# What now?



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

The Bulls will almost assuredly be eliminated in the playoffs, it might be this round or the next, but they will have failed again to make it to the Finals. My question to Bulls fans would be, what now?

Where does this team go next? Who do we draft? What moves do we try to make? 

As depressing as losing Rose for the playoffs is, it could be even WORSE if he doesn't rehab all that great OR hes just not the same player when he comes back. There are even some opinions that think he won't even be back in time when next season even starts. Its a 6-9 month injury, looking at how long it took Rose to "recover" from all his injuries this year, its not out of the realm of possibility that we are looking at a 9 month injury. 

Do the Bulls stay as is again and hope for the best? Or be proactive and make some team changing moves? 

One will always make the argument that the Bulls are "great" as is and that one injury was the only reason we failed at competing for a title again. While I agree that the team is "GREAT" during the regular season, this team as is DID NOT and WILL NOT prove that its a playoff built winning machine. Even with everyone 100% healthy, there was still a lot of doubt on whether the Bulls would even beat the Heat. 

There is nothing significant via free agency that we can afford to add, so a trade is a must. 

Reinsdorf is happy as long as the Bulls keep revenues and value up. 
Garpax show no vision.
No matter what happens, the UC will be packed again next season.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> The Bulls will almost assuredly be eliminated in the playoffs, it might be this round or the next, but they will have failed again to make it to the Finals. My question to Bulls fans would be, what now?
> 
> Where does this team go next? Who do we draft? What moves do we try to make?
> 
> ...



I would doubt any major trade is made. Some of the bench mob, I assume, will get shipped out next year.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

You guys have quite a few of your role players coming up as FA's this offseason don't you?


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

A lot of 'em are unguaranteed next year, but are under contract. So they'd only be gone if we wanted them to be (which is unlikely).


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

King Joseus said:


> A lot of 'em are unguaranteed next year, but are under contract. So they'd only be gone if we wanted them to be (which is unlikely).


Ahhh. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

What's next is Game 2 against Philly.

Come on guys, this team played REALLY well without Rose this year!


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> As depressing as losing Rose for the playoffs is, it could be even WORSE if he doesn't rehab all that great OR hes just not the same player when he comes back. *There are even some opinions that think he won't even be back in time when next season even starts. Its a 6-9 month injury, looking at how long it took Rose to "recover" from all his injuries this year,* its not out of the realm of possibility that we are looking at a 9 month injury.


There are some opinions? I'm sorry, but anybody that does believe that Rose will be back in time for the beginning of next season is either one of two things: a ****ing moron, or somebody who really doesn't care about Rose's well being and health. 

He's not going to be back in time for next season. Come on. Let's not make this into a debate. Frankly, we should all agree on this much. I can't be the only person tired of how inadequately our front office and coaching staff has dealt with Rose's health this season. So now we have to endure the same bullshit next year?

Give him all 9 months to get healthy if necessary. Who cares about the ****ing regular season? Let Rose get healthy. Let's not rush him back. This isn't a ****ing game anymore. The guy needs to rest. Ugh.



thebizkit69u said:


> Do the Bulls stay as is again and hope for the best? Or be proactive and make some team changing moves?


I don't see how. GarPax are already going into crowd control with Thibs. The heat on this team is going to subside for a bit the next few weeks, but when we're eliminated the dialogue will start back up again. Who's fault was it? How long is the window going to be open (especially now, since we've basically sacrificed next season as well)? What needs to be done to get Rose some help and lessen his burden (if he comes back the same)?

Maybe I'm naive, but I'm expecting a change this offseason. If that doesn't happen, I'm officially on board with the fire GarPax boat. I feel I've been more than patient with them. I've been teetering the middle, not giving them my full support, but not asking for their heads either. I feel that's been a reasonable stance. Not anymore. If they screw up this offseason (i.e. Don't do a damn thing), then they have to go. Couple that with the incompetence and mismanagement at resting Rose this year and I think I'm pretty justified.




thebizkit69u said:


> One will always make the argument that the Bulls are "great" as is and that one injury was the only reason we failed at competing for a title again. While I agree that the team is "GREAT" during the regular season, this team as is DID NOT and WILL NOT prove that its a playoff built winning machine. Even with everyone 100% healthy, there was still a lot of doubt on whether the Bulls would even beat the Heat.


Pretty much agreed. I've been on the record of saying that this injury has devastated me not because of our title hopes (I expected us to lose to the Heat with Rose healthy), but because of the future of our star player. I'm devastated not because we blew a chance at a title this year, but because we might have blown a chance at a title for the next five years and/or forseeable future.



thebizkit69u said:


> There is nothing significant via free agency that we can afford to add, so a trade is a must.


Agreed.



thebizkit69u said:


> Reinsdorf is happy as long as the Bulls keep revenues and value up.


Agreed.



thebizkit69u said:


> Garpax show no vision.


Agreed.



thebizkit69u said:


> No matter what happens, the UC will be packed again next season.


Pretty much. And it's all very ****ing sad.

Complacency is about the worst thing you can have in your front office/ownership. Especially when your team is on the cusp.

Makes me sick.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Marcus13 said:


> What's next is Game 2 against Philly.
> 
> Come on guys, this team played REALLY well without Rose this year!



Sure. I'll keep watching with some interest. But, this team's ceiling is now losing in the conference finals to the Heat, I believe. So, it's obviously hard not to look further into the future than these current playoffs.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Pay Ton said:


> There are some opinions? I'm sorry, but anybody that does believe that Rose will be back in time for the beginning of next season is either one of two things: a ****ing moron, or somebody who really doesn't care about Rose's well being and health.
> 
> He's not going to be back in time for next season. Come on. Let's not make this into a debate. Frankly, we should all agree on this much. I can't be the only person tired of how inadequately our front office and coaching staff has dealt with Rose's health this season. So now we have to endure the same bullshit next year?


I'm not in favor of rushing him back but like I said, IF its a 9 month injury and I agree its probably the case, are the Bulls going to make a move?




> I don't see how. GarPax are already going into crowd control with Thibs. The heat on this team is going to subside for a bit the next few weeks, but when we're eliminated the dialogue will start back up again. Who's fault was it? How long is the window going to be open (especially now, since we've basically sacrificed next season as well)? What needs to be done to get Rose some help and lessen his burden (if he comes back the same)?


Yeah, I just want to know how the hell this front office is going to attack the offseason. I honestly can't see this team sitting on its hands again and just using the injury and experience excuse to get us all excited for next season. 



> Maybe I'm naive, but I'm expecting a change this offseason. If that doesn't happen, I'm officially on board with the fire GarPax boat. I feel I've been more than patient with them. I've been teetering the middle, not giving them my full support, but not asking for their heads either. I feel that's been a reasonable stance. Not anymore. If they screw up this offseason (i.e. Don't do a damn thing), then they have to go. Couple that with the incompetence and mismanagement at resting Rose this year and I think I'm pretty justified.


But what moves are there? I think we both agree that Garpax just doesn't have the vision to pull off a fleecing of a team, the way the Lakers did with Memphis. 

Free Agency? Good luck.

For the first time in a very long time, I honestly feel afraid for whats next for this franchise. 

We don't have any significant draft picks, we all know we will never trade for one and we sure as hell don't have the luxury to wait for Mirotic and that Bobcats pick to turn into anything worth a damn. 

The Bulls are in this horrible position of trying to rebuild/compete for a title, you never want to be in that weird position, you would rather be one or the other, avoiding NBA mediocrity/hell.

Yes the Bulls will be good next year. 
Yes they will be good the year after.

But people need to also understand that other teams will improve as well. Other young stars will improve to great levels and sorry to say this but this is going to be the start of guys either declining or just not improving. Guys like Deng, Noah, Boozer, Hamilton and that bench all will be affected. 

Deng is not going to get better, in fact I think hes going to get worse as a player.

Noah is who is, never going to be anything more than he is. 

Boozer, declining.

Rip, declining. 

Thats 4 of your 5 starters! 

This isn't the Thunder were we can consistently lean on Durant and Westbrook's continued greatness. We are in WIN NOW mode, get it done!

If it means trading for Pau or signing guys like Ray Allen and KG to short term contracts, DO IT. We absolutely can't continue to waste prime Derrick Rose years, WE JUST CANT!


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> Sure. I'll keep watching with some interest. But, this team's ceiling is now losing in the conference finals to the Heat, I believe. So, it's obviously hard not to look further into the future than these current playoffs.


Do you really think in a seven game series, they could beat a second round team like Atlanta or Boston? 

The regular season is one thing, but asking CJ Watson and JL3 to run a half court offense for 30+ minutes a game and praying that Luol Deng all of a sudden learns how to dribble and shot over 39% is a bit of a stretch, no? 

I may be in the minority, but I really just wan't this horse be put out.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Do you really think in a seven game series, they could beat a second round team like Atlanta or Boston?



Yes. Atlanta is a team full of mentally weak idiots. I could see the Bulls beating them. Boston? I could see it, but I wouldn't bet on it.

My point above, though, was that regardless of whether the team could win a 2nd round series, I do not see any way how they could get past Miami.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Yeah, I just want to know how the hell this front office is going to attack the offseason. I honestly can't see this team sitting on its hands again and just using the injury and experience excuse to get us all excited for next season.


You can't see the team doing that? We're talking about the Bulls, right?



> But what moves are there? I think we both agree that Garpax just doesn't have the vision to pull off a fleecing of a team, the way the Lakers did with Memphis.


Actually, in retrospect, it was a fine trade for Memphis and nobody got fleeced.



> Free Agency? Good luck.


This is probably where moves get made. I would assume, though, it'll just be aging vets like Billups.



> For the first time in a very long time, I honestly feel afraid for whats next for this franchise.


I think you've been afraid before just now. 



> We don't have any significant draft picks, we all know we will never trade for one and we sure as hell don't have the luxury to wait for Mirotic and that Bobcats pick to turn into anything worth a damn.


Well, then you'll probably be disappointed, as I assume that is the most likely outcome. Sure, things can change, but do you really foresee a blockbuster trade?



> If it means trading for Pau or signing guys like Ray Allen and KG to short term contracts, DO IT. We absolutely can't continue to waste prime Derrick Rose years, WE JUST CANT!


I have a hard time seeing a trade for a declining Gasol putting the Bulls over the top. I think the aging vet support staff is much more likely.

That said, the contracts of the bench mob won't all be extended. Some movements are likely, I suppose. I just doubt they will be major movements.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> Yes. Atlanta is a team full of mentally weak idiots. I could see the Bulls beating them. Boston? I could see it, but I wouldn't bet on it.
> 
> My point above, though, was that regardless of whether the team could win a 2nd round series, I do not see any way how they could get past Miami.


I hope they don't make it to the ECF, no one would argue that if this happened that Garpax would just say something like, "Imagine how far we would have gone with Derrick still playing."

I think the fact that people even think the Bulls could still make the ECF is more to do with how bad the eastern conference is.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> I hope they don't make it to the ECF, no one would argue that if this happened that Garpax would just say something like, "Imagine how far we would have gone with Derrick still playing."
> 
> I think the fact that people even think the Bulls could still make the ECF is more to do with how bad the eastern conference is.


I don't know. I feel like there are some playoff teams out west that could be defeated. It's more that the Bulls had the #1 seed and therefore have favorable matchups.

Anyway, rooting for them to lose is a bit odd, as you don't even have a draft pick interest in tanking in the playoffs. The only reason I could see losing early as appealing is I have very little stomach for watching Miami throttle them, which I think is likely.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> Actually, in retrospect, it was a fine trade for Memphis and nobody got fleeced.


Really? The Lakers won 2 titles thanks to Gasol, the Grizzlies got the lesser Gasol in return, even though not a bad one and 2 late round picks that turned into nothing. 




> That said, the contracts of the bench mob won't all be extended. Some movements are likely, I suppose. I just doubt they will be major movements.


I'm not on top of the cap space and correct me if I'm wrong, but even if the Bulls dint pick up all of the bench mob options, aren't they STILL over the CAP? Doesn't Derricks monster contract kick in next season?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> I don't know. I feel like there are some playoff teams out west that could be defeated. It's more that the Bulls had the #1 seed and therefore have favorable matchups.
> 
> Anyway, rooting for them to lose is a bit odd, as you don't even have a draft pick interest in tanking in the playoffs. The only reason I could see losing early as appealing is I have very little stomach for watching Miami throttle them, which I think is likely.


I just don't want to see Lebron and Wade make their stupid faces after every dunk against the Bulls, I don't want to see them celebrate another trip to the finals on our court. I just want this season to be over.

I'm emotionally done.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Really? The Lakers won 2 titles thanks to Gasol, the Grizzlies got the lesser Gasol in return, even though not a bad one and 2 late round picks that turned into nothing.


Sure, but the Lakers had Kobe freaking Bryant. That's a pretty good complementary piece, no?

Memphis got the 2 first rounders (though obviously late as the Lakers are good), Crittendon, cap space, and the younger (and I might argue now better) Gasol. Memphis is on the rise now, too.

It wasn't a great deal, but it certainly did not end up to be the "fleecing" many complained of at the time.



> I'm not on top of the cap space and correct me if I'm wrong, but even if the Bulls dint pick up all of the bench mob options, aren't they STILL over the CAP? Doesn't Derricks monster contract kick in next season?



Yeah, I think with Rose, Boozer, Noah, and Deng on the books, there is no real way for them to create cap space.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> Sure, but the Lakers had Kobe freaking Bryant. That's a pretty good complementary piece, no?


Yeah but they were also a very mediocre team. They hovered around .500 until they traded for Pau. 



> Memphis got the 2 first rounders (though obviously late as the Lakers are good), Crittendon, cap space, and the younger (and I might argue now better) Gasol. Memphis is on the rise now, too.


They are on the rise thanks to OJ Mayo, Rudy Gay, Zach Randolph and Mike Conley, not just Marc Gasol who isn't even the best player on the Grizzlies. 

Pau Gasol turned the Lakers into a title winning team, the jury is still out on the Grizzlies. 



> It wasn't a great deal, but it certainly did not end up to be the "fleecing" many complained of at the time.


In the grand scheme of things, sure it may not be a fleecing but it sure as hell benefited the Lakers much much much more than it benefited the Grizz. 




> Yeah, I think with Rose, Boozer, Noah, and Deng on the books, there is no real way for them to create cap space.


I thought so.... ugh. Its going to take some really creative moves to improve this team, I just don't think this front office is capable of pulling it off.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> I thought so.... ugh. Its going to take some really creative moves to improve this team, I just don't think this front office is capable of pulling it off.



In all likelihood, I think we're stuck with substantially the same roster next year. That roster, if healthy, could compete for a championship. Unfortunately, you have to think Deng and Rose will miss significant portions of the regular season next year. 

Mirotic and the Bobcats pick are probably the only shots at infusing substantial young talent on this team in the foreseeable future.

The bed has been made. Time to lie in it.


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

Yeah unfortunately I don't see any changed being made. This IMO just gives them another excuse not to do anything. Our front office is the definition of complacent and as a bulls fan I'm pretty used to being underwhelmed whether it be through free agency or trade (or lack thereof).

The need for a reliable second scorer is unbelievably obvious and what makes it even more important is that it looks like Rose might have to be one of those players that just picks his spots to score instead of going 100 miles an hour flying all over the place. It's sad to see but I don't think I need to state how important it is to not ruin our superstar that's barely even hit his mid 20's.

Regarding the ACL I think he'll be fine long term. I've seen it plenty of times in a few sports and I can't recall it ruining a players career.


----------



## Job (Feb 28, 2011)

Bulls have to amnesty Boozer.


----------



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

What's next is we keep playing and let the cards play themselves out. You never know, an injury could hit Miami in a bad bad way. 

Now as far as next season, you just got to keep looking at improving the team. I would offer a full MLE to Nash for 3 years, see if he's interested. He would basically replace Rose at PG as long as he's out and once Rose comes back, I'd move Rose to the 2 guard(only instance in which I would do this, but you have to for Nash). Hamilton becomes our bench scoring. If not I'd target Jason Terry. Let him and Watson handle PG duties till Rose is back, then move Terry as the 6th man and 2nd shot creator. We're not far, hell we may have had enough this year to win it all, but we won't know, so we need to keep on improving, not stand pat.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Job said:


> Bulls have to amnesty Boozer.




Does not make the team better.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Pay Ton said:


> Maybe I'm naive


You're naive.

The sports media in this city is like politics. 

What happens when they do polls in politics? 70% of actual every day people poll to the left of Obama. They get results that are greatly progressive in terms of the number of people who want to tax the rich etc.

Yet, when the media, politicians, lobbyists and wealthy donors are done spinning things in circles, you wake up and realize you've seen a shift FARTHER RIGHT in the previous few years.

This is generally due to a lack of regard by most people and a lack of realization in terms of how each little thing impacts their lives.

Analogize this to the city of Chicago. The average fan will be putting the pressure on. The heat comes from the feedback they get when they open up texts on the score. People do want to see something done, because they must know that this team will peak around the 98 Pacers-02 Kings.

By the time we get done listening to KC Johnson, listening to apologists and getting the massive marketing hype fed to us, what has happened? There is a shift more toward support of the current "plan."

The initial reaction will be along the lines of what you described. Then KC Johnson will throw his douchy voice on the radio and say "gee, I don't know what everybody is so mad about. They only had the best record in the league." By the time Zaidman and Spiegel and everyone else is done beating him off, we'll have another year of Deng and Noah as second best players on this alleged championship contender. 

The Rose injury? Yeah right. Now that they've convinced so many people that John Wooden would have been playing him late in that game the injury is just a greater excuse.

"Imagine how good we would have been v. Rose. We would have won the Championship."

This team wasn't beating Miami with Rose. The injury just bought them years of doubt.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> In all likelihood, I think we're stuck with substantially the same roster next year. That roster, if healthy, could compete for a championship. Unfortunately, you have to think Deng and Rose will miss significant portions of the regular season next year.
> 
> Mirotic and the Bobcats pick are probably the only shots at infusing substantial young talent on this team in the foreseeable future.
> 
> The bed has been made. Time to lie in it.


So, what do you say to someone who didn't like each move as the bed was being made? 

Remember, we "had to sign Boozer" only because we paid Deng and Noah #2 or near #2 money. This is exactly why you need to have a plan.

Because now, we realize we don't have enough to win even if Rose is healthy. Look, I don't deny that we can "compete" the way that the 98 Pacers or 02 Kings did. But by the time these playoffs are over, barring a miracle win by San Antonio, conventional wisdom will be that the Bulls with Rose are not good enough to beat the winner or Miami v. OKC.

And now we really are in a situation where we're banking on the Charlotte pick to add our Scottie Pippen.

One thing you have to remember jnr is what Magic said about guys who do well in the regular season and not the playoffs. It's not an accident. In a regular season matchup, you need to deal with Joakim Noah and then get ready to play Milwaukee or Miami the next night. Against the playoffs you have time to scout a Joakim Noah and you really can take things away from him. You're not gonna win by having a bunch of .70 cent players and hoping that if you have 5 guys who are .70 dollars, your aggregate talent will overcome a team with two or three players that are .90 to a dollar. Those players in the top 10 percentile in the league have always thrived as the playoffs draw farther. Those guys who are in the levels below tend to go away.

This team needs consolidation, however that may come. Otherwise we'll be waiting for 4 years.

As for the bed, I didn't like the sheets Paxson bought. You did.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> Does not make the team better.


In and of itself no. But you have to be convinced that the team needs to be better to get better. If Paxson thinks we're a title team next year the way we are, he won't be looking for the kind of players we probably need. 

You amnesty Boozer and you can get down to 47 or so million by NEXT summer and you go into that season with Deng on an expiring deal.

Now, if you think Deng is Scottie Pippen, you'll never do that. I don't think that. I think he's south of Horace Grant, so I'd LOVE to do that. 

It all depends who you think we are, the 94 Rockets or the 98 Pacers. I say 98 Pacers. 

People keep talking about Mirotic. If he's good, then you make him part of your PLAN. If he's good, why do you need Boozer? Get that money off of the books and if Mirotic is not good, I guarantee you you can get a PF if you need one. They're not that hard to find. It's the most abundant position in terms of finding talented players along with combo guards. There's no achievement there. 

I say get to 2013-14 with Boozer amnestied and Deng as an expiring contract.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Job said:


> Bulls have to amnesty Boozer.


That is the wrong move.

If we amnesty Boozer, let Asik walk, and do not pick up the options on Korver, Brewer, and Watson, our payroll would still be $48.4 million. Considering the salary cap for 11-12 was $58.0 million, that would only give us $9.6 million minus cap holds and our first round pick to spend on a FA. We are not going to get any sort of legitimate #2 option for $8 million unless we take a Eddie Robinson or Ron Mercer type gamble on someone. I would want GarPax fired in a heartbeat if this sort of scenerio went down.

Since we would have not paid the luxury tax this season, we could leave everything as is and still add a MLE type player starting at $5 million. The luxury tax for 11-12 was $70.4 million, so that number is of some interest. If we let Asik, Korver, Brewer, and Watson all go, and we add a full MLE player to that mix, we would be $2.0 million below the luxury tax threshold, which would give us enough room to add a rookie and some minimum players. If we retain even one of the aforementioned, we will be paying some tax.

I still feel that we have to choose two between Asik, Gibson, Korver, Brewer, and Watson, pay the tax this year and keep our financial flexibility moving forward. If we want to keep more, the only way to do so would be to pay more tax and reduce the quality of FA we can sign in the future. The other option would be to amnesty Boozer to keep our bench depth. I feel that Boozer is more valuable to us than Asik + Watson or Asik + Brewer. Others may disagree.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Rhyder said:


> That is the wrong move.
> 
> If we amnesty Boozer, let Asik walk, and do not pick up the options on Korver, Brewer, and Watson, our payroll would still be $48.4 million. Considering the salary cap for 11-12 was $58.0 million, that would only give us $9.6 million minus cap holds and our first round pick to spend on a FA. We are not going to get any sort of legitimate #2 option for $8 million unless we take a Eddie Robinson or Ron Mercer type gamble on someone. I would want GarPax fired in a heartbeat if this sort of scenerio went down.
> 
> ...


What about selling out for somebody in the draft.

To me you get ahead in this league with a legit sized center, even as low level as Roy Hibbert in terms of actual skill (since the days of ultra-skilled athletic centers are gone).

I see one in this draft in Andre Drummond. I have clammored for a center for years. In 08, I thought we should have traded into the draft like we did for Deng to get Hibbert to pair with Rose.

Drummond has legit center size and the only real knock on him is he's raw athletically, but who isn't. Even Kendrick Perkins can effect the finals with Drummond's size and Perkins has no isolation individual offense.

So I'll pick a team and say how I'd approach it. Say the Wizards get the #2 pick. They've got Nene and their team is John Wall. They're missing what we have. They're missing those glue players in between the 1 and 5 who can hold a team together consistently over the course of games to allow Wall's game and Nene's inside presence to make things happen. 

Trade

Chicago gets
Andre Drummond 6'11" 270 lb. center
Rashard Lewis (expiring 23 million, purely to make deal work)

Washington gets 
Joakim Noah
Ronnie Brewer
Bulls first round pick

Chicago does it because now you have the beef, the athletic center who can guard and muscle any opposing center and take up two guys. This makes the Bulls halfcourt offense work, because now it's extremely difficult to body Carlos Boozer and deny him the low post. If you do, now he can face up with Drummond single teamed under the rim, which is how OKC attacks things with Perkins and how LA attacks things with Bynum. You guard Boozer too close and now you have one guy rebounding against a center who demands two guys.

Boozer can get much closer to the basket in the playoffs and you're just not going to use one scrub goon in Miami's frontcourt to push Andre Drummond out.

Washington does it because they get the kind of players who can give them defense and help them play basketball, instead of just being a bunch of fragmented individual talents who don't glue together as a team.

Chicago still needs to find a backup SF to replace Brewer, but this lineup:

C Drummond
F Boozer
F Deng
G Hamilton
G Rose 

To me is the foundation of a team that can thrive in the HALFCOURT in the playoffs.

Washington's team:

C Nene
F Noah (or vice versa)
F Brewer
G Crawford
G Wall 

That's how I'd be thinking if I was Paxson. But if you think "hey, we're great" you won't ever make that move. 

Remember, the Bulls had to trade Charles Oakley, at the time their second best player, to make the 2 year ascent to a title.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> What about selling out for somebody in the draft.
> 
> To me you get ahead in this league with a legit sized center, even as low level as Roy Hibbert in terms of actual skill (since the days of ultra-skilled athletic centers are gone).
> 
> ...


Why would Washington even do that trade? 

They are so far away from competing for anything, that trading away a young talented pick for a maxed out 5 with no real skills other than be the rebound hustle guy, seems like a waste of a move. You are talking about Washington needing that "Glue" guy, well Micheal Kidd Gilchrist will be that guy.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> Remember, we "had to sign Boozer" only because we paid Deng and Noah #2 or near #2 money. This is exactly why you need to have a plan.


So don't sign any of the aforementioned of note, and run out a team of Rose + Rip + Brewer + Gibson + Asik, and a couple of role players you feel are "appropriately" paid. That sure translates to wins and making us a popular FA destination for guys wanting to compete for a title.

You fault Paxson for building cap space in one of the biggest name FA markets for the forseeable future, or do you fault Paxson for not forseeing the top three FA would take paycuts to play together for the same team (not the Bulls).

Again, Deng and Noah are not paid #2 money. Of the contenders:
1. LA Lakers - Kobe $25.2M, Pau $18.7M, Bynym $14.9M
2. Miami - LeBron $16.0M, Bosh $16.0M, Wade $15.7M
3. Boston - Garnett $21.2, Pierce $15.3, Rondo $10.0
4. Chicago - Rose $15.5M (next year), Boozer $13.5M, Deng $12.3M, Noah $12.0M
5. San Antonio - Duncan $21.2, Ginobili $13.0M, Parker $12.5M
6. Oklahoma City - Westbrook and Harden on rookie deals, so they get a pass from the discussion for now.

Boozer is not paid like a number 2. Deng and Noah both are appropriately paid as #3 options, and I think Noah's contract is a good value.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> As for the bed, I didn't like the sheets Paxson bought. You did.



Well, true. I think this roster if healthy could win the NBA championship. You do not. Thus explains our difference of opinion on virtually everything.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

thebizkit69u said:


> Why would Washington even do that trade?
> 
> They are so far away from competing for anything, that trading away a young talented pick for a maxed out 5 with no real skills other than be the rebound hustle guy, seems like a waste of a move. You are talking about Washington needing that "Glue" guy, well Micheal Kidd Gilchrist will be that guy.


I was merely giving an example of how you pick a target and what kind of trade you'd offer for that target. Perhaps Washington WOULD be a bad mix, but I had to pick a team. Of course so many variables go into that kind of thing, it can even be governed by preference. You yourself do not think the Gasol trade was logical from Memphis' perspective and have referred to it as a fleecing, right? Well, Memphis had people who thought it was logical, and that was all Kupchak needed to go from a team that couldn't beat the Suns to titles. 

My point is, if Kupchak isn't looking for a player like Gasol, he definitely won't get that player then. He could have say - ended up with Boozer in free agency at some point, and then LA would not have won those rings or would have been farther away. 

Once you have your target, if he's a high draft pick, what you can usually offer a team is a chance to get their talent moving in the right direction behind a veteran. Kidd-Gilchrist will be a good player, but does that help you gain that immediate maturity and experience, or do you run the risk of suffering from SOME OF what ailed the 99-04 Bulls. Mentality matters, and while you can't win with veterans and no talent, once you have a talent like John Wall, assuming he will just be great around guys his own age can be a fallacy. If you have no talent, you should stay at the top of the draft. However, if you're ready to move, a player like Noah is a fine movement. 

Not to mention, I believe I included getting rid of 23 million in wasted salary to Rashard Lewis, which is going to be attractive to any owner.

But the point you should get is that you don't need to get every team to dance to get a player like Drummond. You just have to get one team with a high enough pick to dance. 

I wanted Bynum when he first entered the draft. I wanted Gasol. I wanted Hibbert, Perkins. There are so many guys who could help this team, and it should be so obvious that size wins, but it never seems to happen, because I just don't believe John Paxson places a premium on it.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Rhyder said:


> So don't sign any of the aforementioned of note, and run out a team of Rose + Rip + Brewer + Gibson + Asik, and a couple of role players you feel are "appropriately" paid. That sure translates to wins and making us a popular FA destination for guys wanting to compete for a title.
> 
> You fault Paxson for building cap space in one of the biggest name FA markets for the forseeable future, or do you fault Paxson for not forseeing the top three FA would take paycuts to play together for the same team (not the Bulls).
> 
> ...


Uh, take a look at San Antonio. Paxson has 3 guys who he signed to deals that will AVERAGE what Ginobili is making. Next year, Boozer, Noah and Deng combine to make 39 million or an average of 13.0. Is any of them a #2? 

The Lakers pay Gasol quite a few million more than Boozer (like 4), but will pay 42 million for Gasol, Bynum and Artest, where we will only fall 3 mill short for Deng, Boozer and Noah.

So yes, it may be low #2 money/borderline #2-3 money, but he paid it to 3 guys and definitely did not get a championship #2. He got 3 guys who are probably #3s. Again, it's a long discussion, but there isn't a single one of them I'd take over Horace Grant.

I'll add, I don't think they are *rip offs in a vacuum. The problem may not be how each one of them is paid individually. The problem is that while any one of the 3 is not a huge mistake in a vacuum pay wise, when you add those contracts together, they may just be inappropriately placed together as pieces of a title team, so that when you pay them appropriately or semi-appropriately, they add up to a bad financial picture under the CBA.*

Would Deng at 13 mill be bad next to Gasol at 19? No. But he's not next to Gasol at 19. He, Noah and Boozer are all combining to average 13.


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

mvP to the Wee said:


> What's next is we keep playing and let the cards play themselves out. You never know, an injury could hit Miami in a bad bad way.
> 
> Now as far as next season, you just got to keep looking at improving the team. I would offer a full MLE to Nash for 3 years, see if he's interested. He would basically replace Rose at PG as long as he's out and once Rose comes back, I'd move Rose to the 2 guard(only instance in which I would do this, but you have to for Nash). Hamilton becomes our bench scoring. If not I'd target Jason Terry. Let him and Watson handle PG duties till Rose is back, then move Terry as the 6th man and 2nd shot creator. We're not far, hell we may have had enough this year to win it all, but we won't know, so we need to keep on improving, not stand pat.


These are nice moves, but they're short term moves. Part of the reason why the Rose injury hurts so much is because two of our starters are over 30, one of which is what? 34? Time is running out for this team unless we can retool. We need to bring in pieces that are going to help us not only for the short term but long term as well so they can grow with guys like Rose, Deng, Noah, Taj etc. I know it won't be easy but the normally complacent front office of ours is going to have to find a way.


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

Just saw an interesting thread on realgm. With Rose being out for who knows how long do we consider tanking next season, similiar to what the Spurs did to get Duncan when Robinson was injured and have won 4 titles since and contenders almost every year? I have no idea who's going to be available and there's no guarantees in the draft but if that's what it takes to get Derrick a #2 for the next 10-12 years then I'm all for it.


----------



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

garnett said:


> These are nice moves, but they're short term moves. Part of the reason why the Rose injury hurts so much is because two of our starters are over 30, one of which is what? 34? Time is running out for this team unless we can retool. We need to bring in pieces that are going to help us not only for the short term but long term as well so they can grow with guys like Rose, Deng, Noah, Taj etc. I know it won't be easy but the normally complacent front office of ours is going to have to find a way.


I think Nikola Mirotic and the Bobcats picks are more than adequate long term answers. Keep filling it up with short term answers for the time being.


----------



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

What the hell has Andre Drummond showed other than setting us further apart in the opposite direction from Miami?


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> Uh, take a look at San Antonio. Paxson has 3 guys who he signed to deals that will AVERAGE what Ginobili is making. Next year, Boozer, Noah and Deng combine to make 39 million or an average of 13.0. Is any of them a #2?
> 
> The Lakers pay Gasol quite a few million more than Boozer (like 4), but will pay 42 million for Gasol, Bynum and Artest, where we will only fall 3 mill short for Deng, Boozer and Noah.
> 
> ...


So you are saying that paying one guy what he is worth, and paying 3 other guys about what they are worth is worse than the San Anonio model?

The Bulls did not acquire a #2 option. The only team that has done that in the past three years is Miami. How was Paxson supposed to break up what was a preconcieved notion? Instead, he put together a contender. Obviously with no Rose, that significantly reduces our chances, but the same can be said about any other contending team losing their best player.

I really don't know what point you are trying to make.


----------



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

Rhyder said:


> So you are saying that paying one guy what he is worth, and paying 3 other guys about what they are worth is worse than the San Anonio model?
> 
> The Bulls did not acquire a #2 option. The only team that has done that in the past three years is Miami. How was Paxson supposed to break up what was a preconcieved notion? Instead, he put together a contender. Obviously with no Rose, that significantly reduces our chances, but the same can be said about any other contending team losing their best player.
> 
> I really don't know what point you are trying to make.


You don't remember his master plan? We were going to push back our off-season plans a whole year and hope we could get Nene.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> So you are saying that paying one guy what he is worth, and paying 3 other guys about what they are worth is worse than the San Anonio model?
> 
> The Bulls did not acquire a #2 option. The only team that has done that in the past three years is Miami. How was Paxson supposed to break up what was a preconcieved notion? Instead, he put together a contender. Obviously with no Rose, that significantly reduces our chances, but the same can be said about any other contending team losing their best player.
> 
> I really don't know what point you are trying to make.



one could easily argue the clippers and the grizzlies have brought in their #2 options the last few years in fact the clippers may have no one on their roster for more than 3 years so their team has been completely remade in that time. also if teams like the knicks nuggets jazz pacers ascend to title contender they will see the primary scoring options they brought in the past couple of seasons as reasons why.

Paxson supposedly is a very well compensated talent evaluator , he is supposed to be a team builder , a guy you can run your offense through and score at a clip comparable to guys like Pau or westbrook a parker or wade is pretty important if a title is a real goal.

that they paid boozer, deng , noah what they did isn't so bad individually but collectively it does hurt in the absence of a guy who can take over when when the main guy is out either resting or with an injury.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

mvP to the Wee said:


> What the hell has Andre Drummond showed other than setting us further apart in the opposite direction from Miami?


It's the same thing we went through with Hibbert my man. Guys who are 6'11" 270 have a lot of value even with incomplete, unproven games if they can move at all. 

If he had proven to be a great player, no way you could move on him. If he had a complete game with a vast array of ridiculous post moves, you'd never get him.

Right now he'd bring us closer to a win over Miami. Haslem, Anthony and Pittman show you what they do to Noah and Boozer's strength. Noah and Boozer play well when they can move around freely and prance all over the place unfettered. Against 90% of the league, they can do this even if the refs swallow the whistles. Against Miami, Haslem, Anthony and Pittman hold onto Noah and Boozer, beat them up and push them around. They don't allow Noah and Boozer to run freely, even in half court sets. And when Noah and Boozer can't move around, and have to push someone around, they don't have the power. Noah is light in the behind at 245, Boozer is short and neither are particularly explosive. 

Drummond, players his size, and yes even Nene overcome this because they aren't going to be pushed around by Udonis Haslem. In fact, much like Kendrick Perkins, Drummond is going to be doing the pushing. When you push Haslem and Anthony around instead of being the pushee, you look like the last time I saw Nene play for Denver, and Miami folds as you beat them. 

The problem with you and the way you view things is you still analyze centers like YMCA pickup players. Centers don't have complete skill sets anymore. Usually you're getting a player with the all around basketball skill Kareem had when he was 17 years old and hoping you can ride some advantage he brings to the table. 

Is Andrew Bynum as skilled as Joakim Noah? Not really. But he'll affect more NBA Finals because he's 7'0" 285.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Rhyder said:


> So you are saying that paying one guy what he is worth, and paying 3 other guys about what they are worth is worse than the San Anonio model?
> 
> The Bulls did not acquire a #2 option. The only team that has done that in the past three years is Miami. How was Paxson supposed to break up what was a preconcieved notion? Instead, he put together a contender. Obviously with no Rose, that significantly reduces our chances, but the same can be said about any other contending team losing their best player.
> 
> I really don't know what point you are trying to make.


Well no. What they are worth if you remove team fit and what they are worth when you should be saying "okay, what's their role going to be, and who is it going to allow me to sign for other roles I need to fill" are two different things.

Paxson signed a bunch of guys to borderline 2-3 money and none of them is really pushing the #2 barrier at this point with their play.

Is Deng playing like a #2 on a title team? Right now his PER in the playoffs is 9.0 and Boozer's is 8.2. 

I don't like them. My point is sure you could justify their contract if you had already pulled off a move like when Kupchak traded for Gasol. If 2008 Pau Gasol was our #2 and Deng was making 13 mill to be our #3? Different story. But he signed a bunch of #3s and never got us that #2.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

mvP to the Wee said:


> You don't remember his master plan? We were going to push back our off-season plans a whole year and hope we could get Nene.


Of course I'd do that. Nene is 260 lbs., so he's not getting pushed around by Udonis Haslem. Also, he shoots 53.1% for his career in the playoffs, where Boozer is shooting 44.4% through two games against the freaking Sixers and Elton "I haven't been good since Shaq was still in his prime" Brand. And he makes less money. 

The Bulls either need a legit #2 or for one of their #3 types to be a legit sized center who is going to help them control the paint. 

I'll continue to mention players I think can help them do that, even if they do end up getting traded to the Wizards.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Da Grinch said:


> one could easily argue the clippers and the grizzlies have brought in their #2 options the last few years in fact the clippers may have no one on their roster for more than 3 years so their team has been completely remade in that time. also if teams like the knicks nuggets jazz pacers ascend to title contender they will see the primary scoring options they brought in the past couple of seasons as reasons why.
> 
> Paxson supposedly is a very well compensated talent evaluator , he is supposed to be a team builder , a guy you can run your offense through and score at a clip comparable to guys like Pau or westbrook a parker or wade is pretty important if a title is a real goal.
> 
> that they paid boozer, deng , noah what they did isn't so bad individually but collectively it does hurt in the absence of a guy who can take over when when the main guy is out either resting or with an injury.


I guess they're asking me, "so you're saying that if 08 Gasol was our second best player, their wouldn't be anything wrong with Deng (or Noah OR Boozer) as our #3 at their current deal, but there is something so wrong with the three of them together on their current deals?!"

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

We are ****ed … for another three years, until Boozer and Deng will disappeared from team roster or JR dies.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> one could easily argue the clippers and the grizzlies have brought in their #2 options the last few years in fact the clippers may have no one on their roster for more than 3 years so their team has been completely remade in that time. also if teams like the knicks nuggets jazz pacers ascend to title contender they will see the primary scoring options they brought in the past couple of seasons as reasons why.
> 
> Paxson supposedly is a very well compensated talent evaluator , he is supposed to be a team builder , a guy you can run your offense through and score at a clip comparable to guys like Pau or westbrook a parker or wade is pretty important if a title is a real goal.
> 
> that they paid boozer, deng , noah what they did isn't so bad individually but collectively it does hurt in the absence of a guy who can take over when when the main guy is out either resting or with an injury.


My original point was of the contenders. The only team contending team that could count on getting a superstar player has been Miami. We weren't in a position to do that pre Rose, and we weren't in a position to do so now until the year we signed Boozer.

So does Rose, Rip, Brewer, Blake, Boozer OR Rose, Rip, Brewer, Randolf, Boozer imrpove our chances at winning a title. Randolf and Blake to me are exactly what the Bulls have, super role players. Just of a different flavor. I do not want to get rid of Noah and Deng for anything short of Dwight or Pau. Adding a slightly better #2 option is not worth creating an entire larger hole for ourselves.

I am all in favor of a consolidation trade should one present itself. I am not at all in favor of tinkering with how good the current team with Rose is. If we were at the Atlanta or Orlando level instead, then I would tend to agree with some of you much more willing to be more aggressive for lower tier guys.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Another kid I have been warming on is Tyler Zeller, although we would have to trade up to a lottery team to draft him.

Noah/Zeller
Boozer/Gibson

Zeller's game translates well both to our style of play, and he could play with any of our bigs. He would be our inside scoring presence to eventually replace Boozer.

What would we have to trade to move up to say pick #13? Could we work out a S&T with one of the teams that like Asik plus our pick and move up that far, or what would it take?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Rhyder said:


> Another kid I have been warming on is Tyler Zeller, although we would have to trade up to a lottery team to draft him.
> 
> Noah/Zeller
> Boozer/Gibson
> ...


Tyler Zeller? I went to Purdue so I followed his recruitment.

If Zeller translates well to our style of play, we're playing the wrong style.

And he's far too light in the rear end and frail to a) be a center for this team or b) be an inside scoring presence in the playoffs.

You think Tyler Zeller is the answer?!

If you're ready to trade up for a better frontcourt, then why not go all the way for Andre Drummond?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Rhyder said:


> My original point was of the contenders. The only team contending team that could count on getting a superstar player has been Miami. We weren't in a position to do that pre Rose, and we weren't in a position to do so now until the year we signed Boozer.
> 
> So does Rose, Rip, Brewer, Blake, Boozer OR Rose, Rip, Brewer, Randolf, Boozer imrpove our chances at winning a title. Randolf and Blake to me are exactly what the Bulls have, super role players. Just of a different flavor. I do not want to get rid of Noah and Deng for anything short of Dwight or Pau. Adding a slightly better #2 option is not worth creating an entire larger hole for ourselves.
> 
> I am all in favor of a consolidation trade should one present itself. I am not at all in favor of tinkering with how good the current team with Rose is. If we were at the Atlanta or Orlando level instead, then I would tend to agree with some of you much more willing to be more aggressive for lower tier guys.


The Bulls playoff record with Derrick Rose is something like 14-16. Even if you only go since Boozer signed, it's 10-8.

You let Paxson's regular season fools gold convince you that we've BEEN that good in the playoffs when we just haven't man. 

When you're 10-8 with 3 players at 39 million OTHER THAN ROSE, you're not in some territory where you'd be imprudent to act at the current time lol. 

I'm not in favor of Randolph or Blake either, but we should be looking at moves where we can move Deng for a true second scorer or Noah for a bigger center (who can move), even if he's not Pau Gasol.


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> The Bulls playoff record with Derrick Rose is something like 14-16. Even if you only go since Boozer signed, it's 10-8.
> 
> You let Paxson's regular season fools gold convince you that we've BEEN that good in the playoffs when we just haven't man.
> 
> ...


I don't think we need to move Noah. As long as we keep Asik we have a C that can guard the ones that Noah can't. I'm not sure the type of player you mentioned is available or even exists. 

Interesting point regarding our record in the playoffs. Bit of a concern, but then again we probably would have steamrolled a couple of teams this year if we had Rose which would have put it more in our favour.

The need for a second scorer is obvious but I think we also need to get younger and more athletic on the wings. Rose could use a running mate or two and its about time we started getting some easy baskets in transition. Watching teams like Miami, OKC and even Denver these guys get so many baskets just by being faster than the team they're playing and pushing the ball.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> Tyler Zeller? I went to Purdue so I followed his recruitment.
> 
> If Zeller translates well to our style of play, we're playing the wrong style.
> 
> ...


Why turn a contender into a non contender contingent on the hopes that Drummond turns into a pretty good player? I think the only way we are able to trade up to #2 or #3 is if we trade Noah. I don't think we could trade Deng for any higher than a #4 pick as teams that high in the lottery are looking for franchise changing players.

Drummond is a black hole on offense in the half court, and Derrick especially rarely throws lobs. On D, he's pretty good and he does have good size. You have been clamoring for a #2 option. Drummond will be lucky if he ever develops into a #3 option. He's a perfect guy for a team in rebuild mode.

As for Zeller, I was trying to come up with something that would be a more realistic move without a major overhaul (I want the major overhaul to be a consolidation trade). That said, his frame does not seem to be the problem (Draftexpress lists him at 7'0" 250 lbs). Strength is his problem. He apparetnly was a pretty good student, so he was definitely not a guy living in gym. Room for improvement there.

He plays a smart game, is athletic, understands positioning, has soft hands, and a very good touch around the basket. He's also a good shooter (80% from the FT line). He strikes me as a guy who can learn Thibs system and at least be adequate. He probably will never be a stellar shot blocker, but would give us good length if he works out and you pair him with Noah.

He's not a paint stopper, and can definitely get pushed around a bit. He also hasn't shown good passing ability.

Still his intagibles strengths are good assets to have out of a C (soft hands, good touch, athleticism), and his weaknesses (outside of shotblocking) are things that can be worked on. Shot blocking to me is one of those skills that you either have or don't. Zeller is only okay.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> Why turn a contender into a non contender contingent on the hopes that Drummond turns into a pretty good player? I think the only way we are able to trade up to #2 or #3 is if we trade Noah. I don't think we could trade Deng for any higher than a #4 pick as teams that high in the lottery are looking for franchise changing players.


Nobody is trading away a top 5 pick for either Noah or Deng, So I think Hoodey is reaching with that. 



> Drummond is a black hole on offense in the half court, and Derrick especially rarely throws lobs. On D, he's pretty good and he does have good size. You have been clamoring for a #2 option. Drummond will be lucky if he ever develops into a #3 option. He's a perfect guy for a team in rebuild mode.


Drummond a black hole? The guy doesn't really take a ton of shots. He averaged 10 FGA per game at Ucon, if he took 10 shots a game with the Bulls, he would be fifth behind guys like Boozer, Rose, Deng and Hamilton, far from a black hole IMO. As for the lob comment, we all know why Rose doesn't throw many lobs at all, nobody on the team other than Rose can finish lob plays. 



> As for Zeller, I was trying to come up with something that would be a more realistic move without a major overhaul (I want the major overhaul to be a consolidation trade). That said, his frame does not seem to be the problem (Draftexpress lists him at 7'0" 250 lbs). Strength is his problem. He apparetnly was a pretty good student, so he was definitely not a guy living in gym. Room for improvement there.


I doubt the Bulls would even consider trading down for a guy like Zeller. I think Fab Melo is a more realistic move that the Bulls would consider.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Nobody is trading away a top 5 pick for either Noah or Deng, So I think Hoodey is reaching with that.


Outside of Davis, there really isn't a surefire pick. I could see any of the guys slated to go from #2-9 end up being the second best (or best) player out of this class.

That said, I don't see Charlotte, Washington, or Cleveland trading their pick away for Noah, as they are pretty talent starved teams. I could see New Orleans or Sacramento liking him at #4-5. Portland could like Deng at #6.



> Drummond a black hole? The guy doesn't really take a ton of shots. He averaged 10 FGA per game at Ucon, if he took 10 shots a game with the Bulls, he would be fifth behind guys like Boozer, Rose, Deng and Hamilton, far from a black hole IMO. As for the lob comment, we all know why Rose doesn't throw many lobs at all, nobody on the team other than Rose can finish lob plays.


He has absolutely no post game, and no outside shot. His offense is pretend to post a guy up and quickly spin around the defender for a lob attempt. He will probably make more of an impact than DeAndre Jordan because of his size, but he has a very similar style game.



> I doubt the Bulls would even consider trading down for a guy like Zeller. I think Fab Melo is a more realistic move that the Bulls would consider.


We do have to decide what to do with our FA, and a pick swap is one option. How high a pick a guy like Asik could get us, I do not know. I've read some things I don't have time to cite at the moment that three or four teams have him targeted in their FA plans.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> Outside of Davis, there really isn't a surefire pick. I could see any of the guys slated to go from #2-9 end up being the second best (or best) player out of this class.
> 
> That said, I don't see Charlotte, Washington, or Cleveland trading their pick away for Noah, as they are pretty talent starved teams. I could see New Orleans or Sacramento liking him at #4-5. Portland could like Deng at #6.


I just don't see why Portland or New Orleans would even think about a trade for a non star. New Orleans is far away from competing and need to start building on young talented players and Portland has been so devastated by injuries that they are no way going to wan't to pick up a Deng and no way they are trading the 6th pick for any of them. Maybe the 11th but certainly not the 6th. 


*He has absolutely no post game, and no outside shot. His offense is pretend to post a guy up and quickly spin around the defender for a lob attempt. He will probably make more of an impact than DeAndre Jordan because of his size, but he has a very similar style game.
*

I agree that both of their games are very similar but I also think Drummond is a slightly more talented player as a whole. While Drummond is very RAW, he still has the size and talent to develop into a legit post scorer at the next level. 

But back to the point I was making, hes not a black hole on offense and his athleticism and size at the 5 is something that Rose has never played with, it could lead to easy baskets which is always a good thing. 



> We do have to decide what to do with our FA, and a pick swap is one option. How high a pick a guy like Asik could get us, I do not know. I've read some things I don't have time to cite at the moment that three or four teams have him targeted in their FA plans.


Man, I would so target that 16 or 17 pick. Houston and Dallas need some size and I think if they aren't sold on a young 5 like Meyers Leonard, I would trade Asik for the chance to draft a good talented 5 like Meyers.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Rhyder said:


> Why turn a contender into a non contender contingent on the hopes that Drummond turns into a pretty good player? I think the only way we are able to trade up to #2 or #3 is if we trade Noah. I don't think we could trade Deng for any higher than a #4 pick as teams that high in the lottery are looking for franchise changing players.
> 
> Drummond is a black hole on offense in the half court, and Derrick especially rarely throws lobs. On D, he's pretty good and he does have good size. You have been clamoring for a #2 option. Drummond will be lucky if he ever develops into a #3 option. He's a perfect guy for a team in rebuild mode.
> 
> ...


To me we're not a contender. We're a great regular season team whose success just isn't the same in the playoffs. 

To me, a big reason is because our center and power forward get pushed around. There are other reasons, like the lack of a second scorer. But the biggest reason is Boozer and Noah, and how different they are when someone puts a body on them. Now, if either of them could just power through a body, we'd be fine. Neither of them can. Neither of them has the power. 

Drummond to me is a good option, but I don't really expect you to understand why. You don't necessarily post a guy like that up. You lean him on the front of the rim and do what LA does with Bynum. You throw lobs for easy buckets and you know that if you throw up a shot, it's gonna take two guys to move him from the front of the rim. 

You don't put two guys on a guy Drummond's size and STILL keep Boozer from setting up in the low block. 

Look, Boozer has proven it. If he can set his body on the low block with no resistance, he's REALLY good. The problem is, late playoff teams have guys who can keep him from doing that. If Boozer was playing with Bynum, that just wouldn't be the case. And you just sub Drummond into that last sentence.

I wanted Bynum out of high school too. I went through the SAME arguments. "Oh, he's raw. Didn't Eddy Curry teach you anything about the whole raw young center pick thing? He can't dribble. He's not going to run fast up the floor." And on and on. 

The question I pose to you is, "Do you think we are REALLY contenders?" We are 10-8 in the playoffs since we signed Boozer, with 13 of those games coming against low seeds.

Can you really watch Miami, and not only Miami, but Oklahoma City, who is BETTER than Miami, and say that with Rose you think we'd be favored to beat both teams? Because that's what a contender is.

If you don't think we're contenders, why not? If it's because of the lack of power of Boozer and Noah, how do YOU propose we alleviate that? 

It aint Zeller. I've seen him play at literally every level of basketball, and let me promise you it is NOT him. Now, I understand you'd like to consolidate for Howard. I'd like it if Howard wasn't weird in the head and if he actually wanted to come to Chicago too, but that's not going to happen. So then, you start looking for next best options, no?


----------



## SWIFTSLICK (Aug 22, 2009)

Great. The Bulls go down 1-2 and we're already talking about the draft. Let's just call this a failure of a season. The Hamilton signing was an enormous mistake. We don't have a player other than Rose that can create his own shot. Guys are getting injured left and right and we're only 3 games deep into the postseason. Derrick will sit out most if not all of next season. So, a move for a legitimate scorer MUST be made. Not a draft pick. Not a stop gap SG. A bonafide star that can take the pressure off, create his own shot, and ultimately carry the load when Derrick is out. Make trades, move pieces, hell move picks, do what you have to... but get that player.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> My original point was of the contenders. The only team contending team that could count on getting a superstar player has been Miami. We weren't in a position to do that pre Rose, and we weren't in a position to do so now until the year we signed Boozer.
> 
> So does Rose, Rip, Brewer, Blake, Boozer OR Rose, Rip, Brewer, Randolf, Boozer imrpove our chances at winning a title. Randolf and Blake to me are exactly what the Bulls have, super role players. Just of a different flavor. I do not want to get rid of Noah and Deng for anything short of Dwight or Pau. Adding a slightly better #2 option is not worth creating an entire larger hole for ourselves.
> 
> I am all in favor of a consolidation trade should one present itself. I am not at all in favor of tinkering with how good the current team with Rose is. If we were at the Atlanta or Orlando level instead, then I would tend to agree with some of you much more willing to be more aggressive for lower tier guys.


i'm not really talking about getting superstars, but players who can realistically help the bulls move up another level.

i dont think you really get what i'm saying with the bulls chances.

they win alot of regular season games so they get great seedings....but they really aren't title contenders, not now and not 2 weeks ago when Rose had 2 perfectly intact acl's, 

the heat beat the bulls in 5 games last season playing worst than you could realistically expect in general due to wade's horrific series, a trend not repeated in his 7 reg. season games the last 2 seasons.

i dont see the margin between the two teams as close.

to be honest the bulls are like the 76ers in 2001

a great defense, excellent rebounding, loads of chemistry , an all world talent at guard , but no real chance when they face a real title contender,unless a fluke happens.

but against the heat whom are the favorites to win the east for the foreseeable future you have a team with just as good a defense but 2 players of rose's ilk on offense....and thats leaving out the west entirely.

so i say if a title is the goal then yes something substantial is needed. i'm not saying they need lebron or bust but a guy you can run offense through and consistently get his own shot is important .

if you look at the teams who made it deep in the playoffs last season you'll see they are full of those guys . mia. obviously has wade james and bosh. dallas has dirk , jason terry who can get their shots and shots for others, jason kidd who is probably one of the best pg's of the last 20 years is very good at getting his team quality shots., the thunder have durant westbrook and harden that can all get their own shot and harden and westbrook are very good at creating for others....the bulls have rose , and sometimes boozer ....its alot of burden for rose to carry and no other bull creates for him on most nights so he works for everything.

its not enough to be a true contender...if you need proof they have scored 85.5 points per game since rose went down.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Da Grinch said:


> i'm not really talking about getting superstars, but players who can realistically help the bulls move up another level.
> 
> i dont think you really get what i'm saying with the bulls chances.
> 
> ...


The Bulls need one of two things. They need a #2 star, similar to what Paul Pierce was on the 08 Celtics. If that star is a non-center, he must be better than if he is a 6'11" AND 260+ lb. plus center. He must generate consistent high percentage offense.

A power forward is probably a mistake because power forwards are so easily defended in the playoffs unless they have Duncan or Gasol's size or ability. So with Rose you're either looking at a C or a better player who is a SF or SG. If you go out and get a center who can score, it's almost better to move Noah to PF, because Noah can function as the dirty work guy.

Generally both your center and PF aren't going to be guys you get primary offense from (primary offense would be the offense you get from running a play for that player). So if we get a center who can score with the ball in his hands, you'd want your PF to be stylistically like Antonio Davis; a dirty work guy. I don't know where this idea came from that you get offense through both frontcourt players (and to make up for Boozer's low efficiency, as well as Deng's, the Bulls have clearly looked to Noah to actually generate offense). Even Andrew Bynum can function with Gasol in the game by merely leaning on the front of the rim and allowing Gasol to be the game-plan offense guy.

Whatever stiff the Spurs ran out there with Duncan during the title years (when it wasn't David Robinson, who also wasn't in need of primary offense game-planning) wasn't looking to run high post low post with Duncan. 

*Pay attention to this part! 

The problem with acquiring a #2 is that if a player is currently a high percentage scoring option who is a star and not old, you're probably not going to get him either at all or until he is old. 

Example: Richard Hamilton. He was a #2, and we got him more when his age made him a #3 offensive option on a title team or worse.

Now if you look around and say, "who is a legit #2" you either aren't getting them (Westbrook) or they are old and if you did get them next year you'd be dreaming of their past, not acquiring them for the future. So the guy you get needs to be a guy who WILL BE a #2 offensive option, and maybe for now that idea is up in the air.*

Example: You decide through your scouting that DeMarcus Cousins will overcome his FG% problem and his attitude issues (just like Rodman and Wallace had attitude issues) to become a #2 scoring option on a title team.

Now, in advance, if there wasn't risk there; if Cousins was already full of great post game at his size and was shooting 57%, you'd NEVER GET HIM, so you have to be willing to roll the dice on a calculated risk on a guy LIKE that. 

I think SOME OF your potential guys (and I say potential because the organization must decide if they will be busts or true #2s a la Tony Parker, Scottie Pippen, Pau Gasol, etc.) are:

DeMarcus Cousins
Roy Hibbert
James Harden (currently a #3 because of a logjam of scorers)
Nene (laugh - shot 60.7% for the Wizards, a career 53% playoff scorer)
Jeremy Lamb
Andrew Bynum

I think when you're talking about centers of large size, you don't need them to be ridiculous scorers to be #2s because just the threat is going to open up a lot of open shots for other guys.

When you're talking non-centers, the problem is, they have to be able to penetrate in the half-court on a high percentage basis without the thought that they'd only be okay if you let them be the #1 option. And they need to shoot a high percentage. 

The cool thing about any one of those guys at center is that you could pair them with Joakim and allow him to just do the dirty work. You rotate say Nene out and Gibson in and Joakim shifts to center. I think Joakim can be a center as his secondary role for a title team IF you have a scoring threat as your starting center. I also think Joakim can play the four. 

The key is giving him a role where he can just do the Antonio Davis type of stuff. Once you're asking him to create offense, he does more harm than good just to your spacing. 

Sure Dwight would be better. But he's got a thing against Chicago for now and he kind of has a mental problem. Gasol would be better too, but what do you have to give up and how many years do you have there? He turns 32 in July (damn I'm getting old) and he probably hit the top of the mountain in the 2010 postseason, and is slowly headed downhill. I'm all for it, but you're really talking about a 2 MAYBE 3 year window if that happens. 

The issue is LA probably doesn't want Boozer, because he's not that good for the money. They have Bynum who is a nice option down low, but they'd probably want Noah. 

Gasol and Boozer is a terrible pairing. You could center a trade around Deng, but then you'd really have to sweeten the deal to get LA to bite.

We're talking:

Chicago gets:

Pau Gasol

Los Angeles gets:

Luol Deng
Taj Gibson
Charlotte pick

And you might have to throw more in. You could always make a trade work if you're willing to give enough. 

That's why I'm in favor of trading for Cousins, Nene, etc. On Cousins, what would the price realistically be at this point? 

And Washington fleeced Denver for Nene. We might be able to get him as our 3rd frontcourt player.


----------



## Job (Feb 28, 2011)

Hoodey said:


> In and of itself no. But you have to be convinced that the team needs to be better to get better. If Paxson thinks we're a title team next year the way we are, he won't be looking for the kind of players we probably need.
> 
> You amnesty Boozer and you can get down to 47 or so million by NEXT summer and you go into that season with Deng on an expiring deal.
> 
> ...


I think your spot on. Now I only hope it happens.


----------



## hroz (Mar 4, 2006)

I think Boozer needs to go if they can get something for him they will.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

hroz said:


> I think Boozer needs to go if they can get something for him they will.





hroz said:


> I think Boozer needs to go if they can get something for him they will.


Who would want him? What would we get in return?

As for the who, I would probably go with a dumb team like the Bobcats, who might trade Maggette for Boozer. It works financially and he would be a decent sixth man. Maggette's contract also ends after next season, giving the Bulls some cap flexibility in 2013.

Its stretch as to why the Bobcats would do it, but Boozer and Anthony Davis would complement each-other, its probably best to keep Tyrus Thomas on the bench or use him as trade fodder in hopes to get another draft pick. Boozer would help turn the Bobcats into a 8th seed challenger for a few seasons while they continue to develop Bismack Biyombo and possibly Anthony Davis. 

A long shot 3 team trade would involve; Boozer going to Houston for Kevin Martin, Martin to Utah for Al Jefferson who then goes to Chicago. 

There really is no need for Utah to make this trade but they might want to give Enes and Derrick Favors more burn, they really feel like Favors is the next big thing. Also the Millsapp/Jefferson combo hasn't really turned into much. Kevin Martin gives the Jazz that primary scorer in the back-court. 

Jefferson gives the Bulls a legit post presence and he can play either position so its not like Noah becomes an odd man out. 

Who knows why Houston would do it, but one could argue its an upgrade for them. 

One thing for sure is that Garpax is going to have to be very creative if he wants to improve this team via trade. While Boozer has been the primary candidate for amnesty, but with Rose's injury and the uncertainty of how he will return as a player, they might just want to hold on to the amnesty, just in case Derricks contract turns into a a horrible one.


----------



## SWIFTSLICK (Aug 22, 2009)

hroz said:


> I think Boozer needs to go if they can get something for him they will.


Ok. Name the team that wants him and his albatross of a contract? Face it, we're stuck with Boozer for the next couple of years. The only tradeable assets we have are Deng, Noah, & the Bench Mob.


----------



## SWIFTSLICK (Aug 22, 2009)

thebizkit69u said:


> Who would want him? What would we get in return?
> 
> As for the who, I would probably go with a dumb team like the Bobcats, who might trade Maggette for Boozer. It works financially and he would be a decent sixth man. Maggette's contract also ends after next season, giving the Bulls some cap flexibility in 2013.
> 
> ...



If the Bulls were part of a trade that moved Kevin Martin and we didn't get him, I think I'd snap like a rubberband. I'd officially lose it. Even though I want to push Boozer into Lake Michigan. Just saying.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

SWIFTSLICK said:


> If the Bulls were part of a trade that moved Kevin Martin and we didn't get him, I think I'd snap like a rubberband. I'd officially lose it. Even though I want to push Boozer into Lake Michigan. Just saying.


To be honest I would rather have Jefferson. Martin just doesn't blow me away, Jefferson has shown flashes of domination in the post and while Martin has the potential to score 30 on any given night, I'll take the big man.


----------



## SWIFTSLICK (Aug 22, 2009)

thebizkit69u said:


> To be honest I would rather have Jefferson. Martin just doesn't blow me away, Jefferson has shown flashes of domination in the post and while Martin has the potential to score 30 on any given night, I'll take the big man.


I'll give you that. But is Jefferson someone we can count on to be consistent when it counts? And IF he is that guy, why in the world would Utah send him packing? He's been up and down in the playoffs (solid in GM 1, mediocre in GM 2, strong GM 3).

And while we still need that low post presence(that GarPax supposedly solved by putting a band aid over the gaping wound), I still think Derrick is not going to be right for 2 years. For me, a SG that is capable of dropping 30 is a bigger priority, since the position is clearly lacking depth. Riptard, Korver, Brewer isn't going to get it done.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

SWIFTSLICK said:


> I'll give you that. But is Jefferson someone we can count on to be consistent when it counts? And IF he is that guy, why in the world would Utah send him packing? He's been up and down in the playoffs (solid in GM 1, mediocre in GM 2, strong GM 3).
> 
> And while we still need that low post presence(that GarPax supposedly solved by putting a band aid over the gaping wound), I still think Derrick is not going to be right for 2 years. For me, a SG that is capable of dropping 30 is a bigger priority, since the position is clearly lacking depth. Riptard, Korver, Brewer isn't going to get it done.


Well, Jefferson is their go to guy, hes having a tough time against one of the best defensive teams in the NBA, yet hes still putting up numbers. Having him on team like the Bulls, where he would not be the #1 option would probably be a better fit. 

Martin is a shooter, not much of a slasher anymore so he runs the risk of becoming one of those players that makes it easy for teams like the Heat to run out on transition, on a missed shot.


----------



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

I'm all for the Bulls re-tooling a bit to find a more consistent 2nd option than Boozer. Bulls are consistently using Boozer as a role player, not a focal point. Would like to see us target Nash or Terry in free agency if we keep the team as is, if not a trade for Danny Granger would work.


----------



## Job (Feb 28, 2011)

Trade Booz, CJ Watson and Asik to Milwaukee for Jennings and Gooden. Jennings is dying to get out of Milwaukee and made it clear that he would like to test his options on the open market. The Bucks had success playing Jennings and Ellis in the same back court, so why not Jennings and Rose? I know Bulls fans want Derrick at point, but how long can he battle the trapping physical D with which teams punish him. The Bucks could draft a point guard in this year's draft or start Watson next season. Boozer and Asik would provide consistent scoring and defense the Bucks so desperately lack since the departure of Bogut. 
I know Jennings is small, but he is young and durable. Jennings and Rose could be a great back court for many years. I am sick of bringing in old players at the end of their careers. Thunder keep getting younger with players like Harden. What other options do the Bulls really have? This would be a good way to keep this team competitive without rushing Rose back too soon. I know this will never happen. Just trying to think of ways to improve this team.


----------



## Job (Feb 28, 2011)

thebizkit69u said:


> To be honest I would rather have Jefferson. Martin just doesn't blow me away, Jefferson has shown flashes of domination in the post and while Martin has the potential to score 30 on any given night, I'll take the big man.


Jefferson is slow and fades away in crunch time. I think the Bulls need players who can create, pass, and score off the dribble. I want young, fast players we can build around. Noah, Tag and Rose are a solid core that we got through the draft. Bringing in old, stale players is not going to work long term. Rose is out for a while and it's time to infuse youth. Marquis Teague is predicted to be a late first round pick. It should not be that hard to move up a few spots without giving up very much. This draft is loaded with talent. Now is the time to strike.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

SWIFTSLICK said:


> Ok. Name the team that wants him and his albatross of a contract? Face it, we're stuck with Boozer for the next couple of years. The only tradeable assets we have are Deng, Noah, & the Bench Mob.


Can we all start by agreeing to this:

Boozer, Noah and Deng would all be good 3rd best players if our best player was Rose and we had a legitimate #2 star, but all three of them together sort of making up our "second best player by committee" is bad.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

mvP to the Wee said:


> I'm all for the Bulls re-tooling a bit to find a more consistent 2nd option than Boozer. Bulls are consistently using Boozer as a role player, not a focal point. Would like to see us target Nash or Terry in free agency if we keep the team as is, if not a trade for Danny Granger would work.


Nash has never won anything in the playoffs. He and Terry are both #3 scorers.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Job said:


> Jefferson is slow and fades away in crunch time. I think the Bulls need players who can create, pass, and score off the dribble. I want young, fast players we can build around. Noah, Tag and Rose are a solid core that we got through the draft. Bringing in old, stale players is not going to work long term. Rose is out for a while and it's time to infuse youth. Marquis Teague is predicted to be a late first round pick. It should not be that hard to move up a few spots without giving up very much. This draft is loaded with talent. Now is the time to strike.


This is the problem with Bulls fans. You don't win with low post players who are good YMCA pick up players. Not in the playoffs. You need the muscle. I'm not necessarily for Jefferson, but you realize that players like Bynum, Perkins, etc. give teams much more of an edge than a center who plays well in space. 

Why? Space goes away in the playoffs. Where Noah prances around like a deer in the regular season, in the playoffs he has Haslem and Anthony grabbing him and gooning him up. Now if he was 265, he could use his power to re-separate from the contact. At 245 you get a passing, dribbling, creating center who can't get Udonis Haslem off of him. 

Full court basketball doesn't work in the playoffs unless it's a bonus to a strong half court attack. 

This is the same point I made with the Bears. Much like I didn't trust Jerry Angelo to make our 19th pick, because of his past failings, I don't trust John Paxson or his "general manager" Gar Forman to retool this team.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> At 245 you get a passing, dribbling, creating center who can't get Udonis Haslem off of him.


Whats sad is hes not even 245 pounds lol.


----------



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

Hoodey said:


> Nash has never won anything in the playoffs. He and Terry are both #3 scorers.


Nor has Chris Webber, does that mean you won't take a prime Chris Webber on your team? It's possible for great players to not win anything. 

Terry was the #2 on last years championship Mavs.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

mvP to the Wee said:


> Nor has Chris Webber, does that mean you won't take a prime Chris Webber on your team? It's possible for great players to not win anything.
> 
> Terry was the #2 on last years championship Mavs.


LOL NO! I think Chris Webber was vastly overrated. That you like him, or that you'd bring him up as some shining example says everything to me.

Terry WAS #2. We wouldn't be acquiring him for 2011. We'd be acquiring him for 2013-16. Did Ben Wallace teach you about the difference from past to future?

Also, Terry averaged 15.8 PPG in the regular season and 17.5 PPG in the playoffs. That teams strength was not their second scorer. It was a high volume of really good players and a frontcourt of Dirk and Chandler that dictated a lot of things to other teams.

Additionally, where is Terry going to play for us? Starting SG? Come on. More Bulls fans not being realistic about positions.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Sorry guys. I'll stop thinking of ways to improve this team. Apparently Chris Webber would solve all of our problems. And I wasted time wondering how Bulls fans tolerated the signing of Carlos Boozer. I have my answer. They think Chris Webber was great. I'd hate to dangle Anthony Mason or John "Hot Rod" Williams in front of some of these fans lol.


----------



## SWIFTSLICK (Aug 22, 2009)

Hoodey said:


> Can we all start by agreeing to this:
> 
> Boozer, Noah and Deng would all be good 3rd best players if our best player was Rose and we had a legitimate #2 star, but all three of them together sort of making up our "second best player by committee" is bad.


I concur. Now what do we do about that problem? Because I can't see this team as presently constructed in the NBA Finals in the near future.


----------



## SWIFTSLICK (Aug 22, 2009)

mvP to the Wee said:


> Nor has Chris Webber, does that mean you won't take a prime Chris Webber on your team? It's possible for great players to not win anything.
> 
> Terry was the #2 on last years championship Mavs.


Is it the same Chris Webber that called a timeout his team didn't have? That CWebb?


----------



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

Hoodey said:


> Sorry guys. I'll stop thinking of ways to improve this team. Apparently Chris Webber would solve all of our problems. And I wasted time wondering how Bulls fans tolerated the signing of Carlos Boozer. I have my answer. They think Chris Webber was great. I'd hate to dangle Anthony Mason or John "Hot Rod" Williams in front of some of these fans lol.


Yeah let's sign Nene as our 2nd option, he's infinitely times better.:lol:


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

mvP to the Wee said:


> Yeah let's sign Nene as our 2nd option, he's infinitely times better.:lol:


I never really said he'd be our second option. He'd pair better with Deng and Boozer or Deng and Noah than the current trio we have now. 

And, because of his high percentage scoring, you could probably take a bigger risk on scorers to eventually form a trio with Nene and Rose.

I don't see anything wrong with Nene at 13 million at all. If he was 245 or if his playoff FG% was 47% no way.

But this has to do with a fundamental way in which we view the NBA differently. I like having a 260 lb. center who can shoot 56% in the regular season and 53% in the playoffs down low. Even if you don't run a Shaq-style post offense through a player like that, having him is pretty good.

You like tweener forwards and combo guards. And you obviously like Luol Deng, who is a very mediocre player.

The fact that you could make fun of me wanting Noah, and have Deng as your avatar is comical. Because he's doing WHAT exactly in this series?


----------



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

Hoodey said:


> I never really said he'd be our second option. He'd pair better with Deng and Boozer or Deng and Noah than the current trio we have now.
> 
> And, because of his high percentage scoring, you could probably take a bigger risk on scorers to eventually form a trio with Nene and Rose.
> 
> ...


I have absolutely no problem with Nene. I have a problem with you being against Nash whom you say 'hasn't done anything in the playoffs' yet happy with Nene. It took Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, and Kevin Garnett some time to get their first ring, does that mean you wouldn't have taken them on your team back then?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

And you think Chris Webber was good. HA HA HA HA HA lol. 

He's everything I expect you to like. A 6'9" 245 lb. jumpshooting power forward who shot 46.4% in the playoffs. How am I not surprised. 

Nene - 7.27 FGA per playoff game, 10.8 PPG
Chris Webber - 16.62 FGA per playoff game, 18.7 PPG

7.9 more PPG, but 2.28 times the shots.

Yes, I can see why you'd love Chris Webber.


----------



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

Hoodey said:


> And you think Chris Webber was good. HA HA HA HA HA lol.
> 
> He's everything I expect you to like. A 6'9" 245 lb. jumpshooting power forward who shot 46.4% in the playoffs. How am I not surprised.
> 
> ...


Chris Webber was the first player to come to mind. I don't love Chris Webber, he's a good player though. Point is, there are numerous great NBA players who have never won a ring.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

mvP to the Wee said:


> I have absolutely no problem with Nene. I have a problem with you being against Nash whom you say 'hasn't done anything in the playoffs' yet happy with Nene. It took Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, and Kevin Garnett some time to get their first ring, does that mean you wouldn't have taken them on your team back then?


Pierce, Allen and Garnett aren't full court regular season players like Nash. Why do you have a problem with me not liking Nash? Because you let his regular season accolades convince you that he's something he's not.

I don't like Nash because Nash is not the kind of player who is going to win you playoff games. I'm not interested in building a regular season juggernaut who only gets their brains beat in in the playoffs - LIKE THE TEAM Nash led for years. 

YOU think Nash is good. I don't.

And, you're missing how I liked Nene. The entire premise was "if you wait and don't sign Boozer, what can you do with the money." The better option than Boozer to me was to sign Nene for less money as a #3 offensive option who can probably be a decent 2nd best player if you have a lot of good players, because unlike the rest of the Bulls players, he helps you control the paint and won't be pushed around by Udonis freaking Haslem. 

People who want Nash want Nash to come here to be our second best player to play in a backcourt with Derrick Rose. We still won't control the paint, we'll still be a jumpshooting team. And Nash is 38!

Why do you have a problem with me liking Nene at 13 million and not liking a 38 year old guard who has not won anything, who has not even appeared in a NBA Finals.

Paul Pierce is a whole different player. If we had a chance to get Pierce in his 08 form, yeah I'd do it. He fills a need for us, was a prolific scorer and wasn't 38.

You have a problem because you like all the wrong things in terms of what wins playoff games.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Neither Nash nor Webber (at 15 or 17 million in 04 and 05) would be a fit on this team. Nene would. And if you question that you should get tape of Udonis Haslem trying to push NENE around when Miami played at Denver.


----------



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

Hoodey said:


> Pierce, Allen and Garnett aren't full court regular season players like Nash. Why do you have a problem with me not liking Nash? Because you let his regular season accolades convince you that he's something he's not.
> 
> I don't like Nash because Nash is not the kind of player who is going to win you playoff games. I'm not interested in building a regular season juggernaut who only gets their brains beat in in the playoffs - LIKE THE TEAM Nash led for years.
> 
> ...


How is Nash not a playoff performer? He has performed quite well in previous playoffs. Why did his team not win a championship let alone win a championship? Well do you really think a Mike D'Antoni led team was ever going to chip up? 

I agree Nene>Boozer, but you do realize that cap space would have disappeared with the Noah extension, right? You also realize the CBA for the prior off-season was completely unknown and there was a possibility of a hard cap?


----------



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

Hoodey said:


> Neither Nash nor Webber (at 15 or 17 million in 04 and 05) would be a fit on this team. Nene would. And if you question that you should get tape of Udonis Haslem trying to push NENE around when Miami played at Denver.


So now the regular season suddenly matters?


----------



## Job (Feb 28, 2011)

I don't want anymore old guys, Nash. I want fast young athletic players. Someone mentioned Andre Drummond. That is a player that I want. A young athletic big who Rose can throw lobs to for easy dunks.


----------



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

Job said:


> I don't want anymore old guys, Nash. I want fast young athletic players. Someone mentioned Andre Drummond. That is a player that I want. A young athletic big who Rose can throw lobs to for easy dunks.


Doesn't matter how athletic a guy you give Rose, for whatever reason he won't throw lobs.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

mvP to the Wee said:


> So now the regular season suddenly matters?


If Nene suddenly dropped in FG% from 56% to 47%, then no it would not matter. 

If he was like Carlos Boozer and for an entire regular season, he shot 53%, only to drop to 47.5% in four games against the 8 seed in the playoffs, and he had a track record of dropping from 53% career in the regular season to 48% in the playoffs? No, it would not matter.

I think positive things you do in the regular season are great, and can be used as evidence of good arguments on your behalf IF you do the same things in the playoffs.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

mvP to the Wee said:


> Doesn't matter how athletic a guy you give Rose, for whatever reason he won't throw lobs.


How do you know he wouldn't throw lobs to a 6'11" 270 lb. center who could hang out right in front of the rim to catch them and throw them down?

Are you suggesting that Rose wouldn't throw lobs to Andrew Bynum? Cause I find that kind of suggestion bordering on comical.


----------



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

Hoodey said:


> If Nene suddenly dropped in FG% from 56% to 47%, then no it would not matter.
> 
> If he was like Carlos Boozer and for an entire regular season, he shot 53%, only to drop to 47.5% in four games against the 8 seed in the playoffs, and he had a track record of dropping from 53% career in the regular season to 48% in the playoffs? No, it would not matter.
> 
> I think positive things you do in the regular season are great, and can be used as evidence of good arguments on your behalf IF you do the same things in the playoffs.


Because Nash has now had awful playoff performances?


----------



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

Hoodey said:


> How do you know he wouldn't throw lobs to a 6'11" 270 lb. center who could hang out right in front of the rim to catch them and throw them down?
> 
> Are you suggesting that Rose wouldn't throw lobs to Andrew Bynum? Cause I find that kind of suggestion bordering on comical.


Never threw them to Tyrus, Noah(except that one game in playoffs vs. Celtics), Taj, Brewer, ... Not the same build as Bynum or Drummond, but he's had numerous opportunities to throw those guys lobs for easy 2s and never did.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

mvP to the Wee said:


> How is Nash not a playoff performer? He has performed quite well in previous playoffs. Why did his team not win a championship let alone win a championship? Well do you really think a Mike D'Antoni led team was ever going to chip up?


I don't buy it. Nash was a good second option. No more. I would never, ever take Nash over Scottie Pippen if I were starting a team for example. 

And that was when he was young. He's 38 and doesn't fit this team. 



> I agree Nene>Boozer, but you do realize that cap space would have disappeared with the Noah extension, right? You also realize the CBA for the prior off-season was completely unknown and there was a possibility of a hard cap?


You can't con me man.

For one, I would have had more cap room because I would have told Deng "it's 8 million or the door." There was no pressure to sign Deng to a big deal. For one, he's not a borderline #2/#3 option on a very good PLAYOFF team. Secondly, there is this myth that if we didn't sign Deng, and stayed young around Rose, we were going to be bad any longer than Oklahoma City was with Durant. 

It's what I call the Krause bruise syndrome. 1999-04 were so unbearable that any thought of possibly having a losing season with a young Rose (because we would not have overpaid Deng and thus let him walk) was just too much.

If you don't sign Boozer and you didn't overpay Deng, you have the cap room just fine. 

This idea that you take an obviously bad option like Boozer just so you don't get stuck with nothing is retarded. MAKE A MOVE. Go get something. Really good GMs have been doing it for years. 

You have to want something different to get something different. It's obvious. This board has a ton of people only now saying "Deng is not a #2 option." Paxson clearly thought he was. Do you disagree with that assessment?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

mvP to the Wee said:


> Never threw them to Tyrus, Noah(except that one game in playoffs vs. Celtics), Taj, Brewer, ... Not the same build as Bynum or Drummond, but he's had numerous opportunities to throw those guys lobs for easy 2s and never did.


Because Tyrus and Noah are 270 lbs., can lean right in front of the rim and get a clean pushoff to get up in the air like Bynum can, right? 

Guys you're talking about have to have clear paths to the rim. Bynum MAKES his path. 

This is you, once again, not recognizing how size impacts the game.


----------



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

Hoodey said:


> Because Tyrus and Noah are 270 lbs., can lean right in front of the rim and get a clean pushoff to get up in the air like Bynum can, right?
> 
> Guys you're talking about have to have clear paths to the rim. Bynum MAKES his path.
> 
> This is you, once again, not recognizing how size impacts the game.


Please explain to me what difference being 270 has on either player having an open path to the hoop and finishing with a lob. You don't need to be 270 pounds to get a lob. In traffic? Sure, but not on the fastbreak or if you're left wide open. Rose much prefers throwing up a floater and letting his big man crash the glass and tip the shot back in.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

mvP to the Wee said:


> Because Nash has now had awful playoff performances?


I don't know how you could look at Phoenix and say "Nash was just as good in the playoffs as the regular season." His teams didn't win, despite having great records and seedings and Amare Stoudemire (along with a collection of players that most media heads were into).

The leader of a team will ultimately be judged by what his team does or doesn't do.

I still don't realize why you're rambling about this though, because even if I grant you every point on how good you think he was, he is 38, doesn't fit this team and doesn't remedy anything we're lacking.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

mvP to the Wee said:


> Please explain to me what difference being 270 has on either player having an open path to the hoop and finishing with a lob. You don't need to be 270 pounds to get a lob. In traffic? Sure, but not on the fastbreak or if you're left wide open. Rose much prefers throwing up a floater and letting his big man crash the glass and tip the shot back in.


But you don't know what he'd prefer with a guy who had position and was able to jump with the advantage right in front of the rim.

As for asking me what the difference is, the Bulls aren't struggling when teams allow open paths or fast breaks.

The problems the Bulls have in the playoffs are in the half court, against teams who do get back in transition and don't allow wide open paths to the basket.

You're asking me about a difference in size being relevant in situations where the Bulls are already good. 

Drummond would help the same way Bynum would. Bynum isn't great at low post moves in the sense that he struggles to get the rock, doesn't have quick feet and isn't as fluid as say Hakeem Olajuwon. But he can affect the game because when you get to that time period where a team like the Bulls would go on a drought for 8 minutes, the Lakers can get the ball to Bynum in front of the rim, even on lobs, to survive times when shots are going cold.

Tyrus Thomas being wide open couldn't be any less relevant to the changes I'd like to see on the Bulls.


----------



## Job (Feb 28, 2011)

mvP to the Wee said:


> Doesn't matter how athletic a guy you give Rose, for whatever reason he won't throw lobs.


I did not know that Rose doesn't throw lobs. After watching this Sixers series our trade assets have diminished. I am so frustrated that this Bulls team is so bad. I hope Garpax feels like all of us. I look back to last year when Houston was willing to trade Courtney Lee for Asik. Asik was never a factor in the Heat series because of injury. The Pacers will spank us next year.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Job said:


> I did not know that Rose doesn't throw lobs. After watching this Sixers series our trade assets have diminished. I am so frustrated that this Bulls team is so bad. *I hope Garpax feels like all of us. *I look back to last year when Houston was willing to trade Courtney Lee for Asik. Asik was never a factor in the Heat series because of injury. The Pacers will spank us next year.



They don't. I guarantee they feel the same way they felt last summer, as if we're fine or are only a "Richard Hamilton away." 

If you're expecting them to go get us the kind of player that can allow us to control games in the paint, don't hold your breath.


----------



## Job (Feb 28, 2011)

Hoodey said:


> They don't. I guarantee they feel the same way they felt last summer, as if we're fine or are only a "Richard Hamilton away."
> 
> If you're expecting them to go get us the kind of player that can allow us to control games in the paint, don't hold your breath.


I was afraid you were going to say that.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

mvP to the Wee said:


> Never threw them to Tyrus, Noah(except that one game in playoffs vs. Celtics), Taj, Brewer, ... Not the same build as Bynum or Drummond, but he's had numerous opportunities to throw those guys lobs for easy 2s and never did.


Thats just not accurate. 

Derrick Rose doesn't throw many lobs because he knows guys don't finish them, so he would rather just make the correct pass. How many times have we seen Noah get a great wide open pass and fumble it away, alley oop to Boozer, umm not going to work. Deng? Please. Rip Hamilton? nope. Taj Gibson rarely plays with Rose on the court. 

Rose is not playing the Clippers. If he threw 3 alley oops a game, the Bulls would have 3 guaranteed turnovers.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

I just don't get the significance of counting a guy's alley-oop attempts. Regardless of how he gets the ball there, 2 points is 2 points, right?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

RollWithEm said:


> I just don't get the significance of counting a guy's alley-oop attempts. Regardless of how he gets the ball there, 2 points is 2 points, right?


Right.

But the fact that Rose doesn't have a ton of alley oops is because of how un athletic his teammates are.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

The play to make is the same play they should have made back at the trade deadline. Hard push for Dwight Howard, along the lines of Noah/Deng/bench big/pick(s) for Dwight/Hedo/filler. If it doesn't work out, fine, talk about other options, but bringing in Dwight gives you a clear-cut top two and all of the sudden it's fine that Boozer isn't any better than a #3 and falls in love with his jumper. The Magic supporting cast's tough play in the Indy series might just be enough for Orlando to gamble with Noah and Deng.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Bogg said:


> The play to make is the same play they should have made back at the trade deadline. Hard push for Dwight Howard, along the lines of Noah/Deng/bench big/pick(s) for Dwight/Hedo/filler. If it doesn't work out, fine, talk about other options, but bringing in Dwight gives you a clear-cut top two and all of the sudden it's fine that Boozer isn't any better than a #3 and falls in love with his jumper. The Magic supporting cast's tough play in the Indy series might just be enough for Orlando to gamble with Noah and Deng.


I can't see it. Deng and Noah would cost the organization 24 million per year for at least a couple of years, those two are going to make the Magic a good team, but they'll still need a star and being a good team will lower their draft standing. They'd have to really love the Charlotte pick, really hate Hedo and think that they could always move Noah or Deng as spare parts in other trades. Don't get me wrong, I love the deal, but I just can't pinch myself into seeing it enough.

For one, Howard and Boozer are just a perfect pairing. Secondly, Howard would not have to be the dominant on-ball figure here. 

The concerns are still the same. Will Howard ever square himself away and stop being so eccentric and just want to win. Perhaps Rose's influence would help here. Secondly there's his lack of a desire to play here. I hope this would change.

IF for whatever reason this trade doesn't work out, I'd love to see plays for:

Bynum
Gasol
Cousins
Nene
Drummond

The advantage on some of these guys is that the cost would be lower. Either way I think the NBA (at the highest level) is moving to the model of having a "right tackle" style center.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Yea, I don't see it as a situation where the Bulls could _definitely_ get Howard, but I haven't heard anything about Chicago every making a play for him, and they need to at least try. As a Uconn grad, I watched a good amount of Drummond this year and to me he just looked like he'd wind up a heavier Deandre Jordan, but I could always be wrong. I feel like Nene's extremely overrated, unless you're just looking for him to be a hustle/defense big (which would admittedly work in Chicago if they got a second option).


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Bogg said:


> Yea, I don't see it as a situation where the Bulls could _definitely_ get Howard, but I haven't heard anything about Chicago every making a play for him, and they need to at least try. As a Uconn grad, I watched a good amount of Drummond this year and to me he just looked like he'd wind up a heavier Deandre Jordan, but I could always be wrong. I feel like Nene's extremely overrated, unless you're just looking for him to be a hustle/defense big (which would admittedly work in Chicago if they got a second option).


You have to understand how little skill a 6'11" 270 lb. center needs. A 270 lb. DeAndre Jordan would have a huge impact late in the playoffs. I'm not the one who makes the rules, but the way the NBA has always called playoff games, you really almost need no skill at 270 if you can move at all. If we were to play Miami, Haslem and Anthony will push Noah around. But here's the thing. Haslem and Anthony aren't good basketball players. So what happens if we have a guy who is 270 down there, who can move? Now Haslem has to actually play basketball, which he thoroughly sucks at.

If we play OKC, they have an advantage with Perkins size down low. Now imagine we have a guy who is 270 and can move. Perkins can't just try to mug him the way he's going to try to mug Noah (and get away with it the way refs call the playoffs). Now he has to play basketball. If you ever have watched Perkins against Bynum, you'll know that Perkins has no bball skill.

Nene shoots 53.1% in the playoffs. So I can't see how you're going to call him overrated. I think he can be a good 3rd best player, and I believe that a solid #3 can function as a pseudo-#2 if he's a true center at 260 or bigger. That's all. I'm not calling him some team changing legend. He's not Pau Gasol or anything, far from it. 

I don't think Noah affects late playoff series the way that some here seem to think he would. He didn't v. Miami last year, that's for sure.


----------



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

thebizkit69u said:


> Thats just not accurate.
> 
> Derrick Rose doesn't throw many lobs because he knows guys don't finish them, so he would rather just make the correct pass. How many times have we seen Noah get a great wide open pass and fumble it away, alley oop to Boozer, umm not going to work. Deng? Please. Rip Hamilton? nope. Taj Gibson rarely plays with Rose on the court.
> 
> Rose is not playing the Clippers. If he threw 3 alley oops a game, the Bulls would have 3 guaranteed turnovers.


I'd be interested in the total number of lobs he has thrown throughout his career. It may just reach double digits.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

mvP to the Wee said:


> I'd be interested in the total number of lobs he has thrown throughout his career. It may just reach double digits.


I agree, its VERY FEW.

But one has to consider the athleticism around him. You look at Chris Paul, hes getting half his assist off lobs because of guys like Blake, Jordan and others. Even when he was with the Hornets his main alley oop guy was Chandler. 

There is just nobody on here other than Rose that can honestly elevate to a point where they are considered "Alley Oop Targets".


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Hoodey said:


> You have to understand how little skill a 6'11" 270 lb. center needs. A 270 lb. DeAndre Jordan would have a huge impact late in the playoffs. I'm not the one who makes the rules, but the way the NBA has always called playoff games, you really almost need no skill at 270 if you can move at all. If we were to play Miami, Haslem and Anthony will push Noah around. But here's the thing. Haslem and Anthony aren't good basketball players. So what happens if we have a guy who is 270 down there, who can move? Now Haslem has to actually play basketball, which he thoroughly sucks at.
> 
> If we play OKC, they have an advantage with Perkins size down low. Now imagine we have a guy who is 270 and can move. Perkins can't just try to mug him the way he's going to try to mug Noah (and get away with it the way refs call the playoffs). Now he has to play basketball. If you ever have watched Perkins against Bynum, you'll know that Perkins has no bball skill.
> 
> ...


To keep it short, because I'm just not going to write six paragraphs about the Bulls/Drummond/Nene, I think Drummond could make a nice piece but he's not a sure thing. The guy could wind up anywhere between a bigger Dwight Howard or the second coming of Patrick O'Bryant. Either way, I don't see how a team would want to trade out of the top five in this draft for any of the Bulls' non-Rose pieces. As far as Nene, he's good for 14 points, 7 rebounds, and some solid (but not great) D. I'd rather pay significantly less money to a goon who understands basketball, like Perkins, than Okafor/Nene/etc. Now, if you're talking about shipping out a guy like Noah or Boozer for him then I can see it, but there's a reason Nene lost his minutes to a rookie and got salary dumped for the dumbest player in the league. I just think it's strange you'd be that high on him and very low on Chris Webber as a number two option, who was better than Nene in basically every aspect of the game.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Bogg said:


> To keep it short, because I'm just not going to write six paragraphs about the Bulls/Drummond/Nene, I think Drummond could make a nice piece but he's not a sure thing. The guy could wind up anywhere between a bigger Dwight Howard or the second coming of Patrick O'Bryant. Either way, I don't see how a team would want to trade out of the top five in this draft for any of the Bulls' non-Rose pieces. As far as Nene, he's good for 14 points, 7 rebounds, and some solid (but not great) D. I'd rather pay significantly less money to a goon who understands basketball, like Perkins, than Okafor/Nene/etc. Now, if you're talking about shipping out a guy like Noah or Boozer for him then I can see it, but there's a reason Nene lost his minutes to a rookie and got salary dumped for the dumbest player in the league. I just think it's strange you'd be that high on him and very low on Chris Webber as a number two option, who was better than Nene in basically every aspect of the game.


No. Just no. While attitude or injury can ruin the career of almost anyone, there is nothing that a reasonable person could point to to evoke the name of Patrick O'Bryant. This isn't some huge stiff who played for Bradley. This guy can move at 270 and plays at UCONN. 

The fact is, you don't need to be Dwight Howard at 270 to affect the late playoffs anymore. 

I've NEVER, EVER, EVER wanted Okafor and never will. Emeka Okafor is 6'10" 252. That's basically no taller and 7 lbs. heavier than Horace Grant. Keep in mind, Noah's game isn't his problem, it's the size and the inability to play the same game when he's getting gooned up. If Noah was 7'1" 275 he'd be unreal. By the same rationale, even if Okafor plays like a goon, if he's only PF sized, is he any better than a smallish center? No. 

Of course I'd rather have Perkins, who is making 9 mill than Nene at 13. But the GM of OKC has the clarity to trade an overrated four for Perkins. WE DIDNT. 

Every time someone comes up with this idea that we "just couldn't do anything different from what we did, because no other good road was available. Pax literally had NO choice but to do exactly what he did" - remember that the OKC GM got Kendrick Perkins for Jeff Green. 

You're missing the context of the conversation. Wee is giving me grief because I said a few months ago that if we didn't overpay Deng, instead of signing Boozer in 2010 we could have just held the cap space over. When asked who we could have gotten (by Jnr), I replied that I'd rather have Nene at 13 than Boozer at 15. I'm not saying I want to ship the whole team out for Nene NOW. 

I'm also not claiming that Nene is a #2 superstar. I'd like to have him way more than Boozer, but I can down Webber and still like Nene, because I never said Nene would be any better at Webber's role than Webber was. 

Nene is a #3. However, when a #3 (like say Bynum) is 6'11" 260+ he can have the impact of a #2 because any value of a player significantly increases when that player is a true center. True big centers make it easier on everyone. That's why if you look at the second best player on title teams since 1980 you'll see a lot of second stars, and then you'll see a Dallas team that was void of a #2 superstar. They were able to win because of the presence of Tyson Chandler (in addition to Dirk being the superstar, which is always the primary reason a team wins).


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Hoodey said:


> No. Just no. While attitude or injury can ruin the career of almost anyone, there is nothing that a reasonable person could point to to evoke the name of Patrick O'Bryant. This isn't some huge stiff who played for Bradley. This guy can move at 270 and plays at UCONN.


I watched Patrick O'Bryant on the C's, the guy wasn't a stiff, he just didn't care about the game of basketball. POB could actually run and catch alley-oops about as well as you could want out of a backup center, the guy just coasted on talent until he hit the NBA and then washed out because he didn't want to put in work. The year after he was gone there was some thinly veiled references from the coaches to KG not being able to stand "certain young players" who didn't want to listen/improve. 




Hoodey said:


> I've NEVER, EVER, EVER wanted Okafor and never will. Emeka Okafor is 6'10" 252. That's basically no taller and 7 lbs. heavier than Horace Grant.


Those are also roughly Nene's measurements. Guy's a burly power forward pressed into center duty because he was playing next to Kenyon Martin. 





Hoodey said:


> Nene is a #3. However, when a #3 (like say Bynum) is 6'11" 260+ he can have the impact of a #2 because any value of a player significantly increases when that player is a true center. True big centers make it easier on everyone. That's why if you look at the second best player on title teams since 1980 you'll see a lot of second stars, and then you'll see a Dallas team that was void of a #2 superstar. They were able to win because of the presence of Tyson Chandler (in addition to Dirk being the superstar, which is always the primary reason a team wins).



Hey, you don't have to sell me on the value of a real center, I think that getting Perkins at 8 million a year is one of the best contracts in the game. I just think that 13 is a little high for a burly power forward moonlighting in the middle.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Bogg said:


> I watched Patrick O'Bryant on the C's, the guy wasn't a stiff, he just didn't care about the game of basketball. POB could actually run and catch alley-oops about as well as you could want out of a backup center, the guy just coasted on talent until he hit the NBA and then washed out because he didn't want to put in work. The year after he was gone there was some thinly veiled references from the coaches to KG not being able to stand "certain young players" who didn't want to listen/improve.


Relative to the actual good big centers? He was at least somewhat stiff like. Besides, I just don't see how you could see a consensus top rated player all through his life, a guy who has panned out at the college level and then liken him to a sort of dark horse pick from Bradley.




> Those are also roughly Nene's measurements. Guy's a burly power forward pressed into center duty because he was playing next to Kenyon Martin.


Nah, Nene is 6'11" 260. I know the 8 lb. difference doesn't sound like a lot, but consider that Ewing was 255 and Horace Grant was 245 and you'd never watch Bulls v. Knicks and think "Grant could guard Ewing." 

Just sit back and imagine Joakim Noah with the same game at 6'11" 260. I'd be getting pretty excited come playoff time if that was his size.

This is the same tired "Duncan is a PF" conversation. It all goes back to the same retort. If Carlos Boozer and Joakim Noah were 6'11" 260 like Duncan and Nene, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We'd be getting ready for a Bull run in 2013. 



> Hey, you don't have to sell me on the value of a real center, I think that getting Perkins at 8 million a year is one of the best contracts in the game. I just think that 13 is a little high for a burly power forward moonlighting in the middle.


Again, remember the context. I'd like to get Perkins at 8 too, but we missed that train. I'm just saying I'd rather have Nene at 13 than Boozer at 15. 

This team has two power forwards. The difference between Nene and Noah in size is about double what the difference between Ewing and Horace Grant was.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Hoodey said:


> Relative to the actual good big centers? He was at least somewhat stiff like. Besides, I just don't see how you could see a consensus top rated player all through his life, a guy who has panned out at the college level and then liken him to a sort of dark horse pick from Bradley.


Eesh.....I wouldn't say Drummond panned out. He went through whole games where he looked lost and disinterested and basically just got by on athleticism, but only when he felt like it. Maybe it was just the crazy drop-off in effort going from Kemba Walker last year to Drummond/Lamb this year, but Drummond looked like a guy who didn't want to be out there way too often for my liking. 






Hoodey said:


> Nah, Nene is 6'11" 260. I know the 8 lb. difference doesn't sound like a lot, but consider that Ewing was 255 and Horace Grant was 245 and you'd never watch Bulls v. Knicks and think "Grant could guard Ewing."


Nene came into the league at 6'9", he's _maybe_ 6'10" now. The 260 has a good shot at being legit. It's big enough if your primary concerns are Haslem and Joel Anthony, but let's not act like he has Garnett/Duncan height. 






Hoodey said:


> Again, remember the context. I'd like to get Perkins at 8 too, but we missed that train. I'm just saying I'd rather have Nene at 13 than Boozer at 15.


I'd rather have Glen Davis at 6 or David West at 10 than either.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Bogg said:


> Eesh.....I wouldn't say Drummond panned out. He went through whole games where he looked lost and disinterested and basically just got by on athleticism, but only when he felt like it. Maybe it was just the crazy drop-off in effort going from Kemba Walker last year to Drummond/Lamb this year, but Drummond looked like a guy who didn't want to be out there way too often for my liking.


I've just been through this movie so many times.

"There's so many reasons to doubt big center X?" 

And X can be Bynum, Perkins, Hibbert and on and on. 

Anything you're saying about Drummond is something that they were saying about Andrew Bynum. When you're 6'11" 270 and you can move, you don't have to come out with some "hey, look at me, I try harder and make meaner faces than the next guy." When you're playing center at 6'11" 240 like Noah, I'd say that that is definitely a pre-requisite for survival. 

Bynum has never had to look very interested in doing much but hanging out in front of the rim, taking up bodies, waiting for rebounds and passes for easy buckets. 

When I said Drummond panned out, my meaning was that you have a guy that is a consensus player at the top of the rankings of his age his whole life, and then when he goes to a big power program, nobody is saying "hey, this guy was highly rated, but now he's no longer a top pick prospect." 

I'm not really needing Drummond at his size to go out and turn into Bobby Hurley at the college level. 



> Nene came into the league at 6'9", he's _maybe_ 6'10" now. The 260 has a good shot at being legit. It's big enough if your primary concerns are Haslem and Joel Anthony, but let's not act like he has Garnett/Duncan height.


Hey, I just go by the weights and heights I see online. 

Calling him a PF is misleading and disingenuous, just like calling Duncan a PF is the same. He's clearly not limited by any limitations that constrain most fours even if you were to argue that he'd be a PF on a team that had another center (like Duncan has been). 

He's been a center and he's shot 53% in the playoffs at the five position. 

And my only concerns are Haslem and Anthony. 



> I'd rather have Glen Davis at 6 or David West at 10 than either.


Why?


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Hoodey said:


> I've just been through this movie so many times.
> 
> "There's so many reasons to doubt big center X?"
> 
> ...


There are big centers who have panned out and big centers who have washed out. I don't think Drummond's going to be out of the league in four years or anything, but before I'm sold on him being a game-changer I want to see some fire from him. Either way, it's going to be several years before he can start on a title team. 





Hoodey said:


> Hey, I just go by the weights and heights I see online.


He measured in before the draft at 6'9", and I don't buy that he could have grown any more than an inch, if that. He's solid enough that I'll buy 260, but he's listed at 250 right now. He's pretty similar in size to Okafor, much more so than Grant and Ewing were. 




Hoodey said:


> Calling him a PF is misleading and disingenuous, just like calling Duncan a PF is the same. He's clearly not limited by any limitations that constrain most fours even if you were to argue that he'd be a PF on a team that had another center (like Duncan has been).
> 
> He's been a center and he's shot 53% in the playoffs at the five position.
> 
> And my only concerns are Haslem and Anthony.


Duncan and Nene are completely different stories, and it's not just about talent. For one, Dunan's very nearly a legitimate 7 feet tall barefoot. Nene's shot 53% in the playoffs while putting up 10ppg and grabbing fewer than 7 rebounds as a garbage man, it's not like anyone ever ran plays for him. Nene _has_ been limited by his size/ability/mindset, he's been underwhelming against such defensive juggernauts as the Boozer/Okur frontcourt in Utah and has never had a big playoff series. 





Hoodey said:


> Why?


Because either one is perfectly capable of giving you Nene's 10-11 points and 6-7 rebounds without tying up your cap for the next half-decade.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Bogg said:


> There are big centers who have panned out and big centers who have washed out. I don't think Drummond's going to be out of the league in four years or anything, but before I'm sold on him being a game-changer I want to see some fire from him. Either way, it's going to be several years before he can start on a title team.


As a second best player, Noah will never start on a title team. 

Where is the fire from Bynum? Why the need for fire? This need for the kind of things that are just too easily glorified got us into NBA hell to begin with. John Wooden said never confuse effort and results. I don't need a big center who can move to be Bill Laimbeer personality wise.

I don't think he's going to ever be a game changer in terms of basketball skill. He CAN change the game the same way Bynum does, by standing in front of the rim and leaning. 

Why several years? Says who? I think it depends on the team. You plug him into this team and teams have a choice. Get him off the rim and leave a clear path to the basket for Boozer, or stay on Boozer and watch this kid eat up the high percentage shots. 

Mind you, I mentioned him as one possible guy. I'd be equally fine with Bynum, Perkins, Hibbert, Cousins (who you'd pay a much lower price for), etc.

Cousins on this team would be awesome. He shoots a low percentage on Sacto cause his teammates blow goat and the paint is crowded. 



> He measured in before the draft at 6'9", and I don't buy that he could have grown any more than an inch, if that. He's solid enough that I'll buy 260, but he's listed at 250 right now. He's pretty similar in size to Okafor, much more so than Grant and Ewing were.


Sorry man. I'm just very indifferent about Okafor. I could care less. He makes me yawn repeatedly. 



> Duncan and Nene are completely different stories, and it's not just about talent. For one, Dunan's very nearly a legitimate 7 feet tall barefoot. Nene's shot 53% in the playoffs while putting up 10ppg and grabbing fewer than 7 rebounds as a garbage man, it's not like anyone ever ran plays for him. Nene _has_ been limited by his size/ability/mindset, he's been underwhelming against such defensive juggernauts as the Boozer/Okur frontcourt in Utah and has never had a big playoff series.


I watched Nene against Miami and it was the opposite of what I saw when Miami played us. Nene wasn't getting pushed, he was doing the pushing. 

Relative to Joakim Noah he's huge. 



> Because either one is perfectly capable of giving you Nene's 10-11 points and 6-7 rebounds without tying up your cap for the next half-decade.


They both suck, badly. 

For every guy who can do something at 6'11" 260, I can show you 30 guys who can do the same things at 6'9" 240. The thing is, late in the playoffs, the guy who is 6'11" 260 can still do those things. The guy who is 6'9" 240 usually, if not always, wilts against the best of the best. 

David West is a 45.2% shooter in the playoffs. When a player in your frontcourt shoots 45.2% in the playoffs, you're doing the other team a favor. 

Nene may score 5.4 PPG less than West, but he also takes 7.3 shots per playoff game, where West needs 13.8 shoots to get his 16.2 PPG.

6 shots to get 5.4 points? I'll pass thanks. 

David West would just be another powerless forward getting his butt handed to him when it counts. Just like every sorry sack of crap we've had since Rodman.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Since 6-11, 270lb is the new formula to success of big men that only Hoodey knows, and everyone else is just too blinded by Paxson's creamy love handles to realize... Here is a list of all the 6-11+ 270+ guys to come into the league since 2000:

Eddy Curry: 6-11, 300lb
Sagana Diop: 6-11, 310lb
Brendan Haywood: 7-0, 270lb
Yao Ming: 7-6, 295lb
Rafael Araujo: 6-11, 280lb
Pavel Podkolzine: 7-5, 303lb
David Harrison: 7-0 270lb
Marc Gasol: 7-0 270lb
Aaron Gray: 7-1 280lb
Andrew Bynum: 7-0 280lb
Roy Hibbert: 7-2 278lb
Hasheem Thabeet: 7-2 270lb
DeMarcus Cousins: 6-11 292lb
Dexter Pittman: 6-11 303lb

There is Hoodey's list of paint destroyers. As you can see, these were all almost can't miss prospects that don't require a lot of skill to be good because of their size. If Al Jefferson is too small to make the list at 6'9", then Perkins is as well at 6'10" and Nene at 250lb.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

This argument is funny.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> Since 6-11, 270lb is the new formula to success of big men that only Hoodey knows, and everyone else is just too blinded by Paxson's creamy love handles to realize... Here is a list of all the 6-11+ 270+ guys to come into the league since 2000:
> 
> Eddy Curry: 6-11, 300lb
> Sagana Diop: 6-11, 310lb
> ...



Game, set, and match.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Hoodey said:


> As a second best player, Noah will never start on a title team.


I've never argued otherwise



Hoodey said:


> Where is the fire from Bynum? Why the need for fire? This need for the kind of things that are just too easily glorified got us into NBA hell to begin with. John Wooden said never confuse effort and results. I don't need a big center who can move to be Bill Laimbeer personality wise.


I don't think you understand, I'm not complaining that Drummond wasn't laying people out and screaming his head off, I'm saying he was perfectly content to fade out to the baseline and watch other people play basketball. You don't have to act like a maniac, but you at least have to try hard. 





Hoodey said:


> Why several years? Says who? I think it depends on the team. You plug him into this team and teams have a choice. Get him off the rim and leave a clear path to the basket for Boozer, or stay on Boozer and watch this kid eat up the high percentage shots.


Because he isn't a good basketball player at this point. He's fine for catching alley-oops and challenging around the rim, but he's not a good offensive or defensive player (yet) beyond what his athleticism grants him. If he doesn't play hard(and he didn't at Uconn) it's going to be much, much easier to move him off the rim than it is with a guy like Bynum, because Bynum's actually trying. 



Hoodey said:


> Mind you, I mentioned him as one possible guy. I'd be equally fine with Bynum, Perkins, Hibbert, Cousins (who you'd pay a much lower price for), etc.
> 
> Cousins on this team would be awesome. He shoots a low percentage on Sacto cause his teammates blow goat and the paint is crowded.


I think Cousins could be very good in the right environment. No argument there. 





Hoodey said:


> Sorry man. I'm just very indifferent about Okafor. I could care less. He makes me yawn repeatedly.


That's actually the right way to feel about him, my point is that in size and production he's very similar to Nene. 





Hoodey said:


> They both suck, badly.
> 
> For every guy who can do something at 6'11" 260, I can show you 30 guys who can do the same things at 6'9" 240. The thing is, late in the playoffs, the guy who is 6'11" 260 can still do those things. The guy who is 6'9" 240 usually, if not always, wilts against the best of the best.
> 
> ...


David West would just be another powerless forward getting his butt handed to him when it counts. Just like every sorry sack of crap we've had since Rodman.[/QUOTE]


That's all well and good, but Nene is 6'9", and neither one of those guys ties the cap up until 2016. I get your point about needing a legitimate center, but I don't think that Nene's that guy. Not saying that Davis or West are, either, but you have the flexibility to go and get a real center with either of them. Denver didn't dump him in favor of Kenneth Fareid just to do Leonsis a favor. 





Hoodey said:


> David West would just be another powerless forward getting his butt handed to him when it counts. Just like every sorry sack of crap we've had since Rodman.


Elton Brand takes exception to that.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Game, set, and match.


Nah. He'll thank me for providing the list as it actually supports his argument someway, somehow, even though only about 5 of those players are legitimately good players.

After all, he has still yet to respond to me pointing out in numerous threads that the (healthy) Bulls are the second best halfcourt team in the league. Hence, not a regular season, fullcourt team.

He has morphed that argument into how Noah and Boozer get pushed around the paint at ease and uses playoff stats where they were both injured to support his claim. He then hedges himself by saying they are good enough to beat first and second round teams, but aren't good enough frontcourt to beat a late playoff team (despite the fact that the Heat have the worst frontcourt out of all of our playoff opponents this year and last).

50% of the time, it works every time.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> (despite the fact that the Heat have the worst frontcourt out of all of our playoff opponents this year and last).



This is what is so funny to me. If the goal is beating the Heat, the frontcourt issue is a secondary concern. You're talking about a team that runs an undersized Joel Anthony at the 5, or lately also an undersized Chris Bosh at the 5. Further, the Bulls are an exceptional rebounding team. To the extent you need to bolster interior defense, you do have some ability to do that already in Asik and Gibson. Could the frontcourt be upgraded? Sure. Is it the primary weakness? Nope.

If the Heat are the primary concern in the East, and they are, then the need to have a massive frontcourt is greatly diminished. I would argue what we need is better scorers around Derrick so that the Heat can't take the approach they did last season, which was to throw all resources into shutting Derrick down and letting the rest of the Bulls try to beat them. This was the concern the Bulls tried to address, at least in part, by releasing Bogans and signing Hamilton. Hamilton has been hurt and has been ineffective in the first round of the playoffs. We probably won't get to test the theory about whether he would have been useful against the Heat, however.

In my mind, the Bulls are an excellent defensive team. They also have a number of pretty good scorers outside of Rose. Unfortunately, most of that scoring is what I would call "system" scoring. These are players who largely score within the flow of the offense rather than create. The Bulls could very much use a guy who can put the ball on the floor, create his own shot, get to the free throw line, etc. I would be much more concerned about adding this element than just trying to replace Noah with a relatively unskilled guy who weights 20 pounds more.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Rhyder said:


> Since 6-11, 270lb is the new formula to success of big men that only Hoodey knows, and everyone else is just too blinded by Paxson's creamy love handles to realize... Here is a list of all the 6-11+ 270+ guys to come into the league since 2000:
> 
> Eddy Curry: 6-11, 300lb
> Sagana Diop: 6-11, 310lb
> ...


Notice I've gone out of my way to say "guys who are 6'11" 270 who *can move.*" 

Of course only a moron would say "6'11" 270 = automatic success."

But like I said my man, I've had this argument with so many misguided Bulls fans who think that a center should play like a guard to be effective. 

I have been unanimously shouted down on Bulls forums for wanting centers like Bynum and Hibbert. I remember wanting to trade into the draft for Hibbert the year Rose was drafted (similar to how we got Deng), and getting "oh, well he is too slow to play for the Bulls." It's such a tired argument.

But hey, it sure does look like you're really irritated. I don't remember my last post being toward you, but you sure are replying with vitriol lol.

There is no exact size that determines success. Generally, if a guy can move at 6'11" 270, or 6'10" 260, he's markedly more valuable than a guy who can do the same at 6'11" 240. 

I would love it if John Wooden were alive. Maybe you could sit down and tell him why you hate big centers lol.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> Game, set, and match.


Yes, game, set, match...

From post 108 in this thread:

Now imagine we have a guy who is 270 _*and can move.*_

Because Sagana Diop and Eddy Curry are really going to move well enough to get position right in front of the rim.

You and Rhyder not knowing that I know the difference between Bynum or Perkins and Rafael Araujo would be like me saying that players like Joakim Noah sucked because, after all, look at Brad Sellers. 

My god. Are you both Mike North's children lol


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Bogg said:


> I don't think you understand, I'm not complaining that Drummond wasn't laying people out and screaming his head off, I'm saying he was perfectly content to fade out to the baseline and watch other people play basketball. You don't have to act like a maniac, but you at least have to try hard.


Okay, say we both agree that Drummond sucks, right. It was one suggestion. I'm perfectly happy getting any of a number of guys that size. I'm presuming that you have brain cells, and so therefore we both know that by that I don't mean I want Eddy Curry or Rafael Araujo. I'm assuming that if you have a brain and are getting oxygen to that brain, you've read that I also want a guy who *can move* (you know, like I've said a dozen times) and that I want that guy to be able to play. 

Drummond is one suggestion. As long as we don't overpay, I'd be happy with a number of players. My list of guys I'd like us to at least look at would be (in no order, so I'm not confronted with another ********* list of players who remind Rhyder North of the first guy on the list):

Pau Gasol
Dwight Howard
Kendrick Perkins
Roy Hibbert
DeMarcus Cousins
Nene Hilario
Andre Drummond
Tyson Chandler

Now, notice I didn't list Rafael Araujo, because he sucks at life. I may have left someone out.

The way I look at it, even if you don't like someone or two or three guys on that list, there must be someone you like, and we have two choices in my view. Get a guy like that to "cheat the system" or find a way to get a guy who is just a better PLAYER (at any position) than Noah and Deng.

We can control the paint, and with Rose we can have advantages inside and outside and roll with what we have OR we need to get a Scottie Pippen type. Not necessarily as good, but a legit championship #2 like Pierce, Parker, etc. I also realize that some teams don't have great #2s, but those teams are rare and usually they have a center controlling things some way like Chandler for Dallas.

So if you don't like Drummond, I'm fine, but don't give me David West or Glen freaking Davis. They bring us no closer than Noah, probably farther away by far. 



> Because he isn't a good basketball player at this point. He's fine for catching alley-oops and challenging around the rim, but he's not a good offensive or defensive player (yet) beyond what his athleticism grants him. If he doesn't play hard(and he didn't at Uconn) it's going to be much, much easier to move him off the rim than it is with a guy like Bynum, because Bynum's actually trying.


Bynum has had plenty of the same knocks along the way. As a fundamental basketball player, Bynum isn't that good either. In fact if he was 6'8" 240, I'm not sure he'd be in the league. These guys don't need to be that good as long as they CAN move. As far as developing Drummond, much like Cousins, it's going to take an organizational plan, just like the one the Lakers have HAD for Bynum. I'd implore you to open yourself to the reasoning that if LA didn't have the plan they've had, it could have turned out a lot different for Bynum. 



> I think Cousins could be very good in the right environment. No argument there.


I think if Paxson actually WANTED a player like this, he could get him, but he just doesn't want a guy like this, because he thinks that his love children he's fallen in love with are good enough.

I'd doubt Cousins would cost us much at all, and the potential reward is ridiculous. I also doubt he'll ever achieve success in that NBA graveyard that is Sacto. 



> That's actually the right way to feel about him, my point is that in size and production he's very similar to Nene.


If you want to knock Nene, knock him for who he is. Don't note Okafor and then transfer that on to Nene. I like the low price tag on Nene more than anything. 



> That's all well and good, but Nene is 6'9", and neither one of those guys ties the cap up until 2016. I get your point about needing a legitimate center, but I don't think that Nene's that guy. Not saying that Davis or West are, either, but you have the flexibility to go and get a real center with either of them. Denver didn't dump him in favor of Kenneth Fareid just to do Leonsis a favor.


Remember my only claim on Nene. I've only ever claimed that even he would have been better than signing Boozer. Boozer is a waste of space. 

I don't contest he'd tie up cap, but if you're thinking that old Johnny Pax doesn't plan on keeping the cap tied up with almost no plan at all, I think you might be mistaken. 



> Elton Brand takes exception to that.


Elton who? The garbage time stat grabber? LOL


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Rhyder said:


> Nah. He'll thank me for providing the list as it actually supports his argument someway, somehow, even though only about 5 of those players are legitimately good players.
> 
> After all, he has still yet to respond to me pointing out in numerous threads that the (healthy) Bulls are the second best halfcourt team in the league. Hence, not a regular season, fullcourt team.


Tell me exactly why the Bulls are a great team in half court sets? Who gets them high percentage shots? 

I think you're making a play based on layups counting as points in the paint that the Bulls are suddenly a team that scores when good defenses get back in transition and get set to play physical defense. As if full court layups and open passes against bad defenses for layups don't count as "points in the paint." 

And how could they not be a regular season team? Your love child had a 59% winning percentage in regular seasons, but his playoff record is 25-30. 



> He has morphed that argument into how Noah and Boozer get pushed around the paint at ease and uses playoff stats where they were both injured to support his claim.


Stop with the excuses. Is Boozer injured this year? Cause he's shooting 46.8% against the Sixers after shooting 53% in the regular season. Against the 8 seed he's already dropped 6+%! What's your excuse for that?



> He then hedges himself by saying they are good enough to beat first and second round teams, but aren't good enough frontcourt to beat a late playoff team (despite the fact that the Heat have the worst frontcourt out of all of our playoff opponents this year and last).


Name one championship frontcourt since 1978 Worse than Noah and Boozer?


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> Notice I've gone out of my way to say "guys who are 6'11" 270 who *can move.*"
> 
> Of course only a moron would say "6'11" 270 = automatic success."
> 
> ...


Regarding Hibbert, I am actually with you. He was my #1 draft target before we lucked into winning the lottery. He definitely was not a popular choice amongst Bulls fans that year.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> This is what is so funny to me. If the goal is beating the Heat, the frontcourt issue is a secondary concern. You're talking about a team that runs an undersized Joel Anthony at the 5, or lately also an undersized Chris Bosh at the 5. Further, the Bulls are an exceptional rebounding team. To the extent you need to bolster interior defense, you do have some ability to do that already in Asik and Gibson. Could the frontcourt be upgraded? Sure. Is it the primary weakness? Nope.


I wonder what all you "we just need to beat the Heat" people are going to say when OKC at the very least turns heads with their performance against the Heat. The Heat are hardly a lock to win it all. 

Okay, and it's equally comical to me that even though Anthony is undersized, he, Haslem and Pittman seem to push Noah and Boozer around.

And what is the primary Bulls weakness to you? Let me guess. We just need to get another Rip Hamilton type this offseason and we'll be champs right?

Once again, for like the 100th time. Name me a frontcourt worse than Noah and Boozer to win a title in the last THIRTY YEARS. 

The problem with Gibson and Noah is that you're kind of relying on the implication that you're going to sub them in for the advantages they present and somehow keep all of the good things done by Noah. Asik is bigger than Noah. And in just about every regard, he's a worse basketball player. If he could do what Noah does AND was bigger, that would prove your point. 

Gibson is not enough of a scoring threat. I wonder how many tens of millions Paxson will pay Gibson lol. I can't wait for that contract. I'm going to bet 5 years, 45 million. 



> If the Heat are the primary concern in the East, and they are, then the need to have a massive frontcourt is greatly diminished.


Chandler is a much better combination of size and athleticism than Noah, shot 60+% last year and when paired with Dirk made up a much more massive frontcourt than Noah/Boozer.

Yeah, that didn't work. 



> They also have a number of pretty good scorers outside of Rose. Unfortunately, most of that scoring is what I would call "system" scoring. These are players who largely score within the flow of the offense rather than create. The Bulls could very much use a guy who can put the ball on the floor, create his own shot, get to the free throw line, etc. I would be much more concerned about adding this element than just trying to replace Noah with a relatively unskilled guy who weights 20 pounds more.


Oh. I get it. You want to get 2002 Kobe lol. My bad. Why did I want to trade for Demarcus Cousins when, along with Rose and another good player, he could present advantages for us that would allow us to cheat the system by dominating the paint.

You just want to get Kobe. Because that won't be next to impossible. I never knew that all this time you just wanted to call the Heat and see if they'd trade us WADE. My bad man. 

There I go trying to find a way within the confines of reality again. Stupid!


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> Yes, game, set, match another internet forum moderator is not that bright.
> 
> From post 108 in this thread:
> 
> ...


Eddy was one of the most nimble 300 lb not named Shaq. He was a former gymnast and could do a standing backflip,c ertainly not some stiff plugging up the lane. He lacked basketball skill, and more importantly, IQ. He did not know how to use his size to take advantage of his opponents with regularity.

I made the list so you can let the 6'11" 270 lb dead horse lie. Sure, I can come up with a description of an ideal size for any position and qualify that I am right only when that player is actually good. Al Jefferson has size and can move, yet you downplay him. Kevin Love has size (and skill) and you downplay him. To you, Pau, Perkins and Nene are good fits. To me, only Pau qualifies out of those three. Cousins isn't going to be traded any time soon, so let go of that pipe dream for awhiel.

You take your biases towards players, try and come up with a trend that describe the players you like, and make that the Hoodey point of the week, and everyone else is a <insert insult> idiot.

You are so all over the place, listening to you is like listening to my mother-in-law's Mahjong group.

Dennis Rodman was one of the strongest players to ever play the game, and he only needed 6'7" 210 to not be pushed around by anyone outside of Shaq, and he even gave Shaq a run for his money. Point being a couple of inches or 20 lbs isn't going to make a major difference. Basketball skill, IQ, and mobility will.

You clamor for a #2 option, yet all the guys you list are simply upgrades (if that) over Noah. I get it. You don't like Noah and you don't like Boozer.

If it were you building the team, we would have:
Rose / Watson
Brewer
Korver
Nene / Gibson
Asik

And a whole mess of cap room, without the assets to trade for another superstar should it present itself. That's the formula for success.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Rhyder said:


> Regarding Hibbert, I am actually with you. He was my #1 draft target before we lucked into winning the lottery. He definitely was not a popular choice amongst Bulls fans that year.


The problem is, there are always going to be arguments against a guy of that size who can actually play. 

If they are ever the finished product with few question marks, then your odds of getting them are the same as your odds of prying Oden away from Portland.

Oden had a debilitating thing going with one leg being almost two inches longer than the other. There's just no way not to get injured when that's the case. If he didn't have that condition, he'd have been a guy who you don't question at that size, and then good luck getting him.

You have to take risks. And IMO the only thing harder than figuring out if a 6'11" 270 lb. big man with an incomplete, unfinished game is going to pan out, is figuring out if the swingman du jour is going to be a player who is going to come in and be able to actually score big points on Wade's FG%. For every Wade or Bryant, how many dozens and dozens of Latrell Sprewells are there. And he's a GOOD possibility. For every 6'11" 285 lb. big man who turns into Eddy Curry, there a ton of gifted swing men who become Lenny Cooke or Chris Porter or Ron Mercer or Jalen Rose. 

Good centers are hard to get. But not as hard as legit swingmen who can shoot 50% in the playoffs and lead their team to victory.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> Tell me exactly why the Bulls are a great team in half court sets? Who gets them high percentage shots?
> 
> I think you're making a play based on layups counting as points in the paint that the Bulls are suddenly a team that scores when good defenses get back in transition and get set to play physical defense. As if full court layups and open passes against bad defenses for layups don't count as "points in the paint."


Again with the Hoodey knowing what I think, and then retorting the thought that he thinks that I think.

I multiple times broke down the top 10 teams and completely took out transition offense. In terms of half court eFG%, San Antonio was #1, Chicago #2, Oklahoma City #3, Boston #4... Miami #7.

You laughed at it saying that if Miami was #7, then I clearly did not know what I was talking about. Again, Miami is not a very good offensive halfcourt team.



> And how could they not be a regular season team? Your love child had a 59% winning percentage in regular seasons, but his playoff record is 25-30.


Love child, nice. I'm beginning to think you have a thing for Paxson. Do you think he has some nice baby blues?

You clearly do not understand statistics and are guilty of the #1 crime in misusing them. It's called backfitting. Look it up, or take a Stats class.

If the Hinrich/Gordon Bulls equate to this years Bulls, then pass judgment.

There is clearly only one thing we agree on, and that is I think Oklahoma City beats the Heat in the finals as well.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Rhyder said:


> Eddy was one of the most nimble 300 lb not named Shaq. He was a former gymnast and could do a standing backflip,c ertainly not some stiff plugging up the lane. He lacked basketball skill, and more importantly, IQ. He did not know how to use his size to take advantage of his opponents with regularity.


Yeah, by "can move" I mean all of the things that allow you to do what Bynum does. Like "Don't be fat" "motivate yourself" "don't be a headcase" lol. 



> I made the list so you can let the 6'11" 270 lb dead horse lie. Sure, I can come up with a description of an ideal size for any position and qualify that I am right only when that player is actually good. Al Jefferson has size and can move, yet you downplay him. Kevin Love has size (and skill) and you downplay him. To you, Pau, Perkins and Nene are good fits. To me, only Pau qualifies out of those three. Cousins isn't going to be traded any time soon, so let go of that pipe dream for awhiel.


I don't think Jefferson or Love are very good. Love shoots 44.8%. To me, it's probably because even though he's 260, he lacks explosiveness. 

I don't have terrible things to say about Jefferson. 

As far as your comment that you can make an ideal size for any position, that's fine, but the center position inherently has more control over the game at a certain size, because size and power controls things close to the paint. Who was the last center Noah's size to win anything?

Why doesn't Perkins fit? He won a title in Boston as the starting center and he's about to do the same for OKC. You're just not going to beat Perkins up and winning the physical battle is the route many teams have decided to go. Or are you asserting that Chandler or Anthony help their team win by winning the skill battle? Bynum, Perkins, Wallace..

Look, reality is on my side. We're this great regular season operation. We're 25-30 under Paxson in the playoffs. 

Cousins could be had. You're telling me we couldn't get him for a minor package involving the Charlotte pick and a good player? Our organization just doesn't want him or players like him, admit it.



> You take your biases towards players, try and come up with a trend that describe the players you like, and make that the Hoodey point of the week, and everyone else is a <insert insult> idiot.


Yes, because I haven't done things like presenting numbers supporting my case for what we're doing not working.

I just think use my biases to make unsubstantiated claims. 



> You are so all over the place, listening to you is like listening to my mother-in-law's Mahjong group.
> 
> Dennis Rodman was one of the strongest players to ever play the game, and he only needed 6'7" 210 to not be pushed around by anyone outside of Shaq, and he even gave Shaq a run for his money. Point being a couple of inches or 20 lbs isn't going to make a major difference. Basketball skill, IQ, and mobility will.


But Rodman has nothing to do with our problems and wouldn't fix them. 

What's our problem? Getting high percentage offense. How would Rodman solve that.

See, this is what shows that you're not even on the same plane mentally regarding basketball. Dennis Rodman won because he played with Michael F-ing Jordan and also on a team with 2 other hall of famers, another 4-time all-star, an unreal sixth man, a great backup frontcourt player and a high draft pick in Mark Aguirre.



> You clamor for a #2 option, yet all the guys you list are simply upgrades (if that) over Noah. I get it. You don't like Noah and you don't like Boozer.
> 
> If it were you building the team, we would have:
> Rose / Watson
> ...


No no. These are centers who can help us overcome a second option by controlling the paint. 

Gasol is a second option. Perkins is a big center who can do what Chandler did, control the paint and allow that control to supplement the lacking offensive games of the players we have. It's much harder to guard Deng and Boozer when two guys would have to be on Andrew Bynum to keep him off the rim. 

As for the team we'd have under me, you're missing a few things. I'd want to lowball Deng or Noah. I never said I'd let both walk if both players wanted their current deals.

I'd likely have let Deng walk and rolled with Noah and Rose for two years, which would have resulted in much better draft picks, because we would have gone to the lottery a couple of times. 

You see, I wouldn't have fallen for this illusion that without Deng we'd never be good with Derrick Rose. We'd have gone to the lottery and gotten a couple high picks.

So, instead of picking 16th in 09 and losing to Boston, we'd likely have picked in the top ten. Now you have Demar DeRozan.

After that season, my permanent plans would have gone forward with a nucleus of:

C Noah
F future
F DeRozan
G future
G Rose

I like smaller more athletic 3s.

The following season, as DeRozan grows, maybe we're a bad team and end up in shot of DeMarcus Cousins.

When you talk about a sure thing like Rose, I don't think there is anything wrong with doing what OKC did and planning to make your move 3-4 years after you get that player.

But Paxson had to keep Deng because what he had to be more than anything is competitive right away. 

Don't ever pretend to know who I'd want. I talk about who I'd want to get out of the NBA hell trap Paxson has gotten us in.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Rhyder said:


> Again with the Hoodey knowing what I think, and then retorting the thought that he thinks that I think.
> 
> I multiple times broke down the top 10 teams and completely took out transition offense. In terms of half court eFG%, San Antonio was #1, Chicago #2, Oklahoma City #3, Boston #4... Miami #7.
> 
> ...


That's funny, I typed "halfcourt efg" and got this:

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/miamiheat/post/_/id/12816/meet-the-nbas-best-halfcourt-team

I'm sure there are 250 ways to measure this, including ways that don't account for trips to the line (I'm looking at you mr. efg%). I simply don't know how you could look at this team and say, "yeah, they can get a high percentage shot when they want one. They're not susceptible to scoring droughts. They have a go to option in the physical halfcourt in the playoffs."

Or how do you explain Miami beating Chicago 4-1 last year. Chicago was able to get offense whenever they wanted but just couldn't guard Miami? Is that is lol?


----------



## Job (Feb 28, 2011)

:whoknows:


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Hoodey said:


> So if you don't like Drummond, I'm fine, but don't give me David West or Glen freaking Davis. They bring us no closer than Noah, probably farther away by far.



You can't honestly think I meant I want either of them starting at center on a contender. That's just stupid. I'd just much rather have to deal with players of that quality on their contracts than Nene on his. 




Hoodey said:


> Bynum has had plenty of the same knocks along the way. As a fundamental basketball player, Bynum isn't that good either. In fact if he was 6'8" 240, I'm not sure he'd be in the league. These guys don't need to be that good as long as they CAN move. As far as developing Drummond, much like Cousins, it's going to take an organizational plan, just like the one the Lakers have HAD for Bynum. I'd implore you to open yourself to the reasoning that if LA didn't have the plan they've had, it could have turned out a lot different for Bynum.


Yea, Bynum worked out, and there've been plenty of other big guys who weren't stiffs that didn't work out. Drummond's one of those guys who could go either way. The reason I've argued against him is the fact that it'd be comically expensive to trade into the top three to get him when he's a guy who won't make a difference until three to five years out at best.






Hoodey said:


> If you want to knock Nene, knock him for who he is. Don't note Okafor and then transfer that on to Nene. I like the low price tag on Nene more than anything.


I am knocking Nene for who he is. He's a 6'9" center who's going to be 30 next year and has never had a big playoff series. 




Hoodey said:


> Remember my only claim on Nene. I've only ever claimed that even he would have been better than signing Boozer. Boozer is a waste of space.
> 
> I don't contest he'd tie up cap, but if you're thinking that old Johnny Pax doesn't plan on keeping the cap tied up with almost no plan at all, I think you might be mistaken.


Obviously I have it out for Nene and that contract he got. If your main claims are that he'd be less frustrating than Boozer and he'd tie up cap so that Pax can't tie it up in new, much worse ways then.......sure, I guess?





Hoodey said:


> Elton who? The garbage time stat grabber? LOL



Hey, before he popped his Achilles Elton was legit, whether you like it or not.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Bogg said:


> You can't honestly think I meant I want either of them starting at center on a contender. That's just stupid. I'd just much rather have to deal with players of that quality on their contracts than Nene on his.


This team needs one of two things:

1) A Scottie Pippen - Even if that player is of slightly lesser quality

or

2) A center who presents some skill (high percentage scoring, defense) and can't be pushed around due to size. And anyone who knocks Nene needs to realize Noah is 240 and Boozer has no explosiveness.

So, if Nene is all you can get, fine. West and Davis fill neither. They just keep you on track to continue being Derrick Rose and the rest of the 2008 Bulls or what I call Derrick Rose and the 11 Kelly Tripuckas.



> Yea, Bynum worked out, and there've been plenty of other big guys who weren't stiffs that didn't work out. Drummond's one of those guys who could go either way. The reason I've argued against him is the fact that it'd be comically expensive to trade into the top three to get him when he's a guy who won't make a difference until three to five years out at best.


Drummond can go either way, that's why Paxson makes the big bucks. He needs to determine which way he'll go and then have a plan to develop him if he does pick Andre. But you and I both know he's not even looking at Andre, because he doesn't like players like that. Oh, I'm sorry. He did pick Will Perdue Asik. 

Also, I don't want you to think I'm Drummond or bust. Drummond is pretty far down my list, but if we could get a good deal to trade into the draft for him, I'd do it ONLY IF we couldn't get another big center or second star. 

*Remember my only assertion on big centers like Bynum, Cousins, Hibbert, etc. 

You have two choices the way I see it. 

Start with your Jordan (Rose) and get a Pippen. OR, you better go get a big time advantage at the center position. You're not going to not have a Pippen and win titles with a 240 lb. center. Period.*



> I am knocking Nene for who he is. He's a 6'9" center who's going to be 30 next year and has never had a big playoff series.


The playoff series thing is Carmelo's fault. They were never going to feed the ball to him enough to let that high percentage offense extrapolate out because Melo is a ball-hogging gun. 

I hesitate to blame 2nd and 3rd best players for bad playoff series when they play with guys like the guy Anthony was in Denver. If Nene had shot 44% for his career that's one thing. But when I see a guy who has shot 53%, even if it's 11 PPG, I'm saying, "that's a guy who needed the ball more."

Once again, my big pitch on Nene is that he's better than Boozer. I've never said I'd take the guy over Bynum, Gasol, Hibbert, Perkins, Cousins, etc.



> Obviously I have it out for Nene and that contract he got. If your main claims are that he'd be less frustrating than Boozer and he'd tie up cap so that Pax can't tie it up in new, much worse ways then.......sure, I guess?


We have come to weird, strange turf to agree on this then? lol



> Hey, before he popped his Achilles Elton was legit, whether you like it or not.


Not really. That team was so awful it was begging for a marginally good player to grab stats. EVERYONE on that team sucked at everything.

Pre-injury, I'm not saying that he wouldn't have been a guy who got 15 and 9 on a good team, but on a good team he was not going to get 20 and 10, and you have to remember the power forward thing.

Of all the regular season star PFs I've ever seen, and I've seen dozens, who actually was as good in the playoffs as the regular season?

Kevin McHale
Horace Grant 
Dennis Rodman
Tim Duncan
Pau Gasol
Kevin Garnett

McHale had the best finesse post game and technical post moves of any four ever. No surprise there. If Joakim Noah suddenly had McHale's post moves, he'd be a hall of famer.

Horace Grant was a borderline star/non-star as a 3rd dog. He remained a 3rd star in the playoffs, because he was a guy who was ACC offensive player of the year in college, and then dedicated himself to defense and conditioning in the pros. Still, he was a 3rd star, so it's not that significant.

Dennis Rodman was a defensive player and also a 3rd dog. Also not significant.

Duncan would have been a career center on most teams, but he landed on a team with David Robinson. He's 6'11" 260 and if Noah was 6'11" 260 at his ability, he'd be a different player.

Ditto on Gasol. At 7'0" 250 you have to say "okay, if Karl Malone was 7'0" 250, would things have been different?" Absolutely. If Charles Barkley was Gasol's size, he'd be a top 4 player ever.

Garnett can absolutely jump out of the gym on levels no PF has ever approached, certainly no one with his defense and just overall talent. He's a player, like Magic, who belies position.

So if you're looking at typical 6'10" 240 lb. PFs, the only one of them to be as good as a second or first star in the playoffs as the season was Kevin McHale. 

Brand would never have factored into the playoff picture as more than a decent 3rd dog.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

I'm on board with the whole second star or big center thing, so I don't really have any bone to pick with that.




Hoodey said:


> The playoff series thing is Carmelo's fault. They were never going to feed the ball to him enough to let that high percentage offense extrapolate out because Melo is a ball-hogging gun.
> 
> I hesitate to blame 2nd and 3rd best players for bad playoff series when they play with guys like the guy Anthony was in Denver. If Nene had shot 44% for his career that's one thing. But when I see a guy who has shot 53%, even if it's 11 PPG, I'm saying, "that's a guy who needed the ball more."


I'd be more inclined to accept that argument if his production had changed in any significant way after Carmelo left Denver or when he got traded to Washington, but that didn't happen. He shoots at a very high percentage because he takes what's given to him by the D, he's not a guy that goes out and gets his own offense. That's not necessarily a knock on him, but I don't want to pay him the kind of money he's getting, and he's not a guy who's going to jump to 20 and 10 with more unselfish teammates.






Hoodey said:


> We have come to weird, strange turf to agree on this then? lol


More or less. I don't hate the general idea you're pushing, just take exception to some of the specifics. 




Hoodey said:


> Brand would never have factored into the playoff picture as more than a decent 3rd dog.


The only time Elton got into the playoffs healthy he averaged 25 and 10 on 55% shooting and got *the Clippers* to game seven in the second round. That makes him a borderline superhero. Easily a worthwhile power forward.


EDIT: Upon further review, stop acting like I wanted West or Davis playing center for this version of the Bulls. You know that wasn't the case. I brought those two up because they were both free agents last year that have been a better value than Nene, in the same free agent class.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Bogg said:


> I'd be more inclined to accept that argument if his production had changed in any significant way after Carmelo left Denver or when he got traded to Washington, but that didn't happen. He shoots at a very high percentage because he takes what's given to him by the D, he's not a guy that goes out and gets his own offense. That's not necessarily a knock on him, but I don't want to pay him the kind of money he's getting, and he's not a guy who's going to jump to 20 and 10 with more unselfish teammates.


Again, consider the context. Jnr pressed me as to who I'd want instead of Boozer. At minimum I told him Nene would have been a good alternative. 

I got lectured all year that I just couldn't see that Boozer was hurt last year, and how dare I note that he shot 52% in the regular season but only 40.6% v. the Heat. Obviously, he was just hurt, and I couldn't see that.

Well, this year, he shot 53.2% in the regular season and *42.2% v. the 8 seed!!*

So I ask you, who do you want? A guy who shoots 56% in the regular season and 53% in the playoffs, even at only 11 PPG. Or, for only 2 million more, a guy who scores 13.5 PPG on 42.2% FG?



> The only time Elton got into the playoffs healthy he averaged 25 and 10 on 55% shooting and got *the Clippers* to game seven in the second round. That makes him a borderline superhero. Easily a worthwhile power forward.


Against the Nuggets and Suns; not exactly playoff juggernauts.

What makes Michael great is his accomplishments and the fact that they only got better against the best teams. If he had failed to reach those best teams, and you were looking at 31 PPG against Barkley's Sixers and the 89 Cavs, it would be a different story.

Brand's popularity with a lot of Bulls fans resides in the fact that when he was traded for Chandler, he became a figure for the anti-Krause crowd to latch on to. Krause made a lot of awful moves and deserved a lot of anger post 98. But that just doesn't make Brand as good as many of his fans in Chicago have wished he was.

He never reached the CF, and that's when the NBA playoffs generally separates the real for the pretenders. 


[/quote]EDIT: Upon further review, stop acting like I wanted West or Davis playing center for this version of the Bulls. You know that wasn't the case. I brought those two up because they were both free agents last year that have been a better value than Nene, in the same free agent class.[/QUOTE]

But they're not a better value than Nene. 

Nene can push Joel Anthony around. David West can't.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Hoodey said:


> Again, consider the context. Jnr pressed me as to who I'd want instead of Boozer. At minimum I told him Nene would have been a good alternative.
> 
> I got lectured all year that I just couldn't see that Boozer was hurt last year, and how dare I note that he shot 52% in the regular season but only 40.6% v. the Heat. Obviously, he was just hurt, and I couldn't see that.
> 
> ...


I'm not big on Boozer either. Like I said, if all we're arguing is whether you'd prefer Nene or Boozer, I'm not really opposed to Nene. 





Hoodey said:


> Against the Nuggets and Suns; not exactly playoff juggernauts.
> 
> What makes Michael great is his accomplishments and the fact that they only got better against the best teams. If he had failed to reach those best teams, and you were looking at 31 PPG against Barkley's Sixers and the 89 Cavs, it would be a different story.
> 
> ...


Nobody's putting him up there with Jordan, that's just crazy, but he's certainly head-and-shoulders better than the rest of the "post-Rodman" group at power forward. He could have certainly filled that Horace Grant role, which is way more than you can say about the likes of Tyrus Thomas.





Hoodey said:


> But they're not a better value than Nene.
> 
> Nene can push Joel Anthony around. David West can't.


The point is that I'd rather have a productive guy at a different position who's about to be on a expiring deal than deal with Nene's monstrous contract. Even if he can push Anthony around, it's not like he's going to take advantage of it. You know exactly what you're getting from Nene - nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Bogg said:


> I'm not big on Boozer either. Like I said, if all we're arguing is whether you'd prefer Nene or Boozer, I'm not really opposed to Nene.


That's all the Nene thing was. Basically, I argued I'd have low-balled Deng, because then I wouldn't have had to sign Boozer or lose the cap space. Jnr then replied, "well, who would you sign." My reply was, at the very least I'd rather have Nene on his current deal than Boozer. Heck, we could have had Tyson Chandler instead. I believe a frontcourt of Tyson/Joakim would be fine to just add scoring punch at swingman and challenge just about anybody. Boozer is 5" shorter, fatter, and several notches below Tyson in athleticism. Better jumpshot and post moves, WAY less defense and ability to clean glass for a putback. 

Tyson is in NYC, where he'll have problems he would not have on the Bulls (believe me, a guy like him would have much less crowding and much more freedom in Chicago). So sure he shot 44.0% in the playoffs this year. Last year in Dallas he shot 58.2% in the playoffs. Chicago is more like Dallas than NYC. 

Tyson is definitely a tri-rotational center. It would actually be ideal, because he could play center with Noah at PF (I've always thought Noah could play spot duty at PF), play center with Gibson and then Gibson could play with Noah or Chandler or Asik. 

MVPtotheWee then mocked me telling someone that my "master plan" was to get Nene. Not true. My master plan would be to go back to 2008 and NOT sign Deng, offering him 4 years, 32 million and telling him to take it or leave it, knowing full well that I could follow OKC's blue-print and wait to be good with Rose until year 4: ALSO knowing full well that it's not like a team with Rose and without Deng is going to become the 2002 Bulls. 



> Nobody's putting him up there with Jordan, that's just crazy, but he's certainly head-and-shoulders better than the rest of the "post-Rodman" group at power forward. He could have certainly filled that Horace Grant role, which is way more than you can say about the likes of Tyrus Thomas.


I wasn't saying comparisons with Jordan in terms of greatness. No way. I was simply giving an example of a guy who does the same things in rounds 3 and 4 as he does in rounds 1 and 2. I don't have a lot of value for guys who give (a) small glimpses of big performances (b) in early parts of their career when they are still healthy (allowing their fans to say "hey, this guy would always have been this good if he wasn't hurt!") (c) and don't make the last two rounds. 

By your argument structure here, Grant Hill could be argued as a top 25 player ever. 

Brand didn't make it late enough or have a large enough sample size to legitimize the hype. Like I said, his popularity had more to do with his status as an "anti-Krausean" figure than anything else. 



> The point is that I'd rather have a productive guy at a different position who's about to be on a expiring deal than deal with Nene's monstrous contract. Even if he can push Anthony around, it's not like he's going to take advantage of it. You know exactly what you're getting from Nene - nothing more, nothing less.


It's not about pushing Anthony around. It's about NOT GETTING PUSHED AROUND by Anthony. What you do get from Nene is still going to be present v. goon chumps like Anthony and Haslem. Take his last game v. Miami in Denver. He muscled those guys around. Since we don't have a playoff sample, it's all I have. He couldn't muscle Bynum, sure. But Bynum is several notches above the chumps in Miami's frontcourt (the chumps who pushed Noah and Boozer around).

Is David West going to be any less muscled around by Miami's goonish style? Nope. 

But, like we both agree, Nene is not ideal. Ideal would be to go back and not be in a position where Deng's contract took lotto picks away and made us HAVE to do so much.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> My master plan would be to go back to 2008 and NOT sign Deng...
> 
> But, like we both agree, Nene is not ideal. Ideal would be to go back and not be in a position where Deng's contract took lotto picks away and made us HAVE to do so much.


----------

