# I believe it is really time to make a move



## bigdbucks (Jun 7, 2002)

I don't post on the Bulls board very often but i pay close attention to them as a team. This is really frustrating. I think its time to get a stud! This team is full of good players but NONE of them is great or really good. They do go out and hustle and that is very admirable but there is absolutely nobody on this team that you can say will go out and score you 15-20 points every night. NOBODY! much less 10-15 every game. I think that Pax needs to do whatever it takes to get a stud. Its a good team but not a scary team. Not a team that others will be afraid of going into the playoffs. This is probably just venting over another bad loss but i had to say it


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

In a way, Skiles addressed that tonight. He said we need 4 to 5 guys every game to play well in order for us to win. How great would it be for us to get a consistent scorer, who can manufacture shots, to get a guy who the Bulls can look to score and get to the line. Our young guys are two-three years away from being bona-fide go to guys. We've had a couple go through our franchise before we let them go.

It's time to get a star.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

bigdbucks said:


> I don't post on the Bulls board very often but i pay close attention to them as a team. This is really frustrating. I think its time to get a stud! This team is full of good players but NONE of them is great or really good. They do go out and hustle and that is very admirable but there is absolutely nobody on this team that you can say will go out and score you 15-20 points every night. NOBODY! much less 10-15 every game. I think that Pax needs to do whatever it takes to get a stud. Its a good team but not a scary team. Not a team that others will be afraid of going into the playoffs. This is probably just venting over another bad loss but i had to say it


I think that we all agree with this. We have built a good foundation of a team built around good, but not great players. A great player would kill to play on a team like the Bulls because we have guys who already do all the little things and don't NEED shots. I think the next step is to find the right player for us and to not to make a bad and quick decision to get a star (see Jalen Rose trade). Someone like Paul Pierce would be nice. Overall, it's not a bad position to be in right now. We have alot of potential trade chips.


----------



## BullSoxChicagosFinest (Oct 22, 2005)

I heard from many that they thought this year would be like this, with the Bulls making noise next year with more flexibility. Will be interesting to see if Pax can handle inconsistency for the year and wait it out or if he will make a move now


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I came out of the game thinking this team most definitely needed to make a move if it was going to have a realistic shot at making the playoffs.

As the season progresses, we're seeing that we're pretty shallow. Not just up front, but everywhere. If one of our key guys ends up missing significant time (and this happens to most teams in the course of a year) we're sunk. Unlike last year, we can't afford to lose Deng for long periods. (Or anyone else).

I don't know at all that this requires us to trade for "a star", but if we could just get a relatively solid, consistent big out of someone it sure would be nice.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Mikedc said:


> I came out of the game thinking this team most definitely needed to make a move if it was going to have a realistic shot at making the playoffs.
> 
> As the season progresses, we're seeing that we're pretty shallow. Not just up front, but everywhere. If one of our key guys ends up missing significant time (and this happens to most teams in the course of a year) we're sunk. Unlike last year, we can't afford to lose Deng for long periods. (Or anyone else).
> 
> I don't know at all that this requires us to trade for "a star", but if we could just get a relatively solid, consistent big out of someone it sure would be nice.


I think we can make the playoffs. We are in contention right now, so no reason to think we will play worse then we are now. I don't think we will be a contender and top 4 team until we get a top player. Imagine if we had someone like Baron Davis or someone like that. Not too many of those type of players around. And no, Brand is not that calibur. He puts up the same numbers win or lose and if you notice the Clippers are coming back to earth (6-7 in the last 13).


----------



## Deng101 (Jan 13, 2005)

Well Kirk usually gives you 10-15 every night so dont know where thats from... but what we dont need to do is start doing trades that will screw us in the future to win now. Everyone including Paxson said coming into the season that we would have our struggles and that the 06-07 season is when we should start our run. As it is now we should have 20 million to spend in F/a and a top 3 pick from the Knicks and a 15-16th pick from us.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> As it is now we should have 20 million to spend in F/a


That's all fine and dandy if there is someone to spend it on, but alas this years crop is basically more role players.


----------



## SPIN DOCTOR (Oct 31, 2002)

I think Pax's patience is running low. He needs a big at a time that theres none to be had. 

I would like either Maggette or Pierce as swingman, because at least they can get to the foul line. If we cannot get a big to get to the line, I would love to see a impact 2 guard that takes the ball to the hole. Watching jumpshooters night after night is a drag, we need some balance on O.

The only guys I would hesitate to move would be Deng and Tyson, anyone else is expendable for the right deal.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Imagine if we had someone like Baron Davis or someone like that. Not too many of those type of players around. And no, Brand is not that calibur. He puts up the same numbers win or lose and if you notice the Clippers are coming back to earth (6-7 in the last 13).


Are you still trying to convince people that it was ok to deal Brand for Chandler? Yes, who would want a guy who puts up 25 points, 12 rebounds and 3 blocks per game all the time? God help us if we ever got stuck with a player like that! Give me a guy who puts up four points and eight rebounds a game anytime. Having hands of stone, a low basketball IQ, and not being able to stay on the floor because of foul trouble would be a bonus too.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

The guy who has been giving us a fairly consistent 15-20 points wasn't playing last night.

And we didn't lose last night because we needed a big man, we got out-smallballed. Which is going to happen when we don't have Deng because we can't play Nocioni at the 4 when Deng isn't playing.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> The guy who has been giving us a fairly consistent 15-20 points wasn't playing last night.
> 
> And we didn't lose last night because we needed a big man, we got out-smallballed. Which is going to happen when we don't have Deng because we can't play Nocioni at the 4 when Deng isn't playing.


Duhon, Gordon, Hinrich, Nocioni, Sweetney/Chandler

We saw that kind of lineup a LOT last season in the 2nd half of games.

And won a lot, too.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Duhon, Gordon, Hinrich, Nocioni, Sweetney/Chandler
> 
> We saw that kind of lineup a LOT last season in the 2nd half of games.
> 
> And won a lot, too.


Agreed, but we've been starting a smallball lineup lately, which we couldn't do without Deng.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Agreed, but we've been starting a smallball lineup lately, which we couldn't do without Deng.


We don't have a bigball lineup, period.

What you call smallball is a big-ish SF playing PF in an otherwise ordinary kind of lineup. 

What I'm talking about is 3 actual guards on the court, which is quite different. We did that without Deng and won plenty of games last season.

I'm not so sure that going small at SF/PF is anywhere near as good an idea as going with 3 guards. 

It's the difference between seeing Songaila or Gordon on the court... Songaila is big enough but doesn't play all that big or really all that well; he doesn't make for any mismatches that the Bulls can take advantage of.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

We have to play smallball. Every night. No options. No hope of another plan of attack.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

From today's Sun-Times

"Like a lot of teams, we are having a hard time piecing together back-to-back efforts,'' Skiles said. "I'm disappointed in our effort. We have to play inspired ball all the time or this will happen to us.''

I interpret this statement as an acknowledgement that the Bulls do not have enough talent to win consistently unless they play "inspired ball"- which is tough to do with an NBA schedule. I recall many times during the championship years when the team played lackluster, uninspired, ball through three plus quarters only to have MJ or Scottie bail them out during crunch time. This was often the difference between winning and losing. 

I have no doubt that our scrappy guys (Duhon, Noc, Kirk, etc.) will win games for us. To expect this team to go far without an injection of more talent however is unrealistic. I, too, am not enamored of this upcoming FA class. I can assure you that throwing millions of dollars at Nene or Przybilla is not going to make the Pistons or Spurs shake in their boots. A true test of Paxson's skill is parlaying our resources (current players, draft picks, cap space) into getting us quality players who can play at a higher level than we have shown already. 

Contrary to the conventional wisdom on this board, I am not convinced that Paxson has the vision to do this. He is good at identifying players with good jib but has disappointed me otherwise. The way he handled the Curry situation was only one example of my concern with Paxson's skills. The Tim Thomas situation is another example of how to de-value your assets. I could go on but I don't want this to be a post about Pax. I just think that the Bulls need to make a gutsy deal to upgrade the talent on this team. I don't think we should count on free agency or the draft to lift this team to a higher level.


----------



## bigdbucks (Jun 7, 2002)

I've heard this during this thread.....so and so *usually* puts up 10-15 or blah blah wasn't here and he is fairly consistent at giving us 15-20.....USUALLY!?! FAIRLY CONSISTENT?!!? how about ALWAYS??? Where's the guy that ALWAYS will give us 15-20....we don't have that guy period. 

Although we would have 20 million to spend, who are we gunna spend it on? We definetly need a big man! Chandler is really lookin good.....if he were makin 2-3 million per year. Need to make a deal!!! We can't continue to go with 3 small guards, we will get beat.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

charlietyra said:


> From today's Sun-Times
> 
> "Like a lot of teams, we are having a hard time piecing together back-to-back efforts,'' Skiles said. "I'm disappointed in our effort. We have to play inspired ball all the time or this will happen to us.''
> 
> ...


Great post.

It is unrealistic to expect these guys to simply out-effort the opposition every night. And, even if you can do this, its even harder and more unrealistic to expect these players to out-effort the opposition in the playoffs.

We need talent. We need size. We need length. 

We've hemorrhaged assets like these over the last 2-3 years, with very little in return to show for it.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bigdbucks said:


> Although we would have 20 million to spend, who are we gunna spend it on? We definetly need a big man! Chandler is really lookin good.....if he were makin 2-3 million per year. Need to make a deal!!! We can't continue to go with 3 small guards, we will get beat.


Yet again, the Bulls appear to be painting themselves into a corner.

Cap Space - a - plenty. Little to spend it on.

A recurring theme.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yet again, the Bulls appear to be painting themselves into a corner.
> 
> Cap Space - a - plenty. Little to spend it on.
> 
> A recurring theme.


Yeah, the worst thing about cap space is that you can't use it to trade a low-salaried asset for a high-salary veteran All-Star.

Oh wait, yes you can.

But you cannot possibly combine cap space with a very high lottery pick (thanks Isiah!) to trade for an All-Star.

Oh wait, yes you can.

But you are 100% right about one thing- "Cap Space with little to spend it on" is becoming a recurring theme.

It might be 100% inaccurate, but at least it's a theme.


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

Pax has a long term plan. The Curry debacle plopped right in the middle of that plan, true. But now is not the time for Pax to lose his nerve. It's a job to him, while it's a hobby for everyone else - he knows this team's needs better than anyone. I think he's far from satisfied with this roster. He has a plan to get it fixed. If he doesn't like what's available this summer, then he has a plan in place to get something next summer or trade expiring contracts for talent. It's being addressed. I think he will try to get us a star, probably at SG. He's not against superstars. He was pretty close to getting Kobe here. We just have to hang on until he gets it done.

It's our job to panic after losses and crave instant gratification. It's his job to be patient and craft a long term strategy. He has to be proactive, true, and when the moment is right he has to make a move. But he can't rush the opportunity. If Pax loses his nerve now and horrendously overpays to get some Jalen Rose-type player that ruins our chemistry and leaves in a year or two because "we need a stud" and we need it now, I will be very disappointed. Patience, grasshopper. Maybe it's February - or maybe it's the 2007 draft. I think Pax has earned our faith.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Oh wait, yes you can.


Clearly not every avenue is closed.

Some of them appear to be far from promising though.

Especially with the organization’s self imposed jib restriction.

Keep hope alive though. You are a trooper.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

All-Star Kenyon Martin was traded for C Space and 1st-round picks (because of cap space)

Rasheed Wallace was traded for Chucky Atkins, Lindsay Hunter and a first-round pick (because of cap space)

Brad Miller was traded for Scot Pollard and Danny Ferry (because of cap space)


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Clearly not every avenue is closed.
> 
> Some of them appear to be far from promising though.
> 
> ...


Unless you can direct me to 'Psychic Avenue', which well tell me what players are going to be available for trade, and which players will be at the top of the draft next summer, and what Restricted Free Agents will be available, and which International Free Agents will be looking for work, then I'm not sure which avenue is relevant in mid-December?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> All-Star Kenyon Martin was traded for C Space and 1st-round picks (because of cap space)
> 
> Rasheed Wallace was traded for Chucky Atkins, Lindsay Hunter and a first-round pick (because of cap space)
> 
> Brad Miller was traded for Scot Pollard and Danny Ferry (because of cap space)


One of those guys, and perhaps two, don't meet the jib restriction.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Unless you can direct me to 'Psychic Avenue', which well tell me what players are going to be available for trade, and which players will be at the top of the draft next summer, and what Restricted Free Agents will be available, and which International Free Agents will be looking for work, then I'm not sure which avenue is relevant in mid-December?


Does the traditional route of signing a restricted or unrestricted free agent in the off-season no longer exist?

Banking on a team looking to move a pro-jib all-star? Possible. Not probable.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Pax needs to make a move, no doubt.

BUT...he should NOT make a move for the sake of making a move. Teams do that and it usually is a mistake.

We must be patient to find the RIGHT player who fits this team's mold. Making a panic move now could prevent us from championships down the road. I believe this is what happen with both the Brand/Chandler trade and the Rose trade. In both instances, management panicked and now we regret it. 

I'm certain Paxson wants to beef up the team, especially on the frontline. But I don't think the right opportunity has come along yet. Once an untradeable player becomes tradeable, perhaps that's when we make a move. Keep in mind, we have to find a team that likes/needs some of our guys as well.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> One of those guys, and perhaps two, don't meet the jib restriction.


Hell, put Miller in the bad jib category as well. Even though he's from Indiana and has a shotgun rack on his pickup, I've never seen an NBA player as preposterously out of shape as he was when he came here as a free agent. 

Indifferent, indolent, inconsiderate, and hardly the Right Way.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

yodurk said:


> We must be patient to find the RIGHT player who fits this team's mold. Making a panic move now could prevent us from championships down the road. I believe this is what happen with both the Brand/Chandler trade and the Rose trade. In both instances, management panicked and now we regret it.


This is true.

There are moves based on vision (sometimes flawed).

There are moves based on pure, primal fear panic.

I would classify the 2nd Rose trade as the ultimate panic move.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Does the traditional route of signing a restricted or unrestricted free agent in the off-season no longer exist?
> 
> Banking on a team looking to move a pro-jib all-star? Possible. Not probable.


Huh?

We already know who the unrestricted free agents are, and in my post I wrote:



bullsville said:


> what Restricted Free Agents will be available


Not that it had anything to do with my post, but since you can't name which players will be available between now and next summer (other than the already-known unrestricted free agents), it seems obvious that you had no answer to it at all. 

I take that back, you did give the requisite theme answer, "there is absolutely nobody available between now and next season that will help this team. Absolutely nobody." Yeah, we all know that answer already.

And 'pro-jib' All-Stars are traded each and every year. From Elton Brand to Brad Miller to Rasheed Wallace to Shaqille O'Neal to Jamaal Magloire (just off the top of my head), it's all a matter of having the assets to trade- which we have plenty of. So I would say a team looking to move a pro-jib All-Star is not even probable, but likely.

*So if you care to address my post* (which we all know, you don't), which players will move up to the top of the draft next summer? Which International free agents will be coming to America? Which restricted free agents will be signed-and-traded by their teams or not have an offer sheet matched? Who is the next "pro-jib All-Star" to be traded?

You might want to call Miss Cleo, she might know.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

I'm really bummed that the Wolves and Lakers (wow) have seemingly righted their ships. It doesn't look like Kobe or Garnett will be available to us.

The only other reasonably attainable superstar, Ben Wallace, will be 32 next year and 37 in the final year of the max contract it would surely take to land him. That worries me.

I like the idea of Paul Pierce, but not for what it would cost to land him -- think either Hinrich/Gordon plus either Deng/Nocioni plus the Knicks' pick this year.

The other free agents -- Harrington, Jared Jeffries, Nene, Gooden, Borchardt, Pryzbilla, Anthony Carter, etc. -- aren't anything special. In fact, I don't know that adding any TWO free agents outside of Wallace would be enough to get us out of the Central cellar in the long term. 

I want Pax to make a swing for the fences. It's pretty rare for a team to have as much ammo for a giant trade as he does. Unfortunately, the problem is liquidity -- it's tough to buy what no one is selling. It looks like the best bet might be to make some minor moves and hope and pray that the Knicks' pick (and possibly our own lottery pick) is a great one.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

I think Joe D will tell you that Sheed's jib has been just fine.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I feel the same way ScottMay. 

La and minny seems to have righted their ship, that stops any speculation of Garnett or Kobe being moved. 

I agree with your take on Pierce.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> And 'pro-jib' All-Stars are traded each and every year. From Elton Brand to Brad Miller to Rasheed Wallace to Shaqille O'Neal to Jamaal Magloire (just off the top of my head), it's all a matter of having the assets to trade- which we have plenty of. So I would say a team looking to move a pro-jib All-Star is not even probable, but likely.


Wallace pro-jib?

Likely a pro-jib all-star is getting moved?

You're on top of the NBA scene. Which one do you think?



> *So if you care to address my post* (which we all know, you don't), which players will move up to the top of the draft next summer? Which International free agents will be coming to America? Which restricted free agents will be signed-and-traded by their teams or not have an offer sheet matched? Who is the next "pro-jib All-Star" to be traded?


If your "point" is that human beings can't tell what will happen in the future, then wow, great point, you are correct.

I don't see any pro-jib all-stars on the trading block. But, if Rasheed Wallace, in the state when he left Portland/Atlanta is "pro-jib", then that's a much looser guideline than I think Paxson has.

Maybe some international all-star, game changing free agent or trade possibility will come out of nowhere. Does not seem like much of a plan of attack, but to each their own.

So far, the Paxson vision has left us with a team that is mediocre in its current state and is almost universally considered to not have the players needed to one day make a championship run. This is with multiple trades under his belt and 3 lottery picks used. 

I don't think you are being realistic. But keep hope alive. Its admirable.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I think signing Al Harrington is a MAJOR step that Pax will make. Throw in signing a center like Nazr and suddenly we are deep upfront. Then Gordon+Knicks pick for a SG is the third move. Question is what SG would work with that? I like Pietrus but that would be too much for him and GS does not need Gordon. Maybe just the pick for MP2

Hinrich,Duhon
Pietrus,Gordon
Deng,Nocioni
Baby Al,Sweets,Songalia
Nazr,Chandler


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> I'm really bummed that the Wolves and Lakers (wow) have seemingly righted their ships. It doesn't look like Kobe or Garnett will be available to us.
> 
> The only other reasonably attainable superstar, Ben Wallace, will be 32 next year and 37 in the final year of the max contract it would surely take to land him. That worries me.
> 
> ...


If Pierce is a superstar, I don't see how Ben/Kirk plus Nocioni and the Knicks' pick is too much to pay. If you believe a superstar can be had with the Knicks pick, well it's a no-brainer and we draft the superstar. If there isn't a superstar available for us at the top of the draft, well you are going to have to give up 2 or 3 borderline All-Stars to trade for a superstar, that's just life.

And whoever we trade out of our assets can be replaced in free agency if needed. If we trade Ben, we can sign Jason Terry. If we were to trade Deng (which I doubt), we sign Harrington.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> I think Joe D will tell you that Sheed's jib has been just fine.


Sheed was almost universally considered to be a bad-jib guy at the time of that trade.

Joe D made a nice move by defying conventional wisdom and by taking a risk. 

He also had a coach who he knew could deal with players as headstrong as Iverson.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Wallace pro-jib?
> 
> Likely a pro-jib all-star is getting moved?
> 
> You're on top of the NBA scene. Which one do you think?


I'm not psychic, so I can't say which team will be trading an All-Star. I'm also not short-sighted enough to think that someone won't. I sure didn't think Shaq would be traded or Brad Miller or KMart in the Decembers before they left their teams.




> If your "point" is that human beings can't tell what will happen in the future, then wow, great point, you are correct.
> 
> I don't see any pro-jib all-stars on the trading block. But, if Rasheed Wallace, in the state when he left Portland/Atlanta is "pro-jib", then that's a much looser guideline than I think Paxson has.
> 
> ...


I don't think you are being realistic, but keep hope alive. Maybe Pax will be a complete failure and the team will not acquire anyone, despite all the young talent and draft picks and cap space we have.

If you say enough "nobody is available, nobody is available", maybe nobody will be?

No matter how many examples you are given, you are 100% convinced that nothing like that will ever happen again. No matter how many times it has happened in the past, it ain't happening again.

We get it.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Huh?
> 
> We already know who the unrestricted free agents are, and in my post I wrote:
> 
> ...


You're equating a lack of certainty with a complete lack of information.

We don't have the former, but we don't have the latter either. And while it's not certain, the information we have suggests it's unlikely we find a guy who's all that great a fit.

Within that context, the question you're asking is, as far as I can tell, (knowingly) irrelevant intended to deflect the legitimate context of the issue. Thus, it doesn't make a lot of sense to bother addressing it.

However, the *players likely to be at the top of the draft are pretty clear*. Head over to Draftexpress and they're pretty clear - Aldridge, Gay, Bargani, Splitter, Morrison, Williams, Boone, Davis. Yeah, give or take a guy, but that's basically it.

The *obvious guys in play or possibly in play for trades* *are pretty clear too*. Pierce, Harrington, most everyone on the Nuggets, Kincks and Kings, maybe Maggette, Artest, maybe Bosh. Lots of lesser players could certainly be had if you're willing to take a chance (Doleac, Ely, Wilcox etc.).

*There aren't any big international FAs looking to the NBA *that I'm aware of (and I try to stay aware of such things).

*RFAs on the bubble look to be Gooden and Nene. UFAs are Ben Wallace, Peja, Harrington, and Pryzbilla. * Those are the targets worth talking about, and most of them are less than ideal fits.

Sure, something _could_ pop up and change, but it's not like we're sitting in a vacuum. Probabilities and points of view can be updated as new information becomes available. The bigger picture is that it's completely worth addressing the situation now, as we know it. Since that's obviously all we can know, that's all we can talk about.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> No matter how many examples you are given, you are 100% convinced that nothing like that will ever happen again. No matter how many times it has happened in the past, it ain't happening again.
> 
> We get it.


Nice strawman.

I've conceded that your scenario, something dropping from the sky that we can't realisticly see at present, may happen.

Whether its probable, well, we'll just have to disagree on that.

It "could" happen. A lot has to go our way and a few risks need to be taken, IMO.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Well I actually think Baby Al is a great fit but that is another topic I suppose.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Basghetti80 said:


> Well I actually think Baby Al is a great fit but that is another topic I suppose.


Not off-topic . . . and I'd love to hear why you think that, because I don't see it.

-- He's a classic 3/4 tweener, and as far as I'm concerned, the 3 should be Deng's spot for the next fifteen years. 

-- He will cost first- or second-banana money for third- or fourth-banana production. Don't get me wrong -- he can contribute for a good team, but he is not anything close to being a main guy, and it's probably going to take 50 million to land him.

-- He doesn't create at all for others, and he has very little team defensive impact for a guy his size and with his level of athleticism. I also think he is a highly overrated one-on-one defender.

-- Personally, I don't see a lot of upside or that this is a example of a guy who can explode if brought to another system. 

What do you see that I don't?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Mikedc said:


> You're equating a lack of certainty with a complete lack of information.
> 
> We don't have the former, but we don't have the latter either. And while it's not certain, the information we have suggests it's unlikely we find a guy who's all that great a fit.
> 
> ...


My point is that something *will* pop up and change, on all fronts. Things *always* change between mid-December and draft night and July 1st.

Of course, all we can discuss for now is all we know now. But we have a "draft thread" and a "free agent update thread" to discuss those in.

But to say that the Bulls have "cap space and nobody to spend it on" is just ridiculous IMHO. To say that it is going to be a weak draft and act like that won't change between now and the end of June is incredibly short-sighted.

To try and predict what All-Star will be traded next is silly IMHO, because we don't know the other 29 teams around the league as well as we know the Bulls. And to try and say which college and/or international player is going to jump up in the draft is fairly pointless because most of us haven't seen most of the players who will be moving up.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> I feel the same way ScottMay.
> 
> La and minny seems to have righted their ship, that stops any speculation of Garnett or Kobe being moved.
> 
> I agree with your take on Pierce.


I've been lukewarm on Pierce for those reasons and others, but with the pitiful place the Celtics are playing out now, I have to think the price would be coming down.



> I like the idea of Paul Pierce, but not for what it would cost to land him -- think either Hinrich/Gordon plus either Deng/Nocioni plus the Knicks' pick this year.


I think I might be willing to go Gordon/Noc/Knicks pick if its just for Pierce. I checked into the cap ramifications, and it appears to me we'd still have $8-$11M in cap room after acquiring him. That'd be enough to add a guy like Pryzbilla or Gooden to shore us up front.

Alternatively, if we're really sold on one of the draft prospects, we could refuse to give up our pick and offer to take on someone like LaFrentz. That'd wipe out our cap room, but give us the lotter pick and LaFrentz, who at least at one point didn't seem entirely useless.

1- Kirk, Chris
2- Pierce
3- Deng/Pierce
4- Songaila, Harrington
5- Sweetney, Chandler
+ cap room (Pryzbilla/Gooden) + our 06 pick

or 

1- Kirk, Chris
2- Pierce
3- Deng/Pierce
4- LaFrentz, Songaila, Harrington
5- Sweetney, Chandler
+ our 06 pick + the Knicks' 06 pick + MLE

Those seem workable, and we at least maintain a tenable shot (through either the draft or free agency) of picking up another special player down the road.

Personally, I think the second option is a bit better. A well spent draft pick seems to have higher upside than Pryzbilla or Gooden (especially on a second contract). While this is a weak draft coming up, even weak drafts typically have a few good players in them. I'm pretty confident that Pryzbilla and Gooden are run of the mill.


----------



## Cyanobacteria (Jun 25, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Not off-topic . . . and I'd love to hear why you think that, because I don't see it.
> 
> -- He's a classic 3/4 tweener, and as far as I'm concerned, the 3 should be Deng's spot for the next fifteen years.
> 
> ...




Very nice post that would have been outstanding with some actual bananas:

:rbanana: :rbanana: :rbanana: :rbanana: :rbanana: :rbanana: :rbanana: :rbanana: 

I thought Harrington was in a great place in Indi: a formidable athlete with scoring punch that can spell 2 positions for good stretches. Alas, that isn't a role to which many players aspire. In Atlanta he's more of a fantasy basketball guy: good numbers, not much to show for them.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> The only other reasonably attainable superstar, Ben Wallace, will be 32 next year and 37 in the final year of the max contract it would surely take to land him. That worries me.


I think that situation parallels what the Suns did with Steve Nash. If signing Wallace helps our team as much as I think it can, and also hurts the Pistons, then I think it's a good signing.

I would still expect 3 good years from Wallace.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

AH is more of a 3 rather than a 4. We need bigs. Unless we package a deng or nocioni for someone else, I dont see why we want him!!


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

I don't really think now is the right time to make a move. As was stated earlier in this thread, you can make a move to make one/out of desparation, but are things really that desparate? Was this ballclub a title contender this season? Are they a playoff team now? Different folks have different answers to those questions.

It's seems like an agreeded upon thing that this team needs size up front and in the backcourt. About the only position we seem satisfied with is at SF with Deng and Noc. I just don't think that any single move (or even group of moves) at this time would really rectify the situation. I could see Pax waiting until it's close to the trading deadline and he should have a better bearing on where that Knick pick is going to be and there might possibly be a can't miss deal out there. Maybe not. But, to sell the assets we possibly have too soon and without much consideration to the future is foolish. 

I look at this team and I see "average" all over it. Its' record is average. Most of its' players are average. Its' offense and defense are average. From what I can gather from the overall tone of this board, most folks expected this team to be - get ready for it - average. Sure, we're supposed to strive for excellence and the goal is a Championship but there isn't a single poster here who was beating the "we're gonna go all the way" drum. Before, during or after the Curry fiasco.

Stay the course. 2005-06 was never going to be the year for us. Hell, 2006-07 shouldn't be either. I think they'll be significant improvement between the two years because of our draft picks/cap space/tradeable talent and contracts. What can be done with those things is anybodies guess, but I sure as hell don't want Pax to make some knee-jerk move. I'd rather he hold onto the picks and possibly use them on draft day. I'd be happy if he simply used the picks, held onto the cap space for another year and hit the 2007 free-agent market hard and fast. I want this team to win, but I don't want our future pissed away when there is a real possibility of making something of what we have - even if it has to wait until the summer of 2007. I'll take .500 for this year, an improvement in 2006 (back to 47 to 50 wins) and hopefully a good FA signing in 2007 (as well as Greg Oden 'cause the Knicks are gonna stink in 06-07 too!).

In a nutshell, it's all well and good to clamour for change - it's far more difficult to actually affect it. Stay the course Pax.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> I think that situation parallels what the Suns did with Steve Nash. If signing Wallace helps our team as much as I think it can, and also hurts the Pistons, then I think it's a good signing.
> 
> I would still expect 3 good years from Wallace.


Yeah, but Wallace leans heavily on his athleticism. This isn't to say that Nash doesn't rely on his quickness, but it just seems he's better suited for the long haul.

And then there's the situation. There could not have been a better marriage of player, surrounding players, coach, and team philosophy than there was in the case of Nash and the Suns. He was just overwhelmingly and obviously the missing piece for them. 

Wallace and the Bulls? I'm not as sold. First of all, there'd be the vexed question of how to get Chandler and Wallace to play effective minutes together, and I'm talking about on the DEFENSIVE end, nevermind the offensive (which would be sort of a train wreck, I think). I don't buy the notion that teams would never score on us if we had Tyson + Wallace or Tyson + Pryzbilla. As long as two guys of that ilk are playing together, one of them is probably going to be out of position and at a disadvantage, and the league's good offenses are pretty adept at working around weak-side shotblockers anyway.

What the Bulls need more than anything else imo is a star who can command double teams, draw lots of fouls, and get to the line 8-10 times a game. Pierce would definitely fit that bill, but I just worry about overpaying for him in relation to how many good years he has left.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

fl_flash said:


> I don't really think now is the right time to make a move. As was stated earlier in this thread, you can make a move to make one/out of desparation, but are things really that desparate? Was this ballclub a title contender this season? Are they a playoff team now?


This is my sentiment as well. It will be much easier to get good value in a trade next summer or fall when cap space is available than now.

I didn't get to hear any of last nights game after the first quarter, so maybe I'm not as frustrated as many of you are. 

Are things really that desparate? -- Only if you think the goal is to win a championship this year.
Is this ballclub a title contender this season? -- I don't think anyone here has ever thought so.
Are they a playoff team now? -- Maybe. If Chandler gets over whatever is bothering him.

In any case, now is not the time to break up the developing chemistry of our backcourt to add another large body who is unfamiliar with the rest of the team.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

I agree with the "let's just chill one sec" rationale.

Hey, didn't we all say that this would be a "take a step back" year? I think everyone is just nervous that we're going to dip below 500 and be in the late lottery (which might not be so terrible).

As it stands today, we're still in line for the 8th seed in the playoffs and on pace for 42 wins, only 5 less than last year's total. Considering we lost our starting frontcourt and replaced them with bench players (on other teams, Sweetney and Chandler would certainly be non-starters), that's not terrible.

What happened to developing Deng and Gordon? Developing doesn't mean "watching them always play well"; developing means getting them hard experience and getting them to implement new techniques in which there will be a learning curve. Sometimes that learning curve will mean a loss to the Bobcats.

I agree that we could use a piece to help development along in our team, but I think it needs to be more in the way and form of veteran experience and leadership and not in the form of just injecting talent into our lineup. We ARE still getting better; these players are NOT yet in their primes and definitely still have a long way to go. We DO have the time to wait for them and we DO have a ton of flexibility in the offseason.

We have much to lose by making a rash move right now and little to ultimately gain (is a stud player really going to push us into the NBA Finals any time soon?).


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Yeah, but Wallace leans heavily on his athleticism. This isn't to say that Nash doesn't rely on his quickness, but it just seems he's better suited for the long haul.
> 
> And then there's the situation. There could not have been a better marriage of player, surrounding players, coach, and team philosophy than there was in the case of Nash and the Suns. He was just overwhelmingly and obviously the missing piece for them.
> 
> ...


You are right re: everything seemingly coming together for the Suns after signing Nash, and yeah, I don't believe Wallace would have that type of effect, but Wallace + another FA big guy with some scoring ability (Harrington/Gooden) + lotto pick could make this into a 50+ win club.

As far as Wallace and Chandler on the court together, that probably wouldn't work for long stretches of the game. I could see them potentially closing out games as long as the Bulls have a lead, sort of how Skiles used AD/Chandler in those situations last year (they very rarely played together otherwise). If the Bulls do manage to somehow get Ben Wallace away from the Pistons, his minutes should be limited anyway (33 min pg?), and since Chandler hasn't shown the ability to be an effective 30+ min. player, maybe his best role would be to serve as Wallace's backup?

Finally, there is no other proposed trade that makes me think "Jalen Rose redux" as much as getting Pierce from Boston. Unless the price is temptingly cheap (Gordon/Noc/Bulls 1st pick), I wouldn't even consider it. He's 28 now, which IIRC is the same age as Rose when he came here. Pierce is a better player, though, so maybe he'll have a more graceful decline. 

The guy I would try and trade for is Bosh (if we look at FTA, he's getting to the line 8.6 times per game). I'd even give up Deng/Gordon/Bulls 1st round pick to get him. I don't know if Toronto would go for that...


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> So far, the Paxson vision has left us with a team that is mediocre in its current state and is almost universally considered to not have the players needed to one day make a championship run. This is with multiple trades under his belt and 3 lottery picks used.


These statements would have merit if you could show that Paxson has indeed missed opportunities to make this team exceptional in its current state and worthy of a championship run in the near future. So, can you? And let's not beat around the bush...do you honestly think that if he had retained Curry and Crawford that we'd be an exceptional team right now? Moreover, do you think that the implications of Curry and Crawford's long-term deals would've given us the flexibility to make the necessary additions for a championship run during the next couple years?

Moreover, you have just derided Pax for the use of his three lottery picks. If you're going to ridicule him on that front, I beg you to please show me the superstar talents that he has passed up on in the draft. You make it seem as though Pax passed up on Lebron, Melo, Bosh, Wade, Howard, and Okafor. He didn't. If you're going to fault Pax for his performance in those drafts, I'd say that you could blame him for passing up on the likes of Ford, Livingston, Iggy, etc. But criticising him for not selecting a superstar talent with those lottery picks when none were availabe? Now that's just being disingenuous.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

I think that the Pistons would do everything in their power to keep Ben Wallace.The entire identity of their team is based in the sort of defensive presence he provides.I don't know about their cap situation though.Is there someone reason that they either would not or could not keep him?


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

bbertha37 said:


> These statements would have merit if you could show that Paxson has indeed missed opportunities to make this team exceptional in its current state and worthy of a championship run in the near future. So, can you? And let's not beat around the bush...do you honestly think that if he had retained Curry and Crawford that we'd be an exceptional team right now? Moreover, do you think that the implications of Curry and Crawford's long-term deals would've given us the flexibility to make the necessary additions for a championship run during the next couple years?
> 
> Moreover, you have just derided Pax for the use of his three lottery picks. If you're going to ridicule him on that front, I beg you to please show me the superstar talents that he has passed up on in the draft. You make it seem as though Pax passed up on Lebron, Melo, Bosh, Wade, Howard, and Okafor. He didn't. If you're going to fault Pax for his performance in those drafts, I'd say that you could blame him for passing up on the likes of Ford, Livingston, Iggy, etc. But criticising him for not selecting a superstar talent with those lottery picks when none were availabe? Now that's just being disingenuous.


 :clap: That was the point I was trying to make, but you've worded it much better than I ever could.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> These statements would have merit if you could show that Paxson has indeed missed opportunities to make this team exceptional in its current state and worthy of a championship run in the near future. So, can you? And let's not beat around the bush...do you honestly think that if he had retained Curry and Crawford that we'd be an exceptional team right now? Moreover, do you think that the implications of Curry and Crawford's long-term deals would've given us the flexibility to make the necessary additions for a championship run during the next couple years?


They don't have merit since I'm not privy to the internal workings of the ball club?

We have numerous quotes about him "not picking up the phone" and being happy with standing pat to "see what we have." 

One option that comes to mind was the Al Harrington for Ben Gordon pick swap. That sounds like a good deal at this point. 

You and bullsville are saying I can't tell the future and I'm not a fly on the wall in the Paxson office. Guilty as charged I guess. That does not make my dissatisfaction with the current state of the team and the avenues we have available for us that I am aware of to improve it invalid. You may not like my opinion. That’s fine. That’s something I have no trouble with at all.

I think the team we had at the end of last season was much better than the team we have now.

Heck, last year we could take the court against the Pistons and actually beat them. Towards the end of last season, before all the injuries, I was pretty confident that we could defeat nearly every team in the league. It was a remarkable time. We also didn't take the floor nearly every night overmatched from a size perspective.




> Moreover, you have just derided Pax for the use of his three lottery picks.


I think Pax did an OK job with the draft. Gordon I'm not too hot on, but his trade for the pick that ended up being Deng turned out to be a great move. Hinrich turned out to be a good player. Perhaps not a guy to be the "face of the organization".... but a solid player.

My point is that we're now in year 3 of "the right way." Paxson had plenty of assets to work with... productive players.... lotto picks... and the current state of the team is what you see before you. Whether you are happy with the current state and future direction is up to you.

I'm not happy with the current state of the team. Given the bored looks and tired "cheers" by the UC crowd as of late, they seem to agree. The piped in crowd noise is becoming ever more noticeable.

That comcast sports poll is pretty telling IMO. Why are the Bulls struggling at home? "The team still hasn't found its identity" is leading the charge at 60.5% out of 5 options.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Yeah, but Wallace leans heavily on his athleticism. This isn't to say that Nash doesn't rely on his quickness, but it just seems he's better suited for the long haul.


I was thinking of a good comparison for the Wallace signing and the best I could come up with was Antonio Davis. Assuming he signs a 5-year deal, he'll be the same age at contract's end as AD was at the end of last season. So looking at his production, AD still had 3-peak years in Toronto, before declining the last 2 years with the Bulls.


----------



## RipDirty (Jun 17, 2002)

SPIN DOCTOR said:


> I think Pax's patience is running low. He needs a big at a time that theres none to be had.
> 
> I would like either Maggette or Pierce as swingman, because at least they can get to the foul line. If we cannot get a big to get to the line, I would love to see a impact 2 guard that takes the ball to the hole. Watching jumpshooters night after night is a drag, we need some balance on O.
> 
> The only guys I would hesitate to move would be Deng and Tyson, anyone else is expendable for the right deal.


Heistate to move Tyson. The same player who was being guarded by a shooting guard for most of the 2nd half. His own teammates wouldn't pass him the ball. You can't be serious.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> One option that comes to mind was the Al Harrington for Ben Gordon pick swap. That sounds like a good deal at this point.
> 
> If I am not mistaken Al Harrington was offered for the Bulls pick in that draft (3rd overall) and the Bulls turned it down. In retrospect Harrington may have been a better fit.
> 
> ...


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I would classify the 2nd Rose trade as the ultimate panic move.


Very funny, but you know what I meant.

Krause made panic moves because he was into his 3rd to 5th years of rebuilding and nothing was getting better. His job was on the line.

Pax cleaned house after giving his inherited squad a chance and they failed miserably from the get go. There's a big difference. And judging from Rose's production right now, his trade value was only dimishing, not improving.


----------



## SPIN DOCTOR (Oct 31, 2002)

RipDirty said:


> Heistate to move Tyson. The same player who was being guarded by a shooting guard for most of the 2nd half. His own teammates wouldn't pass him the ball. You can't be serious.[/QUOTE
> 
> Serious???
> 
> ...


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> They don't have merit since I'm not privy to the internal workings of the ball club?
> 
> We have numerous quotes about him "not picking up the phone" and being happy with standing pat to "see what we have."


I’ll give you the cold-calling quote. That was indeed troubling, but I don’t think it’s fair to extrapolate upon that quote and assume that’s how Pax has dealt with all other trade scenarios (or lack thereof perhaps). He said that with respect to a highly stressful and unusual circumstance. In the end, the trade was made. As far as being happy with standing pat to see what we have…is that such an unreasonable stance to take with such a young roster? Is it really so preposterous to want to evaluate our young talent before making a rash decision we’d later regret?



kukoc4ever said:


> One option that comes to mind was the Al Harrington for Ben Gordon pick swap. That sounds like a good deal at this point.


Really? Isn't this the same Al Harrington you've been pooh-poohing with respect to our cap space this summer?



kukoc4ever said:


> You and bullsville are saying I can't tell the future and I'm not a fly on the wall in the Paxson office. Guilty as charged I guess. That does not make my dissatisfaction with the current state of the team and the avenues we have available for us that I am aware of to improve it invalid. You may not like my opinion. That’s fine. That’s something I have no trouble with at all.


I'm not denying your right to be dissatisfied with the current state of the team. I just think the way you're going about expressing it is in a very unfair and unreasonable manner. 



kukoc4ever said:


> I think the team we had at the end of last season was much better than the team we have now.
> 
> Heck, last year we could take the court against the Pistons and actually beat them. Towards the end of last season, before all the injuries, I was pretty confident that we could defeat nearly every team in the league. It was a remarkable time. We also didn't take the floor nearly every night overmatched from a size perspective.


That's definitely a fair assessment. We're not playing as well as we were during the 2nd half of last season. But nobody’s denying the size issue. Both Paxson and Skiles have acknowledged that, and that may be something that we have to tolerate for the rest of the season. But it’s certainly not something they plan on enduring indefinitely as you make it seem. This team’s not nearly a finished product. 



kukoc4ever said:


> I think Pax did an OK job with the draft. Gordon I'm not too hot on, but his trade for the pick that ended up being Deng turned out to be a great move. Hinrich turned out to be a good player. Perhaps not a guy to be the "face of the organization".... but a solid player.


But how much better, if at all, could Pax have done in those drafts? Like I pointed out before, all the franchise players were gone before we selected Hinrich, Gordon, and Deng. So while it might be something to be disappointed about (i.e. not getting a franchise player with those lotto picks), how can you possibly blame Paxson for not “taking an avenue” that simply wasn’t there? I just don’t understand that. If Pax had passed on Howard/Okafor for Gordon or Wade/Bosh for Hinrich, you’d most certainly have a legitimate gripe. But chiding Pax for simply having an “OK” draft when he seems to have selected the best players available at our picks? That’s simply a warped point of view.



kukoc4ever said:


> My point is that we're now in year 3 of "the right way." Paxson had plenty of assets to work with... productive players.... lotto picks... and the current state of the team is what you see before you. Whether you are happy with the current state and future direction is up to you.
> 
> I'm not happy with the current state of the team. Given the bored looks and tired "cheers" by the UC crowd as of late, they seem to agree. The piped in crowd noise is becoming ever more noticeable.
> 
> That comcast sports poll is pretty telling IMO. Why are the Bulls struggling at home? "The team still hasn't found its identity" is leading the charge at 60.5% out of 5 options.


I don’t think you’ll find many that are thrilled with the way we are currently playing. I just think it’s unfair to both assume that the state of the team will remain stagnant and ignore all the avenues that we will have to improve our team during the next couple years. You make it seem like this team is doomed to eternal damnation. If our core group of players had already reached their potential and we were in cap space hell like the Knicks, I’d certainly share that sentiment. But it’s simply not the case. 

You seem to keep ignoring the fact that this current “mediocre” team is comprised of a core of very young players. Whether that core by itself has the makings of a future championship contender remains to be seen, but it’s just foolish to relentlessly discount the fact that Deng, Gordon, Hinrich, Chandler, Sweetney, and Duhon could improve tremendously during their tenure with the Bulls. With that young core, our considerable cap space, and the Knicks’ 1st rounders in the next couple drafts, I just can’t see what there is to be so utterly disappointed about. You may think you’re the only one here with championship aspirations, but you’re not. We all share that goal. Nobody here is satisfied with mediocrity. In the end, I really just fail to see what exactly your gripes are with this team. I mean really…what avenues to attaining a championship-caliber squad have been available to us during the past few seasons that we have not actively pursued? And please be specific.

Moreover, I’d like you to address these questions that I posed earlier today:
Do you honestly think that if Pax had retained Curry and Crawford that we'd be an exceptional team right now? Moreover, do you think that the implications of Curry and Crawford's long-term deals would've given us the flexibility to make the necessary additions for a championship run during the next couple years?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> Moreover, I’d like you to address these questions that I posed earlier today:
> Do you honestly think that if Pax had retained Curry and Crawford that we'd be an exceptional team *right now*? Moreover, do you think that the implications of Curry and Crawford's long-term deals would've given us the flexibility to make the necessary additions for a championship run *during the next couple years*?


It seems to me that these questions are moving the goal line a bit. The argument that we could be *better right now* without having made those trades, and still come together to a championship team down the road is not farfetched at all.

Exceptional? Well, I suppose, since we were exceptional by any standard measure after November last year. Until our injury spurt in April, we were above .500 vs. winning teams. Now we're well below it.

As far as a championship run, you're completely right about the need for patience that you espoused in other parts of that post. The Bulls core guys, even now, are 4-5 years away from having the maturity and experience to really be contenders. That'd be true with the alternate team as well. If we get there in the next couple years, its probably because we made major changes to "bring in a star".

Ironically, my fear is the opposite of K4E's. I'm not worried about too much patience on the Bulls part, I'm worried about too little. Paxson's "role players" quote and the several "we need to trade for a star" intimations he's made suggest he's not going to keep this team together for 4-5 years and let it grow. I'm not opposed to making a star-seeking trade, but we damn well better not do it out of desperation or impatience.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> It seems to me that these questions are moving the goal line a bit. The argument that we could be *better right now* without having made those trades, and still come together to a championship team down the road is not farfetched at all.
> 
> Exceptional? Well, I suppose, since we were exceptional by any standard measure after November last year. Until our injury spurt in April, we were above .500 vs. winning teams. Now we're well below it.
> 
> ...





> Paxson's "role players" quote and the several "we need to trade for a star" intimations he's made suggest he's not going to keep this team together for 4-5 years and let it grow. I'm not opposed to making a star-seeking trade, but we damn well better not do it out of desperation or impatience.


Sobering! Let's hope this does not happen!


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Ironically, my fear is the opposite of K4E's. I'm not worried about too much patience on the Bulls part, I'm worried about too little. Paxson's "role players" quote and the several "we need to trade for a star" intimations he's made suggest he's not going to keep this team together for 4-5 years and let it grow. I'm not opposed to making a star-seeking trade, but we damn well better not do it out of desperation or impatience.


At least Paxson was watching carefully when we traded Artest and Miller for Rose. I think that his passion for good jib and all that is what has kept him from pulling the trigger on a deal which would blow up in our faces like that one.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Actually, in reading back through what I wrote, I think I need to clarify, because it explains some of the differences I see between the direction we're in now vs. last year or the year before.

I do think this team needs to make a trade. it doesn't have to be for a superstar, but it is needed to provide a balanced, workable roster, because I don't see our draft picks or cap space alone as filling those holes. The trade might be a trade that trades some combination of picks, C Space, and players, but it needs to get done for this team to develop.

I don't think last year's team (or a team where we'd kept Jamal and drafted Iggy) would have that sort of need. More or less, we could have put those guys on the proverbial slow cooker for 4-5 years and let them mature, adding some spice along the way (guys like Songaila). In those situations, I saw the balance.

The difference is having some sort of balance in talented players of relatively similar ages and compatibility, but also playing in the right positions. We weren't perfect last year, but we were pretty balanced at every position, and we were an effective and dangerous team that could both attack and defend in several ways. The NBA is all about that sort of versatility. Now, we're more "brittle" in that there are fewer things our team can do (jump shoot!) both offensively and defensively.

Of course, we have more means (cap space, picks) of adding picks to get that versatility back, but generally speaking a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush (especially given the nature of who looks to be available with our picks and space). Getting back to that "right mix" is not as sure a thing as actually having it at the moment. We had it and now we don't.

What that boils down to is that currently we've got a structure problem that needs to be addressed in addition to the basic problem of being patient while we develop what we've got. I liked it better when it was just the patience/development probelm we were dealing with.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Mikedc said:


> Actually, in reading back through what I wrote, I think I need to clarify, because it explains some of the differences I see between the direction we're in now vs. last year or the year before.
> 
> I do think this team needs to make a trade. it doesn't have to be for a superstar, but it is needed to provide a balanced, workable roster, because I don't see our draft picks or cap space alone as filling those holes. The trade might be a trade that trades some combination of picks, C Space, and players, but it needs to get done for this team to develop.
> 
> ...


That's a good post, although I have to admit that my first impression was that you had fully joined the "all would be well in the world if we still had EC" camp. :biggrin:

And I only say that because the only 3 guys missing from last year's team are Griff, AD and Eddy. (Sorry, Jared Reiner)

AD is about done anyway, and neither he nor Griff would have been around in 4 or 5 years- so the only ingredient missing from the crock pot is you-know-who.

And while a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, I can't see spending a big wad of your feed money on a fattened-up Christmas turkey when their are a lot of young road-runners out there.

Like you, I don't want to see Paxson make a panic move, be it a bad trade or a bad draft pick or a bad FA signing. For example, if we wind up with the #1 pick next summer and Pax takes Paul Davis just because he's 6'11" and 270 and we need size, that would be a panic move (based on the current projections and evalutations).

I just see too many Brad Millers and Ben Wallaces and Jamaal Magloires out there- guys who are/were All-Stars who weren't close to being lottery picks, let alone top-5 picks.

IMHO, the chance of EC "coming back to haunt us" because he actually develops an all-around game and becomes a perennial All-Star is much less than the "chance" of us finding a suitable replacement in the next year or two.

And I also think that this team will get better as the year goes on- what we lost in AD and EC can somewhat be made up by Songaila and Sweetney once they know the team better (and vice versa). And once Skiles has a better handle on how to best use their skills, of course. Our guys aren't rookies anymore, but they are still just 2nd-year players, so they are still figuring out what *they* can and cannot do on the court, let alone their teammates.

If Gordon and Chandler were giving us more than 2/3 of what they gave us last season, we'd probably be 14-10 or 15-9... unfortunately, those guys have struggled- but fortunately, they have the most room for improvement as the season progresses.

We shall see, I'm still comfortable with my prediction of 47 wins. But that's just me.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

Mikedc said:


> It seems to me that these questions are moving the goal line a bit. The argument that we could be *better right now* without having made those trades, and still come together to a championship team down the road is not farfetched at all.


I don't think its moving the goal line with kukoc4ever, because he has posted endlessly about how just making the playoffs isn't good enough, and how not competing for a title this year is a dramatic lowering of expectations on Pax's part. I also don't see how someone could think that the idea that keeping those two guys could be seen as not at all farfetched, yet at the same time think that building a conetender with what is in place now is a pipedream. I think with Curry and Crawford, we'd be somewhere between what the Grizzlies are now and what the Blazers were in the early part of the decade, maybe a bit better than the Grizz but not as good as the Blazers-capped out, no franchise go to guy type, and between probably some griping for PT at the guard position.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> we'd be somewhere between what the Grizzlies are now and what the Blazers were in the early part of the decade, maybe a bit better than the Grizz but not as good as the Blazers-capped out, no franchise go to guy type, and between probably some griping for PT at the guard position.


The Blazers came damn close though. They were one or two plays away from the Finals. I'd take that. Especially if we're capped out with a young, good-attitude group of players, like we had, and unlike those Blazers teams.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> I also don't see how someone could think that the idea that keeping those two guys could be seen as not at all farfetched, yet at the same time think that building a conetender with what is in place now is a pipedream.


It's not a pipedream, it's just more difficult to go out and get someone than it is to already have someone.

Basically, I disagree with statements like this from Bullsville:



> I just see too many Brad Millers and Ben Wallaces and Jamaal Magloires out there- guys who are/were All-Stars who weren't close to being lottery picks, let alone top-5 picks.


because it just doesn't seem to ring true at all. There aren't that many of those guys out there. *If it was that easy to do, we'd have done it.*

Nobody sets out to make a bad decision. How many years did we go trying to get a PG until Kirk? A lot. And it didn't matter whether we looked for guys who were top 5 picks (Jay Williams) or low picks (Squalid), or unheralded guys we thought we'd steal from other teams (Bryce Drew). The closest we came was Crawford, and he's part 2 and part 1.

How many years did we go trying to get a good 3 between Artest and Deng? Lint, Dupree, Chris Freakin Jefferies?

Point is, it takes a skill in picking the right players, but it also takes luck. If the Pacers had made a slightly different decision we might have Al Harrington right now instead of Deng. Or, guh... Luke Jackson. When you start making moves, you're depending in part on the decisions of others and taking things a bit more out of your own hands.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

bullsville said:


> <b>IMHO, the chance of EC "coming back to haunt us" because he actually develops an all-around game and becomes a perennial All-Star is much less than the "chance" of us finding a suitable replacement in the next year or two.</b>


I couldn't agree with you more. Good point although this still depends on one's own evaulation of Curry as a basketball player.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Mikedc said:


> It's not a pipedream, it's just more difficult to go out and get someone than it is to already have someone.


That's true, depending on who you already have.

So far Paxson is batting 1.000 in the draft, I have no doubt that he can get us a good center- quite possibly better than Eddy Curry (not that he's done a lot so far)- with the assets we have.

As much as I hate to say it, it does once again come down to how you rate Eddy Curry. Obviously different people view him as more of a challenge to replace than others, directly in relation to how much of a chance you think Eddy has of fulfilling his physical potential.

Personally, I've seen too many good centers be traded over the last few years to think it won't happen again in the very near future. And we'll have plenty of assets- including the C Space that not signing Eddy gave us- to get that center.



> Basically, I disagree with statements like this from Bullsville:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is a big difference between looking for a player in the draft and having lots of C Space and high pick(s) and tradeable assets to use in filling a position of need via trade. 

And there is a huge difference in seeing Krause's 15-win Bulls try to attract Free Agents and a playoff team trying to attract free agents.

And yes, without a doubt, it helps to have some luck. Well, unless that luck is bad.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

IMO, the word luck is not applicable to our scenario. 

The quality of the selected players falls beyond the limits of expectation from the targeted value average. 

In other word, our method of selection is fundamentally wrong, because it is outside the typical standard deviation limits (one good pick for every three selections)

I can use the word luck when we have one or two trials. But we tried eleven times, and got only two good samples (Kirk and Deng).


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

The best move now to make is no move 

The Knicks pick - as I predicted all along is going to be a zinger and who wants to miss the opportunity of LaMarcus who has every good chance of having a Channing Frye type impact 

Not saying he is Channing Frye..but ..I really do think he will have an immediate impact in an Okafor type of a way

Now imagine an Okafor impact and put a player like that on this team ? Hey baby..chips and gravy.

And I'd still run with Paul Davis for our 2nd 1st round pick ..who I think will really provide nice depth and support to someone's front line in the pro's . Why not ours

The only other needs we have are scoring consistency upfront and wing depth ( scoring consistency )

Offseason priority #1 

Pursue Drew Gooden . If you have to pay him. Pay him . If you can't get him - then Al Harrington .. then Nene. We need a young athletic scoring bigman upfrnt that can rebound and also round out and play some D ( while staying on the floor )

Offseason priority #2 

Pursue Wally Sczcerbiak in a trade with Chris Duhon and Songaila as your principals . They throw in their 2nd rounder where we take a run at Craig Smith - a combo foward like Nocioni out of Boston College

Offseason priority # 3 

Bring back AD for a 2 year deal ( option on the 2nd year ) to smoooth out the youngish front line

Offseason priority # 4 

Resign Jannero

Offseason priority #5

Pursue Jiri Welsch

So :

*

Aldridge
Gooden
Deng
Sczcerbiak
Hinrich

bench

Chandler
Sweetney
Nocioni
Welsch
Gordon

P.Davis
A.Davis
Smith
Basden
Pargo

*

Nice and deep . And balanced 

I mean Chad Ford is talking about dealing the picks to get someone we want now. Why ?

We're not making a run 

I mean would we not be better at dealing non core pieces like Duhon and Uncle Owen for a guy that can give us consistency for the one thing we need night in and night out on the perimeter ..who , if you can give him 15 shots a game is almost guaranteed to give you 18ppg ?

And we don't have to deal two 1st round picks to get him 


What would you rather do?

Deal picks that could be Aldridge and say Mardy Collins for Peja 

Or Du and Owen for Wally 

I have always said if your spending the bucks on Peja ..you may as well have Wally ..who I actually think is a better player

Picks for Peja ..or Du and Owen for Wally?

To me its a no brainer and then simplifies our summer to :

1.Being in position to pick up Aldridge and Davis from the draft

2.Gooden or Al Harrington ( we will get one of the two ) 

3.2nd round of free agency into AD and Jiri Welsch

All pretty achievable steps


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

What sort of contract does Malik Rose have?I know it's pretty bad,but he's the sort of player that the Bulls need and they might be able to get the Knicks to almost give him away if they were willing to take his contract too.Don't know how you could make the numbers work either.SOmething like this might be practical and might help the team short term at a relatively low price(excluding the cap room and hte big paycheck Rose would be cashing).If I were the Knicks I would be looking to get rid of anyone that wasn't part of the longterm solution so they have some other players.Beyond these sorts of small moves I don't know what the Bulls can do unless they are ready to move Gordon.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

Here is my scenario, of course if Pax agrees:

Aldridge (NY pick, plus Tyson)
Sheldon (our own pick, plus Sweetney )
Artest (traded for Deng)
Gordon 
Hinrich

bench

Nocioni
Duhon
Pargo
AD
Songaila

plus a lot of cash for FA market….and then, I will be very anxious to see a smiling RW’s face. :biggrin:


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

If Pax is going to make a trade involving either of our picks for next summer, it's just about time to do it- our picks are probably at about their maximum value between now and the trading deadline.

The Knicks are sitting at #2, bad jibs and no defense and all, they can only go up in record- they are on pace to win ~25 games right now, their pick has to be looking awfully good to some team.

And with the way we are playing lately, our pick has to be looking like it could move "up" into the lottery and if we appear to be sinking that pick would look awfully good as well (top-3 protected, of course).

Of course, I'd have to read about an actual trade idea- I'm not saying to trade Gordon and Deng and our picks to bring in Theo Ratliff, just that right now is about as good as our picks can be looking.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> I do think this team needs to make a trade. it doesn't have to be for a superstar, but it is needed to provide a balanced, workable roster


Agreed, but attempting the hail mary is always more interesting.


> AD is about done anyway...
> And I also think that this team will get better as the year goes on- what we lost in AD and EC can somewhat be made up by Songaila and Sweetney once they know the team better (and vice versa).


AD was extremely useful, sure he's nothing compared to what he used to do, but he's a solid big man that can give you 20mins a night. Sure we've filled the void of Curry's scoring, but neither of Sweets or Songalia will replace what AD brought.


> Offseason priority #1-5


Not a bad plan, I like the idea of getting Gooden, and by the looks of it we wouldn't have to spend too much as Cleveland is already capped out and have a Lebron to extend soon enough. As for Wally, you sold me that idea ages ago . AD, Pargo and Welsch should be cheap, so there is nothing really to worry there. A+!


----------



## Zuca (Dec 4, 2003)

I think that a good move for this team would be a Tim Thomas+Malik Allen trade for Brian Skinner and Corliss Williamson from Sacramento Kings. Both will help this team with size, experience and toughness.. But the sad part is that it only works if Sacramento trade Peja for Artest at the same time (due to cap reasons, with that 25% clause)... But I think that Sacramento is still interested in Artest, so you guys can hope. I have no doubt that Corliss and Skinner can help this Bulls team immediately.


----------

