# Can't Say I'm All That Excited About The Bulls This Season...



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

1. I don't like Tyson at starting Center, he CAN't shoot.

2. We have NO leadership.

3. I miss Eddy, although he wasn't the greatest, he was better than what we have now.

We're going to be the milwaukee team that made it to the playoffs two years ago and missed it last season. I don't see us being better than ANY team in the central, not even close.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Bucks will probably win 40 games tops, we won't even be close to that? We're looking at a 30-35 win season you think?


----------



## Ron Mexico (Feb 14, 2004)

i think the bulls are better than the cavs and mil, but thats just my opinion


----------



## nybullsfan (Aug 12, 2005)

I think we win around 43-45 games we are still one of the better defensive teams in the league (i think first in opp FG%) and unlike that bucks team we are built around defense. although losing curry is bad he did cost us many turnovers did not defend or rebound. We have alot of dept and hinrch,gordon,deng,sweetney is only going to improve plus next year we can grab nene and maybe b wallace. also nowadays centers dont need to score chandler's defense is just as effective as curry's offense or bens clutch play in the 4th.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

There was always one thing that excited me each preseason that is now absent: Is this the year Eddy Curry gets it? 

Unfortunately, the answer to that question always came in the form of a resounding "no". 

But it was exciting nonetheless. So I'll agree that I'm less "excited" than I used to be, because I don't have that wondering anticipation as to Sweetney's performance or Songaila's. But I still think the Bulls will be virtually as good record wise as they were last year, and that they will make the playoffs again. So that is exciting, I guess.


----------



## Nobull1 (Oct 6, 2002)

Ron Mexico said:


> i think the bulls are better than the cavs and mil, but thats just my opinion


cav

pg snow vs duhon even
sg hughes vs hinrch even
sf lebron vs deng cav
pf gooden vs ???? cav
c Illgauskas vs Chandler cav


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Nobull1 said:


> cav
> 
> pg snow vs duhon even
> sg hughes vs hinrch even
> ...


Bulls bench >>>

But I do think the Cavs will be better than the Bulls next season.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

Nobull1 said:


> cav
> 
> pg snow vs duhon even
> sg hughes vs hinrch even
> ...



Good ole paper basketball.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Most people weren't too excited heading into last year, either. That pretty much changed around mid-season when we went from 0-9 to exceeding a .500 record. The rest they say is history. 

As Ron Cey alluded to, there also might be less excitement because alot of this team's potential has come together so soon. And of course we didn't have the means of making a big splash this off-season, equipped with zero draft picks and only the mid-level exception. That doesn't mean we won't have a good season, IMO.


----------



## Nobull1 (Oct 6, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Most people weren't too excited heading into last year, either. That pretty much changed around mid-season when we went from 0-9 to exceeding a .500 record. The rest they say is history.
> 
> As Ron Cey alluded to, there also might be less excitement because alot of this team's potential has come together so soon. And of course we didn't have the means of making a big splash this off-season, equipped with zero draft picks and only the mid-level exception. That doesn't mean we won't have a good season, IMO.


Last year was last year. I like Cleveland better


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

i highly recommend one of these. 

:smilewink


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> i highly recommend one of these.
> 
> :smilewink


That would be easier to do with one of those Kirk dolls. :angel: 

But seriously, what I want is a team that's interesting to watch, and I think we have one. Winning will come. There have been stretches in those 40 yers when the team wasn't that interesting (I was never fond of the Reggie Theus teams although I can't remember exactly why anymore) and the years after Pippen/Jordan left were cold. 

Building a champion takes time. Sometimes. Heck, Milwaukee's only done it once, and some teams haven't done it at all and may never do it. 

(And why is a Reggie Theus jersey on sale at the Tribune Bulls shop?)


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> i highly recommend one of these.
> 
> :smilewink


chill for what?

They may be better or they may not..all I'm saying it, I'm not that excited...We have a young team with no superstar and no leader..


----------



## mr.ankle20 (Mar 7, 2004)

The ROY said:


> chill for what?
> 
> They may be better or they may not..all I'm saying it, I'm not that excited...We have a young team with no superstar and no leader..



I bet you were one of those people who thought the bulls would struggle to win 30 games last year


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)




----------



## RipDirty (Jun 17, 2002)

is Hinrich v. Hughes really an even? If so in what league are we talking about?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

The ROY said:


> 1. I don't like Tyson at starting Center, he CAN't shoot.
> 
> 2. We have NO leadership.
> 
> ...



Dont agree with everything here but your entitled to feel this way. Its hard to gear up for what will most likely be 500 ball.


----------



## RipDirty (Jun 17, 2002)

What's gonna happen when the guards get into the lane and pass the rock to Tyson? I fear turnover after turnover. His hands are garbage. Are we going to see more and more floaters without Eddy to catch and finish?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

I'm not that excited about the Bulls, either, The ROY. It's the first time I've felt that way in, well, for about as long as I can remember.

What's particularly scary is that unlike you, I can't even come up with a specific reason for why I'm not excited. I've lasted for about five minutes through each preseason game before my clicker trigger took me away to another game to scout rotisserie prospects. I haven't read any of the preseason propaganda in the local papers. I haven't gone over the schedule to get a feel for how the first few weeks of the season will shake out.

I'm not sure if it's DNA-gate, the loss of Curry, or the numbing cumulative effect of having lost so many players over the years. But it doesn't seem like Bulls games will be an "automatic" at my house this season, and that's the first time that's happened since I got League Pass five years ago.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

RipDirty said:


> What's gonna happen when the guards get into the lane and pass the rock to Tyson? I fear turnover after turnover. His hands are garbage. Are we going to see more and more floaters without Eddy to catch and finish?


I say give the them a chance to play. The Bulls are going to have alot more spacing this year then in recent years. Now I dont think we really improved from a talent standpoint. Probably took a step backwards. But if there is anything to be exciting about is the fact that the guards and some of the bigs, Songaila in particular, can step out and clear the driving lanes. So if Tyson can knock down the 15 footer with regularity, IT COULD BE FUN TO WATCH. But I think ROY has every right to be a little bit not excited. The team didnt get better from a talent stand point over the summer and the rest of the east did. But there could be some organic growth and some growth from learning to play from each other that can not be measured until the product is seen. But with the Sox, the summer that Pax had (I still can not believe he *****ed about the Curry situation as much as he did) and the fact that the east just got so much better, ROYs opinion should be valued.


----------



## RipDirty (Jun 17, 2002)

I just feel like this franchise has turned itself into the NBDL. The birthplace for everyone's future allstar except Chicago's. Its almost like we're watching to see who's next to leave.


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

I anticipate the season as always, and if Skiles allows the mini-malaise in the team that seems to be permeating this board he will have fallen down on the job. I am excited to see what happens in the backcourt - can any two of the three big guns coexist? I am excited to see what the new players add - Tim Thomas might as well be a giant question mark running around out there. I'm excited to see Deng's left hand. I'm excited to see Kirk's shooting percentage. I'm excited to see Skiles find minutes for everybody, and I'm excited to see Pax solve that problem. Regarding Chandler being unable to shoot - That seems more suited to C than PF, not less. I'm really looking forward to seeing Chandler at C. In a way I feel more like 2003 in my anticipation to watch him play than last year... What can he do? What can't he? I think the fact that he can't shoot as you say (can't shoot much, Phil added) is more suited to a center than a PF, if we're doing comparisons. Who shoots more 20 footers, PF's or centers? Are there more purely defensive centers, or PFs? Who is more likely to be drawn to the 3-point line on defense, out of position to offer help defense and send rejections down people's throats, a C or a PF? I don't claim to be as expert as other people around here, but I have always said Tyson looks like a center to me, with maybe a little more beef on him. We will be a much quicker team with Tyson at C. He may lead the league in blocks soon. I'm ready to go. :clap:


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Yeah I'm not excited either. Last year was a bit of a downer going in because we had just lost JC. But we still had Curry so all was well. Now my favorite Bull is Hinrich, a player I hated with a passion in college. I'm hoping it will get better once the season starts. But right now I'm much more excited about other teams, not our own.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Is it possible some of you aren't excited because we most likely know what to expect from the Bulls in 05-06?

The consensus around here seems to be around 40-45 wins, give or take a few games. That's right in line with my own expectations. 

Over the past 6 years, we've always had high draft picks joining the team and a sense of hope to go along with them. We thought just maybe this would be the guy to turn our fortunes around. Well, this year doesn't have that. A couple new faces who are basically known commodities is all we have.

Also, factor in that Deng, Gordon, Hinrich, and Chandler (i.e. our "core") all look very much the same players as last year, and there's not much else we haven't seen already. I share some of this sentiment, and I wouldn't say I'm "excited" really. I'm definitely looking forward to watching this team though, because I loved the energy and team play that I saw last year.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

ChiBulls2315 said:


> Good ole paper basketball.


On that subject, here's the current Bulls' positional ranks in my system based on last year's production:

PG: Duhon (38), Pargo (61)
SG: Hinrich (7), Gordon (31) Pike (74)
SF: Deng (20), Thomas, (32), Nocioni (35)
PF: Songaila (45), Sweetney (47), Allen (68)
C/CF: Chandler (18), Harrington (44)

Here's the Bucks:

PG: M. Williams (35), Goldwire (50)
SG: Redd (12), Mason (25)
SF: Simmons (10), Kukoc (37), Welsch (44)
PF: Smith (31)
C/CF: Gadzuric (30), Johnson (93)

Notable additions: TJ Ford, Andrew Bogut

Here's the Cavs:

PG: Jones (17), Snow (49)
SG: Hughes (4), Newble (54)
SF: James (1), Varejao (39), Pavlovic (68)
PF: Gooden (16), Marshall (27), Henderson (67)
C/CF: Ilgauskas (13), Ekezie (73)

Notable addition: Luke Jackson

Here's the Pistons:

PG: Billups (10), Arroyo (47)
SG: Hamilton (10), Evans (59)
SF: Prince (9), Dupree (64)
PF: R. Wallace (9), McDyess (30)
C/CF: B. Wallace (6), Milicic (99)

Here's the Pacers:

PG: Tinsley (11), Johnson (31)
SG: Jackson (14) Jones (29)
SF: Artest (2), Bender (73)
PF: O'Neal (5), Croshere (37)
C/CF: Foster (23), Davis (38), Pollard (55), Harrison (59)

Notable Additions: Lithuanian SG, Danny Granger

Now obviously the ranks will change and we hope our guys improve (though other teams have some guys that'll improve as well), but here's what I think is not very encouraging: We lose positional matchups with most everyone.

Vs. the Bucks we win 2 out of 5 matchups (SG and C).
Vs. the Cavs we win 0 matchups
Vs. the Pistons we win 0 matchups
Vs. the Pacers we win 2 out of 5 matchups but lose the others by large margins.

Interestingly, this wasn't the case last year. The presence of Davis (41 at PF) and Curry (24 at C/CF) made us more competitive. The absence frequent absense of Artest, Tinsley, Jackson, and O'Neal from the Pacers lineup made them less competitive. Even with Reggie Miller we ranked out better than every matchup for much of the year.

Vs. The Bucks we "won" every position except PG. They didn't have Bobby Simmons, and even ranked as a SF, Des Mason doesn't beat Deng. Chandler and Curry whipped Gadzuric and Pachulia/Smith.

Vs. the Cavs we won 2 matchups (PG - Duhon edged Snow, and SG - Kirk vs. Newble was no contest) but still lost 3, though by a smaller margin. Our bench was also decisively better than the Cavs' last year, which may help explain why they finished worse than us. They also had a chemistry implosion in the second half of the year.

Vs. the Pistons we matched up poorly and lost.

While yes, this is a paper exercise, the paper exercise last year was relatively (although not perfectly) consistent with the actual results. If the same holds true this year, then we're going to have problems because we match up a fair amount worse than we did last year.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

Philomath said:


> I anticipate the season as always, and if Skiles allows the mini-malaise in the team that seems to be permeating this board he will have fallen down on the job. I am excited to see what happens in the backcourt - can any two of the three big guns coexist? I am excited to see what the new players add - Tim Thomas might as well be a giant question mark running around out there. I'm excited to see Deng's left hand.  I'm excited to see Kirk's shooting percentage. I'm excited to see Skiles find minutes for everybody, and I'm excited to see Pax solve that problem. Regarding Chandler being unable to shoot - That seems more suited to C than PF, not less. I'm really looking forward to seeing Chandler at C. In a way I feel more like 2003 in my anticipation to watch him play than last year... What can he do? What can't he? I think the fact that he can't shoot as you say (can't shoot much, Phil added) is more suited to a center than a PF, if we're doing comparisons. Who shoots more 20 footers, PF's or centers? Are there more purely defensive centers, or PFs? Who is more likely to be drawn to the 3-point line on defense, out of position to offer help defense and send rejections down people's throats, a C or a PF? I don't claim to be as expert as other people around here, but I have always said Tyson looks like a center to me, with maybe a little more beef on him. We will be a much quicker team with Tyson at C. He may lead the league in blocks soon. I'm ready to go. :clap:


All that and more. I'm exciting about our team keeping it close for 3 quarters and unleashing Gordon in the last. I'm exciting about the prospect of a team focused offense.

It's Nocino, Dengs, Gordon and Duhon second season. A GM said once that the biggest improvement a player makes is generally the second season. I can't wait to see how/whether these guys have improved. No Rookie foul calls on them and hopefully more consistant play.

I'm more curious about Sweetney than excited but hey, his another unknown piece which we can watch with intrigue.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> While yes, this is a paper exercise, the paper exercise last year was relatively (although not perfectly) consistent with the actual results. If the same holds true this year, then we're going to have problems because we match up a fair amount worse than we did last year.


Thanks for the info, Mike. 

I also notice another rough correlation though. Just from observation, the guys near the top of the rankings also average the most minutes. The Bulls, as we know, only had 1 guy averaging more than 30 minutes last season. That of course is Hinrich, who was ranked very high at #7.

What if Chandler gets 35 minutes a night this year? Surely that would make his ranking in the top 10 at center (assuming the formula uses rebounds, blocks, FG%, etc).

Lastly, there aren't really good statistics for defense either. Steals and blocks are somewhat shallow, so all we have to go by is that our team was #1 last year in opposing FG% (IMO, the #1 reason for our success). The fact that we used a phenomenal team defense does not factor into those rankings at all, I'm sure.

I'm sure Jalen Rose ranked very high statistically for the Bulls back in 2002. It didn't do us a bit of good though.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

yodurk said:


> *Is it possible some of you aren't excited because we most likely know what to expect from the Bulls in 05-06?*
> 
> *The consensus around here seems to be around 40-45 wins, give or take a few games. That's right in line with my own expectations.*
> 
> ...


I disagree. I think their should be a lot of uncertainty about what to expect from our young guys. Our future rests on how much they step up (or don't).

Similarly, I think you're making it sound like there's not a big difference between "40-45 wins, give or take a few games when", in fact, there is. If this team wins 47 games again I think that's a hell of a good sign and something to be excited about. If this team wins 37 games though, I challenge you guys that have been all lovey dovey about the direction of things to take that seriously as a sign that things aren't going all that swimmingly. A 10 game dip is a pretty significant dip, and I think it should be recognized as such.

For me, I see a pretty significant difference in meaning between a winning season and a losing season for this team. A winning season means that we can be pretty comfortable that we didn't miss that much of a beat this off-season, and our young players are stepping up their games. Even if we lose a couple games we won last year, I think above .500 is something we should be satisfied with knowing we'll be able to make a few more moves in the future to improve. If we end up below .500 though, it's a sign to me that we're not as good as we think we are and we're going to have to get very lucky (instead of just somewhat lucky) to become a truly elite team. It very well could mean back to the drawing board.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Thanks for the info, Mike.
> 
> I also notice another rough correlation though. Just from observation, the guys near the top of the rankings also average the most minutes. The Bulls, as we know, only had 1 guy averaging more than 30 minutes last season. That of course is Hinrich, who was ranked very high at #7.
> 
> ...


I should really post a bit more on my stat system cause I've changed it a bit. But you raise good points.

First, yes, the ranks are based on per game statistical production (and team defense, more on that below). However, it's not correct to assume the total will go up with minutes. I don't "minute adjust" (as in per 48 or 36) my stats because I think minutes played is also an important stat that should be reflected. Would Tyson's stats go up if he played 5 more minutes? Yes, but probably not linearly. His lack of minutes reflects issues of matchups at inability of foul trouble that should be considered.

Second, my rankings account for "team defense" in a way that, while not perfect, I think is sort of innovative. It doles out to each player on a team a minute proportioned share of the team's net statistical production vs. its opposition). Thus, if I took out the minutes played, it would take away the basis for bonus or penalty a player has for playing on a team that plays good defense.

Here's an simplified example of how it works:
1. Add up team production and team opponents production and factor it by total minutes played. Subtract one from the other to get a Net team production per minute. For good defensive teams like the Bulls, this turns in a positive factor of .026 rating points points per minute played (The Spurs were far and away tops with .06 and the Spurs were second with .033 - the Bulls were fifth behind the Grizz, Nets, and Pacers). Note that this stat also tends to account for things like Pace of play, so you're measuring defense as the "net" of your production minues the other guys'.

2. Multiply that per minute amount times the minutes a player played. For example, Chris Duhon gets a credit of 26.5 * .026 = .689 added to his raw total of 9.171 to get an adjusted total of 9.86. That's enough to bump him from my "6th man" category to my "starter" category.

Rose's figure drops his raw "stats only" score of by .62 points to 12.49, which makes him an above average starter but nothing special.

The downside of this system is that it penalizes good individual defenders on bad teams (Al Harrington is a good individual defender of SFs, but he lost .8 points by playing on the Hawks) and gives bonuses to mediocre defenders who play big minutes on bad teams (Brent Barry gets a 1.3 point bonus by playing for the Spurs).

I won't say it's a perfect system by any means, but I think despite this weakness it's still a good one because I view defense as fundamentally a team effort. Surely a guy like Barry doesn't deserve that much credit, but he deserves something for being able to effectively fit in and play a role on the superlative defensive team that was the Spurs. Similarly, I don't mind that Harrington is penalized, because it reflects how little you can get away with as an individual player if your teammates suck at defense.

Basically, what the stat tells me is that if you've got a good defensive team you can do quite well with a couple of individually bad defenders. But an individually good defender can't do much if his team is incompetent at other positions. As long as you keep that in mind, you can read the stats sensibly


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I don't know. I'm almost as excited as I was last year. The better the Bulls get, the more excited I get about the season. I understand some people watch to see their favorite players (Crawford, Curry, etc) but that's being a fan of a player, not the team. 

It's definitely a different feel though, because the last few years, the lottery has been default and playoffs is the high hope. Now it's playoffs as default and lottery as the worst case. I think that switch is what turns people off the most. We'll probably be about the same as last year, and there is little hope to move up being a 60 win team, whereas in the past, it's not as hard to make a 20 win jump from 20 to 40, so the hope was there. 

The hope for improvement isn't there this year, because 47 wins is tough to improve on in one offseason of being limited with picks/money. In the past, there has always been that hope to improve, since the Bulls were a 20 win team and not a 47 win team. 

Now you know how it feels to be a fan of a good team. It has been awhile and I think some people forgot. Thank you John Paxson.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I don't ever remember being a fan of an average NBA team with an upside that very well may be capped at average. 

Of course, I've only been a Bulls fan since the start of the MJ era.

Being a Bulls fan used to be about becoming a champion or being a champion. Now its being jubilant about being average. I'm having a hard time accepting that. Its kind of a yawner for me so far in the preseason.... I hope things become more exciting as the year goes on. 

Of course, I’m not rooting for “the right way” to “prove” a point by hovering around .500, I’m rooting for the Bulls to become champions again.


----------



## Nobull1 (Oct 6, 2002)

I grew and say championships. I was happy for progress but the future is not guaranteed. We can win 35 games just as easily.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

This team doesn't excite me either, not because we got rid of Curry, but because of the way in which we got rid of Curry. Paxson has drawn a bad stench around this franchise, and that has to be terminated. We got very little talent in the Crawford deal, but no bad blood was left on the table, now we get rid of Curry, and bad blood is left, and the bad blood isn't left with Curry, its left with Paxson whining and moaning in the aftermath of the trade, while Curry and his agent had already moved on, but Paxson is sitting here *****ing and moaning about it still after he made the move. He threw out lie after lie after lie. It gets bad when a player is thinking about bringing a lawsuit against you, but that is how bad Paxson made this thing. He also got rid of one of our worst players from last year in the trade, Antonio Davis, but Davis was more to this team than what he actually contributed in production. This team had 5 main sources of energy last year. 1. Eddy's early scoring. 2. Davis' Veteran Prowness 3. Andre Nocioni's Craziness 4. Ben Gordon's Bench Scoring 5. Tyson Chandler's Bench Defense. Well now, we get rid of Eddy and Davis' energy sources, along with Tyson's and Ben's. Now Ben and Tyson both move into starting roles, and they haven't been bringing in much energy this year as starters. Ben has been solid production wise, and Chandler has been a 60 million dollar dirty diaper out there. So we have 1 of last years energy sources left, but the team still runs good, but with the lack of energy, what is to get excited about? With Eddy on board, we could expect anything from lottery to NBA championship, with the current lineup it seems we are just expecting medioquerity, at least until that non-existant 2006 free agent signs with us. Paxson is the one that killed the excitement on this team, he is the one that made this team into a medioqure right way team.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

If it wasn't for Gordon, I don't know if I would be excited at all. Gordon made me forget about Crawford, my former favorite Bulls player, now I'm hoping Sweetney can make me forget about Curry, another one of my former favorites.


----------



## Nobull1 (Oct 6, 2002)

sloth said:


> This team doesn't excite me either, not because we got rid of Curry, but because of the way in which we got rid of Curry. Paxson has drawn a bad stench around this franchise, and that has to be terminated. We got very little talent in the Crawford deal, but no bad blood was left on the table, now we get rid of Curry, and bad blood is left, and the bad blood isn't left with Curry, its left with Paxson whining and moaning in the aftermath of the trade, while Curry and his agent had already moved on, but Paxson is sitting here *****ing and moaning about it still after he made the move. He threw out lie after lie after lie. It gets bad when a player is thinking about bringing a lawsuit against you, but that is how bad Paxson made this thing. He also got rid of one of our worst players from last year in the trade, Antonio Davis, but Davis was more to this team than what he actually contributed in production. This team had 5 main sources of energy last year. 1. Eddy's early scoring. 2. Davis' Veteran Prowness 3. Andre Nocioni's Craziness 4. Ben Gordon's Bench Scoring 5. Tyson Chandler's Bench Defense. Well now, we get rid of Eddy and Davis' energy sources, along with Tyson's and Ben's. Now Ben and Tyson both move into starting roles, and they haven't been bringing in much energy this year as starters. Ben has been solid production wise, and Chandler has been a 60 million dollar dirty diaper out there. So we have 1 of last years energy sources left, but the team still runs good, but with the lack of energy, what is to get excited about? With Eddy on board, we could expect anything from lottery to NBA championship, with the current lineup it seems we are just expecting medioquerity, at least until that non-existant 2006 free agent signs with us. Paxson is the one that killed the excitement on this team, he is the one that made this team into a medioqure right way team.


How dare you insult the infallible John Paxson :gopray: :gopray: 

I agree with you but beware of the John Paxson kool-aid drinkers


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

sloth said:


> This team doesn't excite me either, not because we got rid of Curry, but because of the way in which we got rid of Curry. Paxson has drawn a bad stench around this franchise, and that has to be terminated.


If Paxson has brought a "stench" here, then I want to know what on earth that smell was that preceded him here.




Jamal and Eddy were fairly dopey players who will not be NBA Champions. At least, not leaders on a championship team. $60 mil is a lot of money, and if the market says give it out, then give it to the guy who cares (Tyson) over the guys who can't wait to put forth the bare minimum in this, the most arduous of careers.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

The ROY said:


> chill for what?
> 
> They may be better or they may not..all I'm saying it, I'm not that excited...We have a young team with no superstar and no leader..



_:karenwalkervoice: well, honey, 250,000 milligrams of chill pill is better than 250,000 milligrams of wallowing in it :karenwalkervoice:_

and besides, superstars are overrated! :smilewink

i think we do have leaders. i think ben and kirk and luol and chris are all emerging leaders and on any given night one of these guys can make the difference in a game. i'm excited to watch their continued progress. tyson needs to settle into his role as the defensive difference maker and his offense will come. 

i think songaila is a great addition. i have a feeling skiles will have him and sweetney in fighting shape in january. i think both of them can be difference makers. 

the bulls won't be able to sneak up on anyone this year. i think they all know that. watching them handle the pressure, or not, will be certainly exciting, if not a little nerve-wracking.

i'm looking forward to it. i have zen on my side. 


sidenote to narek: do you think that doll needs C or D batteries? :smilewink :angel:


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

yodurk said:


> Is it possible some of you aren't excited because we most likely know what to expect from the Bulls in 05-06?
> 
> The consensus around here seems to be around 40-45 wins, give or take a few games. That's right in line with my own expectations.
> 
> ...


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to yodurk again.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I don't ever remember being a fan of an average NBA team with an upside that very well may be capped at average.
> 
> Of course, I've only been a Bulls fan since the start of the MJ era.
> 
> ...


I agree with the sentiment here. The goal is a championship, not a consisent 6 seed in the playoffs. And this off-season hasn't been totally encouraging. I wish we had Eddy Curry. We're awfully small upfront. Etc. That being said, we won 24 more games in 04-05 than we did 03-04. Let's not go nuts just yet. I think the current regime has earned, at very least, some time to prove themselves.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

I think you guys have a case of Grizzliesitis. It happens when your team has too much success too soon and you canlt realistically see much room for your desired advancement to a NBA title without making a major acquisition. What is funny is the last season was probably an "in your wildest dreams" scenario but it immediately raises expectations to a level that cannot be obtained. In essence, the Bulls, like the Grizzlies 2 seasons ago should have been a 35-40 win team and looking to push into the playoffs this season. My guess is you guys will be similar and make the playoofs at 7 or 8 and lose again in round 1. On your normal growth curve this would be seen as progress, however, due to your explosive growth last season it will be disappointing.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

I think people get too rapped up in the moment and fail to see the big picture. We had no draft picks and little cap room to do much this off season. The Curry thing was a dark cloud, but I just can't see how we could have kept him under the circumstances. He is not that good anyway, and you are already seeing comments from Brown on his deficiencies. 

This year is sort of a prelude. Paxson does not want to jeopardize the ultimate goal by doing things to slightly imrpove us short term but hinder us long term.

I like the looks of this:

Young nucleus of Chandler, Deng, Hinrich, Gordon, Duhon, Nocioni, Sweetney

2 no. 1 draft picks next year, one or both which may be high picks (hopefully not the Bulls)

15+ million in cap space next year. Great potential free agent signings and trade possibilities with the cap space and picks without giving up our key young core players.

Maybe we might regress a bit this year, but the ultimate goal is championship caliber. I don't think Paxson will jeopardize our long term future for a bit of immediate improvement. Our future is very positive.

Geez, people. Remember when we were 0-9 last year after how many years of stinking. How did you feel then? We have as bright a future as any team in the league. Cheer up!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I also have to say that the press finally coming to the realization that we're seemingly screwed at center for this year and perhaps for the considerable future isn't helping my mood about the team either.

Now that I hear Paxson saying "its hard to trade for bigs" I'm getting more disgusted. Duh! Makes your decision to trade away our bigs for wides and hurts even more dubious Paxson.

What a scrappy, jibby, insignificant team we have.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Salvaged Ship said:


> I think people get too rapped up in the moment and fail to see the big picture. We had no draft picks and little cap room to do much this off season. The Curry thing was a dark cloud, but I just can't see how we could have kept him under the circumstances. He is not that good anyway, and you are already seeing comments from Brown on his deficiencies.
> 
> This year is sort of a prelude. Paxson does not want to jeopardize the ultimate goal by doing things to slightly imrpove us short term but hinder us long term.
> 
> ...



EXACTLY!!! 

I am excited about the bulls. I have always been that way. 

Last season at this exact time, the mood on the board was the same. In fact it got worse when we went 0-9 and fire Paxson was gaining new members every day. Hell, we had posters quit being bulls fans all together. We even had one come on here to post about Jamal, EVERYGAME just to rub it in! We had hay sayers telling us the Bulls would win only 25 games. Who was going to score???

Well guess what? We didnt know they would do what they did. 

Now? The exact same thing. Who is going to score since Curry left? Fire Paxson. 30 wins and miss the playoffs. I for one will wait and see what happens. 82 games is a long time. 

We have the same core back together, except for Curry and AD. We will miss size,the Suns never had it all of last year. NJ Nets didnt have it and still doesnt. 

Lets let the season play out before we claim gloom and doom.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I also have to say that the press finally coming to the realization that we're seemingly screwed at center for this year and perhaps for the considerable future isn't helping my mood about the team either.
> 
> Now that I hear Paxson saying "its hard to trade for bigs" I'm getting more disgusted. Duh! Makes your decision to trade away our bigs for wides and hurts even more dubious Paxson.
> 
> What a scrappy, jibby, insignificant team we have.


We are screwed and IT played his part in doing it. I believe there was a deal to have NY let AD go. Once the trade was made, IT backed out of it and he had John over the ringer so to speak. Meyers saying what he did the day of the trade didnt help anything. 

AD could still be a bull in the future, but we need to go on as if he is not going to be here. That will hurt us. 

Yes, John can take the blame, but IT really is the one that did this. 

The last sentence is true except for "insignificant." We dont know that yet.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Guys who were saying we'd win 50 games and that Curry hurt our team and Davis was a useless old bum are now suddenly saying its ok if we regress and leaving open the "it doesn't matter if we having a losing record" line.

I think many of you are preemtively cushioning your landing zones.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I'm not as excited about this upcoming season either. Of course, I wasn't that excited about last season either until we started kicking butt and taking names. I will watch every Bulls game, just as I always do, and I will root for them. It just seems like with the Curry trade they are sort of painting themselves into a corner and definitley lowering my expectations.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

I'm always excited when basketball season comes around(anything can be better than baseball  ). So I'm excited abt the Bulls too. But i've also realized one thing while watching these preseason games, we are a very BORING team to watch. I don't know what part of "the right way" is players not having a clue of what to do on offense or making simple passes. We also committ too many dumb fouls that never fails to bore down the games to 81-77 yawnfests. We consistently go through some painful stretches of basketball and if I wasn't living in Chicago and hadn't always rooted for the Bulls, there's no way I would watch this team on League Pass.

Hoping our style of play becomes a bit more interesting as the season goes on. I still predict postseason for us as the 7th or 8th seed.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Salvaged Ship said:


> I think people get too rapped up in the moment and fail to see the big picture. We had no draft picks and little cap room to do much this off season. The Curry thing was a dark cloud, but I just can't see how we could have kept him under the circumstances. He is not that good anyway, and you are already seeing comments from Brown on his deficiencies.
> 
> This year is sort of a prelude. Paxson does not want to jeopardize the ultimate goal by doing things to slightly imrpove us short term but hinder us long term.
> 
> ...


Terrific post. This sums up the way I feel. Certainly no dip in wins is more promising than a dip in wins this season. But a dip in wins doesn't mean this team has no future as a contender. We have one of the youngest cores in the entire NBA - probably the youngest of any team that made the playoffs last season - and we haven't seen realization of hardly ANY of the positive assets of the Curry trade yet. Sweetney, we are seeing and the vast majority of us (and apparently Skiles) have been pleasently surprised.

But Thomas' ending contract, the extra capspace, and the draft picks haven't even been put to use yet, and if used during this season it probably won't be until near the trade deadline. 

We have been able to see that the reconstruction of this team has been a process looking to substantial completion by the end of next summer. The Curry trade doesn't really even change that schedule, other than it adds a couple of second round picks and a potential pick swap after that, but that is just gravy.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The style of basketball played in the NBA these days is pretty boring. It's pass the ball around the court until you find an open 3 point shot.

Given that, the loss of a pure center may not mean much.

But it still is a lot more fun to watch teams with guys like Wade who play around or above the rim.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> The style of basketball played in the NBA these days is pretty boring. It's pass the ball around the court until you find an open 3 point shot.
> 
> Given that, the loss of a pure center may not mean much.
> 
> But it still is a lot more fun to watch teams with guys like Wade who play around or above the rim.


Tangent: I think Wade is actually THE most exciting player in the NBA today. With stylish players like Williams and Walker added to the roster this season, I think Miami might be the most exciting team in the league to watch.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> Guys who were saying we'd win 50 games and that Curry hurt our team and Davis was a useless old bum are now suddenly saying its ok if we regress and leaving open the "it doesn't matter if we having a losing record" line.
> 
> I think many of you are preemtively cushioning your landing zones.


Did anyone actually take all three of those positions at once?

Seems to me that a lot of us thought the Bulls might take a step back in the win column even with Curry and Davis due to the significant improvements of other teams in the East.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> We are screwed and IT played his part in doing it. I believe there was a deal to have NY let AD go. Once the trade was made, IT backed out of it and he had John over the ringer so to speak. Meyers saying what he did the day of the trade didnt help anything.


I agree. If IT did change his mind, IT can legitemately say it's because he was worried that the league would revoke the entire trade after all the talking Myers and others did.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Did anyone actually take all three of those positions at once?
> 
> Seems to me that a lot of us thought the Bulls might take a step back in the win column even with Curry and Davis due to the significant improvements of other teams in the East.


I believe one guy in particular who posted in this thread did and a couple others I can think of. The poll results and thread going with it also seem to suggest more than a couple people believe this.

More to the general point, I see quite a lot of soft-pedaling about how much of a step back we take.

A significant number of folks (@ 29%) say we'll win 46 or more games.
Another significant number (@ 44%) say we'll be at or above .500.
(poll)

I'd like some of you folks who are optimistic to about things to say at what point you start to conclude that the talent we have isn't as good as you think. If you expect this team to win about the same number of games or a small amount less, that's a logical conclusion based on your evaluation of the talent that's on this team.

*In short, how much of a step back is "OK"?*

To me, if we're above .500 then we're still on the right track. I don't think we're champions unless we get pretty lucky with trades, free agency and the draft, but its a real possibility.

But the further a step back we take, the more indicative it is that our current talent isn't championship talent, no? So what I want to know from you guys is whether you think we've got the core of a championship team here if we can't even break .500.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I got into a sorta similar debate in the Cubs' forum.

The Cubs were in the playoffs three seasons ago. People expected them to continue to contend.

Aside from the injury issues to Wood and Prior, the team has simply continued to shed some of its best talent, replacing it with lesser talent. It's no surprise to me that the team took a step backwards.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Aside from the injury issues to Wood and Prior, the team has simply continued to shed some of its best talent, replacing it with lesser talent. It's no surprise to me that the team took a step backwards.


Another parallel is that most of that talent purge was supported by the hoople-heads due to "jib" issues.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> I believe one guy in particular who posted in this thread did.
> 
> More to the general point, I see quite a lot of soft-pedaling about how much of a step back we take.
> 
> ...


I also don't know who is soft pedaling, but I'll leave you to those conclusions. I expect the current Bulls team to still make the playoffs. 44-47 wins sounds about right to me. 

But a more significant drop off in a season in which other teams improved and the Bulls had no draft picks or capspace and traded away Eddy Curry for largely future, rather than immediate, returns does not mean that the current core plus the realized assets of the Eddy Curry trade isn't capable of contending for a championship in the coming years.

At the *end of the season* the core, before being added to, will be:

(a) Hinrich - 3 seasons under his belt and 25 years old
(b) Gordon - 2 NBA seasons and 23 years old
(c) Deng - 2 NBA seasons and 21 years old
(d) Chandler - 5 NBA seasons and 23 years old

That is an average of 3 NBA seasons and 23 years old for the 4 core players on the team. If you add Sweetney and Duhon to that group, which I don't yet, those numbers dip even lower. And remember, I'm using their post-season ages and experience levels here.

If a team driven by that outrageously youthful and inexperienced core comes in with 38-40 wins next season, I'm not going to be going into panic mode. 

Not to mention that I don't think its the win total for next season that can be the deciding factor on the ceiling of this core. It will depend significantly on whether or not the surrounding talent steps up and what I see with my eyes in the player development category. 

For example, the team could win 45 games but if I see Eddy Curry-like improvement from Gordon and Deng (in other words, very little or no improvement) I'll be less encouraged than I would be if the team wins 39 games, but the 4 young core players showed solid improvement. The play of the surrounding cast matters significantly when we are talking about immediate wins, but it matters far less in projecting what the long term prospects for success of the current young core is. 

The slight difference between above .500 and below .500 is not terribly important in making long term projections for this team. That being said, if the team stays healthy and wins 31 games, I'll start getting concerned. 

In short, it seems to me you might read far too much into this season's record when it comes to projecting the ceiling for what the Bulls can accomplish down the road.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> I believe one guy in particular who posted in this thread did.
> 
> More to the general point, I see quite a lot of soft-pedaling about how much of a step back we take.
> 
> ...



For me personally, I think the Bulls will be right around 45 or so wins. The two fewer wins from last season basically stem from the east getting better overall. The team as a whole I view as comparable to last year. I actually think we'll score more but defend worse. I think the turnovers will decrease and the fouls will also.

As for the championship core stuff - possibly. This team, even with Curry and Davis, wasn't going to win a championship this season anyway. As far as I'm concerned, the real push for this team to reach "elite" or "championship" status was to take place next summer. Kinda like what the Cavs did this summer. They (the Cavs) made some really nice moves and have definatly put themselves on the map. If they can keep their core together for a couple of years, they're gonna be a serious contender for years to come. I view the Bulls as moving in the same way. The Bulls don't have a Lebron James, but I think their overall level of young talent is better than Clevelands'. This past summer wasn't about becoming a contender. It was supposed to be about continuity. The Curry trade threw a wrench in the works, but I didn't/don't view Curry as being necessary to becomming an elite-level club. Make inprovements this comming off-season thru the draft/trades/free agency and keep the core in place and this team could really start to make some noise.

The season really has to play itself out. We don't know if this club actually has taken a step back, and if so - how much of one - until the games are actually played. A lot can happen between now and April. Injuries. Trades. Chemistry/player problems. This team could finish third or fourth in the east or it could finish tenth (or anywhere inbetween). I really don't think there's a great deal that separates the #4 team (whomever that is) from the #10 team. There's very little room for error this season. I'm looking forward to seeing if this club has what it takes to eliminate those errors. I think it does. Because it's those little errors that separate the really good teams from the merely average ones.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

i think we finish 2nd again in central dvision, 2 games behind Det. we will win 50+games. MARK MY WORDS. see you all at the 2nd round of the playoffs.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I also don't know who is soft pedaling, but I'll leave you to those conclusions. I expect the current Bulls team to still make the playoffs. 44-47 wins sounds about right to me.
> 
> But a more significant drop off in a season in which other teams improved and the Bulls had no draft picks or capspace and traded away Eddy Curry for largely future, rather than immediate, returns does not mean that the current core plus the realized assets of the Eddy Curry trade isn't capable of contending for a championship in the coming years.
> 
> ...


Short of injuries, which is sort of obviously besides the point for this purpose, I'm not really getting your distinction. If our core is really our core, I'd put the odds of us winning 45 games or so with little to no improvement from them at about 0. No one else on this roster, except maybe Noc, is going to make that big a splash (And I'd include him in the core). Likewise, if those guys show significant improvement, how do we end up below .500?

In the former case, you seem to be implying we could have a good record because our supporting cast is better than expected and in the latter that we'd have a poor one because they are worse than expected.

But when you look at our supporting cast as you define it, I don't see a lot of uncertainty about what they're going to bring to the table. Duhon, Noc, Songaila, Sweetney, Harrington and maybe Thomas are gonna get the vast bulk of the remaining minutes and they're pretty well known commodities. If anything, the question is with their upside, not their downside. I mean, if we finish under .500, I'm going to have a really hard time pinning that on Chris Duhon having a poor season. Not only is the likelihood of Duhon playing much worse fairly small, the fact we're relying on him implicitly means we (still) aren't relying on Gordon, and thus, he couldn't have taken the step up you hypothesized.

Thus, I don't see how we could end up under .500 and be very satistied with the progress of our main guys.

The flip side of that is a little different. I wouldn't be too disappointed if we win 46 games and a key factor in that was Nocioni Sweetney being better than expected and Deng being worse. To me that'd just replace one guy in the "core" with another, and still leave us with some hope that Deng gets it together down the road. But again, that's in a situation where we've got a winning record and haven't dropped off very much from last year.

So all in all, I don't see any reason to be discouraged if we are within a few games of last year's total. No matter who gets us there (unless maybe its Tim Thomas), I think that'll be encouraging. But if we drop off by a significant margin - more than 4-6 games, I think, I don't see any realistic way we can come out of that feeling our core players really stepped up their games.


----------



## BULLS23 (Apr 13, 2003)

I am pretty excited about the coming season . . . Even though I think we have kind of a smallish team, I think the way we defend will still lead to 43-47 wins. I absolutely believe we get a low playoff seed and gear up for a pretty good offseason. I can't wait till the Bulls come down to Atlanta so I can go to my only two Hawks games this season!


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> In the former case, you seem to be implying we could have a good record because our supporting cast is better than expected and in the latter that we'd have a poor one because they are worse than expected.


Yes, that is it in a nutshell. In other words, it is going to be more about what we see from our core 4 (my core 4 as I have defined it) than it is going to be the actual record. They may go hand in hand, they may not. That is why it is premature to starting throwing out win totals before the season ever starts as having any bearing on projections for the core of this team down the road. 

In fact, its just a flat out pointless exercise unless we are talking about extreme win disparities.



> But when you look at our supporting cast as you define it, I don't see a lot of uncertainty about what they're going to bring to the table. Duhon, Noc, Songaila, Sweetney, Harrington and maybe Thomas are gonna get the vast bulk of the remaining minutes and they're pretty well known commodities.


I completely disagree. Harrington and Duhon, for example, were far better and had a far larger impact on team success last season than I think anyone, including the organization itself, anticipated. Can they duplicate that impact? I don't know. Songaila is a huge question mark as well. As is Thomas, as you've acknowledged.

Indeed, the only guys who are probably "only upside" question marks are Sweetney and Basden. The bottom line is that we need to wait and observe how everyone plays.

Let me make it very simple: The 2006-2007 season is the one I will primarily use to evaluate what I think of the future of this team. It was that way for me before the Curry trade, and it is that way for me now. I think you are picking the wrong season to hang your hat on. The only way this season becomes the predictive season is if we see significant disparities in wins or core player developement to either extreme.

Edit: I don't mean to make it sound as if this season is a meaningless freebe, because that is not what I mean.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Yes, that is it in a nutshell. In other words, it is going to be more about what we see from our core 4 (my core 4 as I have defined it) than it is going to be the actual record. They may go hand in hand, they may not. That is why it is premature to starting throwing out win totals before the season ever starts as having any bearing on projections for the core of this team down the road.
> 
> In fact, its just a flat out pointless exercise unless we are talking about extreme win disparities.
> 
> ...


But the more success you attribute to the ancillary players, the more imperative it is the core improve if they're truly going to be the core of a championship team. Again, I find it very unlikely that they show real improvement and we take a real step back in wins. If you could give me an example scenario where that happens I'd appreciate it. I'm guessing it will not be a very likely one though.

More likely, a meaningful step back in wins will signify that our core didn't improve the way it needed to.



> Let me make it very simple: The 2006-2007 season is the one I will primarily use to evaluate what I think of the future of this team. It was that way for me before the Curry trade, and it is that way for me now. I think you are picking the wrong season to hang your hat on.


I'm not picking "the" wrong season, I'm picking the only season we currently have to draw conclusions from. That doesn't mean the 06-07 season isn't important, but there's no "suspending judgement" for a year because the decisions of next summer would certainly be made foolishly if the lessons of this season are ignored.

Who to sign, who to trade, and who to pick next summer obviously depends on what the core players show this year. I mean sure, you can say there's some hypothetical where we only win 37 games and feel better than if we won 45, but by and large we'd be pretty silly to think that. Better players make better teams and better teams win more games.



> The only way this season becomes the predictive season is if we see significant disparities in wins or core player developement to either extreme.
> 
> Edit: I don't mean to make it sound as if this season is a meaningless freebe, because that is not what I mean.


It's not "THE" predictive season, it's "A" predictive season. And obviously, the more significant the disparities become, the more concerned or happy we should be.

Which brings me back again to what I'm asking. Yeah, obviously there's not a perfect correlation between our core players' improvement and us holding steady or winning more, but I think it's safe to say there's a pretty strong one (again, give me some strong, realistic examples to show me I'm wrong if you think I am). The fact it's in some absolute sense _possible_ we get significantly worse in terms of record but our core significantly improves doesn't make it _likely_ that this happens.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> But the more success you attribute to the ancillary players, the more imperative it is the core improve if they're truly going to be the core of a championship team. Again, I find it very unlikely that they show real improvement and we take a real step back in wins. If you could give me an example scenario where that happens I'd appreciate it. I'm guessing it will not be a very likely one though.
> 
> More likely, a meaningful step back in wins will signify that our core didn't improve the way it needed to.
> 
> ...


The possibility is why we need to wait and watch it unfold without putting win totals on it now before the season even starts. I never said any of that was likely, Mike. It was an example of how a win total might not be the bottom line in evaluating the potential of this core to compete: 



> For example, the team could win 45 games but if I see Eddy Curry-like improvement from Gordon and Deng (in other words, very little or no improvement) I'll be less encouraged than I would be if the team wins 39 games, but the 4 young core players showed solid improvement. The play of the surrounding cast matters significantly when we are talking about immediate wins, but it matters far less in projecting what the long term prospects for success of the current young core is.


See where is says "for example" and "could" in my post? 

As for your original question, I think this is it, yes?



> In short, how much of a step back is "OK"?


And my answer is that putting it in win/loss total absolutes encourages a shallow analysis.

For example, here is your answer to your question:



> To me, *if we're above .500 then we're still on the right track*. *I don't think we're champions * unless we get pretty lucky with trades, free agency and the draft, but its a real possibility.


I find that to be a severe oversimplification for what this team may accomplish in the future based on a year that is one year *before * the team is in a position to make its major push. Its even more obviously a premature oversimplification given this, as I noted earlier:



> At the end of the season the core, before being added to, will be:
> 
> (a) Hinrich - 3 seasons under his belt and 25 years old
> (b) Gordon - 2 NBA seasons and 23 years old
> ...


We aren't talking about veterans like the Big Three of Cassell, Allen, and Robinson reaching their limits in Milwaukee here.

If a team consisting of that ridiculously young and inexperienced core goes 41/43 or 40/44 during a transitional year immediately prior to using two first round draft picks and $16 million in capspace, don't expect me to get all bent out of shape about the limits of how far it could go in the years that follow.

Like I said, if they take an extreme step back that coincides with a lack of visible developement in the core 4, I'll be concerned. If not, I'm still going to be inclined to keep it together and try to build upon it unless, of course, a legit superstar is there for the taking in trade.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey

At what point (what year) do you say "we haven't won a championship, so all this has been a miserable failure?"


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

The "Wade Owned by Nocioni" thread did remind me of one thing I'm looking forward to: how Andres adapts to the new "no flopping" rule that for all we know was instituted solely on his behalf.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> The possibility is why we need to wait and watch it unfold without putting win totals on it now before the season even starts. I never said any of that was likely, Mike. It was an example of how a win total might not be the bottom line in evaluating the potential of this core to compete:


Since it's likely, there's certainly no harm in putting out some win totals on it. 




> See where is says "for example" and "could" in my post?


I see it, it just doesn't constitute an actual example of how that would happen, just a statement of what would happen. _Again, I find it very unlikely that they show real improvement and we take a real step back in wins. If you could give me an example scenario where that happens I'd appreciate it. I'm guessing it will not be a very likely one though._

Ron: This could happen.
Mike: How?
Ron: Like I just told you.
Mike: A little more narrative please. (And again, we aren't talking injuries here!)




> As for your original question, I think this is it, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Ron Cey
> 
> At what point (what year) do you say "we haven't won a championship, so all this has been a miserable failure?"


Never. Under your criteria, there is no such year for me. 

My expectation of a GM, the standard I set for the GM, is to build a team that can compete for championships. That means a team that is a realistic threat for conference and league championships. During any given year, there are several GMs and teams that fit this criteria. I expect my team, within time, to be among them.

The example I've used previously is Indiana. The Pacers have never won a championship, but I dare you to find me a significant percantage of Pacer's fans that think Donnie Walsh's efforts constitute a "miserable failure". 

I think Bulls fans have been inadvertantly tricked by past successes into thinking that Championships are to be expected if a GM does a good job with a team that is willing to spend the appropriate amount of money. This is as unrealistic as it is absurd. In my opinion. 

Now, there is, however, a time when it becomes obvious that a team previously competing for championships will no longer be able to do that. That doesn't make those prior efforts "a miserable failure" but it does mean its time to start over. In my experience as an NBA fan, that time becomes self evident and it rarely involves a team with a core averaging 23 years of age with 2 years of NBA experience.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Never. Under your criteria, there is no such year for me.
> 
> My expectation of a GM, the standard I set for the GM, is to build a team that can compete for championships. That means a team that is a realistic threat for conference and league championships. During any given year, there are several GMs and teams that fit this criteria. I expect my team, within time, to be among them.
> 
> ...


To illustrate how little we are actually disagreeing, I do agree with this.

I do, however, think it's possible to draw some preliminary conclusions along the way, and its fun to see if they're going to turn out correct.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> The "Wade Owned by Nocioni" thread did remind me of one thing I'm looking forward to: how Andres adapts to the new "no flopping" rule that *for all we know was instituted solely on his behalf*.


Nocioni isn't even the worst (or best, depending how you want to look at it) flopper on the team, that award goes to Othella. I say Othella because unlike Noce, Othella always adds the dramatic "sound effects" whenever he goes down. 

Vlade, Reggie, AI, Fisher... you talk like Nocioni is the only one who does it, when there are several players more notorious for it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Never. Under your criteria, there is no such year for me.
> 
> My expectation of a GM, the standard I set for the GM, is to build a team that can compete for championships. That means a team that is a realistic threat for conference and league championships. During any given year, there are several GMs and teams that fit this criteria. I expect my team, within time, to be among them.
> 
> ...


Seems to me people here thought that Cuban was a failure in Dallas because the Mavs didn't win a championship (yet).

Define "a realistic threat for conference and league championships" - if we go first round and out every year, you might claim we were a "realistic threat" every year, right?


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> Never. Under your criteria, there is no such year for me.
> 
> My expectation of a GM, the standard I set for the GM, is to build a team that can compete for championships. That means a team that is a realistic threat for conference and league championships. During any given year, there are several GMs and teams that fit this criteria. I expect my team, within time, to be among them.
> 
> ...



RC, put the myopia glasses back on for chrissakes. This bbb.net, Bulls style. :biggrin:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> It's a benchmark not the end of the story.


Its a relatively insignificant benchmark under the circumstances, which is my point. If you want me to acknowledge that the year has meaning in evaluating the future, I agree. I just don't believe it is as significant an indicator as the year that follows. In fact, I'd arbitrarily consider it to be about 20% of the importance of the 2006-2007 season. 



> Where that becomes a point of "concern", of course, isn't obvious, but it seems to me *reasonable to draw a line at .500.*


And I find it unreasonable, arbitrary, and overly simplistic as I have already explained.



> Obviously the line isn't the end all and be all, but somewhere they have to be drawn.


No, they don't have to be drawn somewhere. Especially not before the season even begins. SomeTIME, however, the line can be drawn. But this season isn't that time unless the disparity is extreme.



> Still it hardly seems controversial to say that the more we lose the more likely it is our core hasn't improved.


I don't disagree with that at all. If your point is that, in general, 46 wins is less cause for concern than 39 wins, then I agree with you. But I suspect this is not your point. 

I'm not trying to change your mind.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> To illustrate how little we are actually disagreeing, I do agree with this.
> 
> I do, however, think it's possible to draw some preliminary conclusions along the way, and its fun to see if they're going to turn out correct.


Actually, when I responded to your last post it occurred to me that we aren't really disagreeing all that much the more we explain ourselves.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Seems to me people here thought that Cuban was a failure in Dallas because the Mavs didn't win a championship (yet).
> 
> Define "a realistic threat for conference and league championships" - if we go first round and out every year, you might claim we were a "realistic threat" every year, right?


At some point your window of opportunity for improving closes. There are only so many means of doing this.

* Young players get better
* Trades
* Draft
* Free agency

In one of these areas or more, you've got to luck into a home run pick. That's probably never a "realistic" possibility, but the odds get progressively lower over time.

* Young Players are more or less (yeah, there's a couple exceptions, but we're playing the odds here) what they are in their second or third years. Our young guys will be there this year and next.
* Trades aren't as dependent on time, but its pretty hard at any point to make a home run trade. They're pretty uncommon, and its often a player for pick situation, so it usually involves dumping your current guys and going back in the lottery.
* Once you no longer have high picks, your odds of getting a franchise player in the draft become exceedingly low. Again, this makes the trade for high picks strategy a good one, even if every cast of the dice doesn't win.
* Free agency, of course, is very dependent on your current salary structure and the particular guys available at the time. In our case, that's next summer or bust. In most cases, franchise changing guys don't switch teams.

So add all that up and the odds, already low to start with, become an order of magnitude lower over the next two seasons. At that point we have to start looking at how to raise them again rather than continually rolling against the same low odds.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Seems to me people here thought that Cuban was a failure in Dallas because the Mavs didn't win a championship (yet).


Good for them. But I don't agree with them. Cuban and the Nelson boys have done a great job rebuilding that team from the basement.



> Define "a realistic threat for conference and league championships" - if we go first round and out every year, you might claim we were a "realistic threat" every year, right?


Wrong. But what is "every year"? Last year and this coming season? That won't discourage me one bit. The fact that we even made the playoffs last year was nothing short of a miracle and this is an extremely young team. As it grows, over time, it should climb higher in the playoff standings. But that does take time in most cases.

"Realistic threat" means this season's Detroits, Indianas, Miamis, San Antonios, Dallas's, and Houstons. It does not mean this season's Bulls, Wizards, Warriors, or Clippers, even though each of those young teams might very well make the playoffs.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

badfish said:


> RC, put the myopia glasses back on for chrissakes. This bbb.net, Bulls style. :biggrin:


My bad. Here you go: "If the Bulls don't make the playoffs, I think we should blow it up and start over. Trade everyone but Basden for draft picks." :yes:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Good for them. But I don't agree with them. Cuban and the Nelson boys have done a great job rebuilding that team from the basement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This smells sufficiently like the "one man's pornography is another man's art" question, or put another way "I know pornography when I see it" (but can't define it).

Making the playoffs is a measurable thing. Half the teams make it (or more, actually). Just making it makes you a median team.

Of that list you made (Detroit, Indy, etc.), it seems like in fact it was Detroit and San Antonio who were objectively contenders (they were in the championship series).

Since Paxson is such a businessman type and results oriented, isn't it reasonable to have some kind of measurable expectations for him? That's what I'm trying to get to - what those expectations should be.

Winning actual championships (vs. treading water) is measurable...

You ask "what is 'every year'?" and that is THE question I was asking you.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> This smells sufficiently like the "one man's pornography is another man's art" question, or put another way "I know pornography when I see it" (but can't define it).
> 
> Making the playoffs is a measurable thing. Half the teams make it (or more, actually). Just making it makes you a median team.
> 
> ...


Yeah, winning championship is measurable. It happens or it doesn't. Good observation. 

Do you disagree that the list of teams I mentioned are "contenders" or are you just trying to be difficult. It is an "I know it when I see it" argument. There can be no other kind that isn't pure hindsight.

As for "what is every year" the answer to that is "every year". If, every year, the team exits in the first round then it is time to start over assuming that you have included enough years in the "every year" definition to make a reasoned evaluation of the situation. Right now, the Bulls have been outed in the first round "every year", but that is hardly sufficient basis under the current circumstances to start over.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Yeah, winning championship is measurable. It happens or it doesn't. Good observation.
> 
> Do you disagree that the list of teams I mentioned aren't "contenders" or are you just trying to be difficult. It is an "I know it when I see it" argument. There can be no other kind that isn't pure hindsight.


There are other ways to measure it. We can look at the vegas future odds, for example. Or regular season win totals (60 wins is a contender? 60 wins IS a contender!).

Since it IS a "I know it when I see it" argument, consensus between the two of us doesn't mean much. Last season, I would have said that Phoenix, San Antonio, Detroit, and Miami were contenders. But looking in hindsight, we know that it was really only San Antonio and Detroit 



> As for "what is every year" the answer to that is "every year". If, every year, the team exits in the first round then it is time to start over assuming that you have included enough years in the "every year" definition to make a reasoned evaluation of the situation. Right now, the Bulls have been outed in the first round "every year", but that is hardly sufficient basis under the current circumstances to start over.


I was quite specific in asking you WHAT YEAR is time to give up on it. You are being quite vague and lawyerly in your answer. "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> There are other ways to measure it. We can look at the vegas future odds, for example. Or regular season win totals (60 wins is a contender? 60 wins IS a contender!).


I piss on the Vegas odds. Win totals, that can be good. But the Bulls had the 3rd most wins in the east last year and I didn't consider them a contender.



> Since it IS a "I know it when I see it" argument, consensus between the two of us doesn't mean much.


It means even less that than that, in fact. It means nothing.



> Last season, I would have said that Phoenix, San Antonio, Detroit, and Miami were contenders. But looking in hindsight, we know that it was really only San Antonio and Detroit


That isn't how I look at it. 



> I was quite specific in asking you WHAT YEAR is time to give up on it. You are being quite vague and lawyerly in your answer. "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."


And I was quite specific in responding. I'm not sure how much more specific and definitive I can get than "Never". Your question assumes that anything short of a championship win is a "miserable failure" and I don't agree. 

As for "what year" is time to give up on it, that is impossible to predict ahead of time unless there is a significant history preceding it. Last year's shake up in Sacramento, for example. As I said above, in my experience as an NBA fan, peak and decline are typically self evident. And the GMs of those teams usually notice it and begin to start over. 

I don't think we are anywhere near that yet in Chicago. I can't be any more specific than that. 

Let me ask you, when should the Knicks scrap their young team and start over? Pick the year. Actually, don't. Its a stupid question.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

60 wins minus 47 wins is 13 wins. That's a pretty good indication of how far away the bulls were from being contenders. Seems like a pretty darn good OBJECTIVE measure. On top of this one anecdotal example, I look back through the past 25 years in the NBA and EVERY 60 game winner was a clear contender (and those who won much less but the championship won near 60 the following year).

(Dallas won 58, 60, and 57 games 3 of the past 4 seasons, 52 the 4th)


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> 60 wins minus 47 wins is 13 wins. That's a pretty good indication of how far away the bulls were from being contenders. Seems like a pretty darn good OBJECTIVE measure. On top of this one anecdotal example, I look back through the past 25 years in the NBA and EVERY 60 game winner was a clear contender (and those who won much less but the championship won near 60 the following year).
> 
> (Dallas won 58, 60, and 57 games 3 of the past 4 seasons, 52 the 4th)


Do you think I'm arguing that 60 wins doesn't signify contention? But your little 60-47=13 wins from contention formula doesn't impress me.

Nor would it impress Joe Dumars. By that logic, his 54 win teams the last two season fell 6 games short each year from being real contenders.

60 wins is a good objective measure. So is 65 wins. 70 wins. 59 wins. 54 wins. But none are concrete in the way you present them through that mathematical formula. A 60 win team is a contender. But a team need not win 60 games to contend. 

Frankly, I'm not even sure I understand what you are getting at.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Personally, by drinking enough Kool-Aid, our core with Curry could have conteneded for a championship.

Without Curry, maybe it just makes it easier to see that the current core is not going to get it done without a turbo boost. Now, there is no young team out there that has worked things to such perfection that the core looks like it will be a big-time contender each year that has not been a contender already. Maybe Houston, maybe. Maybe Denver will prove to be in this category. So let's not stretch that point to far. 

Most organizations need to get better piece by piece and then cash in. Pacers did it and then traded us Rose. Houston had Yao and then stole TMAC. Pistons did it by getting Rashad Wallace.

It stinks but we are going to have to wait and let this thing gel and hope that our GM can take the right risk in the future since he was uncomfortable with the risk on Curry. We really don't have much choice.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

There is no mathmatical formula to determine if a team is a championship contender. However one can use a tool like eyes and logic to see if a team is crap or not. Rockets, Pacers, Pistons, Heat, Spurs, Mavs are all contenders. all but one will fail. Does that make their entire season a failure? It depends on one's standards. In my mind, a good season is meeting the general consensus' expectations. 

In my estimation we are a couple years away from a championship with this core and at the pace we are acquiring free agents and the progress of our young guys. Some will be good, some will suck. Hopefully the good ones stay to help the team. 

I have to say I am excited for the upcoming season and hopefully they make at least the second round (barring major injury)


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

spongyfungy said:


> There is no mathmatical formula to determine if a team is a championship contender. However one can use a tool like eyes and logic to see if a team is crap or not. Rockets, Pacers, Pistons, Heat, Spurs, Mavs are all contenders. all but one will fail. Does that make their entire season a failure? It depends on one's standards. In my mind, a good season is meeting the general consensus' expectations.
> 
> In my estimation we are a couple years away from a championship with this core and at the pace we are acquiring free agents and the progress of our young guys. Some will be good, some will suck. Hopefully the good ones stay to help the team.
> 
> I have to say I am excited for the upcoming season and hopefully they make at least the second round (barring major injury)



:clap: :clap: :clap:


----------

