player here), and so he can't be our second option" is that all that matters is whether what/who you ship out is more valuable than him. You don't have to stop making the team better if you trade for Love, and swapping Boozer and some firsts for him makes Chicago better.
> 
> Also, and I fully expect to be roundly shouted down for this, but Chicago may be one of the teams for which gambling on Eric Gordon and his knee may make some sense, if they can pick him up cheap. If he can put together 60 healthy games and a full playoff run, he can be the second scorer that Chicago needs. Now, go ahead and flame me.


Good post. I agree with your point on Gordon; I started a thread not long ago asking if we should buy low on him. Deng for Gordon straight up is the likely deal, which is a good fit for both teams and works salary wise (or close to it). But I'm not fully convinced without more information on his past injury history. I want no part of him if he's got a degenerative problem with his knees. From a basketball standpoint though, I like his mix of 3-pt shooting, driving, playmaking, and general explosiveness at the 2. And he is still pretty young. Healthy Gordon + healthy Rose would look really good.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Bogg said:


> The problem with the line of thinking that "it's not worth getting Kevin Love because he's not as good as (insert top-50 all-time player here), and so he can't be our second option" is that all that matters is whether what/who you ship out is more valuable than him. You don't have to stop making the team better if you trade for Love, and swapping Boozer and some firsts for him makes Chicago better.
> 
> Also, and I fully expect to be roundly shouted down for this, but Chicago may be one of the teams for which gambling on Eric Gordon and his knee may make some sense, if they can pick him up cheap. If he can put together 60 healthy games and a full playoff run, he can be the second scorer that Chicago needs. Now, go ahead and flame me.


i think there is some value in going for love and/or gordon, i am just in the camp of thinking it wont be enough . the bulls have a great player in rose and some good complimentary pieces, but title teams tend to have more than one guy who can carry an offense , love and gordon are not in the category of guys like westbrook and wade in carrying teams , its alot to have rose try and match the output of a durant or lebron without knowing you will be outgunned by their supporting cast.

there are guys in the league who i would feel comfortable in thibs going to repeatedly in the 4th quarter of an important game like the heat with wade and the thunder with westbrook, i wouldn't cry bloody murder if they went for those guys because they are good players and upgrades at their positions i would just see it as a step in the right direction and not the team's final destination.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Da Grinch said:


> i think there is some value in going for love and/or gordon, i am just in the camp of thinking it wont be enough . the bulls have a great player in rose and some good complimentary pieces, but title teams tend to have more than one guy who can carry an offense , love and gordon are not in the category of guys like westbrook and wade in carrying teams , its alot to have rose try and match the output of a durant or lebron without knowing you will be outgunned by their supporting cast.
> 
> there are guys in the league who i would feel comfortable in thibs going to repeatedly in the 4th quarter of an important game like the heat with wade and the thunder with westbrook, i wouldn't cry bloody murder if they went for those guys because they are good players and upgrades at their positions i would just see it as a step in the right direction and not the team's final destination.


Honestly, I think Gordon can give you 20+ a night and carry an offense for long stretches if he ever gets healthy (which is obviously a big if and the main problem with him). Even if you think Love isn't a franchise guy, most would agree that he's overqualified to be a third option. Rose-Healthy Gordon-Butler-Love-Noah would be right up there with Miami and OKC as the class of the league.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Firefight said:


> Man, your song never changes does it...
> 
> You bash and bash and bash, then bash some more. You make GMing sound like the easiest job in the world, and if you're not winning a championship, you're a moron.
> 
> ...


This was basically a whole lot of nothing that can be translated into "hey! I like Paxson! You may not, but I do! (Bobby Knight voice). If there's a possible move that would make this team better, we must all assume that, after all, because I like Paxson for being better than the guy Jordan got me to hate because he's fat.. Paxson tried to make it and some force stopped him."

I rip Paxson because I love the Bulls, to the point that I watched games online during graduate school when they were going 15-67. I'm a loyalist to the ideas of not only Krause, but McCloskey, West, Auerbach and so many others who have done it the right way, who know what wins and what merely puts on a show in the regular season and early playoffs.

What is so different from yesterday to today that keeps a GM from saying, "hey, we're not there, I will go acquire a player who gets us there, whether it be through a trade for an underknown commodity, or through shrewd drafting when I DONT have a top pick."

Go through the list of #2s...

1979 - Magic Johnson - #2 in the 1980 and 82 Finals: Acquired because the Lakers were willing to trade an aging Gail Goodrich for future draft picks when Van Breda Kopff, now with the Jazz decided Goodrich "wore his years well." Can you picture Paxson parting with Deng or Noah for future picks from a cellar dwellar? He can't even part with a pick that's way too far from now to help the Bulls if they plan to keep it. I was two years old. No one had a cell phone and we had a rotary phone, a typewriter and a slide rule in my house. We used them all too..

Many years later I had a cell phone and was in grad school when Tony Parker was selected with a non-lottery pick.

But the defenses of you guys for a GM who has proven nothing other than he can take the consensus #1 pick with the... #1 pick.. are endless...


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Hey I know, how about we go get Andrew Bynum, I bet he is available. Great great #2 option right there.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Honestly don't see Love being a huge upgrade over Boozer to be honest. Boozer is certainly a lot better than Love this year. He's a better defensive player as well, which is not saying too much.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

yodurk said:


> The bottom line is that any team will be the "90's Blazers/Pacers/etc" (or worse) unless you have one of the top-flight players in the entire game AND some truly legit supporting players AND competent coaching.
> 
> When Rose is healthy the Bulls are very close to this formula; right on the cusp of tipping the scales. But getting another offensive star who is just a small notch worse than Rose yet better than anyone else on our roster...that is a tall order. To do that we will likely lose one of our other key pieces like Noah.
> 
> Plus everything changed drastically when Rose tore his ACL. You already have the Heat to deal with in the East which was already hard enough to overcome, now you have a recovering superstar who might not even be in MVP form again for another season, if ever. The wise thing to do might just be to wait to go "all in" until Summer 2014. That is when Rose has a full season under his belt post-ACL injury, Boozer might get amnestied to free up cap room, Deng is a free agent, Mirotic will likely come over to take Boozer's place, and then we may know more about what the Charlotte draft pick will produce for either a rotation spot or trade chip. And, by that time the Heat dynasty may be starting to crack a little, e.g., Wade getting older.


No, the Bulls aren't close to that formula when healthy.

Dwyane Wade
Paul Pierce
Pau Gasol
Tony Parker
Rip Hamilton
David Robinson
Kobe Bryant
Clyde Drexler
Scottie Pippen
Joe Dumars
Kevin McHale 
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (old)
Magic Johnson (young)
Julius Erving

These are truly legit supporting players.

Luol Deng and Joakim Noah? Those two are more like Buck Williams, John Starks, Larry Nance, Chuck Person, Jerome Kersey, Terry Porter, Antonio Davis, Rick Smits, Charles Oakley than the players listed above.

THAT is the disconnect here. You see "good" as do I.. but fail to see that there are strikingly divided degrees of good. Joakim Noah and Luol Deng, if you go to any religious site in the world and beg with every ounce of desperation you can conjure, will never be like the players from the list above.

THAT is the singular problem with this non-plan. Mirotic, the 2016 pick, the passage of time and more Carlos Boozer concellation prize free agency summers are NEVER EVER going to make either Joakim or Luol a #2 player on a championship team. EVER. Do you get it? If not, because by the way I've been telling you people this for about 6 years, how many more years will it take? 2? 4? 

If Derrick is 30 without a ring will you say, "oh, maybe it is time to take risks?" 

What's the threshold for realizing "hey, maybe these two good players are really just Buck Williams and Jerome Kersey of a different era"? And what's the threshold for finally holding Paxson accountable and for the post-"at least he's not Krause" honeymoon ending?

I continue to maintain that if you all and Paxson were around in the 1980s, and some scout said, "what about trading for Scottie Pippen?" ... that scout would be fired, and you would all decide to overpay for Charles Oakley on an extension and then acquire and pay another player who was about as good as... Charles Oakley.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Bogg said:


> The problem with the line of thinking that "it's not worth getting Kevin Love because he's not as good as (insert top-50 all-time player here), and so he can't be our second option" is that all that matters is whether what/who you ship out is more valuable than him. You don't have to stop making the team better if you trade for Love, and swapping Boozer and some firsts for him makes Chicago better.
> 
> Also, and I fully expect to be roundly shouted down for this, but Chicago may be one of the teams for which gambling on Eric Gordon and his knee may make some sense, if they can pick him up cheap. If he can put together 60 healthy games and a full playoff run, he can be the second scorer that Chicago needs. Now, go ahead and flame me.


No. There's a whole different way to approach it. I liked what Oklahoma City did. 

"Let's suck with Durant until someone else comes along and screams at us 'I'm worth a #2 commitment.'"

We rushed to pay Luol Deng that ridiculous contract he'll still be on NEXT year." Oklahoma City drafted Durant and in HIS rookie year, they paid no more than the 6.5 million that Luke Ridnour was due to any one player on the team.

The following season, the most anyone on their team made was a new contract they gave to Nick Collison for 6.3 mill (when you know damn well Paxson would have paid him 9) and Malik Rose made 7.

It's about not making the commitments we've made to Noah, Deng, Boozer, etc. That way you have the money open when someone does impress you as that type of player, and in the meantime, you suck for a few years and maybe you pick up a Russell Westbrook and James Harden (who was later traded, I know).

The problem with Love is you have to make the COMMITMENT to Love. Teams who really want a #2, don't make 4/5ths of a #2 salary commitment to a guy who is not that guy. It doesn't make any sense. 

The best thing you can have with a superstar like Rose is flexibility. 

But, you and I both know Paxson has used Rose to justify the plan he already had, the plan that was going nowhere when he lucked INTO Rose. 

Rose has allowed him to justify paying the players he loves to substantiate his own ego.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Hoodey said:


> No. There's a whole different way to approach it. I liked what Oklahoma City did.


I know. I pointed out that it would have been really easy for Seattle to bring back Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis, or to take it even further and trade for Kevin Garnett, so that they'd be a playoff squad when they opened the new arena in OKC. I'm not debating past mistakes, though.




Hoodey said:


> The problem with Love is you have to make the COMMITMENT to Love. Teams who really want a #2, don't make 4/5ths of a #2 salary commitment to a guy who is not that guy. It doesn't make any sense.


Unfortunately, Chicago's unlikely to ever be bad enough with Rose, going forward, to pick in the top of the lottery, and it would be extremely difficult to tear the entire roster down and clear out max cap space without wasting two years of Rose's prime. You have to leverage what you have, and maybe you then turn around and leverage the return even further. Kevin Love, when healthy, is an improvement over Boozer. Additionally, when signed to a long-term contract, Kevin Love is going to have immense value.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

So many major disconnects between how I and championship GMs think and how you and putzs like Paxson think. Good stuff.



Bogg said:


> Unfortunately, Chicago's unlikely to ever be bad enough with Rose, going forward, to pick in the top of the lottery, and it would be extremely difficult to tear the entire roster down and clear out max cap space without wasting two years of Rose's prime.


It is difficult. It takes balls lol. And I'd ask you how many years of Rose's prime we'll be wasting by being the 1992 Blazers playing in Chicago in this time?



> You have to leverage what you have, and maybe you then turn around and leverage the return even further.


When has this ever worked? Boston? That was a lot of leveraging.

Or, you can decide what you have is just not good enough and tear it down before it gets worse. You do realize it can get worse and doesn't always get better, right?

Look at Cleveland in 92 and 93. They tried to "live the lie" a few years longer and as Price, Daugherty and Nance aged, they kept "going for it with what they had." They woke up in 96 with a lower seeded team whose leading scorers were Chris Mills, Terrell Brandon and Danny Ferry.

Oh, but my bad. You like 35%/44% for his career Kevin Love. You probably would watch Chris Mills and say, "what? You're telling me you can't win rings with that guy??"

The Blazers in 92 just flat weren't good enough. But they stuck to their guns until they slowly died and had to give Drexler away midseason 95.

I know, it's crazy. This stuff requires you removing yourself from a very current, very Paxson loving mindset.



> Kevin Love, when healthy, is an improvement over Boozer.


And Boozer is about half of a skyscraper below what you need to have as your #2 to beat Lebron James and company. Your point is a non-point.



> Additionally, when signed to a long-term contract, Kevin Love is going to have immense value.


How? I know this is a Pax-fan strategy. That something is true because you say it is. He's a garbage time stat grabber, who struggles mightily in the one stat that isn't helped by being on a bad team with more shots to go around... FG%. Even at 44% for his career that is not going to pace the offense of a championship team.

I'd also argue that you can look at Oklahoma City during the first years of Durant's career and see that players who don't cut it actually hurt you when signed long-term.

Flexibility is what you want. The ability to act on the guy when he finally comes along... not "going with what you have and trying to flip a house and flip a house until you end up with a mansion." That approach has produced one title... the 08 Celtics.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Bogg said:


> Honestly, I think Gordon can give you 20+ a night and carry an offense for long stretches if he ever gets healthy (which is obviously a big if and the main problem with him). Even if you think Love isn't a franchise guy, most would agree that he's overqualified to be a third option. Rose-Healthy Gordon-Butler-Love-Noah would be right up there with Miami and OKC as the class of the league.


20+ a night on WHAT FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE? Because that matters... 20 a night in a vacuum means nothing. It's how well he draws extra defenders and how likely he is to come up with repeated baskets on big possessions late in playoff games.

Then there's this. While Lebron is MJ/Magic/Kareem great (I believe he will end up between 2nd and 6th best ever), Rose is more like Reggie Miller/Patrick Ewing great, so his supporting cast actually needs to be BETTER than Lebron's to force a draw.

The history of the NBA is full of teams that got 0 championships because instead of a #2, they had an overqualified #3, or instead of a #1, they had an overqualified #2. Do you understand that? The Blazers in 90 and 92 are PERFECT examples.

Your last sentence is completely unsubstantiated by about 70 years of NBA history... I think what you meant to say was, "in the late 70s, Rose, Love, etc. would be right up there with the Bullets and Supersonics as the class of the league." In a good league that team you threw out there gets skullpounded by the very best teams.

That team against the 91 Bulls would look a lot like the Philadelphia v. Chicago series in 1991... over quickly and with a lot of pain for Barkley and the hapless Sixers.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Hoodey said:


> So many major disconnects between how I and championship GMs think and how you and putzs like Paxson think. Good stuff.


You're also the guy that declared Durant the best player in the league last year, so......it's not a mystery as to why people question your ability to project into the future.



Hoodey said:


> It is difficult. It takes balls lol. And I'd ask you how many years of Rose's prime we'll be wasting by being the 1992 Blazers playing in Chicago in this time?


You're assuming that Chicago can't improve more through trades than they can through a tear-down, and you're assuming that tearing the whole thing down actually works. Even with a really bad supporting cast, Rose is still probably getting you 38 wins and the eighth seed, so you aren't picking anyone in the top of the lottery, and at that point you're just praying to hit gold in free agency. Chicago tried that in 2010 and came up relatively empty. 



Hoodey said:


> When has this ever worked? Boston? That was a lot of leveraging.


The Lakers eventually turned their return on Shaq into Gasol - that worked out pretty well. The Pistons got Rasheed by combing the trade market while fielding a good-but-not-good-enough squad. Dallas moved Dampier for Tyson Chandler, Devin Harris for Jason Kidd, Stackhouse for Shawn Marion, and in a roundabout way they turned Raef LaFrentz into Jason Terry via Antoine Walker. 2006 Miami had turned Caron Butler and Lamar Odom (2/3s of the core of a second-round playoff team) into Shaq; and immediately followed that up by turning the role-player/draft pick pu pu platter into Antoine Walker, Jason Williams, and James Posey. Basically every team that won a championship between Jordan and Lebron either built themselves through the trade market or featured one of either Duncan or Shaq(Miami even did both at once!). 



Hoodey said:


> Or, you can decide what you have is just not good enough and tear it down before it gets worse. You do realize it can get worse and doesn't always get better, right?


There's jettisoning dead weight and clearing the payroll as part of an overarching strategy, and there's throwing a hissy fit because you don't like how things have turned out. Chicago tried the whole "max cap space in a rich free-agent market" route and wound up with Boozer. Considering that Chris Paul plays the same position as Derrick Rose and Dwight Howard didn't want to get traded to Chicago, and most of the 2014 guys are the 2010 free-agent class that didn't sign in Chicago in the first place - who's the fix-it-all free agent you're going to drop your trade-able assets for? 



Hoodey said:


> That approach has produced one title... the 08 Celtics.


For a guy whose shtick is repeating what happened in the past over and over, you really don't have a good grasp on what's produced several of the last champions.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Bogg said:


> You're also the guy that declared Durant the best player in the league last year, so......it's not a mystery as to why people question your ability to project into the future.


Well, Durant is consensus #2 and one of the top 30 talents to ever play the game. But I owned that. Lebron went to a place in the Finals that I a) had never seen him go to or demonstrate and b) had no reason to believe he'd suddenly get to after 07 and 11.

But hey, that's a few degrees removed from the actual topic we're talking about. I have one for you. Let's talk Noah, Deng, this beloved core and Paxson's GMing. I called it 6 years ago as being exactly what it ended up being. How long ago did you realize that Noah and Deng weren't the long term answer? A year? Maybe.

It's funny to hear you talk about my ability to project the future when I projected what would happen to this team when we signed Deng to that contract and all throughout the 07 season. 



> You're assuming that Chicago can't improve more through trades than they can through a tear-down, and you're assuming that tearing the whole thing down actually works. Even with a really bad supporting cast, Rose is still probably getting you 38 wins and the eighth seed, so you aren't picking anyone in the top of the lottery, and at that point you're just praying to hit gold in free agency. Chicago tried that in 2010 and came up relatively empty.


Oh no, don't put the idiotic desires of the fans here on me. I'm not living the free agent fantasy nearly as much as those on here who disagree with me. Free agency is nice if you have cap flexibility, but it's the third best way to get legit #2 options for a title team.

You also keep talking about tearing it down, as if there is only one way to do that, or as if I'm all for trading Deng and Noah to teams under the cap. "Tearing it down" is not a phrase that means "suck with no plan."

If I had my way, Deng, Noah and Boozer (who I'd amnesty if I could get nothing for him) would be traded for the best group of young prospects and first round picks that the Bulls could get. That way you have cap space, but you're also sucking yourself, dealing with extra lotto picks you receive in trades (and by the way the other "better way" to get a #2 than free agency [other than the draft] is through trades). If trades of Noah and Deng (Since you'd likely get nothing for Boozer) along with Mirotic and the 2016 pick netted you nothing more than Demarcus Cousins OR Demar Derozan and 1-2 lotto picks in the next two seasons (with moderate protection possibility), you'd be doing great. 

That's what you'd have to get and you could get it with Noah/Deng, an unprotected pick from a perennially bad team and Mirotic. I am not for releasing Noah and Deng tomorrow for nothing in return. 

If you suddenly had Cousins, Gibson, Rose, Butler and a whole lot of nothing, you could have one losing season, and if you don't, hey.. it means you were better sooner than you thought. Better earlier is a good thing if it's with two players who are of legit title #1 and #2 talent.



> The Lakers eventually turned their return on Shaq into Gasol - that worked out pretty well.


I'm going to enjoy billy-clubbing this little passage. Let's talk about things in terms of what you could "reasonably expect." Shaq was still in the latter part of his prime. Shaq, in the latter part of his prime, was about as good as having Jordan or Lebron at that stage, even if only for 1-2 seasons. Are you suggesting that by keeping Noah and Deng, or trading for Love, it's reasonable to expect that a player the caliber of Shaq, a top 10 player EVER, still in his latter prime, will suddenly decide that he can no longer get along with another top 10 player all time, because that player wants to be Jordan, so that a breakup will occur that will require that the team who holds said player suddenly has to bend over and give him up?

That's about as stupid as, "hey, plan only for cap room. Even though no free agent has become a championship #1 since the Lakers signed Shaq in 96, you can just put all your eggs in the basket of signing Lebron and make that your plan to win rings." 



> The Pistons got Rasheed by combing the trade market while fielding a good-but-not-good-enough squad.


This is the "trade for crazy" scenario that was also present with Dennis Rodman. Nobody in the league would touch Wallace which is how he ended up on the Hawks, just like in the summer of 95, nobody wanted to touch Rodman. Krause and Dumars had balls because they said, "hey, we'll take the crazy guy because we want to do the hard thing nobody else has the balls to do." When has John Paxson EVER demonstrated balls of any kind. In fact, A YEAR AGO, when I first said "trade for Cousins" ... and when the price would have been much lower, the retort I got on Bulls boards wasn't, "you won't have enough to get what Sacramento wants." No, Sacramento was unhappy with him and suspending him. The retort was not, "he's not talented enough." The reply I got was, "he's too crazy for Paxson to acquire and for Tibs to deal with." 

Because if you're advocating taking crazy onto your team to get a more talented player than you'd normally get, I'm all for it. But you don't need Love to get crazy. The Bulls got the crazy guy for Will freaking Vanderbilt. Wallace costed the Pistons what exactly? Kevin Love?



> Dallas moved Dampier for Tyson Chandler, Devin Harris for Jason Kidd, Stackhouse for Shawn Marion, and in a roundabout way they turned Raef LaFrentz into Jason Terry via Antoine Walker.


Going to the player Paxson gave away for nothing to defend Paxson? "Dallas got Chandler, wonder what idiot would let that guy go?" Priceless.

Go back to the list I gave you. Scottie Pippen, Kevin McHale, Clyde Drexler, Magic Johnson (young), Kobe Bryant.. championship #2s. What the flying bleep does TYSON CHANDLER have to do with those guys. I'm having the "how you get a #2" conversation and you bring up Tyson Chandler, old Jason Kidd and Antoine Walker? Scottie Pippen would embarass Shawn Marion to the point that Marion's parents would no longer want to be seen in public. Tyson Chandler lol. 

Tyson Chandler and Shawn Marion are not what this team or most teams need. Riley said it in 2011. "They better get us now," because he knew the Heat had not gelled enough to stop a team from beating them, even a team that shouldn't.



> 2006 Miami had turned Caron Butler and Lamar Odom (2/3s of the core of a second-round playoff team) into Shaq; and immediately followed that up by turning the role-player/draft pick pu pu platter into Antoine Walker, Jason Williams, and James Posey.


"Get Kevin Love, and if it doesn't work out, don't worry, you can trade him for Shaq!" That's an awesome plan lol.



> Basically every team that won a championship between Jordan and Lebron either built themselves through the trade market or featured one of either Duncan or Shaq(Miami even did both at once!).


I should have mentioned this earlier, and even though you brought up flawed examples, for reasons pointed out earlier, I never said trading for a #2 is bad if you can get one. I'm a big fan of trades like the ones that produced Kevin McHale, Magic, Kobe Bryant, Scottie Pippen etc. In any of those examples, did the GM trade for a player like Kevin Love, pay said player, and then turn around and trade THAT player for a #2? 



> There's jettisoning dead weight and clearing the payroll as part of an overarching strategy, and there's throwing a hissy fit because you don't like how things have turned out. Chicago tried the whole "max cap space in a rich free-agent market" route and wound up with Boozer. Considering that Chris Paul plays the same position as Derrick Rose and Dwight Howard didn't want to get traded to Chicago, and most of the 2014 guys are the 2010 free-agent class that didn't sign in Chicago in the first place - who's the fix-it-all free agent you're going to drop your trade-able assets for?


But I've been hearing about how we were oozing with oodles of assets since the Eddy Curry trade gave us these supposed assets. In 8 years or so, this has produced what? 

I want to see us trade our top players other than Rose for players with high physical potential and/or draft picks, and not the type of players where you say, "well, if he doesn't work out, trade him for Shaq!" But the kind of players who you actually want. That means trading less for proven commodities and more for guys you'll want tomorrow, which takes identifying those guys. 



> For a guy whose shtick is repeating what happened in the past over and over, you really don't have a good grasp on what's produced several of the last champions.


I have an excellent grasp. Again, I ask you, at what point did a team trade for a player like Love, give that player a big contract and then trade THAT player for Shaq or Rasheed Wallace? 

Kevin Love sucks and those who think he is remotely the answer are basketball dumb.

Oh, and I'm telling you NOW he sucks and that trading him won't work. If I'm wrong, I'll be the first one to admit it. If you're wrong, just so you know, I'm going to remind you every day. 

Do you want to re-evaluate your call there?

By the way, can't lose trading for Cousins, because I'm not an advocate of paying him the bucks you'll have to pay Love. Trade for him and if it doesn't work you let him walk and stay flexible..

Notice I didn't say anything as utterly fantasy oriented as "trade for the guy I want, Cousins, and if he doesn't work, it's cool, you can just trade him for a guy like Shaq!"


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

By the way Dornado, one of two things are going on here. Either Bogg and others like him never necessarily liked Paxson or any of the players acquired or on the teams in the last decade, and just magically showed up here thinking the things Bogg thinks

OR (and I suspect this is it)

Bogg and others like him backed all of the decisions from Paxson's hiring, maintained that we'd "contend with the core" we had BEFORE we even lucked into Rose AND THEN even after this beloved core has not been enough WITH Rose and won't be enough when he gets back... Bogg and others like him have no willingness to say "maybe I've been wrong" and yet are still talking down to others as if they know best, which has always been the chief characteristic of anyone who believes that Paxson does things the "right way." 

It's a total joke and always has been. The same people who smuggly said things like, "Fire Pax, Fire Skiles" are the same people sitting here now as if Paxson's decisions in 04, 06, 08 and to this present day have produced multiple championships. 

Paxson's decisions have put us somewhere between the 92 Pacers and 92 Blazers, and that's only because he hit an insane lotto and got Rose. God only knows where this inept moron would have gotten us had we ended up with the 13th or even 3rd pick in that draft. 

But hey, his fans know best, and if you dare show disagreement, then you must just have a schtick. How could you not? They know all about championships. Most of them wouldn't know the first thing about the NBA pre-2004 when Paxson got the job, but you're just supposed to trust them and shut up. After all, they do know about the trades for Shaq and Rasheed Wallace. And, that's why you trade for Kevin Love. He's not the answer, but Boozer for Love becomes Shaq in his prime!

Wow, what a bleeping joke.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Hoodey - the guy isn't even a Bulls fan... let alone some lost enemy from your Paxson hating past... as usual, you're tilting at windmills.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Hoodey said:


> But hey, that's a few degrees removed from the actual topic we're talking about. I have one for you. Let's talk Noah, Deng, this beloved core and Paxson's GMing. I called it 6 years ago as being exactly what it ended up being. How long ago did you realize that Noah and Deng weren't the long term answer? A year? Maybe.


I'm a Celtics fan, so if you're calling me out on not decrying the Deng signing in 07........yea, I was pretty excited about finally cashing in all those chips for Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett, so I wasn't paying much attention to anyone else. Don't worry, nobody's making a run at your "Bulls fan #1" throne.



Hoodey said:


> That's what you'd have to get and you could get it with Noah/Deng, an unprotected pick from a perennially bad team and Mirotic. I am not for releasing Noah and Deng tomorrow for nothing in return.


You could get a pick with mild protection, or two protected picks, but the days of cellar-dwellers giving up the #2 pick in the draft for decent veterans are over. Charlotte and Orlando weren't able to even get a very late first round pick in a weak draft for Gerald Henderson and JJ Redick - two very serviceable veterans. I don't get your infatuation with Derozan, but yea, he's available if you can put together the right package.




Hoodey said:


> If you suddenly had Cousins, Gibson, Rose, Butler and a whole lot of nothing, you could have one losing season, and if you don't, hey.. it means you were better sooner than you thought. Better earlier is a good thing if it's with two players who are of legit title #1 and #2 talent.


If Rose is still a franchise player, that's still a playoff team - you aren't getting a couple of swings at the top of the lottery by doing this. You're essentially betting the entire thing on Derrick Coleman. I have no problem picking up Cousins for roleplayers and picks if he's available, but cashing in all your chips for him (and that's what it would take to get him) is an enormous gamble that's unlikely to pay off.



Hoodey said:


> I'm going to enjoy billy-clubbing this little passage. Let's talk about things in terms of what you could "reasonably expect." Shaq was still in the latter part of his prime...


That was all about the Lakers getting Gasol, but nice dodge. Pau was a good sidekick who couldn't do anything more than secure a bottom playoff seed and get swept in the first round when leading his own team. _Those_ players do become available pretty regularly. The Kobe/Pau Lakers were put together by leveraging a big expiring contract along with picks/prospects, even though you said only Boston had done that...



Hoodey said:


> This is the "trade for crazy" scenario that was also present with Dennis Rodman...


..._and_ despite your best attempts at misdirection by making the Pistons argument into Kevin Love, Detroit is another team that vaulted themselves from playoff also-rans to champions without bottoming out. 



Hoodey said:


> Going to the player Paxson gave away for nothing to defend Paxson? "Dallas got Chandler, wonder what idiot would let that guy go?" Priceless.


_You're_ the one with the unhealthy fixation on Paxson, not me. I don't care one way or another what happens with him. That fact remains, Dallas continued to leverage assets into younger/better assets until they won a title without ever planning on winning the lottery. So....between Boston, Miami 1.0, LA, Detroit, and Dallas - that's _five_ teams that have recently won titles by making the right trades, not one. 



Hoodey said:


> Go back to the list I gave you. Scottie Pippen, Kevin McHale, Clyde Drexler, Magic Johnson (young), Kobe Bryant.. championship #2s. What the flying bleep does TYSON CHANDLER have to do with those guys. I'm having the "how you get a #2" conversation and you bring up Tyson Chandler, old Jason Kidd and Antoine Walker? Scottie Pippen would embarass Shawn Marion to the point that Marion's parents would no longer want to be seen in public. Tyson Chandler lol.


Hey, _you're_ the one saying that Boston was the only team who leveraged everything into a title. Don't get pissy when a champion did that without fitting the parameters you want them to. Chandler and Marion made up the backbone of the defense that got Dallas a championship, and if you want to whine about it because they're uncomfortably similar to the guys you don't like on this team, then tough. They won a title.



Hoodey said:


> "Get Kevin Love, and if it doesn't work out, don't worry, you can trade him for Shaq!" That's an awesome plan lol.


What I said was that Kevin Love is going to force his way out of Minny, and that he would be an upgrade on Boozer. If you can get him for Boozer and leftovers, you've made the team better, and that's all that matters. I also said he'd make a nice #3. You're the one making stuff up because you're floundering.



Hoodey said:


> I should have mentioned this earlier, and even though you brought up flawed examples, for reasons pointed out earlier, I never said trading for a #2 is bad if you can get one. I'm a big fan of trades like the ones that produced Kevin McHale, Magic, Kobe Bryant, Scottie Pippen etc. In any of those examples, did the GM trade for a player like Kevin Love, pay said player, and then turn around and trade THAT player for a #2?


Miami paid Odom when he was a huge question mark and turned him into Shaq. The Lakers took Kwame Brown, of all people, and packaged him for Pau Gasol. Dallas turned a ton of people they paid into guys that were key to their championship team. 



Hoodey said:


> Oh, and I'm telling you NOW he sucks and that trading him won't work. If I'm wrong, I'll be the first one to admit it. If you're wrong, just so you know, I'm going to remind you every day.
> 
> Do you want to re-evaluate your call there?


No, I don't, because Minnesota is either getting another borderline star like Ibaka and some minor pick(s)/prospects from OKC or a picks/prospects package from someone like Houston that's similar to what you're jonesing for. Well.....either that or the Lakers will get him for nothing somehow. Either way, I'll see you then. 



Hoodey said:


> By the way Dornado, one of two things are going on here. Either Bogg and others like him never necessarily liked Paxson or any of the players acquired or on the teams in the last decade, and just magically showed up here thinking the things Bogg thinks
> 
> OR (and I suspect this is it)
> 
> ...


Christ, you only read what you want to read, don't you? I've said this before - I don't care one way or the other for Chicago's front office. Fire the whole lot of them tomorrow - makes no difference to me, I'm a Boston fan. The fact remains: Chicago has big expiring contracts to play with in the trade market each of the next four seasons, a decent collection of picks and prospects, and a #1 star heading up a perennial playoff team. They're remarkably well-suited to make a strong offer for the next unhappy star that's available for a discount. 

With the new CBA rules coming into full effect next season, teams no longer want to give away first-round picks (and the resulting cap-friendly contracts they produce) for short term gain. If you can get firsts thrown in, then great, but they're really expensive now. 

There's no sense in flipping the Monopoly board and crying because Pat Riley has all the greens and blues - targeting Cousins and first round picks is buying at the absolute top of the market for both because you've run out of patience. Now, if Chicago _isn't_ looking to leverage what they already have into better players out of loyalty or blind optimism, that's a huge mistake as well. They need at least one significant upgrade.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> So many major disconnects between how I and championship GMs think and how you and putzs like Paxson think. Good stuff.


This is the funniest thing I have read in 2013.

Careful folks, as nothing will ever get between him and his ego.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

For future reference the plural of putz is putzes. For current reference it's not a good idea to resort to name calling. It makes your argument seem weak and it is against the rules of this forum to attack other posters.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Related post on Bleacher Report: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-around-derrick-rose-is-harder-than-you-think

Since Hoodey likes to use historical data to make points:


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

yodurk said:


> Related post on Bleacher Report: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-around-derrick-rose-is-harder-than-you-think
> 
> Since Hoodey likes to use historical data to make points:


But this is a bit misleading as well. 

You don't win championships without making trades as well. Jordan was a drafted Superstar but Pippen was a trade. Wade was drafted but to win a title Shaq was traded for and Lebron was acquired via trade as well. The Lakers have won a bunch of titles on the backs of trades. People like to make the Detroit argument but hate to break it to you, Rip, Ben Wallace and Rasheed Wallace were not home grown. The only team that can truly be called a home grown title winner would be the Spurs, who if you remember correctly tanked in order to get a game changer (Something Bulls fans frown upon). 

The Bulls only hope of winning a title as is, is if Lebron leaves the NBA for 2 years like MJ did, which opened the door for the Houston Rockets to win 2 titles.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Related post on Bleacher Report: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-around-derrick-rose-is-harder-than-you-think
> 
> Since Hoodey likes to use historical data to make points:


most of that data is outdated.

free agency has changed a lot since the league started

as this year's champion will in all likelihood be won by a team whose superstar was a free agent acquisition.(heat)

dirk was a draft day trade.

shaq was a free agent acquisition 

the last 13 champions the best player was acquired through trade or free agency for 9 of them.

the last 13 champions the 2nd best player was acquired through trade or free agency in 10 of them, 

outside of the spurs who drafted their best 3 players the only top 2 guy drafted by his franchise was paul pierce

there are deals to be made .

since the end of the 2010 season 

lebron james, carmelo anthony amar'e stoudemire , dwight howard, joe johnson , deron williams chris paul andrew bynum , andre iguodala, david lee tyson chandler have all switched teams

you have guys like josh smith, lamarcus aldridge kevin love who are clearly tradeable.

there are deals that can be made ...the bulls aren't making them.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> most of that data is outdated.
> 
> free agency has changed a lot since the league started
> 
> ...


I agree.

The Spurs are the abnormality in the whole building a title winner formula. The Bulls aren't the Spurs and never will be. The Bulls lack innovation and talent in the front office, how the hell can anyone expect this franchise to reclaim its spot as the NBA's flagship team when you got boring and predictable people running the show?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> But this is a bit misleading as well.
> 
> You don't win championships without making trades as well. Jordan was a drafted Superstar but Pippen was a trade. Wade was drafted but to win a title Shaq was traded for and Lebron was acquired via trade as well. The Lakers have won a bunch of titles on the backs of trades. People like to make the Detroit argument but hate to break it to you, Rip, Ben Wallace and Rasheed Wallace were not home grown. The only team that can truly be called a home grown title winner would be the Spurs, who if you remember correctly tanked in order to get a game changer (Something Bulls fans frown upon).
> 
> The Bulls only hope of winning a title as is, is if Lebron leaves the NBA for 2 years like MJ did, which opened the door for the Houston Rockets to win 2 titles.


It's not misleading if you take it for what it is. The type of trades you're talking about are primarily the addition of supplementary pieces, not the secondary star player that Hoodey keeps saying we can and should get. 

Yes, Shaq (Miami) and Gasol (LA) would fit into the acquired by trade bucket, but Wade, Nowitzki, Kobe, Duncan, Ginobili, Parker, MJ, Pippen, and Olajuwon do not. There are also a bunch of teams that came very close to titles that followed the "homegrown" model. (And though technically Pippen was acquired by trade, let's be realistic here, that was a draft day trade that doesn't fit the larger point of acquiring a secondary star by trade...Pippen was a homegrown product through and through).

Only reason I posted this is b/c statistically it's very hard and unlikely that you win championships by taking the "let's acquire a star via trade or free agency" route. It's obviously happened and is possible, but it is much harder; I suspect that is because you have to give up significant pieces to make that happen, whereas in the draft you aren't giving away anything to acquire your star (much like the Bulls and Rose). The most successful trades that led to titles are often the result of lopsided deals, such as the Lakers giving up only prospects and draft picks for Pau Gasol (which ironically is the exact type of deal we would need to make to acquire a star, e.g., give up Mirotic, Bobcats pick, Teague, etc, for a guy like Kevin Love of whomever else).


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> most of that data is outdated.
> 
> free agency has changed a lot since the league started
> 
> ...


Guys, draft day trades don't count. That writer specifically used the term "homegrown", not "drafted". Acquiring a player before he's even played an NBA game is practically the same as drafting. It is a silly technicality, much like saying the Bulls didn't draft Tyrus Thomas. Kobe does not count. Dirk does not count. Pippen does not count. If anything, this reinforces the writer's point that your best chance at creating a champion is through the draft, or specifically nabbing your superstar before they actually become a superstar. That is the point, not the trivial point of who owned the original draft pick. And please do not say those teams 100% knew they were drafting a superstar. Kobe went 13th in the draft, Dirk 9th, and Scottie 5th. If they were such sure things, they would've gone much higher. 

As for the Heat, they are the biggest free agent coup in NBA history and the definition of an outlier in that we've never seen anything happen like that with 3 superstars agreeing to team up.

Lastly, if you're going into point of "free agency is different now", then it's equally valid to point out that the new CBA has once again changed things where it's even harder to load up on superstars. Not that I'm a guru on the CBA, but I have read stuff from very knowledgeable CBA writers stating the more drastic luxury tax penalties and various constraints with making blockbuster deals that weren't there 2 years ago. It's no coincidence this was the lamest trade deadline we've seen in a long time, as GMs are still figuring out how to make the blockbuster deal in this environment.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> I agree.
> 
> The Spurs are the abnormality in the whole building a title winner formula. The Bulls aren't the Spurs and never will be. The Bulls lack innovation and talent in the front office, how the hell can anyone expect this franchise to reclaim its spot as the NBA's flagship team when you got boring and predictable people running the show?


Seriously? The Bulls and Spurs are FAR more similar than not. Both lucked into a #1 pick and can't miss superstar. Both have a great coach, even with similar styles. Both franchises act very cognizant of cost and try to avoid the luxury tax. Both have strong draft records and have acquired most of their key players through the draft. The Spurs haven't been part of any blockbluster deals that I can recall. They follow a simple formula: draft well, don't spend money like a moron, build a culture, commit to a great coach, surround yourself with good people. Everything they do is practically the same thing the Bulls have done. No coincidence these were 2 of the league's best teams the past 2 years, and I'm sure that would be 3 straight years if not for Rose's ACL tear. The biggest differences are that, a) Tim Duncan in his prime is just flat out better than Derrick Rose; he is the greatest PF of all time and easier to build around; b) the Spurs didn't have to deal with a super team at the magnitude of the current Heat squad (they won titles immediately before and after the Shaq/Kobe Laker dynasty peaked); and c) they won titles by generally staying healthy, which the Bulls have not been able to do.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

yodurk said:


> Seriously? The Bulls and Spurs are FAR more similar than not. Both lucked into a #1 pick and can't miss superstar. Both have a great coach, even with similar styles. Both franchises act very cognizant of cost and try to avoid the luxury tax. Both have strong draft records and have acquired most of their key players through the draft. The Spurs haven't been part of any blockbluster deals that I can recall. They follow a simple formula: draft well, don't spend money like a moron, build a culture, commit to a great coach, surround yourself with good people. Everything they do is practically the same thing the Bulls have done. No coincidence these were 2 of the league's best teams the past 2 years, and I'm sure that would be 3 straight years if not for Rose's ACL tear. The biggest differences are that, a) Tim Duncan in his prime is just flat out better than Derrick Rose; he is the greatest PF of all time and easier to build around; b) the Spurs didn't have to deal with a super team at the magnitude of the current Heat squad (they won titles immediately before and after the Shaq/Kobe Laker dynasty peaked); and c) they won titles by generally staying healthy, which the Bulls have not been able to do.


No, the Bulls lucked into the pick, the Spurs tanked!

I agree about the coaches but Greg Popovich was an actual homegrown coach who has been with the organization since the late 80's. The Bulls could have had Thibs a year earlier but stuck it out with the disaster that was VDN. They lucked into Thibs, seeing as Doug Collins was their #1 choice until he turned them down.

Luxury tax, Small market vs Large Market. The Spurs HAVE TO play it smart, the Bulls *choose *to put financial gain over on the court improvement.

Like I said, the Spurs are the abnormality. When 90% of every-other team is winning titles following a different formula, its just unrealistic to believe that the Bulls can emulate the Spurs way. 



> Guys, draft day trades don't count.


This is silly, of course they COUNT!

That's like saying, Kobe Bryant would not have been one of the games greatest scorers if he wasn't groomed by the Lakers. OF COURSE he would still be one of the games greatest scorers even if he wasn't traded by Charlotte lol.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> This is silly, of course they COUNT!


No, it doesn't count...the writer's point has very little to do with the NBA draft per say. The strategy being advocated is all about getting your superstar BEFORE anyone considers them to be a superstar, thus you bring in your superstar at a mega-bargain value, and at a young age. You give up far less in terms of assets, and maximize the chance of having your superstar for a very long time, potentially their entire career like Kobe, Dirk, and Duncan. Only thing this graph is showing, and that the writer is arguing, is your franchise's best chance as building a title is to lock in your star talent early, ideally in the draft before they step foot in an NBA game. It's way cheaper and has a longer track record of success.



> That's like saying, Kobe Bryant would not have been one of the games greatest scorers if he wasn't groomed by the Lakers. OF COURSE he would still be one of the games greatest scorers even if he wasn't traded by Charlotte lol.


Of course Kobe would've been equally great on whatever team he went to; nobody is arguing otherwise. The benefit of the "homegrown" approach is getting the superstar talent EARLY and CHEAP (i.e., not giving up a ton of significant assets); whereas if you trade for a known superstar, you pay for it dearly with assets and salary cap. The trade value of 18-yr old Kobe Bryant was not remotely close to 28-yr old Kobe Bryant for example. This is nothing to do with grooming them.

Take Kevin Love as another example...if the Bulls want to trade for him NOW, they'd need to give up a significant package like Noah, Mirotic, and multiple picks. But if they made a draft day trade for Love, they might only give up half of that. Or take Noah, I bet he's easy pickings on draft day, whereas now he would net a lot more in a trade. The examples are endless. Of course the downside of this approach is that you are rarely 100% sure of what you're getting; you're dealing with unknown quantities and there is inherent risk. Even with Kobe, there was risk associated with trading a very good center in Divac for an 18-yr high schooler. It obviously paid off in spades but at the time I imagine a number of teams were scared of whiffing badly.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

*Ah NOW we're getting somewhere!! The "you have to be lucky theory." Guess what Pax defenders? Paxson already WAS lucky.*

If the theory goes, "most superstars are high picks in the draft, you can't control that, and therefore it's hard to build around a superstar because it's hard to get one," GUESS WHAT? THAT PART was already taken care of for Paxson, he already LUCKED INTO ROSE, or did you forget that Yodurk? So, all he has to do is get the #2 and #3 to go with Rose.

Now, let's look at how the #2 and #3 most profound players were acquired.

I'm going to mark it as a check FOR (as in for the theory that it's too hard on Paxson) if the player was acquired with a top 3 pick, since you can suck all you want and only guarantee yourself a top 4 pick, and since Paxson has traded for plenty of lotto picks, which is how he GOT DENG AND NOAH TO BEGIN WITH. I'll also give a FOR to anybody acquired through max free agency to a destination more desireable than Chicago like LA, Miami or New York (which is hilarious, because the Knicks haven't won since I was negative 7). I'm also going to go with FOR in the case of a player who FORCED a trade to a warm weather/better destination than Chicago where the team trading him got crap in return. We all know no superstar is going to say, "Trade me to Chicago or I retire" and it's not realistic to expect trades like Kareem to LA.

I'm going to mark the player as AGAINST if he was acquired with the #4 pick or lower (since even if a team is really set on a player, if you want that player, you can just trade assets like Deng, the Charlotte pick, Mirotic and other picks/bad salary in return) to a team in the top 3, where picks are lucked into and more coveted. While Jordan was a #3 pick, the best player picked 4th or lower not out of high school is probably Charles Barkley? The player will also be against if they were acquired in a trade where they were not a future pick.

Team - #2 and #3 (how acquired)
1980 Los Angeles Lakers
Magic Johnson - #1 pick in the 1980 draft, but THAT pick was TRADED FOR, still, okay, I'll count it as a "for" because when the Lakers traded for that pick, they could not have foreseen that it would be the consensus #1 in a year with a player like Magic.
Jamaal Wilkes - Signed as a veteran free agent. Made only $75K his last year with LA.

1981 Boston Celtics 
Robert Parish - Boston traded the #1 pick and the #13 pick in the 1980 draft in an all-time swindling for the ages that returned the #3 pick (some dude named Kevin McHale) and Robert Parish from the Warriors. THIS is the kind of thinking I'm expecting from Paxson that is way better than "let's ride it out with Deng and Noah and see where they take us). He doesn't WANT the dice roll on players who you'd view the same way as Parish and McHale AT THE TIME OF THE TRADE, when no one knew who'd they become, but the signs were there. He thinks Deng and Noah are damn good. He's WRONG.
Cornbread Maxwell - 12th pick of the 1977 NBA draft

For 1, Against 3

1982 Los Angeles Lakers
Magic Johnson - For, really doesn't matter if you decide Magic or Kareem are #2, both would go down as "for" the theory that you can't blame Paxson for not getting them. I'm being fair here.
Jamaal Wilkes - Veteran free agent

For 2, Against 4

1983 Philadelphia 76ers
Julius Erving - Anyone who thinks Moses Malone wasn't the best player on that team is smoking it. I'm going to mark him as for, because is it really realistic to think we're going to "buy Julius Erving from a team who can't afford him?" Really?? It should be noted that Moses Malone would be in the against category, as he was simply a veteran free agent. The Houston Rockets got Caldwell Jones and Rodney McCray as compensation in a deal that appears to have operated like restricted free agency today. But the Pax heads get a "for" here.
Maurice Cheeks - Uh oh. Drafted by the 76ers in the SECOND ROUND. Oops Paxsonites. See, good GMs throughout NBA history get players like Maurice Cheeks, who shot 54.2%! in 83, 52% for his career (when you all want a player who is a 44% FG shooter at 6'10"), and is an all-time leader in steals per game with 2nd round picks. So it is VERY possible, it is now and was then.

For 3, Against 5

1984 Boston Celtics
Kevin McHale - Acquired via trade with GSW
Robert Parish - Acquired via trade with GSW

For 3, Against 7

1985 Los Angeles Lakers
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - Forced trade from Milwaukee, for
James Worthy - #1 pick in the 1982 draft, for

For 5, Against 7

1986 Boston Celtics
Kevin McHale - Acquired via trade with GSW
Robert Parish - Acquired via trade with GSW

For 5, Against 9

1987 Los Angeles Lakers
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - Forced trade from Milwaukee, for
James Worthy - #1 pick in the 1982 draft, for

For 7, Against 9

1988 Los Angeles Lakers
Byron Scott - 2nd on the 88 Lakers in both minutes played and PER to only Magic Johnson, Scott, a #2, was acquired along with Swen Nater for... get this... Eddie Jordan, Norm Nixon, a 1986 2nd rounder and a 1987 2nd rounder. But, alas, this kind of thing can't be done. How unrealistic.
James Worthy - 1982 #1 pick

For 8, Against 10

1989 Detroit Pistons (the Paxson fans aren't going to like this)
Joe Dumars - 18th pick, 1985 NBA draft (can't be done)
Bill Laimbeer - Traded from the Cleveland Cavaliers in 1982 along with Kenny Carr for Phil Hubbard, Paul Mokesky, a 1982 1st round pick and a 1982 2nd round pick. See, this is at the heart of it. McCloskey was the GM that some of you people seem to THINK Paxson is. He's not. He has no balls. 

For 8, Against 12

1990 Detroit Pistons
Joe Dumars - 18th pick, 1985 NBA draft
Dennis Rodman - 27th pick, 1986 NBA draft, Oops, there goes McCloskey again, assembling one of the teams with the highest number of very good players ever without the use of any more "lucky" picks than John Paxson had. The Pistons got lucky with Isiah just like we got lucky with Rose. Everything else was balls and being able to figure out whose good. Paxson falls very short. I'd struggle to take Luol Deng over any player on that team who was better than Mark Aguirre, making it very possible he'd be the #FIVE on that team, and Noah is just Laimbeer without the jumper. That's actually as perfect a comparison as you'll find.

For 8, against 14

1991 Chicago Bulls (it's about to get ugly for the next 8 years in this thing lol)
Scottie Pippen - Traded by the Seattle Supersonics along with a 1989 first round pick to the Chicago Bulls for Olden Polynice, a 1989 first round pick and a 1988 2nd round pick. In Paxson's wildest dreams, or those dreams of his fans who love him with the most desperation, he's never, ever come close to a move this brilliant. NBA front offices were alerted that Pippen was good. Other than Sacramento, Krause was the only GM to take it seriously. He beat Sacramento to Pippen and here we are 6 rings later. What did Krause NOT do that Paxson would have done? He did not overpay some mediocre #3 like Charles Oakley the way Paxson has with Deng and Noah and he did not FAIL to trade for Pippen, instead opting to continuously wait for "2 years from now in free agency."
Horace Grant - 10th pick, 1987 NBA draft, I know... unrealistic

For 8, Against 16

1992 Chicago Bulls
Scottie Pippen - traded with picks for Olden Polynice and a pick
Horace Grant - 10th pick, 1987 NBA draft

For 8, Against 18

1993 Chicago Bulls
Scottie Pippen - traded with picks for Olden Polynice and a pick
Horace Grant - 10th pick, 1987 NBA draft

For 8, Against 20

1994 Houston Rockets
Otis Thorpe - Traded by the Sacramento Kings for Rodney McCray and Jim Peterson
Kenny Smith - Traded by the Atlanta Hawks with Roy Marble for John Lucas, Tim McCormick and a 1st round pick

For 8, Against 22

1995 Houston Rockets 
Clyde Drexler - Traded by the Portland Trailblazers with Tracy Murray for Otis Thorpe, Macelo Nicola and a 1995 1st round draft pick
Kenny Smith - Traded by the Atlanta Hawks with Roy Marble for John Lucas, Tim McCormick and a 1st round pick

For 8, Against 24

1996 Chicago Bulls 
Scottie Pippen - Traded with picks for Olden Polynice and a pick
Dennis Rodman - Traded for Will Perdue
Wow, that Jerry Krause only got lucky on as many players as Paxson did... one, and yet look at the two complimentary players provided by the DAMN GOOD GENERAL MANAGING at a level which Paxson has never displayed. Funny, isn't it?

For 8, Against 26

1997 Chicago Bulls
Scottie Pippen - Traded with picks for Olden Polynice and a pick
Dennis Rodman - Traded for Will Perdue

For 8, Against 28

1998 Chicago Bulls
Scottie Pippen - Traded with picks for Olden Polynice and a pick
Dennis Rodman - Traded for Will Perdue

For 8, Against 30

1999 San Antonio Spurs 
David Robinson - 1st pick, 1989 Draft. Wow! Paxson fans in the "it's unrealistic crowd" got one!
Sean Elliott - 3rd pick, 1989 Draft

For 10, Against 30

2000 Los Angeles Lakers 
Kobe Bryant - Acquired in a trade from Charlotte for Vlade Divac
Glen Rice - Traded by the Charlotte Hornets with BJ Armstrong and JR Reid for Elden Campbell and Eddie Jones

For 10, Against 32

I'm taking a break for lunch and to do some cleaning, but once you get past the fact that you have to get lucky to get your superstar, which Paxson has, we can see it's almost 3 times more likely that the #2 or #3 on a championship team will have been acquired through shrewd, realistic means than through dumb luck. 

Yodurk, you simply start with the idea that you "like Paxson" and work backwards to figure out how you can make that work.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

yodurk said:


> No, it doesn't count...the writer's point has very little to do with the NBA draft per say. The strategy being advocated is all about getting your superstar BEFORE anyone considers them to be a superstar, thus you bring in your superstar at a mega-bargain value, and at a young age. You give up far less in terms of assets, and maximize the chance of having your superstar for a very long time, potentially their entire career like Kobe, Dirk, and Duncan. Only thing this graph is showing, and that the writer is arguing, is your franchise's best chance as building a title is to lock in your star talent early, ideally in the draft before they step foot in an NBA game. It's way cheaper and has a longer track record of success.


Hilarious that you and I, that is, if you agree with the writer, are actually advocating the same thing. 

We should trade for a player who is much less thought of than he will be when he IS a star in his prime, or known to be someone who will be a star. The problem is, Paxson isn't doing this.

The problem with signing Deng and Noah to deals above their real value instead of saying "here is a low ball offer, take it or leave it" is that with Noah and Deng, you win, giving you lower picks and making it less likely that you will get a pick good enough to draft a #2 star. This would be fine IF AND ONLY IF Noah and/or Deng WERE a #2 star. That's been my point for years. If you're going to get locked into a team, the guys you get locked into BETTER DAMN WELL BE your Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant. If not, you can only sign them to deals so cheap that even if you win and are no longer drafting high, you have tons of cap space on an annual basis and 5-7 years of ALWAYS being under the cap by enough to offer a max deal. You would then ONLY OFFER A MAX DEAL to a guy who you KNEW would be your Scottie Pippen, because if you offer Carlos Boozer, what happens when a guy like Pippen is available the following year.

This would be why OKC not only sucked to stockpile lotto picks, but paid nobody any more than $6 mill for the first few years of Durant's career. 

Your link essentially made my point for me and you offered it to argue against me when the approach in it is the opposite approach taken by Paxson. 

You realize that your argument falls apart because the idiot you support locks up NON superstar talent for low-level #2 salary, right? And that he's done so with THREE players that Scottie Pippen, Kobe Bryant, Kevin McHale, Paul Pierce, Clyde Drexler, etc. would eat alive, right? LMFAO at Luol Deng trying to even look pedestrian in Scottie Pippen's world. We know how that would end, we've already seen the Knicks get rid of Xavier McDaniel Deng because of how much Pippen exposed him in 92.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Bogg said:


> I'm a Celtics fan, so if you're calling me out on not decrying the Deng signing in 07........yea, I was pretty excited about finally cashing in all those chips for Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett, so I wasn't paying much attention to anyone else. Don't worry, nobody's making a run at your "Bulls fan #1" throne.


I'm not a #1 fan. #1 fans think this team is going to do something they aren't.

The problem with Allen and Garnett is that you can't plan on acquiring that many assets. You say we can't suck with Rose on the team, but we're going to pick up Al Jefferson and trade for Garnett??



> You could get a pick with mild protection, or two protected picks, but the days of cellar-dwellers giving up the #2 pick in the draft for decent veterans are over. Charlotte and Orlando weren't able to even get a very late first round pick in a weak draft for Gerald Henderson and JJ Redick - two very serviceable veterans. I don't get your infatuation with Derozan, but yea, he's available if you can put together the right package.


I am advocating a strategy of Noah or Deng, the Charlotte pick, Mirotic and taking back bad salary for Cousins.

Sacramento gets
Noah
Mirotic
Charlotte pick
2013 Bulls pick

Bulls get
Cousins
Salmons




> If Rose is still a franchise player, that's still a playoff team - you aren't getting a couple of swings at the top of the lottery by doing this. You're essentially betting the entire thing on Derrick Coleman. I have no problem picking up Cousins for roleplayers and picks if he's available, but cashing in all your chips for him (and that's what it would take to get him) is an enormous gamble that's unlikely to pay off.


Then tell me how we're going to trade for Allen and Garnett if we aren't going to get the type of lotto players Boston need TO trade for them? It seems an odd thing you're advocating? Are Deng and Noah going to get us Garnett? Work out the logic of your argument before you bring it to me. Your argument amounts to: "Don't eat bread ever, but have a sandwich on ... bread."

This team has no chips. Gibson and Butler are the only players besides Rose who would occupy the same roles on that many championship teams. Noah and Deng would be the 5th best player on the 89 Pistons.

Derrick Coleman was 6'10" 230. Cousins is 6'11" 280. If Coleman was that size things would have been much different for him I promise you. Do you think Bynum outwrestles Perkins for control of the paint if he's 240. Do you not recognize what a pivotal battle that was in 2010?



> That was all about the Lakers getting Gasol, but nice dodge. Pau was a good sidekick who couldn't do anything more than secure a bottom playoff seed and get swept in the first round when leading his own team. _Those_ players do become available pretty regularly. The Kobe/Pau Lakers were put together by leveraging a big expiring contract along with picks/prospects, even though you said only Boston had done that...


Ha ha, apples and oranges. You used "prospects" as if all prospects are created equally. I'd call Al Jefferson a prospect at the time with potential who was panning out. He had averaged 16 PPG, 11 RPG and shot 51.4% as a 22 year old. At his size that's good. Prior to that trade, what had Kwame Brown done per his age that was that impressive?

I think you can plan for the Gasol trade. You cannot plan to have enough that you can give up to make the Garnett trade AND THEN turn around and make the Allen trade. 

I am ALL FOR trading for a player like Gasol and think it's very realistic. If I believed we could bank on the acquisition of Garnett AND Allen without giving up Rose I'd be excited. 

My problem isn't with trading for Gasol, it's with holding chips too long. We need to get that #2 in here and have him start playing with Rose. 

Because in my estimation the way we really get Miami is that I see a chance that Bosh leaves Miami to be his own man. He can make a LOT more elsewhere and many NBA fans I know comment on how he seems like a fish out of water on that team in terms of the personalities. If we can get him or even if we plan well and he leaves Miami, we could have a shot at Lebron and an aging Wade in the playoffs. 



> ..._and_ despite your best attempts at misdirection by making the Pistons argument into Kevin Love, Detroit is another team that vaulted themselves from playoff also-rans to champions without bottoming out.


Bottoming out isn't my primary desire. I want to trade for a Cousins type, and if, in the process, the worst thing that happens is that we end up in the lotto, it's still better than being locked into Deng and Noah. 

The Pistons pulled off a great trade for Wallace. Paxson would never do that and has never done anything like that. Wallace, and you can ask the Bulls fans here, isn't a "Pax type player" after all. 



> Hey, _you're_ the one saying that Boston was the only team who leveraged everything into a title. Don't get pissy when a champion did that without fitting the parameters you want them to. Chandler and Marion made up the backbone of the defense that got Dallas a championship, and if you want to whine about it because they're uncomfortably similar to the guys you don't like on this team, then tough. They won a title.


Boston was the only team to get a #2 and #3 that good from assets who were not capable contending players on the Celtics at that time, and so no, it's not realistic to bank on that.

What we need is a Scottie Pippen type talent. And that's all you can get is a talent (remember he was very raw when he got to Chicago). If someone was already as good as Pippen the player in 1991, you'd never get them. You try to trade for that type of physical talent that he was in 87 or 89.

So, I shoot Chandler and Marion down because that is not what we need. Lebron is better than Rose, so we need a #2 and #3 better than Wade and Bosh. Chandler and Marion don't cut it. So that is not an example of the kind of thing WE would want to do. 



> What I said was that Kevin Love is going to force his way out of Minny, and that he would be an upgrade on Boozer. If you can get him for Boozer and leftovers, you've made the team better, and that's all that matters. I also said he'd make a nice #3. You're the one making stuff up because you're floundering.


We don't need a #3. We need a #2. "Better" isn't good enough if we're many miles away from Miami instead of many MANY miles away. 



> Miami paid Odom when he was a huge question mark and turned him into Shaq. The Lakers took Kwame Brown, of all people, and packaged him for Pau Gasol. Dallas turned a ton of people they paid into guys that were key to their championship team.


But that's not what Boston did. They sucked for years even with Paul Pierce, got a bunch of high picks, had those players play on the team and then traded some for two big time stars. I'm all for Noah, who we acquired, going for Gasol or some player like the player he was. I'm not for acquiring lotto picks so that 5 years from now we can hopefully move them for Garnett and Allen. It's a longer process than we need to go through. You're turning that into "hoodey is against any trade for a #2 player" when I started off saying that was exactly what I want. You're using trades I'd LOVE For us to make as if I'm against the trade part. I'm against flip player into picks, flip picks into players, suck, suck, suck, and finally have SO many spare parts that you can get two disgruntled superstar caliber players in one summer. NO ONE has gotten TWO superstar caliber players in one summer. You've turned that into, "No one can trade for a #2 and it's a bad idea to try." Read the beginning of the thread! That's exactly what I want.

Except I think, as yodurk said, that you get more value trying to figure out who will be a #2 TOMORROW, than trading for that guy now. If a guy is already a #2, odds are there is some really bad thing that comes with the deal, i.e. he's declining with an albatross contract, etc.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Damn I'd guess that Sacramento would take that deal. That's a hell of a lot more than I'd give up for Cousins. I sure as hell don't see how it makes you as good as the Heat, or even better for that matter. 

Noah is one hell of a lot better than Cousins as far as I can tell. It's not even remotely close and Bulls fans should realize that before everyone else. Deng is bettter than him also. Sure he might be better some day in the distant future, but it looks less likely all the time. That's a silly trade.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Diable said:


> Damn I'd guess that Sacramento would take that deal. That's a hell of a lot more than I'd give up for Cousins. I sure as hell don't see how it makes you as good as the Heat, or even better for that matter.
> 
> Noah is one hell of a lot better than Cousins as far as I can tell. It's not even remotely close and Bulls fans should realize that before everyone else. Deng is bettter than him also. Sure he might be better some day in the distant future, but it looks less likely all the time. That's a silly trade.


But this is what Yodurk is talking about. I've identified Cousins as a player that I bet is pretty good now, but has the physical tools to be a #2 on a title team in 3-4 years. Comparing him to Noah at age 27 is stupid because Cousins, if he's like almost all players who are producing at age 22, is going to be a much better player at age 27.

Let's compare Cousins, age 22, to Noah at age Twenty TWO and see about your love for Laimbeer without the jumper (Noah).

Joakim Noah, age 22, 2008 Chicago Bulls
6.6 PPG 5.6 RPG 1.1 APG 0.9 SPG 0.9 BPG 48.2% FG 69.1% FT

DeMarcus Cousins, age 22, 2013 Sacramento Kings
17.1 PPG 9.9 RPG 2.7 APG 1.5 SPG 0.8 BPG 46.3% FG 73.5% FT

With his scoring punch he is like the best of Noah and Boozer together going into the future and probably better. You can match Cousins up with the undersized athletic Gibson and not worry that you're going to take a beating in the frontcourt.

But, you're right, at age 27, Joakim Noah is somewhat better in his prime than Cousins is at college age. Kind of like at age 27, Reggie Miller was better than Scottie Pippen at age 22.

Did you know that at age 24, Clyde Drexler was better than Kobe Bryant was at age 19?


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

That's an inane argument, because it doesn't even discuss how good they are as players on a basketball court. I don't really care much about how good Cousins looks on a sheet of paper. Aside from that you're forgetting to talk about minutes per game...I would kindly ask that you post their per 36 numbers for us. I don't think that would suit your purpose however. In fact I am pretty sure you'll feel rather silly if you weren't being completely dishonest in ignoring the fact that Noah was playing 20 minutes per game as a rookie.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Diable said:


> That's an inane argument, because it doesn't even discuss how good they are as players on a basketball court. I don't really care much about how good Cousins looks on a sheet of paper. Aside from that you're forgetting to talk about minutes per game...I would kindly ask that you post their per 36 numbers for us. I don't think that would suit your purpose however. In fact I am pretty sure you'll feel rather silly if you weren't being completely dishonest in ignoring the fact that Noah was playing 20 minutes per game as a rookie.


Okay, per 36 numbers

Cousins
20.0 PPG 11.6 RPG 3.2 APG 1.7 SPG 0.8 BPG

Noah
11.6 PPG 10.9 RPG 3.9 APG 1.2 SPG 2.1 BPG

Major problem for you here, those are Noah's numbers NOW. 8.4 fewer PP36 despite being in his prime and being compared to a player who is college age?

And as for how they look on the floor? Cousins looks like Andrew Bynum if he wasn't coached by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in the post and Noah looks like Bill Laimbeer without a jumper. 

To you, Noah is this great player because you like him. To those without a personal interest in him, he's just Bill Laimbeer without a jumper. 

By the way, going to numbers per 36 is faulty because it assumes that that player is good enough to be playing 36 minutes and not seeing his contribution drop as energy needs to be expended over a longer period of time. If Noah was good enough to play 36, why wasn't he?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

And obviously Diable, you start off with an offer of a trade without the Charlotte pick, and then add it if needed. 

Who are you proposing we trade for instead?

And don't give me this crap about the 2014 free agent market.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Did you ever actually watch Bill Laimbeer?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> No, it doesn't count...the writer's point has very little to do with the NBA draft per say. The strategy being advocated is all about getting your superstar BEFORE anyone considers them to be a superstar, thus you bring in your superstar at a mega-bargain value, and at a young age. You give up far less in terms of assets, and maximize the chance of having your superstar for a very long time, potentially their entire career like Kobe, Dirk, and Duncan. Only thing this graph is showing, and that the writer is arguing, is your franchise's best chance as building a title is to lock in your star talent early, ideally in the draft before they step foot in an NBA game. It's way cheaper and has a longer track record of success.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yes it does count , the lakers still had to give away a 28 year old all star caliber center which is about the going rate for a 5-10 pick now...depending on the strength of the draft.

whereas all a franchise has to do is exist for 365 days to get a 1st rounder.

and there is uncertainty with any trade ...and trade value is determined by a lot of factors, kevin love on his rookie deal is worth more than kevin love today.

and on draft day it depends on who is available and how much you are willing to give up for him,that player(s) perceived value just like any other trade.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Dornado said:


> Did you ever actually watch Bill Laimbeer?


Yes, I did. 

Bill Laimbeer, Age 27 - 1984-85 Detroit Pistons
17.5 PPG 12.4 RPG 1.9 APG 0.8 SPG 0.9 APG 50.6% FG 79.7% FT 18.0 PER 
54.8% TS

Joakim Noah, Age 27 - 2012-13 Chicago Bulls
12.1 PPG 11.4 RPG 4.1 APG 1.2 SPG 2.2 BPG 47.8% FG 76.0% FT 18.1 PER
53.1% TS

Laimbeer could get his scoring going a little farther from the basket, but both were light in the rear end and neither was going to get a back to the basket game going. Both were defensive agitators in terms of their style of play. Noah is more athletic, but not so much as to offset Laimbeer's fundamental surplus (see for example jumpshooting). 

You wouldn't look at either stat line and see a huge difference in any direction. Noah has much higher APG, but Laimbeer played with a guy who had 13.9 APG that year. Noah has more BPG by double, Laimbeer was notorious for defensive positioning that forced bad shots. And unlike Noah, Laimbeer had a knack for getting under his opponents skin a la Rodman.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

If it wasnt for the character issues, 100% of NBA GM's would take Cousins over Noah, its not even debatable.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> Yes, I did.
> 
> Bill Laimbeer, Age 27 - 1984-85 Detroit Pistons
> 17.5 PPG 12.4 RPG 1.9 APG 0.8 SPG 0.9 APG 50.6% FG 79.7% FT 18.0 PER
> ...


They were totally different players... it is a bizarre comparison. Also, it is important to note when looking at the stats you posted that the '84-'85 Pistons scored 116 ppg and gave up 113 ppg (by comparison this years Bulls score 92 and give up 92)... if you're not accounting for pace, you're not having an honest conversation about the numbers (edit to add: I guess it is reflected in the fact that Noah had the higher PER).


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Dornado said:


> They were totally different players... it is a bizarre comparison. Also, it is important to note when looking at the stats you posted that the '84-'85 Pistons scored 116 ppg and gave up 113 ppg (by comparison this years Bulls score 92 and give up 92)... if you're not accounting for pace, you're not having an honest conversation about the numbers (edit to add: I guess it is reflected in the fact that Noah had the higher PER).


My point is simply this. Of course they are not exactl alike in their styles, very few players are. If you take a list of centers who are any good, Bill Laimbeer is his ceiling. There are no centers better than Bill Laimbeer where you're going to say, "yes, Joakim Noah can do the things THAT guy did." Except, it's even worse because he can't shoot like Laimbeer. Now, if you could sit there and say, "okay, but he's got the ability to muscle people like Ewing or he's the athlete David Robinson is, or "he's silky smooth in the post like Pau Gasol (who, like Duncan, is a bigger player than Noah who only has played the four because of the presence of fives like Robinson and Bynum)." 

I suppose another comparison of body frame in terms of a center might be Brad Daugherty, but he's not that good.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Hoodey said:


> The problem with Allen and Garnett is that you can't plan on acquiring that many assets. You say we can't suck with Rose on the team, but we're going to pick up Al Jefferson and trade for Garnett??


Chicago's only a player away, so they only need to swing one trade that upgrades the roster. Like it or not, each of the next three years they're going to have a borderline all-star on a big expiring deal coupled with mid-level prospects and multiple picks to play with. They're _already_ well-situated to make a trade. You have to package less with a peaking Luol Deng than you do with a back-is-so-bad-he-can't-suit-up Theo Ratliff to get an unhappy star. Especially if you're buying low instead of breaking the bank to get one guy you've got tunnel vision for. 





Hoodey said:


> I am advocating a strategy of Noah or Deng, the Charlotte pick, Mirotic and taking back bad salary for Cousins.
> 
> Sacramento gets
> Noah
> ...


_If_ SAC/SEA made Cousins available, and all indications are that you'd have to blow them away for them to even consider it, they'd probably look at that. However, you're betting the future on Cousins, and I think he's five or more years away from being in the mental state to handle the culture that Thibs and Rose have created. If Cousins blossoms into the top center in the league, it's a gamble you've won, but you're about as likely to cripple the team and ruin the defense for the next several years. So, yea, it's a gamble with a potentially big payoff, but it's no sure thing. 





Hoodey said:


> This team has no chips.


You're just flat-out wrong here. Borderline all-stars, mid-level prospects, multiple firsts. If you're patient and strike when the time is right, you're in play for the next available star. 



Hoodey said:


> Do you think Bynum outwrestles Perkins for control of the paint if he's 240. Do you not recognize what a pivotal battle that was in 2010?


Bynum _didn't_ out-wrestle Perkins for control of the paint. Perkins blew out his knee early in game six with the C's up 3-2. The rebounding battle swung heavily in favor of LA because Bynum and Gasol were both a half-foot taller than Glen Davis, despite Davis weighing about as much as either of them.





Hoodey said:


> Ha ha, apples and oranges. You used "prospects" as if all prospects are created equally. I'd call Al Jefferson a prospect at the time with potential who was panning out. He had averaged 16 PPG, 11 RPG and shot 51.4% as a 22 year old. At his size that's good. Prior to that trade, what had Kwame Brown done per his age that was that impressive?


LA got Gasol for an expiring contract and some okay prospects, yes or no? (Granted, his brother panned out excellently, but was a fat guy in the Spanish league at the time)



Hoodey said:


> I think you can plan for the Gasol trade. You cannot plan to have enough that you can give up to make the Garnett trade AND THEN turn around and make the Allen trade.


I assume you mean that _this_ Chicago team can't plan on making two big trades, because in a general sense you certainly can. Still debatable - Jimmy Butler has a good playoffs and suddenly he's very attractive, or he frees up Deng to be shipped out for Pau. 



Hoodey said:


> The Pistons pulled off a great trade for Wallace. Paxson would never do that and has never done anything like that. Wallace, and you can ask the Bulls fans here, isn't a "Pax type player" after all.
> 
> So, I shoot Chandler and Marion down because that is not what we need. Lebron is better than Rose, so we need a #2 and #3 better than Wade and Bosh. Chandler and Marion don't cut it. So that is not an example of the kind of thing WE would want to do.


Both those teams got over the hump through trades. You said Boston was the only team to do it. It doesn't matter whether or not the exact player those teams got is the exact player Chicago needs.




Hoodey said:


> Boston was the only team to get a #2 and #3 that good from assets who were not capable contending players on the Celtics at that time, and so no, it's not realistic to bank on that.


Chicago already has two or three #3s. All they need is a #2. I thought they should have gotten in on the Dwight Howard bidding last year. James Harden would have been nice this summer, but the contracts they had didn't line up as well as Houston. There will be another guy that comes available that wasn't supposed to be available - maybe it's Cousins and he puts it all together. Point is, Chicago needs one upgrade and has to tools to do it, it's just on the front office to do it.




Hoodey said:


> We don't need a #3. We need a #2. "Better" isn't good enough if we're many miles away from Miami instead of many MANY miles away.


If you can get better, you get better, and then you keep looking for additional moves to make. What you don't do is handicap yourself by focusing in on one specific move you "have" to make and wind up missing out on other opportunities. 





Hoodey said:


> But that's not what Boston did. They sucked for years even with Paul Pierce, got a bunch of high picks, had those players play on the team and then traded some for two big time stars.


That's not what Boston did at all. They were an up-and-down playoff team for years that underachieved in 2006 and had the wheels fall off due to injury in 2007 (Pierce, Szczerbiak, Ratliff, and an emerging Tony Allen all missed a ton of time). They were truly bad for only that one year, in 2007. They traded out of the lottery in 2006 to dump a year off of Raef Lafrentz's contract with an eye toward having two big expirings in the summer of 2007. Delonte West was picked in the twenties. Al Jefferson and Gerald Green were both picked in the mid-to-late teens. Ryan Gomes was a second-rounder. Jeff Green was the only guy taken in the lottery by Boston to get traded, and his being taken by Boston was only technicality - they were going to take Yi with that pick if they kept it(Doc admitted so in an interview). The Celtics had one good prospect, one valuable pick (the fifth in a two-or-three-player draft, by the way, so it wasn't a trump card) and a whole bunch of expirings and filler, not some huge cache of lottery talent that they swapped out for stars. Hell, even Rondo was taken in the twenties. Ainge was just smart enough to bide his time and buy low.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

I'll answer you more later, but right now I'm taking the kids to basketball. Look, nobody views Luol Deng and Joakim Noah as potential #2s or anything close to it. So, let's forget the idea that they have this insane value. However, I don't really know what our major disagreement is here. You're saying trade them, I'm saying trade them. Do we disagree that you should trade them for younger, unproven risk types (my opinion) where you're saying package their expiring deals for CURRENT #2s? 

If that is what you're saying, I put my chips on the table and named a name in Cousins. Who, if you're taking this "the Bulls can get an established #2"/"the one guy they don't have that they're 'away from' (beating Miami.. LOL)" then who is that guy? I'd like to know. 

Because of currently established players, I think you MAY be talking about potentially Dwight Howard (a center like him with a coach like D'Antoni IS the definition of oil and water... it's like having Rick Pitino coach Kareem), Carmelo Anthony (will never be a champion #1), Roy Hibbert (because of his size, and that' still a huge reach.. before you knock it, I AM knocking it), Andrew Bynum (health), Russell Westbrook (in my book insufficient), Chris Bosh (actually the most real possibility, but Miami won't trade him, you'll have to get under the cap and sign him). I'm jarring my brain right now, but that appears to be about it. Who are you suggesting? 

Just so you know, Bosh is my plan regardless. Even if we traded for Cousins I'm all for begging, borrowing and stealing to get into the Bosh sweepstakes. Mostly because of the "hey, you're on the fringe there, HERE you can be THE guy (since Rose is a PG, an inherently "I don't have to be the guy because I'm the facilitator" position, and also, unlike the facilitator Lebron, not THE global NBA icon)" and more importantly because you not only help yourself but you hurt Miami.

If Cousins turns out just to be Andrew Bynum with 6% lower FG% and you have Rose and Bosh in the starting lineup, you could role with Jimmy Butler at the 2 or 3, my dad at the other position and a bunch of our grandparents and uncles coming off the bench and win rings.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Hoodey said:


> I'll answer you more later, but right now I'm taking the kids to basketball. Look, nobody views Luol Deng and Joakim Noah as potential #2s or anything close to it. So, let's forget the idea that they have this insane value.


It's not about them having such insane value that you can pick and choose anyone from any roster. It's that they're both very competent starters whose value will be augmented by being expiring contracts. Even if you can't build a team around them, you have to package less value in terms of prospects and picks to a guy that ownership can sell to their fans as a possible all-star than you do a deadweight contract like Theo Ratliff, Wally Szczerbiak, or Kwame Brown. If you keep working the market and take advantage of a team dealing from a position of weakness, you can get quite a bit back for one of them packaged with picks and/or some combination of Mirotic/Butler/Teague.




Hoodey said:


> However, I don't really know what our major disagreement is here. You're saying trade them, I'm saying trade them. Do we disagree that you should trade them for younger, unproven risk types (my opinion) where you're saying package their expiring deals for CURRENT #2s?


Trade for an established star _or_ for a young guy who's a potential stud - they're both solid moves. I think where we're disagreeing is over whether Chicago has the assets to make a major move right now and whether they're better off making the move _right now_ or if patience will get them a better deal down the road.

My main point is that it's not some doom-and-gloom scenario. Realistically, and assuming Rose comes back at close to full speed, they're the second-best team in the East and one of the top-five squads in the league. They've got a #1 star in place on a long-term deal and a respected coach. The Bulls are going to be very attractive to the next top-20 guy who demands a trade, and they have the assets to put together a competitive package. It's on the front office to continue to improve the roster, but they can afford to wait until the time is right.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

Bogg said:


> Realistically, and assuming Rose comes back at close to full speed, they're the second-best team in the East and one of the top-five squads in the league. They've got a #1 star in place on a long-term deal and a respected coach. The Bulls are going to be very attractive to the next top-20 guy who demands a trade, and they have the assets to put together a competitive package.


We had that option before. Did we land James or Bosh or somebody else … or did we pursue a meaningful trades ?!

Am I missing something ?


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Bulls96 said:


> We had that option before. Did we land James or Bosh or somebody else … or did we pursue a meaningful trades ?!
> 
> Am I missing something ?


Like I said, I don't care one way or another for the front office. If you and Hoodey want to get together and badmouth Paxson, that's fine by me. However, to say that the team _can't_ swing a major trade or that nobody's built a real contender that way isn't correct.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Bulls96 said:


> We had that option before. Did we land James or Bosh or somebody else … or did we pursue a meaningful trades ?!
> 
> Am I missing something ?


I'd second this. Bogg, why not a dual approach?

Trade Noah in a deal that brings you back a DeMarcus Cousins and then Deng still expires next year. 

The question is, what happens if nothing turns up trade wise or in the summer of 2014? 

You don't have as much time as you think. Michael Jordan was in the league how long when he got Scottie Pippen? 3-4 years? And it took them till his 8th year to win it? He was 28..


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Bogg said:


> Like I said, I don't care one way or another for the front office. If you and Hoodey want to get together and badmouth Paxson, that's fine by me. However, to say that the team _can't_ swing a major trade or that nobody's built a real contender that way isn't correct.


Well of course, you're still not listening. I never said nobody has done it that way. I said nobody has done it the way Boston did it. If we end up trading anything we have on the roster and salvaging Rose, and we end up with Garnett AND Allen (obviously players of their quality), I'll eat crow.

As far as what I'm questioning, it's not whether or not this roster has the potential for a major trade. I'm questioning the plan of this front office. If you're not against that, then fine, so be it. But that's my beef. Because let me say this right now for the record. My contention is that Paxson doesn't think a major trade is needed. I assert that he thinks Deng and Noah are really good. And this can be backed up by people who cover the team locally saying things like, "look, Paxson falls in love with his own players" (as in, the players he's drafted), - Mark Schanowsky.

And, further, if there is a trade made, I think Paxson's vision will to be to trade for Love.. but not as you say a temporary upgrade for Boozer who you can then parlay into Garnett, but rather as the final solution. And you can clearly see that when you listen to idiots like Boers and Bernstein (670 AM, Chicago) asserting that Rose and Love are not only good enough to win rings, but almost a home run. And these two, in terms of that assertion, have disciples on this board. 

I'd love to see a frontcourt rotation of Cousins, Bosh and Gibson, because you can exploit any team with different rotations there, Rose in the backcourt controlling the ball and getting into the paint, and then a bunch of guys who play defense and hit the open shot..


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

Bogg said:


> Like I said, I don't care one way or another for the front office... However, to say that the team _can't_ swing a major trade or that nobody's built a real contender that way isn't correct.


The problem that only a front office can do “swinging” and winning a championship is not their top priority. 

We all respect the fact that it is a business decision and for unknown reason, Bulls organization does no see any dividend in getting the title … only hustle enough 
to keep the hope alive.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Hoodey said:


> Well of course, you're still not listening. I never said nobody has done it that way. I said nobody has done it the way Boston did it. If we end up trading anything we have on the roster and salvaging Rose, and we end up with Garnett AND Allen (obviously players of their quality), I'll eat crow.
> 
> As far as what I'm questioning, it's not whether or not this roster has the potential for a major trade. I'm questioning the plan of this front office. If you're not against that, then fine, so be it. But that's my beef. Because let me say this right now for the record. My contention is that Paxson doesn't think a major trade is needed. I assert that he thinks Deng and Noah are really good. And this can be backed up by people who cover the team locally saying things like, "look, Paxson falls in love with his own players" (as in, the players he's drafted), - Mark Schanowsky.
> 
> ...



Fair enough. I think Chicago dropped the ball not building a package around Noah and Deng (back when they had Asik to throw into a trade as well) to bring back Dwight and some roleplayers. If you think they're not active enough, and not that they don't have the pieces, I suppose we're done here.


----------



## bullsger (Jan 14, 2003)

Bulls96 said:


> Did we land James or Bosh or somebody else … or did we pursue a meaningful trades ?!


I'm sure that the Bulls really tried to sign James, Bosh or someone else. But you need the Bulls and the player to sign it. If the player don't sign that doesn't necessary means that the Bulls offer wasn't the best. 

Same thing with a trade. Perhaps they had a big trade deal and another team just backed off. Who knows...


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

bullsger said:


> I'm sure that the Bulls really tried to sign James, Bosh or someone else. But you need the Bulls and the player to sign it. If the player don't sign that doesn't necessary means that the Bulls offer wasn't the best.
> 
> Same thing with a trade. Perhaps they had a big trade deal and another team just backed off. Who knows...


Please see... Alec Baldwin, glengarry glen ross


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> Please see... Alec Baldwin, glengarry glen ross



Ha. That's like citing Michael Douglas in Wall Street. It misses the entire point of the work.


----------



## bullsger (Jan 14, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> Please see... Alec Baldwin, glengarry glen ross


??


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

bullsger said:


> ??



He's referencing the "coffee is for closers" scene in that movie, one presumes. Basically, the point he's making is results matter, not attempts, and Paxson should not be given credit for going after James but failing.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> Ha. That's like citing Michael Douglas in Wall Street. It misses the entire point of the work.


So you're saying I can't cite Alec Baldwin in that movie because it lacks justice to the movie as a whole?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

There's a problem with this virtual credit for Paxson. This credit that says, "if Lebron didn't want to play here, then it's like Paxson actually signed him, because if Lebron did want to play here, he would have."

It reminds me of "well, Kobe didn't win a championship without Shaq, but since Jordan had Pippen, it's like Kobe actually did win championships in every season in which he did have Shaq."

Or, ex Purdue football coach Danny Hope. When a Purdue QB was say, 18-38 passing, but receivers dropped 5 passes, Danny Hope would correct reporters and say, "no, Caleb Terbush was really 23-38 passing."

It would be one thing if this guy was getting players like Joe Dumars or Tony Parker with picks below the 14th pick or getting Pippen for Polynice, Bryant for Divac or Rodman for Perdue, but he's never made a move even close to this good. 

If he was ripping moves off like this, then yes, I could see the presumption that Lebron not wanting to play here might be Lebron's problem, and not call into question Paxson's ability to close.

Question Jnr... if you're a GM, you have value no different from a player. So,...

a) If you're not going to sell big time free agents, fine, BUT THEN, if additionally
b) You're not getting tremendous franchise #2 value with picks all over the board (at least one or two times in a decade) AND
c) You're not ripping teams off in trades like Pippen for Polynice, McHale and Parish for a pick swap and another pick, the pick that eventually nets Magic and another top pick for an aging Gail Goodrich

WHAT *IS* YOUR value?

Does not any GM who wants to be a champion, especially when they have lucked into a player like Derrick Rose, have to excel in ONE of these three areas?


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> ...
> Does not any GM who wants to be a champion, especially when they have lucked into a player like Derrick Rose, have to excel in ONE of these three areas?


:yep:


----------



## bullsger (Jan 14, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> He's referencing the "coffee is for closers" scene in that movie, one presumes. Basically, the point he's making is results matter, not attempts, and Paxson should not be given credit for going after James but failing.


Ok.

Results matter. That is right, but we don't have the information about why the result aren't there. I don't think that it is always only the Bulls fault.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

bullsger said:


> Ok.
> 
> Results matter. That is right, but we don't have the information about why the result aren't there. I don't think that it is always only the Bulls fault.


But "not their fault" doesn't mean they get credit either.

"Its not their fault they didn't trade for pippen ... so basically its like they traded for pippen "


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Another windmill slain.


----------



## bullsger (Jan 14, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> But "not their fault" doesn't mean they get credit either.


Right they can't get credit only for trying. Credit only for achievements.




Hoodey said:


> There's a problem with this virtual credit for Paxson. This credit that says, "if Lebron didn't want to play here, then it's like Paxson actually signed him, because if Lebron did want to play here, he would have."
> 
> It reminds me of "well, Kobe didn't win a championship without Shaq, but since Jordan had Pippen, it's like Kobe actually did win championships in every season in which he did have Shaq."


I don't say that a try it's like signing a player. 

Not signing James, Bosh... is a failure. But not necessarily a 100% Bulls management failure. 

It's easy to judge someone. But is that judgment correct?

Without background knowledge, it is difficult to make an objective judgment. It is only a subjective opinion of you.

I can only hope that they doing all they can do to make this team better and better...


----------



## bullsger (Jan 14, 2003)

Dornado said:


> Another windmill slain.


:yes:


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Dornado said:


> Another windmill slain.


Explain?

On bulls forums including this one there has not been, for 9 years:

1) the presumption that paxson/garpax are not only not bad but really good
2) the presumption that they have any kind of championship plan
3) the presumption that they have any value

If paxson did the same things, but if his name was krause, people would be pissed.

I present you 1991, when.. if the bulls did not beat Detroit, the team was going to be broken up. Hell if Paxil was the GM there would be talks of the 93 free agents and a 94 pick from a bad team


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> Explain?
> 
> On bulls forums including this one there has not been, for 9 years:
> 
> ...


If a healthy Bulls team had a 40% chance to beat the Heat, you would dismantle the team? Your all or nothing evaluation of every little detail is what drives people on this board nuts:

Didn't pay Ben Gordon.

Paid too much for Kirk Hinrich.

Paid too much for Noah.

Paid too much for Deng.

Paid too much for Boozer

Didn't re-sign Asik.

Lucked in to Rose.

Gibson and Butler don't count as good picks because they are role players.

Breaking up the bench mob.

You act as though Paxson is just a figurehead on autopilot, and will take the negative stance on any Bulls move. It's comical.

I suppose he lucked into trading Eddy Curry and Tyrus Thomas as well.

The one move I absolutely Paxson made was trading LaMarcus Aldridge for Tyrus Thomas. The second one was trading away Tyson Chandler for what was ultimately Ben Wallace. Both were moves to take a chance to improve the team/talent, which is the largest criticism you seem to have of Paxson. Unfortunately, we struck out in the draft and in FA in both of those instances.

What stars have been traded in recent Bulls history that we should have gotten in on? James Harden is the only one I can think of, but would Oklahoma City even considered trading with a contender even if from the other conference? Dwight Howard, sure...that said, if what we heard about him not wanting to play in Chicago is true, then I would not have traded for him either.

Your contention that everyone but yourself are blind Paxson lovers is tired, overdone, and not true. If your problem is with the people on realgm, go post over there. I don't know one person that is still a regular on this board that blindly supports everything Paxson does.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> So you're saying I can't cite Alec Baldwin in that movie because it lacks justice to the movie as a whole?



I'm saying that invoking him misses the entire point of the movie.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> The one move I absolutely Paxson made was trading LaMarcus Aldridge for Tyrus Thomas.



What's so funny about that is that move strikes me as something very much along the lines of what Hoodey espouses. That was trading for the player that was the consensus "most talented," but a player with baggage/issues. It strikes me as not dissimilar from wanting to make a move for a guy like Cousins.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> What's so funny about that is that move strikes me as something very much along the lines of what Hoodey espouses. That was trading for the player that was the consensus "most talented," but a player with baggage/issues. It strikes me as not dissimilar from wanting to make a move for a guy like Cousins.


usually you have to give to get , there are some times when you get a steal, but usually no one is giving you gold for aluminum foil.

it is fair to note that pax/gar regime of the past 10 years have had 2 free agent spending sprees with max money available , and at least 6 top 10 picks and inherited 5 others , to argue he doesn't have enough or hasn't had enough to swing the deals spoken about is as much an indictment as anything.

he's had opportunities, he prefers his core obviously and is very risk adverse to breaking it up even if that means rose and the bulls resemble a good to very good team that never gets to be great.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Da Grinch said:


> usually you have to give to get , there are some times when you get a steal, but usually no one is giving you gold for aluminum foil.
> 
> it is fair to note that pax/gar regime of the past 10 years have had 2 free agent spending sprees with max money available , and at least 6 top 10 picks and inherited 5 others , to argue he doesn't have enough or hasn't had enough to swing the deals spoken about is as much an indictment as anything.
> 
> he's had opportunities, he prefers his core obviously and is very risk adverse to breaking it up even if that means rose and the bulls resemble a good to very good team that never gets to be great.


Bingo. The same people who bragged about us "oozing with oodles of assets" OR who placated and agreed with those people are now the ones six years later saying "you expected him to make a trade?? What a A hole you are!"
Wake up rhyder ... its not an accident. He thinks this core is just that good.

Two things... we're FAR FROM 40/60 v. Miami healthy... you're having delusions.

Also, you think I wanted to pay Ben "I'm really just the microwave with bigger shoulders and zero extra ability" Gordon?

If I had my way that circus show would have been gone earlier.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Rhyder said:


> If a healthy Bulls team had a 40% chance to beat the Heat, you would dismantle the team?


Dismantle the team? Where do you get this? Derrick Rose is the biggest part of the team and there are like two guys I'd trade him for. 

Trade one of our three third options (on a title team) in a package involving anything else on our team that nets us a legit #2? Sure.

Move the overbloated contracts of Deng, Noah and Boozer, all of whom fail to warrant commitment to the point that they should have been offered Gibson's deal and told to walk if they don't like it? Yes. If we can't trade them, I am in favor of having them move on if they won't sign extremely friendly deals. 

It's all about what you lock yourself into. Charles Oakley was a damn fine ballplayer. Did you see Krause giving him the deal he eventually paid to Pippen and committing to him as a major part of the future of the Bulls? When the Lakers signed Shaq, despite Eddie Jones being a damn fine ball player, and the kind of player that could have paired with Shaq to win a good amount of games, did you see Jerry West locking him up for 6 years, 48 mill and not trading him for Glen Rice?



> Your all or nothing evaluation of every little detail is what drives people on this board nuts:


No. People here are nuts because they think that you can start off as the 1990 Blazers or 1995 Pacers, and eventually even if you don't have a legit #2 like almost every other championship team (and before you start with teams like the 04 Pistons, they win in weak leagues with crap and the imploding Lakers... the 04 Pistons do NOT beat teams like Jordan's Bulls or Lebron's Heat), you'll just be good enough long enough that your group of #3 options will outperform the Dwyane Wades, Scottie Pippens and Kevin McHales of the world.

Buck Williams can be good at being Buck Williams as long as he wants. He's never going to will himself into suddenly becoming Chris Bosh. 



> Didn't pay Ben Gordon.


Know others before you criticize them. I would have liked Gordon on a deal for 6 years, 30 mill as a 6th man. In any greater role or at any greater price, you can keep the glorified Vinnie Johnson. Paxson gets props here. The problem is, he couldn't show the same restraint with Deng and Noah.



> Paid too much for Kirk Hinrich.
> 
> Paid too much for Noah.
> 
> ...


Are you suggesting otherwise?



> Didn't re-sign Asik.


I don't recall going crazy over this. This is the problem those like yourself consistently have understanding me. The place for improvement on this team isn't the 12th man, 6th man or 4th man. There is a gaping hole as to who is the SECOND man on this team. No one we have is good enough to be that guy in championship fashion. So, if that is the issue, why would I give a flying F if Nikola Mirotic is coming or Omer Asik is going? Either way with either player is completely irrelevant.



> Lucked in to Rose.


He did. All I heard in 07 was stuff about how you had to get lucky to get the superstar needed to even have a chance. Paxson got lucky enough to have the player who is about the 3rd best player a GM could have going forward. That means that if the Bulls perform even as the 3rd best team, it's a tie, not anything special. Back in 07, Bulls fans would have killed for Derrick Rose, and the fan boys were telling anyone who would listen that THAT was the break Paxson needed.



> Gibson and Butler don't count as good picks because they are role players.


They're good picks. I give credit there. There's still a gaping hole on this roster that they don't address.

I'll have to answer the rest later.

The "Bench mob" lol. Nothing special.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Being coldly dispassionate, the most likely future that Bulls fans face is being the 3rd-best team with the 3rd-best player in the league. Actually, there's a little optimism in this since it assumes that Rose will return to form. It also assumes that no new gunslinger will come on the scene backed by an organization as willing to put their money on the table as the Heat, Thunder and Bulls orgs have been.

It's just hard to imagine the Bulls having a better team on paper than the Heat and Thunder have.

None of this is meant to discourage those who hope to see the Bulls pull off what so many NBA teams have done in the past...becoming "surprise champions." However, if you need to be what the dynasty Bulls were...odds-on favorites...you may want to consider changing your allegiance.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> Bingo. The same people who bragged about us "oozing with oodles of assets" OR who placated and agreed with those people are now the ones six years later saying "you expected him to make a trade?? What a A hole you are!"
> Wake up rhyder ... its not an accident. He thinks this core is just that good.
> 
> Two things... we're FAR FROM 40/60 v. Miami healthy... you're having delusions.
> ...


i tend to believe deng noah and boozer are paid their market value....but the teams that win titles dont usually pay market value for the bulk of their important players, and if winning a title is the ultimate goal you cant have 40 million tied up on players of that ilk.

i wanted to pay gordon and asik, one was the bulls fairly decent go to guys, if he were demoted to 2nd star down the stretch instead of 1a as when he was a bull , he's a very decent value, a level of offensive player the 40 million dollar trio has yet to reach .

asik is a young big who makes a good defensive impact avg. similar #s to noah while making 8 million less.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> What's so funny about that is that move strikes me as something very much along the lines of what Hoodey espouses. That was trading for the player that was the consensus "most talented," but a player with baggage/issues. It strikes me as not dissimilar from wanting to make a move for a guy like Cousins.


I don't think anyone could look at Thomas and think, "Pippen" .. even prospectively. Go back and look at Scottie in 1987 and you'll see a guy who was 6'7" with a wingspan over 7' who ran like a guard and who could score despite the fact that he was raw.

I'm not necessarily sad we don't have Aldridge. While there have been a few 4-men who have transcended position like Bosh and Garnett.. guys who are just so far and away better and more athletic than other 4s that it's like comparing other SGs to Jordan physically in his day, Aldridge is not one of them. And very few scoring fours have been the primary impact offensive player on title teams.

But if there were more attempts like the Thomas attempt, I don't think you look BACK on them and say, "Tyrus didn't work, don't try that." My complaint is not that Paxson made that move, but that he hasn't made more of them.

I was not against the Thomas trade.

I will say this. I don't care if the guy we get is an acquisition that blossoms into a title #2 because of physical ability (Pippen) or if it's the case because they maybe don't have physical ability but they just are that good (McHale). The common thread is someone who does something you can't find everywhere. McHale was no kind of athlete but look at his post footwork. Perhaps the finest ever. If Joakim Noah had McHale's post footwork and finesse, and ability to finish, it might be irrelevant that he's 245. But the Paxson-D'Antoni school tells you that centers scoring in the post is bad lol, and that even if it gives you easy buckets, it's just not "the way."

As for comparisons to Cousins, if Thomas was something Paxson wanted to repeat instead of feeling burned and afraid to do it, Cousins would be a way better idea. Talent at 6'8" has to be BLINDING to have more impact than talent at 6'11" 280. I know in Chicago that is some kind of dirty idea, mostly because the Jordan Bulls were the most successful team ever to have nothing to do with quality center/post play. But it's the truth. 

Cousins is an awesome idea, even to overpay for, just like Bynum was. But then, Kupchak and the Laker organization has known a secret about center play for freaking decades, haven't they...


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

transplant said:


> Being coldly dispassionate, the most likely future that Bulls fans face is being the 3rd-best team with the 3rd-best player in the league. Actually, there's a little optimism in this since it assumes that Rose will return to form. It also assumes that no new gunslinger will come on the scene backed by an organization as willing to put their money on the table as the Heat, Thunder and Bulls orgs have been.


Doesn't being fans of the Jordan Bulls have to breed some cold dispassion? I think it's like the 27 Yankees or 89 49ers. Out of respect for the fact that we witnessed a dynasty with a few of the greatest teams ever (92, 91 or 96), I think we should demand more and shouldn't be knocked over by any team that frankly is Drexler's Blazers incarnate. Hard to remember watching the 92 Finals game 1 pistol whipping and sit there like, "man, I hope one day we have a team like that Blazers team that Michael, Scottie and Horace are earpounding right now." And I'm not just talking about Michael's six threes, but Jordan blowing by Ainge for the jumper, "Michael, goes to the fadeaway, drew the foul it counts" the follow up dunk off of Pippen's miss, etc. 



> It's just hard to imagine the Bulls having a better team on paper than the Heat and Thunder have.


Not hard to imagine one way a good GM could make this happen. Take Bosh from Miami. He definitely is a championship caliber #2, he's the odd man out marketing wise in Miami and will always be considered the third dog there, and you help yourself while almost crippling Miami at least for a year or two if not longterm due to Wade's rapid aging and the horse dung that is the rest of that Heat roster.

If I suggest trading for Cousins, and I still do, it's because you can't bank on signing Bosh. If you're a pimpy closer like Riley or just awesome at everything you have ever done in your basketball life like Jerry West.



> None of this is meant to discourage those who hope to see the Bulls pull off what so many NBA teams have done in the past...becoming "surprise champions." However, if you need to be what the dynasty Bulls were...odds-on favorites...you may want to consider changing your allegiance.


Surprise champions don't happen in strong leagues. They happen in years like 94 with Michael gone, leaving all the top teams with only one hall of famer each. And if you're exiting 93 reasonably, you're thinking, "Michael is coming back to continue crapping on everyone in really terrible ways." 04 was a surprise champion in a league I'd argue wasn't very good other than LA as leagues go due to overexpansion and the Pistons needed Malone to blow his leg out and the Lakers to completely self-destruct. What other years we talking since 1980? Dallas in 2011? Riley even knew they were vulnerable and that's why he said, "they better get us this year." This is the opposite of a league where a surprise team wins. Two teams that would make strong champions in separate conferences? That's not 1994...

Besides, who wants to "back into a championship"? And, what teams that back into a championship win more than one without trading for Clyde Drexler?

And, because you want to back a very average GM, doesn't mean I have to change allegiances. How about you DEMAND better. Chicago fans not demanding better has gotten us outstanding innovations like, for example, the Chicago Cubs 1909-present and other miracles like "the 80s Bears not winning more than one ring." I will never have "my team" be a team other than a Chicago team. There are other teams I don't mind seeing win, but I'll never be a fan. 

The sad thing you can't see is that it doesn't HAVE to be this way. The Bulls can be a very strong shot to win a title (I'd call an odds on favorite in most leagues "happy" to have a good shot against a team like Lebron's Heat or Jordan's Bulls) by doing things the way Krause, West, McCloskey and Auerbach did things, because it was not all luck. It was good draft picks (and not many that are kinda good, but at least a few that are REALLY good [Dumars]), good trades and selling the big free agent (the rarest way you get top impact players).

I suggest the inverse. What would the Bulls have been if Paxson ran the team when Jordan was first on the Bulls? They'd probably have said "Charles Oakley is a really good solid player, we have to overpay him." They'd have then handed out a contract to Olden Polynice, signed Jerome Kersey as a free agent and gone with Paxson the player. 

See a world where it's less luck and more average people making very average choices over time and greats like West and Auerbach being much greater than you'd ever be willing to give them credit for.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

I don't mean to put words in Transplant's mouth, but the broader point I assume he's making is that LeBron and Durant are the clear top two players in the league. The Bulls have zero shot of acquiring either, one would think. Accordingly, they are always going to be facing a bit of an uphill path in trying to overcome the Heat or Thunder.

Really, it comes down to how much you think a team can beat a star. Miami's going to be damn good regardless of who they put around LeBron. You saw him drag that weak-ass Cleveland team to being highly competitive. Just given the number of ring-chasers that will come around, it's likely LBJ's teams will always be near the top of the league. LBJ is a couple orders of magnitude superior to Rose, so Rose is going to need a better supporting cast in order to get the job done. You're going to need a borderline All-Star team to ever have the Bulls be prohibitive favorites as long as LBJ and Durant are in the league.

That said, I think the Bosh idea is an excellent one. He and Derrick would pair pretty nicely together, and anything you can do to dilute Miami is great. Prying Bosh away, combined with Wade's inevitable decline, provides about the best chance to do that.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> I don't mean to put words in Transplant's mouth, but the broader point I assume he's making is that LeBron and Durant are the clear top two players in the league. The Bulls have zero shot of acquiring either, one would think. Accordingly, they are always going to be facing a bit of an uphill path in trying to overcome the Heat or Thunder.
> 
> Really, it comes down to how much you think a team can beat a star. Miami's going to be damn good regardless of who they put around LeBron. You saw him drag that weak-ass Cleveland team to being highly competitive. Just given the number of ring-chasers that will come around, it's likely LBJ's teams will always be near the top of the league. LBJ is a couple orders of magnitude superior to Rose, so Rose is going to need a better supporting cast in order to get the job done. You're going to need a borderline All-Star team to ever have the Bulls be prohibitive favorites as long as LBJ and Durant are in the league.
> 
> That said, I think the Bosh idea is an excellent one. He and Derrick would pair pretty nicely together, and anything you can do to dilute Miami is great. Prying Bosh away, combined with Wade's inevitable decline, provides about the best chance to do that.


I do agree that you're facing an uphill battle. In fact, that's been a point that people don't want to see. Lebron James and Kevin Durant ARE better than Derrick Rose, so in my mind, does that not mean our supporting cast, starting at the top needs to be BETTER than theirs? I've never got this mentality that, "well, we've got the third best player, we're just going to have the third best team" - and I'm not laying that on you now, I see it all over. 

I don't know why 80s/early 90s GMs didn't try to be BETTER around Drexler, Ewing, Miller, Price and Barkley than the Bulls were around Jordan. 

Ultimately, I think if many here had their way in the 1980s they'd say "why risk it. Why trade for Pippen. Oakley is a fine ball player and Jordan is the best in the game." And I ask you, if the Blazers or Knicks go get Pippen, do you think Jordan still beats them with Charles Oakley or Luol Deng as his second? 

The thing about risks, which I still think you have to take because you can't bank on Bosh, is that if you don't pay a risk big money, you can cut your losses and move on to the next risk. Cousins gets traded here and if in a year you just don't see it, so long as you don't pay him as you trade for him, you can ship him just as fast as you brought him in.

I will say to you and Rhyder that this place is a million times more reasonable, for any disagreements we all have, than the fan boy factory that is realgm.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I don't mean to put words in Transplant's mouth, but the broader point I assume he's making is that LeBron and Durant are the clear top two players in the league. The Bulls have zero shot of acquiring either, one would think. Accordingly, they are always going to be facing a bit of an uphill path in trying to overcome the Heat or Thunder.
> 
> Really, it comes down to how much you think a team can beat a star. Miami's going to be damn good regardless of who they put around LeBron. You saw him drag that weak-ass Cleveland team to being highly competitive. Just given the number of ring-chasers that will come around, it's likely LBJ's teams will always be near the top of the league. LBJ is a couple orders of magnitude superior to Rose, so Rose is going to need a better supporting cast in order to get the job done. You're going to need a borderline All-Star team to ever have the Bulls be prohibitive favorites as long as LBJ and Durant are in the league.
> 
> That said, I think the Bosh idea is an excellent one. He and Derrick would pair pretty nicely together, and anything you can do to dilute Miami is great. Prying Bosh away, combined with Wade's inevitable decline, provides about the best chance to do that.


miami is going to be darn hard to beat this is true, but lebron doesn't go 82-0 every season for a reason.

and yes durant is recognized as the nba's 2nd best player and the thunder aren't trading him .

but they aren't unbeatable but without the pieces to do it its very difficult.

you see it all the time , teams making deals for stars and getting much better .

chris paul to the clippers 

howard to the lakers(though they didn't get better , with kobe out and bynum also on the mend their outlok is much much brighter with howard on the roster)

2 years ago the nuggets wanted to deal carmelo to the bulls for some pieces and noah, and gar/pax rejected it demanding the nuggets take contracts they didn't want.

the knicks and nets basically traded most of their important assets for melo and deron williams .

you look at their roters now and you see how easy it is to get role players to augment your teams , they , like the lakers and clippers understand you win with stars and ultimately the role players can be replaced much easier than stars.

you aren't going to beat these teams without stars and the bulls had their chance at a star that fairs as well as anyone in the league against them.

careerwise melo is 11-11 vs lebron

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=anthoca01&p2=jamesle01

he shoots worse and scores less often against anthony's defense than he does deng ( he also wins less often as well deng is 17-23 head to head vs lebron)

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=denglu01&p2=jamesle01

and anthony is 11-1 vs durant including 7 straight wins currently while avg 30.2 pts on .504 fg against durant over the course of their careers.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=anthoca01&p2=duranke01

deng in head to head meetings has won 3 and lost 5 as the thunder have taken the last 3 games.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=denglu01&p2=duranke01


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

See Grinch. Trading for the wrong star, aka fools gold, can be just as bad as where we are if you have to be committed. I'd rather die than be committed long term to Carmelo Anthony. If Carmelo Anthony put the ball on the floor and went to the rim to dunk on people with a tomahawking style like MJ, then yeah, but he's too quick to settle for the jumper against the best teams.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> See Grinch. Trading for the wrong star, aka fools gold, can be just as bad as where we are if you have to be committed. I'd rather die than be committed long term to Carmelo Anthony. If Carmelo Anthony put the ball on the floor and went to the rim to dunk on people with a tomahawking style like MJ, then yeah, but he's too quick to settle for the jumper against the best teams.


how can it be fool's gold if it translates into wins?

and it really is this simple melo puts real pressure on lebron and durant on both sides of the ball like no one else can which why is why he is more successful.

and all you have to do is watch the games to see it , melo outplayed durant on national tv 8 days ago .


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Maybe I was a bit harsh... I think in the case of Melo you'd have to keep Noah for sure. He's a much better option than Paul. Muuuuuuch better.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Melo doesn't figure to be imminently available, but he's not a guy I would find ideal. Both he and Derrick have some inefficient tendencies, and I'm not sure you want to pair that up. A guy like Bosh who doesn't need the ball in his hands all the time would be ideal.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> Melo doesn't figure to be imminently available, but he's not a guy I would find ideal. Both he and Derrick have some inefficient tendencies, and I'm not sure you want to pair that up. A guy like Bosh who doesn't need the ball in his hands all the time would be ideal.


Well hakeem, Kareem, Shaq or mj would be ideal. But in today's league where the post just isn't coached at lower levels of the game the wealthy wealthy mans Horace grant will do lol


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Anyone else warming to the idea of Tyreke Evans?

His situation reminds me of Rip Hamilton before he was traded to the Pistons. Talented player putting up empty stats on a bad team. I wonder if Rose & Thibs would be able to set him straight. He certainly has the abilities we need; good SG size/length and playmaking abilities. Not the greatest shooter but has gotten much better and more efficient since entering the league. We would likely need to shed Luol Deng given that Tyreke is up for an extension, and let Jimmy take over starting SF.

His attitude is a little concerning but in a winning environment and having Rose lead by example could do wonders. The Memphis connection certainly doesn't hurt.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

yodurk said:


> Anyone else warming to the idea of Tyreke Evans?
> 
> His situation reminds me of Rip Hamilton before he was traded to the Pistons. Talented player putting up empty stats on a bad team. I wonder if Rose & Thibs would be able to set him straight. He certainly has the abilities we need; good SG size/length and playmaking abilities. Not the greatest shooter but has gotten much better and more efficient since entering the league. We would likely need to shed Luol Deng given that Tyreke is up for an extension, and let Jimmy take over starting SF.
> 
> His attitude is a little concerning but in a winning environment and having Rose lead by example could do wonders. The Memphis connection certainly doesn't hurt.


Rip Hamilton, even at his best, is not good enough as your #2 in a strong league. This is particularly true when your superstar is not the best superstar.

Elite PGs rarely team up with the SG as the second best player and still win. Isiah and Dumars is the only duo I can think of. It consolidates your offense in one spot, bad especially when that spot is "farthest from the basket." Consolidation is usually avoided in similar positions even close to the basket, which was the rationale behind trading out of Webber and into Penny Hardaway when the Magic already had Shaq down low. 

I think it's fine if say Noah was an elite offensive center and Evans was going to be your third option for him to be next to Rose. Or if Evans was a highly effective player whose primary value was as a top DEFENSIVE player like Dennis Rodman. 

Also, if our best player was Dwight Howard, then yeah you get Evans. Sure. But right now, the kind of SG we'd need to get in our current situation to justify acquiring a star at that spot would have to be like Jerry West, Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant or Dumars because he was so multi-dimensional in his abilities that he fits any team.

If we had Chris Bosh I'd freaking kill for Ron Harper on this team. I'll tell you that. 

But, transplant, right on! Evans is the kind of risk-reward player we'd be smart to acquire if we didn't have Derrick Rose.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> Maybe I was a bit harsh... I think in the case of Melo you'd have to keep Noah for sure. He's a much better option than Paul. Muuuuuuch better.


well obviously you'd rather keep noah if you could , but at the time it was being bandied about the bulls had asik too and at the time there was a big difference between the two , today the gap between the two isn't that wide....you would have to assume that if they dealt noah , they would have kept asik and the end result would be either anthony and asik or deng and noah.

to me noah is a very high end role player that the bulls are on the hook for 50 mil counting this season for 4 seasons , while asik is at 25 mil. for 3.

and even if asik wasn't to be kept its alot easier to get another noah type than it is to get carmelo anthony.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Evans is an interesting name. I do feel, though, that Rose is best paired with a #2 who is a big.

Is Rose + Evans + Butler any better than Rose + Butler + Deng? Probably not, at least in the short-term. 

The nice thing about Butler's emergence, though, is it certainly makes moving Deng something that can be considered. His contract is fairly large, but I think these past two seasons have probably made him moveable.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> Evans is an interesting name. I do feel, though, that Rose is best paired with a #2 who is a big.
> 
> Is Rose + Evans + Butler any better than Rose + Butler + Deng? Probably not, at least in the short-term.


Of course its better!


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Evans is an interesting name. I do feel, though, that Rose is best paired with a #2 who is a big.
> 
> Is Rose + Evans + Butler any better than Rose + Butler + Deng? Probably not, at least in the short-term.
> 
> The nice thing about Butler's emergence, though, is it certainly makes moving Deng something that can be considered. His contract is fairly large, but I think these past two seasons have probably made him moveable.


If I'm going to battle with Miami, I like it because they can't just stick their biggest/best defender on Derrick all the time. Tyreke will create even if Derrick is bombarded with double teams, which Jimmy can't do nearly as well.

Also I like Tyreke's untapped defensive potential. He measured out a legit 6'5 with a 6'11 wingspan and has a good body for a 2-guard. I have no doubt Thibs can make good use of that ability.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i dont think rose's game has a best #2 fit per se .

he's not a pure pg who is going to beat you by creating shots for others....he's gonna win by putting the ball in the basket, i honestly think the position is unimportant as long as they are good enough and earnestly want to win enough to put your ego aside for the sake of team goals.


rose seems to be at his worst when the other team can load up and throw everything at him and at his best when the court is opened up for him. so i'm thinking any player who draws enormous attention will wonders for him and the team in general.

obviously there would be defensive issues to deal with if his #2 were a point guard but i think it would work ou and i tend to look at rose as someone who is just a guard rather than a 1 or a 2 and he plays pg because his teams are better served with him having the ball in his hands as much as possible.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Da Grinch said:


> i dont think rose's game has a best #2 fit per se .
> 
> he's not a pure pg who is going to beat you by creating shots for others....he's gonna win by putting the ball in the basket, i honestly think the position is unimportant as long as they are good enough and earnestly want to win enough to put your ego aside for the sake of team goals.
> 
> ...


Superstar format teams have almost always been fueled by an offensive minded center/excellent post 4 (mchale)/center-sized post 4 (Duncan, Gasol). The rare players who have won without having this type of player (more than one ring) in a team that didn't have more than two hall of gamers (89, 90 pistons have 3) have been Michael and lebron) . Even Kobealways had someone in the post shooting > 55%. You don't think rose can fuel an offense better than KOBE do you. Come on. Don't be a 2008 dantoni religious disciple bulls fan. Its time to get past that.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> Superstar format teams have almost always been fueled by an offensive minded center/excellent post 4 (mchale)/center-sized post 4 (Duncan, Gasol). The rare players who have won without having this type of player (more than one ring) in a team that didn't have more than two hall of gamers (89, 90 pistons have 3) have been Michael and lebron) . Even Kobealways had someone in the post shooting > 55%. You don't think rose can fuel an offense better than KOBE do you. Come on. Don't be a 2008 dantoni religious disciple bulls fan. Its time to get past that.


Actually Lebron won a title with a top 3 PF.

It also helped that Lebron himself is the size of a dominant 4.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Yes, but bosh is not an excellent post, back-to-the-basket threat nor does Miami need big, #2-on team scoring from him, at least last year. Also, do you really doubt lebron could win a couple rings with pippen and grant?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> Yes, but bosh is not an excellent post, back-to-the-basket threat nor does Miami need big, #2-on team scoring from him, at least last year. Also, do you really doubt lebron could win a couple rings with pippen and grant?


I don't doubt he could.

I guess the question I have is, how do the Bulls get that dominant 4/5 or how do they surround Rose with top 3/5 talent at the 2,3,4 position?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> I don't doubt he could.
> 
> I guess the question I have is, how do the Bulls get that dominant 4/5 or how do they surround Rose with top 3/5 talent at the 2,3,4 position?


That's definitely the question.

It seems more likely to get the 4/5 guy than to acquire a mega superstar at a guard or SF slot.

The obvious targets are Bosh or Love (regardless of whether you think Love is a proper target - I don't mean to debate that here). I do not follow Portland closely enough to know if LMA would ever become available.

And, as much as I am hesitant to throw my eggs in this basket, I do have a strong feeling the Bulls believe they have a potential star in Mirotic if they can sign him for 2014. It will be interesting to see whether that's true and if he actually comes. 

If I am GarPax, I would be dangling Deng and the Charlotte pick this summer (and potential other filler pieces) to see what I can get. Lu's contract may well be tradable coming off of consecutive All-Star seasons in which he was relatively injury-free. I can't see his value being higher. With Jimmy's emergence, now would seem like the time to shop that piece to get a true 2nd star.

Of course, Thibs' head will explode the moment he learns Deng is traded, so we'll probably need a new coach.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> Superstar format teams have almost always been fueled by an offensive minded center/excellent post 4 (mchale)/center-sized post 4 (Duncan, Gasol). The rare players who have won without having this type of player (more than one ring) in a team that didn't have more than two hall of gamers (89, 90 pistons have 3) have been Michael and lebron) . Even Kobealways had someone in the post shooting > 55%. You don't think rose can fuel an offense better than KOBE do you. Come on. Don't be a 2008 dantoni religious disciple bulls fan. Its time to get past that.


past what?

your post became gibberish the moment you called me a d'antoni diciple.

teams win because they score more points than the other team , typically its easier if you rule the area closest to the basket on both sides of the ball but its by no means essential.

you need to get with the times , in the last 25 years most of the time the team that won a title won with its best player being a perimeter player, and their 2nd best player was not usually a big(pippen , dumars wade etc.)

right now the heat's best player is lebron their 2nd best is wade a guard.

in the west the odds on favorite is the thunder and their best 2 players are a small forward and a point guard.

so no rose's #2 doesn't have to be a big, but he does have to be an elite player to match up with the top teams in the league.


----------

