# Getting a Superstar, Not as easy as one thinks



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

I actually expect this thread to be pretty informative. While sitting on the ****ter, I was thinking that the one thing EVERYONE HERE is an agreement about is that the Bulls need a superstar player. And then I got to thinking that its really hard to do. 

First off, you have to define superstar. Is it a first team all NBA player, is it a future Hall of Famer, etc? Does really outstanding players like Jason Richardson and Rashard Lewis count or do you have to go up the totem pole from there? 

Second, you have to actually get those players. There are 4 ways you can obtain players in the NBA. Trade, Draft, FA or off the waiver wire. Lets start with the waiver wire, almost at no time in history has a superstar, by any definition, been picked up this way. Next. FA. It has happened, where a big name FA has left a club as a superstar and moved on. But not very often. What has happened is that a moderately to good player has left via FA and found a system that has changed him to a superstar. Steve Nash instantly comes to mind. There are a slew of these types of potential players out there, but few next year. Nene is the one who comes to mind this summer. Pietrus, Lewis, Darko come to mind next year. Trades. Contrary to popular belief, how often does a superstar get traded? The answer is, it does happen, but very rarely. Guys like Gary Payton were traded but way past their primes. A superstar who is in their primes becomes problemtatic. In this day and age, it has happened more often but still not a lot. Rasheed Wallace was dealt, Shaq was dealt, Charles Barkley was dealt, TMac etc. But often times, its very difficult to get a guy like Dirk, KG, Wade or Lebron in their primes. A more interesting way to obtain a superstar is to find a misused asset on another team and exploit it. Jermaine Oneal is the most obvious case here. And this is a scenrio Pax can probably look at. Again, Pietrus, Darko and a guy like Barbosa come to mind as superstar potential in just the wrong situation. Lastly, and the most obvious ways to obtain a superstar is through the draft. But this takes some luck. You can luck into James or Duncan by being bad and having the ping pong balls drop into your lap. Or you can luck into an obvious star like Carmello Anthony by a team making a bad selection (Michael Jordan should have been a Blazer as well). Who are the potential superstars out there. Well in this draft, it appears that Gay is that guy. Aldridge and Morrison might be future allstars but I am not sure about superstars. Next year appears to be chock full of atleast potential superstars. But to get a superstar requires being a little ballzy. You might have to take a foreign kid like Ajinca next year or a freshman. It does happen, but alot less, where you get a superstar right out of college (Wade, Duncan), but most of the recent guys are HS kids or a foreign kid as well. So it requires cahones.

Once you have that superstar on the team, it requires nurturing it. Look, there is a different set of standards for a superstar. And I know most people here cant stand hearing that but there is. Jackson is best known in handling his stars and has won 9 titles because he understands the stars. Jordan, Bryant, Pippen and Shaq never played by the same rules as everyone else. Duncan, it is said in the press does but I can tell you San Antonio has made concessions to him as well (training camp in the virgin islands?). You need a coach who can jell with a star, who can have a relationship with a star and can maintain that. Skiles, for my money, can not. The 2 stars he has really coached, Kidd and KJ, couldnt stand him. 

So what are Paxs alternatives. Either he can say we have a superstar on the roster and he has yet to emerge (Deng?). Or he can trade for a straightout superstar (going to take Hinrich and how many of you want to part with Kirk?). He can trade for an undervalued asset who might blossom or he can strap on his hard hat and start looking at the draft for the next 2 years. The Bulls could luck into one this year but unlikely. Next year is more possible but we could be back to mediocre and out of the lottery by next season. FA presents almost no possibility of that this year. Pax would be better set not spending money this year and waiting for 07


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Again, I don't think superstar is enough. As has been observed over and over again, the best player in the league usually wins it all, not just any superstar. So until they can formulate a stratagy to get the best player in the league, the Bulls best plan IMO is to accumulate as many very good players as possible (Pistons).


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> I actually expect this thread to be pretty informative. While sitting on the ****ter, I was thinking that the one thing *EVERYONE HERE* is an agreement about is that the Bulls need a superstar player. And then I got to thinking that its really hard to do.


I don't think we need a superstar, I think we need a front court. While many think I'm a nobody, Websters seems to include me among "EVERYONE". 



> First off, you have to define superstar. Is it a first team all NBA player, is it a future Hall of Famer, etc? Does really outstanding players like Jason Richardson and Rashard Lewis count or do you have to go up the totem pole from there?


I agree there are widely differing views on what constitutes a superstar. Is it only numbers? Is it consumer appeal? Is it being on a winning team? I'd personally Richardson and Lewis to be stars, but not superstars. In fact, I believe Gordon, Deng, or Hinrich may at some point in their careers produce at the same level as these guys.



> FA. It has happened, where a big name FA has left a club as a superstar and moved on. But not very often. What has happened is that a moderately to good player has left via FA and found a system that has changed him to a superstar. *Steve Nash* instantly comes to mind. There are a slew of these types of potential players out there, but few next year. *Nene* is the one who comes to mind this summer. *Pietrus, Lewis, Darko* come to mind next year. Trades. Contrary to popular belief, how often does a superstar get traded? The answer is, it does happen, but very rarely. Guys like *Gary Payton* were traded but way past their primes. A superstar who is in their primes becomes problemtatic. In this day and age, it has happened more often but still not a lot. *Rasheed Wallace* was dealt, *Shaq* was dealt, *Charles Barkley* was dealt, *TMac* etc. But often times, its very difficult to get a guy like *Dirk, KG, Wade or Lebron* in their primes. A more interesting way to obtain a superstar is to find a misused asset on another team and exploit it. *Jermaine Oneal* is the most obvious case here. And this is a scenrio Pax can probably look at. Again, Pietrus, Darko and a guy like *Barbosa* come to mind as superstar potential in just the wrong situation. Lastly, and the most obvious ways to obtain a superstar is through the draft. But this takes some luck. You can luck into James or *Duncan* by being bad and having the ping pong balls drop into your lap. Or you can luck into an obvious star like *Carmello Anthony* by a team making a bad selection (Michael Jordan should have been a Blazer as well). Who are the potential superstars out there. Well in this draft, it appears that Gay is that guy. Aldridge and Morrison might be future allstars but I am not sure about superstars. Next year appears to be chock full of atleast potential superstars. But to get a superstar requires being a little ballzy. You might have to take a foreign kid like Ajinca next year or a freshman. It does happen, but alot less, where you get a superstar right out of college (Wade, Duncan), but most of the recent guys are HS kids or a foreign kid as well. So it requires cahones.


I've tried to bold all of the names in your discussion. Interestingly enough, of all the guys on your list, only Duncan, Sheed, and Shaq have rings. I'd argue that some of the others aren't true "superstars" (Darko, Barbosa, Pietrus, Carmello, Nene, 'Sheed?), but it's interesting how many of the guys I think of as "superstars" (Vince, Pierce, AI, TMac, Kidd, Payton, KG, Nowitzki, Jermain O'Neal, Elton, LeBron, Kobe) are sitting on some pretty average teams right now. I feel like adding a 15 point 8 rebound PF and a big center good for clogging the lane and bringing in another 8 points and 7 rebounds a game will put our team ahead of most of the teams the above stars play for.

I'd be interested to see who people think are "superstars" now, how many were stars when they entered the league, and how many came in as "the man". I'd say guys like Duncan, KG, Kobe, Shaq, LeBron, Vince, Grant Hill, etc. certainly came in strong. Guys like Nash, Kidd, TMac, O'Neal, Manu, etc. have grown into the roles. Do Deng, Gordon, or Kirk have the ability to "grow into" superstardom? Further, how has the Net, Rocket, Celtic, Nugget, Timberwolf, Clipper, Magic, Sun, Pacer, Cavalier, Seventy-Sixer, or Maverick benefitted from being in possession of a "superstar"?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Wynn said:


> In fact, I believe Gordon, Deng, or Hinrich may at some point in their careers produce at the same level as these guys.


Way to go out on a limb on this one. 

Out of Paxson's #3 pick, #7 pick and the #7 pick, one or more of the three MAY produce like Jason Richardson or Rashard Lewis.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Stars or superstars, make sure to cross off all the ones that Paxson considers to be "high-maintenance" off the list.

rlucas is right... its hard to get a superstar... or even a star for that matter.... even harder when you have a self-imposed jib constraint.

we been better players. soon. star or superstar. beggars can't be choosers.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Stars or superstars, make sure to cross off all the ones that Paxson considers to be "high-maintenance" off the list.
> 
> rlucas is right... its hard to get a superstar... or even a star for that matter.... even harder when you have a self-imposed jib constraint.
> 
> we been better players. soon. star or superstar. beggars can't be choosers.


My point was that Kirk, Deng, and Ben may already be stars.... most nights they hold their own. If we had any meat up front (not even "superstars") we'd have won the thirteen games listed in another thread rather than have lost them. 29-10 is a far sight better than where we are now.... If all of our guys are just throw-aways, how are we even competitive?


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Wynn said:


> ...but it's interesting how many of the guys I think of as "superstars" (Vince, Pierce, AI, TMac, Kidd, Payton, *KG, Nowitzki, Jermaine O'Neal*, Elton, *LeBron, Kobe*) are sitting on some pretty average teams right now.


The Timberwolves, *Mavericks*, Pacers, *Cavaliers*, and Lakers are "average?" The Nets?


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> I've tried to bold all of the names in your discussion. Interestingly enough, of all the guys on your list, only Duncan, Sheed, and Shaq have rings.


I'd give most of the credit to the coaches and gm's of each team, they've done everything possible to put their players in the position to win, unlike some others.

I'd like to do a superstar trade, but I feel we really don't have to. Sure Pierce would be great, but I'm not willing to party with 2 of the "3" so far, which is probably what it's going to take. Idealy I'd like to get Bosh, but that will never happen.

I hope Pax realises that we probably won't get much out of the draft as is, and makes some moves accordingly. For instance:

Trade Duhon to Atlanta for their pick. Get into the position to draft Shelden.

Package Sweets and Songalia for someone, albeit for a backup guard, anyone.

Scout the rest of the draft like crazy (Bargnani, Splitter, other big guys), see who's hype and who's not. If nothing looks promising use the Knicks' pick as trade bait.
I'd seriously look at trying to get Scola's rights from the Spurs. I'm also even willing to consider the likes of Randolph or Boozer, they wouldn't be a mystery atleast.

Get Nene, some might find this disturbing, but I feel his the best possible choice which would be easily obtainable. His age should help him with his injury. I can see him turning into a 15/9 player, which would be very useful. His age should be on his side, but if not, don't bother.

Get some needed veteran presence for next year, Davis and Kukoc come to mind.

Idealy we'd end up with 
Hinrich, Pargo
Gordon, ____ Sweets trade
Deng, Nocioni, Kukoc
Scola, Chandler, Othella
Nene, Shelden, Davis

Oh and lastly, hire Scottie and try and get Cartwright back.

PS. One player I think we should consider is getting Rashard Lewis, we could only hope that Deng will develop into a player of his calibre, plus his only 26.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Premier said:


> The Timberwolves, *Mavericks*, Pacers, *Cavaliers*, and Lakers are "average?" The Nets?



You know the question was asked, where did having a superstar help the above teams and the answers are far. Indy has made an eastern conference finals. The Mavs, TWolves have as well. The Lakers won a title. The Nets went to back to back finals. The Cavaliers are headed in the right direction. The superstar angle has had almost all of these teams on the cusp of a ring.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

We need to trade for the star lost value at the trade deadline for draft picks and tim thomas' contract.

Ex. Vince Carter, Rasheed Wallace, Baron Davis.....

This year I could see Steve Francis and Artest, preferably Artest, and have Artest play shooting guard for us.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Wynn said:


> My point was that Kirk, Deng, and Ben may already be stars.... most nights they hold their own. If we had any meat up front (not even "superstars") we'd have won the thirteen games listed in another thread rather than have lost them. 29-10 is a far sight better than where we are now.... If all of our guys are just throw-aways, how are we even competitive?


There is a place in-between throw away and star/superstar.

That's where our guys reside.

Lewis is one of the better players in the NBA. Richardson is very, very good SG.

Gordon is a below average NBA basketball player right now. He's not a PG, he's undersized for SG, he's the worst rebounder on our team, does not create for others much, and is not a great defender. Gordon also has one of the worst true shooting percentages on our team. Not anywhere near a star.

Hinrich is a step above, but is plagued by inconsistency. I like his moxie and distribution skills, but he too has a poor scoring efficiency. He's an average player at this point in the NBA.

Deng is a step above. He at least rebounds and has the length to hang with the person he's guarding most of the time. He's also one of the better players at hanging onto the ball. He's also a more efficient scorer than either Hinrich or Gordon.

Nocioni is playing better than Gordon right now, no doubt IMO. He's closer to any "star" level player than Gordon. Gordon does one thing OK.

Honestly, save Deng, we don't have anyone near JRich…and Lewis is even a larger cut above. 

There are stats like rebound rate and PER and TS% that I like to look at that back all this up.... but this is such a subjective topic I don't think you'll agree with me...


----------



## BLUNTMAN (Jan 20, 2006)

According to Stephen A Smith the pacers would take Andre Igoudala or Ike Diogu for Ron Artest,the sixers or warriors must be mental to not do that deal straight away,if was the bulls i`d be looking to move ben gordon or kirk hinrich for artest


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

BLUNTMAN said:


> According to Stephen A Smith the pacers would take Andre Igoudala or Ike Diogu for Ron Artest,the sixers or warriors must be mental to not do that deal straight away,if was the bulls i`d be looking to move ben gordon or kirk hinrich for artest



if the warriors could get Artest and team him up for a few minutes a night with MP2, they will basically pitch shutouts. The 2 best young swing defenders in the NBA on the same team would be crazy. Diogu is going to be a very good player, but Artest is worth the risk IMO.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

sloth said:


> We need to trade for the star lost value at the trade deadline for draft picks and tim thomas' contract.
> 
> Ex. Vince Carter, Rasheed Wallace, Baron Davis.....
> 
> This year I could see Steve Francis and Artest, preferably Artest, and have Artest play shooting guard for us.



Good post Sloth

And a good post from K4E as well


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

This is a good and thought provoking thread 

On the current roster I think its Deng who just needs a bit more time - Gordon as well obviously

In the coming draft I can't see anyone as being hugely special - some nice pieces and some contributors on a say Jason Richardson type level ( valuable player but not the franchise player from which you build title aspirations around ) 

Available for trade ?

Well there is the Paul Pierce rumours and we've flogged that dead horse 

Free Agency ? Again no one special that is likely not going to be "the one" and only front court assets that we need for depth . But given that we don't have a front court at the moment and are still semi functional for what will be a 33 -35 win team we should not overpay for assets in the front court 

I think we think of our current position with too high an expectation regarding immediacy 

At the moment , with the exception of Tyson Chandler , we have good young talent at cheap cost .

Perhaps Tyson will ultimately grow into his contract and establish worth 

I don't expect home runs in the draft this year or next because 

A. This draft is not hugely special 

B. We likely will not be in great position next year either and will have low chances of getting the supposed "next big thing" in Greg Oden.

So , the order of the day in this draft with two picks between 10 to 15 is to probably play it safe and pick up pieces in position of need that are serviceable players - although if one of these picks got us a run at Darko Milicic , if he is out in the open I think you have to take that chance 

Which leaves one pick around say the #10 mark and you take the most proven big in the college ranks available ( Shelden Williams or Paul Davis )

If we held on to both picks instead of trading one for someone like Darko that could be available I still say that you take the most proven bigs in the college game - although I could understand taking a run at Splitter on the same premise I advocate taking a run at Darko - one pick with upside and hope and one steady ( Williams or Davis )

In free agency , at the guard level , I would add a supporting piece underneath the Hinrich, Gordon , Duhon core - someone that could be a legit and productive 3rd guard if one of those guys was traded 

The choices are Jiri Welsch or John Salmons 

When it comes to the bigs - and let's say we did draft Williams and say Splitter in the "one safe / one punt" strategy to go with Chandler , Songaila and Sweetney that are still under contract we would have room for one of : Harrington , Nene , Gooden ,Pryzibilla or Wilcox .

My gut feel is that Wilcox could ultimately be the best of this bunch if he got his chance and a guy that ( and this important ) we could get for _ the most amount of money we are prepared to spend _

If it was Wilcox , who has risk , but who you could probably get at the MLE level , then I would probably go with the 2 most likely sure things from the college ranks - which would be Williams and Davis

And that's just not about giving a crap about the financial prudence of running a sports going concern - * its about having assets at cost that are attractive to other parties in a trade or trades to come later *

You see this team has been set up to compete and be a middle of the road performer with solid citizens and low maintenance players .

Once this team is a consistent 40 to 45 win team and has some respect ( and your team has to have consistent winning seasons before the players within it get any respect around the league ) then the individual value off your players goes up tri fold if 

1. They show some talent in the roles they play on winning teams 

2. They are good guys who are low maintenance ( who else did the likes of Luc, Steve and Jud got their post dynasty contracts when it was time to break up and deal ) 

3. They are locked in for reasonable market cost

Meeting these 3 criteria at a latter point in time you don't have to trade multiple players out of your current core to get a Paul Pierce player

Yes - as a team you will struggle more in the short term but at this stage of growth its all about acquiring assets - some role playing in positions of need that help you become a consistent winning team and some that are the home run high risk propositions 

Such that , in a few years down the track when you have consistency with your core and your a consistent 45 win team and your looking to take the next step you then look at your assets and shuffling the deck at the time to try and make a run - with the idea being you give as little away of your core as possible in swapping needs with whoever you are trading with 

But in this ideal world the talent you acquire through the draft or free agency has to develop 

So ...

1. I would draft Shelden Williams and Paul Davis in the play it safe strategy

2. Target Chris Wilcox in the take a punt strategy 

3. Target John Salmons then Jiri Welsch in the build a reserve / depth strategy

4. Target Antonio Davis AND Lindsay Hunter in building vet depth

And wait for some of our assets to mature over the next 2 - 3 seasons or so and then re-evaluate 

*

A.Davis
Williams
Deng
Gordon
Hinrich

Chandler 
Wilcox
Nocioni
Salmons
Duhon

P.Davis
Songaila
Hunter
Pargo

*

That's a young vet team with great role player pieces in place where you have 4 chances at a legit star to emerge ( between Deng and Gordon and then Shelden Williams on a lower level down and then Wilcox IMO on an even lower level still) 

If you leave them to develop with some short term vet pieces like AD and Lindsay Hunter I think you've got a good chance of getting to a Memphis Grizzlies type of respectability but still having some exposure to upside assets like Deng, Gordon , Williams and Wilcox

And that makes you a force to be reckoned with a few years from now if say for example you are trying to put a package together for Dwayne Wade and Shaq, Zo , Jason Williams and Antoine Walker are all gone and the Heat is a shell with Dwayne Wade and not much else - kind of like the Rox when they were left with Franchise after Charles , Dream and Glide all went within a season of each other 

Just an example - and wishful thinking !


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I just hope that someone, preferabbly BJ Armstrong, kidnaps Kirk, Ben, and Deng (to a lesser extent Noc) and locks them up in a crate that says do not trade, until the trade deadline passes. 

If by chance we have both draft picks left, here is what I think we should go.

Take a 2/3 with one of the picks, preferabbly JJ Reddick or Rudy Gay.

Then I'd want either Shelden Williams or Lamarcus Aldridge with the other pick.

I would really want Reddick though, he is a pure winner, and he can shoot lights out, and stretch the defense, which will further open up things (cough for Eddy Curry, cough) unfortunately there would be no one to open things up for, so we would be dependant on Williams/Aldridge to get something done, and possibly Sweetney, but not what we could have had if we drafted Reddick, we would of have had a seriously deadly team stretching out the defense. 


We should bring back Tim Thomas first off, add some talent to the team.

If Paxson trades for Al Harrington, he should be fired, you don't trade for a guy you could get in free agency a few months later.


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

I for one do NOT think we should get a 'superstar'

I agree with Wynn in that if we just had some sort of front court we'd be a top tier team in the NBA

I really think that our 1, 2, 3 positions are down for the next 10 years (yes this includes an undersized backcourt, but Skiles said that Deng could move to the 2 at times in his future)

(Du, Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Nocioni.... that's our core... I don't want to part with any of them)

Now on to the problem of the front-court

Tyson.... THIS year has been absolutely HORRENDOUS
however, I think its only a one year thing, he'll hit the weights, work on conditioning and improve his play DRAMATICALLY this summer and be that double double player that we expected from him

but to do that, we cannot make him play center
we need a bruiser in the middle, an actual center alongside Tyson

if we got a center that avg 12 and 8, is solid defensively and can stay in the game for 30mpg without getting into foul trouble for the next 5 years... I'd be estatic (Nene comes to mind if he's recovered)

also because of our draft picks this summer, our team will have MUCH MORE depth, especially since we have 2 solid first rounders AND with Pax's ability to draft with 2nd rounders

I do NOT want Paxson to make a trade (Duhon for Gooden is appealing, but having a solid PG for 48 min is a great advantage for us)

If all this occurs, I think in 2006 we will be in the top 4 in the Eastern Conference
(Pistons, Cavs, Miami, Bulls)


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Premier said:


> The Timberwolves, *Mavericks*, Pacers, *Cavaliers*, and Lakers are "average?" The Nets?


*Timberwolf* -- 19-18 -- 15th in the league
*Maverick* -- 30-10 -- 4th in the league (but no rings in ever?)
*Pacer* -- 21-17 -- 9th in the league (beat the Bull by two points, tonight's results pending)
*Cavalier* -- 20-17 -- 10th in the league 
*Laker* -- 21-19 -- 13th in the league (split the season with the Bull -- also was not on my list)

When you isolate these five, of course they're in the top half, but contenders? Include the others on my list:

*Net* -- 21-16 -- 7th in the league (beat the Bull by 1 -- last ring?)
*Rocket* -- 13-25 -- ??? (Two superstars on their roster!!!)
*Celtic* -- 16-23 -- Tied with us.
*Nugget* -- 22-19 -- 11th in the league (beat the Bull by 3)
*Clipper* -- 20-16 -- 8th in the league (Some would argue they have no superstar, either)
*Magic* -- 15-22 -- Granted, Hill is out more than in, but he's a superstar -- Franchise?
*Sun* -- 26-13 -- 4th in the league (are they a contender? Better season last year and couldn't finish)
*Seventy-Sixer* -- 19-20 -- below .500

I stand by my statement -- Average.

Of all teams with "superstars", only Detroit, San Antonio, and LA have won anything since the Bull. Detroit and San Antonio certainly have nice players, but both won based on superior *teamwork* and *team defense*. I don't personally consider 'Sheed a superstar, but Detroit was well on their way to the championship before he was on that team. Miami? With Shaq, Wade, Alonzo, Antoine, "White Chocolate", and Payton they're still only 5th in the league. What about that Laker team with Shaq, Kobe, Payton, and Malone?

I truly feel two or three decent bigs (not even "stars", but playing at the level of Kirk, Ben, Luol, or Andres) would be more than enough to elevate our team to one of the best in the league.



kukoc4ever said:


> Lewis is one of the better players in the NBA. Richardson is very, very good SG.


Feel free to add Seattle and Golden State to my list of average teams:

*SuperSonic* -- 15-24 -- Decidedly SubSonic.
*Warrior* -- 19-19 -- Average, thou hast a name, it is .500.



rlucas said:


> You know the question was asked, where did having a superstar help the above teams and the answers are far. *Indy* has made an eastern conference finals. The *Mavs*, *TWolves* have as well. The *Nets* went to back to back finals. The *Cavaliers* are headed in the right direction. The superstar angle has had almost all of these teams on the *cusp of a ring*.


Cusp of a ring?

Which of those teams did you think were going to win the title?

Minnesota was in the exact same one and done play-off spot for years -- with KG! Thriving now?

Nets were fortunate the entire East was down, and that was w/o VC, the "superstar" to whom I was referring. Where'd Air Canada take the Raptor?

Indy -- always the bridesmaid.....

These teams may be on the high side of average, but have all walked away empty-handed, without even a bouquet or garter as a promise of future happiness. High side of average is still average...

Face it, any "superstar" available is going to be so because they were unable to win on their current team. If that guy is unable to take his current team to the promised land, what makes us think he'll help us? Especially given the decided bad taste our current roster seems to leave in the mouths of many of our posters. If our roster, as currently constituted, consists of players who "reside in that place between throw-away and star", what makes us think a "superstar" of a sub-par team is going to take us to the championship? Could it be that some of us don't think our roster is nearly as bad as they report daily on our favorit website? Jib matters?!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Wynn said:


> Feel free to add Seattle and Golden State to my list of average teams:
> 
> *SuperSonic* -- 15-24 -- Decidedly SubSonic.
> *Warrior* -- 19-19 -- Average, thou hast a name, it is .500.


Lewis is one of the best players in the NBA. Richardson is a very good SG.

This post of yours does nothing to refute this.

BTW, in case you didn't know, Ray Allen, TMAC, Chris Bosh and Paul Pierce are also very good basketball players. 

All much, much, much, much, much better than "Air" Gordon or Captain Kirk.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Lewis is one of the best players in the NBA. Richardson is a very good SG.
> 
> This post of yours does nothing to refute this.
> 
> ...


I wasn't trying to refute -- I was agreeing. My point is that despite the "superstars", the teams are not very good. I'm sorry I didn't make the point more clearly. Have included Pierce and TMac in every discussion so far regarding "superstars". Bosh and Ray Allen are welcome. I'm not disputing anybody's definition of "superstar", I'm just suggesting that there is a lot more to the winning formula than "superstar". Bringing up players from Toronto, Seattle, Boston, and Houston (formerly Orlando) just further proves my point.

Man, you argue with me even when you agree with me. I always thought you U of C guys were among the brightest around!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Wynn said:


> I wasn't trying to refute -- I was agreeing. My point is that despite the "superstars", the teams are not very good. I'm sorry I didn't make the point more clearly. Have included Pierce and TMac in every discussion so far regarding "superstars". Bosh and Ray Allen are welcome. I'm not disputing anybody's definition of "superstar", I'm just suggesting that there is a lot more to the winning formula than "superstar". Bringing up players from Toronto, Seattle, Boston, and Houston (formerly Orlando) just further proves my point.



Ah. Your point is "one man does not a winning basketball team make." Stunning revelation. I’m looking forward to your “the sun sets in the west” thread.

That's almost as bold a statement as "out of Paxson's #3 pick, #7 pick and the #7 pick, one or more of the three MAY produce like Jason Richardson or Rashard Lewis."

There is no excuse for Paxson to not continuously be trying to get better players on this team. Especially when its so obvious that we're outmanned on most nights. 

Having very good NBA basketball players is a prerequisite to winning. The Bulls need some very good NBA basketball players.

Ray Allen, TMAC, PP, Bosh, Lewis, Richardson… all would make the Bulls a better team than it is right now, IMO.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Ah. Your point is "one man does not a winning basketball team make." Stunning revelation. I’m looking forward to your “the sun sets in the west” thread.


This sarcasm is your way of proving you superior wit? Your charm? If my stunning "one man does not a winning basketball team make" revelation appears so obvious, why are we arguing about it?



> There is no excuse for Paxson to not continuously be trying to get better players on this team. Especially when its so obvious that we're outmanned on most nights.


True about the better players part. Outmanned? You seem to believe we are outmanned across the entire roster. I believe we are outmanned up front. I believe Paxson agrees with me.



> Having very good NBA basketball players is a prerequisite to winning.


...and you mock MY stunning revelations? Glass houses calling the kettle black, I think....



> Ray Allen, TMAC, PP, Bosh, Lewis, Richardson… all would make the Bulls a better team than it is right now, IMO.


What about our team would make adding any of the above any better than their current teams?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Is Duncan one of the very best players in the league because the team wins or does the team win because he's one of the very best players in the league?

I seem to remember Jordan was bashed quite a bit because the Bulls didn't win championships with him. Then once they did win championships, he got acclaim as THE best player in history.

So I say that we do need a superstar player, no doubt. None of the players we have are it. Superstar players do it on the court pretty much from day 1. Ben Gordon is the closest we have, considering he was 6th man of the year and runner up for rookie of the year - both feats unachieved or not even approached by his teammates.

Give that we need a superstar, you then have to look at the first question I asked. You might add a superstar like AI. He's the kind you get on his back and ride him hard every game to victory. The team will win by his sheer will, even if the talent around him isn't so good. Then there's the other kind of superstar - the one that elevates the play of his teammates. That's where the Duncans fit in. 

When I see the list of names in this thread, I think people are not seeing exactly what I see. JRich? He probably fits this team as good as ANY superstar we could ever get. AI? Not so good a fit. Pierce? Awesome fit. From where I sit, the superstar type we need is a SG who can draw fouls and dish when needed - someone who fits our current roster.

A PF/C type would be ideal, too. But just adding stiff PF/C types to solidify the lineup will never take us beyond 1st or maybe 2nd round.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Is Duncan one of the very best players in the league because the team wins or does the team win because he's one of the very best players in the league?
> 
> I seem to remember Jordan was bashed quite a bit because the Bulls didn't win championships with him. Then once they did win championships, he got acclaim as THE best player in history.
> 
> ...


Fair assessment. Here, though, it seems you are looking for players to fit, rather than just any random "superstar". I'm with you on that! I'm a fan of JRich -- not sure if he fit's "superstar" definition. I like Pierce. I don't think they're "necessary", nor do I think we throw away what we've got to bring them in. As for "stiff" PF/C types... every team (except us, though Tyson is showing up tonight) seems to have some. Almost a necessary component of an NBA squad. Was hoping that in getting some combination of those I've listed that they aren't all quite as "stiff" as you may be implying.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Wynn said:


> This sarcasm is your way of proving you superior wit? Your charm? If my stunning "one man does not a winning basketball team make" revelation appears so obvious, why are we arguing about it?


I'm just here to talk hoops. You are the one getting personal. I didn’t think you would be making such an obvious point. My apologies.



> True about the better players part. Outmanned? You seem to believe we are outmanned across the entire roster. I believe we are outmanned up front. I believe Paxson agrees with me.


I would not get all puffy chested about a losing GM agreeing with you. 




> What about our team would make adding any of the above any better than their current teams?


We have a large group of slightly above average players. 

Many of the "stars" mentioned are on a team that has one to two good players and then it gets very average to bad, very quick. (Lewis, Allen, PP, TMAC, Yao, Bosh)

If we could be lucky enough to trade a guy like Gordon and a draft pick for a star like PP, then we'd be better off, obviously ... chemistry counts as well, i agree... it would have to be a fit on that front as well...




Certainly we should be trying to acquire better players than the ones we have now, yes? Even if that player is on a losing team. Or, does being on a losing team invalidate that player in your eyes?

I would not mind a team of Bibby, PP, TMAC, Bosh and Yao... but that's just me. Its a team of 5 losers in your eyes I guess.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> *I'm just here to talk hoops.* I didn’t think you would be making such an obvious point. My apologies.


Got it. I accept your apology. Thank you.



> I would not get all puffy chested about a losing GM agreeing with you.


The GM that agrees with me has taken a very bad team and made it better. Your favorite GM appears to have done the opposite. Different strokes...



> We have a large group of slightly above average players.


See now, it wasn't so hard to admit that, was it?



> Many of the "stars" mentioned are on a team that has one to two good players and then it gets very average, very quick. (Lewis, Allen, PP, TMAC, Yao, Bosh)


According to how I understand the "superstar" theory, Lewis and Allen being on the same team should mean their team should not be sitting below us in the standings, especially given that they are also teamed with Vladmanovich and Flip Murray. Ditto TMac and Yao, with Van Gundy, Juwon, Wesley, etc. Bosh and your boy Rose don't smell so sweet in that fresh Canadian air.....



> If we could be lucky enough to trade a guy like Gordon and a draft pick for a star like PP, then we'd be better off, obviously ... chemistry counts as well, i agree... it would have to be a fit on that front as well...


We agree about the chemistry and fit. I'm not ready to quit on Gordon yet, and picks are often the BEST way to come up withthe ellusive superstar (as I think was mentioned in *rlucas'!* initial post). I'd be interested to see how many "superstars" are still with the first team they played for...



> Certainly we should be trying to acquire better players than the ones we have now, yes? Even if that player is on a losing team. Or, does being on a losing team invalidate that player in your eyes?


Yes and yes. Certainly the star of any team shares in the burden of accountability. There are quite few players that would be considered "superstars" who I feel have singlehandedly held their teams back, though not purposefully. I remember having a talk years back about what I consider "fundamentally flawed players", defined as a player who's very style of play will keep the team from winning. My "fundamentally flawed" list includes such players as Sir Charles, Patrick Ewing, AI, 'Toine, 'Nique, etc. Pierce is coming very close to being included on that list. He's been paired with "slightly above average players" in all combinations in Boston and has never been able to win. 



> I would not mind a team of Bibby, PP, TMAC, Bosh and Yao... but that's just me. Its a team of 5 losers in your eyes I guess.


No, it's a team of "superstars" (though I'm not sure Bibby fits the definition). Bring 'em in and let's see how they do. Malone, Payton, Kobe, and Shaq would probably be interested in playing them. Better yet, let's see how they do against Argentina.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Well, in my ratings database I rank superstars as being the top 15 guys in the NBA in an average year. Actually the top 5 guys I rank as "All-NBA" and guys 6-15 as "Superstar". Guys 16-30 are "Stars".

As it turns out, you can have more than 5 "All-NBA" guys in a year, because I rank players across seasons. So, if there are 10 years in my database, the top 50 (10x5) player-seasons are "All-NBA".

This year (so far) there are 6 guys who seem "All-NBA" to my database:
Lebron, Garnett, Marion, Iverson, Kobe, Wade

And 11 guys that rank out as superstars
Dirk, Brand, Nash, Duncan, Pierce, Billups, Kidd, McGrady, Gasol, Arenas and Chris Paul (wow, he's good).

Far as I can tell, there's only one guy on that list, Pierce, that we could conceivably get. Much less get without gutting our team. Cause that's the other thing. Getting a superstar is hard, and once you get one, you have to put a team around him. Hell, without help, Michael Jordon couldn't get a team very far, and he was obviously better than most of these guys.

Now... do you need a superstar?

I'd say it's a very rare occasion when you don't. Every title winning team in my DB (Going back to the 88-89 season) has had a guy that ranked out as a superstar or better except the Detroit teams, which had a star (ranked 16-30) and at least two Marginal Stars (players 31-60).

Most teams... the other 11 of 14 champions in my sample, had a guy who rated out as a superstar or better.

If you look at the 14 losing teams in the finals, 2 teams managed to get there without anyone even rating a star. One team had a star, the other 11 had a superstar or better.

In my book, that's a pretty convincing case. 28 teams, and 22 of them had a superstar quality guy... that's 79%. If you widen it to include star players, then 26 of the 28 finalists (93%) had one. Yeah, we need one.

At the moment, under my rating system, we've got one Marginal Star (Hinrich), 3 starters (Deng, Duhon, Nocioni), and a 6th man (Gordon... who'll be rating out as a starter after a couple more good games).

Last year, we had one Marginal Star (Hinrich), 5 starters (Chandler, Deng, Curry, Duhon, Gordon), and a 6th man (Davis).

My sort of long run projection is that Kirk stays about where he's at. Gordon and Deng might be marginal stars one day. Could be better, but I wouldn't assume that. If Chandler keeps playing like he has tonight, he's a star, but I'd be happy and hopeful to get the solid starter he was last year.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Gordon is a below average NBA basketball player right now. He's not a PG, he's undersized for SG, he's the worst rebounder on our team, does not create for others much, and is not a great defender. Gordon also has one of the worst true shooting percentages on our team. Not anywhere near a star.


Whereas I agree with you that Gordon is no star, I don't feel so negative about him because I feel like his weakness has improved in this his second year. He is starting to set more people up, his defense is improved, and he's penetrating more to balance out his offensive repertoire. He's no star, but at least he's working on his game, and the work is showing.

That being, said, he's a 6' 2" shooting guard. I would trade him in a package for a star, as you know.

Also, it was a pleasure to see Nocioni out there tonight getting a bunch of burn. You've got to give him props for his hard work because his shooting was nowhere near this good when he came into the league. At this point, I would also be willing to package Deng for a star because I think Nocioni is rounding into a hell of a player, and I'm comfortable with him as my starting small forward. 

I don't know if NBA GM's see it this way, but Deng to me should have more value than Gordon due to his size and his all court game. If Deng was included in a trade, I expect a hell of a player back, a sure thing who's not past his prime.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> .....
> 
> At the moment, under my rating system, we've got one Marginal Star (Hinrich), 3 starters (Deng, Duhon, Nocioni), and a 6th man (Gordon... who'll be rating out as a starter after a couple more good games).
> 
> ...


I like the way you set up your system. Interestingly, a lot of the names being tossed about as "superstar" aren't included in your list. Do you imagine, given the way that your system works, that if the Bull starts winning consistently one or more of our players may be elevated? Wouldn't, for example, the addition of an effective front-court open up more room for our outside players to elevate their impact on the game, and vice-versa? Has Billups been a perennial superstar, for example, or has the team game of Detroit helped his assist numbers and free him up for scoring? Ditto Nash in his move to Phoenix -- was he considered all-star in Dallas?

I guess what I'm asking is whether it's possible that given an inside presence who can finish and also take pressure off of the perimeter, couldn't we see a feeding frenzy of assists and threes by the now much more open Kirk, Ben, and Chris? Wouldn't their improved play allow our inside guys more room for rebounds and points in the paint? Your system seems to reward players for being on winning teams -- and rightfully so! Chicken or egg? We've all figured Kobe, Duncan, Shaq, etc to be "chickens". Aren't guys like Nash and Billups "eggs"?

BTW -- Chris Paul can't possibly be a good player. He's even shorter than Ben, Kirk, or Chris, who are all too short to be effective in the NBA.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> ...and Chris Paul (wow, he's good).


This leads me to another thought. Last year was supposed to be a two player draft. Ha! LeBron's draft was supposedly a three player draft. Double laugh, for Wade and Bosh. Yao's draft was supposed to be a two player draft. Microfracture chortle for Amare. 

"Experts" be damned, the draft remains a crapshoot. And all draft historians know how many really good players were taken with the #9 pick, such as our man Paul Pierce and Amare. Just because people think this draft is weak doesn't mean that one player can't surprise and blossom into a star. With that in mind, it would be nice to hold on to at least one of our picks, because you just never know in the draft, especially somewhere in the lottery.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

Atlanta is not just going to trade their top 3 pick, maybe #1 pick for Chris Duhon. lol. And if they did, I don't think Shelden would be your guy..


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

TheATLien said:


> Atlanta is not just going to trade their top 3 pick, maybe #1 pick for Chris Duhon. lol. And if they did, I don't think Shelden would be your guy..


I'm not understanding what this post is in response to...


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

"Trade Duhon to Atlanta for their pick. Get into the position to draft Shelden."

http://basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3076651&postcount=8


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

TheATLien said:


> "Trade Duhon to Atlanta for their pick. Get into the position to draft Shelden."
> 
> http://basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3076651&postcount=8


Got it. I agree with you that it is unlikely we get a top three pick with only Duhon as bait...


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

I think the methods of getting a properly-jibbed superstar, ranked from greatest chance to least, are Draft-Trade-Free Agency, and I think Draft dwarfs the other two put together. It's not exciting, but today I think maybe we should play it straight: draft wisely (which Pax seems capable of), recruit the Nenes and Al Harringtons of the world in free agency, listen carefully to trade offers for our Duhons and Nocionis... and be prepared to act swiftly if a Paul Pierce or Kevin Garnett (or even a Brad Miller or a Chris Kaman) does happen to become available. How boring. 

The only major trades I would encourage Paxson to initiate right now are the Pietrus type of guys - young guys who aren't getting burn for whatever reason that could blow up in the right circumstance. If Paxson tries to pry somebody established loose from another team, he'll have to overpay. The guy who makes the first call usually seems to get poor value.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Assuming Oden is one and done at Ohio State then all you need is a magic ping pong ball.However I don't expect anyone to want to tank next season and therefore you just need to figure out how to make sure the Knicks suck next season and give them the magic ping pong ball.Maybe Zeke could help you out if you asked him nicely.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Gordon is a below average NBA basketball player right now.



Do you mean a below average NBA player or a below average NBA starter? I don't mean to be offensive, but I think the idea that he is a below average NBA player is preposterous. If this were true, you mean that there are 7 players on every team better than Gordon. This would mean Gordon is the 200-somethingth best player in the NBA. I don't agree.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Got it. I agree with you that it is unlikely we get a top three pick with only Duhon as bait...


It's just an idea, Duhon would be the main component of the package, throw in whatever it would take within reason to make it work.
Oh and I meant to say Aldridge.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Wynn said:


> The GM that agrees with me has taken a very bad team and made it better. Your favorite GM appears to have done the opposite. Different strokes...


The guy has steered our franchise to a losing record and we appear stuck in a holding pattern of mediocrity.

Who is my favorite GM? I don't have one.





> According to how I understand the "superstar" theory, Lewis and Allen being on the same team should mean their team should not be sitting below us in the standings, especially given that they are also teamed with Vladmanovich and Flip Murray. Ditto TMac and Yao, with Van Gundy, Juwon, Wesley, etc. Bosh and your boy Rose don't smell so sweet in that fresh Canadian air.....


Is your point "one player does not a team make" or "these guys are not that good?" To think that a guy like Ray Allen or Chris Bosh would not help the Bulls is absurd.



> We agree about the chemistry and fit. I'm not ready to quit on Gordon yet, and picks are often the BEST way to come up withthe ellusive superstar (as I think was mentioned in *rlucas'!* initial post). I'd be interested to see how many "superstars" are still with the first team they played for...


True, but perhaps not with Paxson using the picks. If he's only gunning for NCAA pedigree prospects with "big game experience," then the superstar will be tougher to acquire. 




> Yes and yes. Certainly the star of any team shares in the burden of accountability. There are quite few players that would be considered "superstars" who I feel have singlehandedly held their teams back, though not purposefully. I remember having a talk years back about what I consider "fundamentally flawed players", defined as a player who's very style of play will keep the team from winning. My "fundamentally flawed" list includes such players as Sir Charles, Patrick Ewing, AI, 'Toine, 'Nique, etc. Pierce is coming very close to being included on that list. He's been paired with "slightly above average players" in all combinations in Boston and has never been able to win.


Barkley won the Western Conference.
AI won the Eastern Conference.
Ewing won the Eastern Conference.
PP and Toine led a team to the Eastern Conference finals.

If that's "flawed," then I would not mind if the Bulls were a "flawed" team right now.




> No, it's a team of "superstars" (though I'm not sure Bibby fits the definition). Bring 'em in and let's see how they do. Malone, Payton, Kobe, and Shaq would probably be interested in playing them. Better yet, let's see how they do against Argentina.


Didn't Malone, Payton, SHAQ and Kobe win the Western Conference? And that was with a Payton and Malone well past their prime. I would not be upset with the Bulls making a trip to the NBA Finals anytime soon, but you may disagree.

Our team is struggling mightily just to get to .500 and we're arguing about trying to get the best players in the league to come play here. Crazy. Even Paxson agrees we need a "star" player on this team.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Wynn said:


> I like the way you set up your system. Interestingly, a lot of the names being tossed about as "superstar" aren't included in your list. Do you imagine, given the way that your system works, that if the Bull starts winning consistently one or more of our players may be elevated?


Just to be pedantic for the moment, my system is purely stats based, so if the Bulls improve, it's almost certain some Bulls players will improve in rank. There's no matter of "choice" involved... technically speaking it's like saying "Who's played like a star up to this point".



> Wouldn't, for example, the addition of an effective front-court open up more room for our outside players to elevate their impact on the game, and vice-versa?


Yeah, but I think the effect is relatively small. The rating system makes it obvious one reason we're losing is the lack of a frontcourt, but interestingly our individual backcourt players are playing about as well (or better) than last year (this wasn't true earlier in the year, but now that Kirk and Ben have come around to their prior form it is.

Kirk was a Marginal Star last year and this year, but his average "production" per game is down from 17.6 to 15.4. Ben's is down from 9.66 (lower end of the starter range) to 9.15 (upper end of the 6th man range). Chris is up from 9.82 (lower end of the starter range) to 13.39 (upper end of the starter range).

In contrast, our frontcourt is obviously what's down compared to last year, and there I think the argument is stronger that a couple decent players would improve our current players' game (especially Tyson!)

Tyson 12.76 (Starter) / 6.69 (Role Player) *Just over half of last year's production! Some of that is because he's being asked to play a different role than last year (and not his best) and some of it is because his brain is messed up. Last night he showed what he can do, let's hope its a trend.

*Curry 10.64 (Starter) / 8.3 (6th man) Sweetney. This is rather biased against Curry (despite him ending up better) because Sweetney started out well and but hasn't gotten in better shape and is now increasingly anchored on the bench. Curry started out hurt and is generally playing more and getting in better shape.

Davis 8.46 (6th Man) / 7.37 (Role player) Songaila. Again, Davis was better, and one difference here is that Davis' points came from defense and teamwork, Songaila's come from scoring.


Harrington 6.82 (Role Player) / 3.98 (Bench Player) Again, way down.* He's getting only 2/3 the minutes he got last year though... something I wish would increase. Minute for minute, he's our second most effective guy, which, I think, is one of the reasons we've been starting out better lately... he's been in the game.*

Now you might look at this and say this year is down compared to last year, but not that far down. True, but I think the key aspect is that there's a certain quality level you need to be at (or better than) at most every position to be competitive. Good teams, even when they have stars, almost always have at least 5 starting quality players. Call that the critical mass. If you don't have it, you likely won't be that good. Guys who are "role players" can't adequately fill "starting" slots. 

Last year we had
PG- Starter
SG- MStar, Starter
SF- Starter, 6th Man
PF- 6th Man, Role
C- Starter, Starter

This year we've got
PG- MStar, Starter
SG- 6th Man
SF- Starter, Starter
PF- Role, Bench
C- 6th Man, Role



> Has Billups been a perennial superstar, for example, or has the team game of Detroit helped his assist numbers and free him up for scoring? Ditto Nash in his move to Phoenix -- was he considered all-star in Dallas?


Billups hasn't been a perennial superstar. He was starting quality in his last year in Minnesota, then a Marginal Star (about like Kirk), in his first three years in Detroit. His chances and production are up in Flip Saunders' system, so he's playing like a superstar for the first time. He's been a player who progressed a bit slower than average... most players (especially smaller players) reach a basic "plateau" in their first 4-5 years... he's the exception to the rule there.

For example, Nash rated out as a "star" in year's 4 and 5, and a marginal star in year 3. He was a marginal star his final year in Dallas, then a "star" last year in Phoenix and a "superstar" this year (probably owing to increased looks with Amare Stoudemire hurt).

But yeah, given that he was a top 30 player in 3 of the prior 4 seasons, he didn't exactly burst on the scene... he was already an elite player.



> I guess what I'm asking is whether it's possible that given an inside presence who can finish and also take pressure off of the perimeter, couldn't we see a feeding frenzy of assists and threes by the now much more open Kirk, Ben, and Chris? Wouldn't their improved play allow our inside guys more room for rebounds and points in the paint? Your system seems to reward players for being on winning teams -- and rightfully so! Chicken or egg? We've all figured Kobe, Duncan, Shaq, etc to be "chickens". Aren't guys like Nash and Billups "eggs"?


To some extent, but you have to keep in mind that last year we did have a competent inside presence, and while it helped our littles, it didn't really lead to what you're suggesting I think. It made them better, but it made us as a whole better simply because it made us better on the inside (not because it made them better). More or less, our littles have produced about the same as last year.

Because they're still young players, we can imagine they will likely continue to improve somewhat, regardless of who they're playing with. It's unclear, and pretty iffy given the magnitude of improvement required if, any of them develops into a consistent star quality player.

Thus, if we could get a true star/superstar, like Pierce, while still maintaining the ability to add at least one starting quality big (and hope Tyson regains his prior form), then we'd be in a pretty strong position.

If we get a Pierce but don't have anything left to add a big, or if Tyson flames out, then we're hosed.

If we get a couple starting quality bigs but we don't get a star, then we need at least two of our existing guys to make significant leaps in their quality of play.

I think all of those things are possible, but not necessarily likely or a sure thing.



> BTW -- Chris Paul can't possibly be a good player. He's even shorter than Ben, Kirk, or Chris, who are all too short to be effective in the NBA.


I'd trade any of our little guys plus a pick for Chris Paul without batting an eyelash. He's had the best rookie season of anyone not named Lebron in the past several years.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Wynn, just to be 100% clear, I never said Jrich or Lewis are superstars. But an argument could be made for them. I said that you have to define a superstar and then go for them. I wouldnt put either in the superstar column but its close.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> Wynn, just to be 100% clear, I never said Jrich or Lewis are superstars. But an argument could be made for them. I said that you have to define a superstar and then go for them. I wouldnt put either in the superstar column but its close.


How about the other Rich... QRich. On Phoenix last year, he got rave reviews. In NYC, he's a bust.

It is my contention that JRich on the Spurs would be considered a superstar.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Stars or superstars, make sure to cross off all the ones that Paxson considers to be "high-maintenance" off the list.
> 
> rlucas is right... its hard to get a superstar... or even a star for that matter.... even harder when you have a self-imposed jib constraint.


I'm trying to understand your point. I'm trying to think of top tier players with serious "jib" issues currently playing who have rings.

Depending on how you define "jib" I guess maybe Kobe. But that's depending on how you define "jib."


Funny thing is, most players who are "the man" on championship teams make their teammates better, take the game seriously at all times, play both ends of the floor, etc.

Thing that make you go Hmmmmm...





Now, back to the most important part of rlucas' initial post:

Did you make good lumpies?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I'm trying to understand your point. I'm trying to think of top tier players with serious "jib" issues currently playing who have rings.


Rasheed Wallace probably fits that description. Chauncy Billups somewhat fit it... he's grown up into superstardom, but there's a reason he bounced around the way he did for his first several years.

They aren't quite the true elite of the league, but they're pretty comparable to the minimum level of talent the Bulls need to acquire/develop to be a championship team.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Rasheed Wallace probably fits that description. Chauncy Billups somewhat fit it... he's grown up into superstardom, but there's a reason he bounced around the way he did for his first several years.
> 
> They aren't quite the true elite of the league, but they're pretty comparable to the minimum level of talent the Bulls need to acquire/develop to be a championship team.


Rodman.


----------



## flip-flop (May 17, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Rodman.


Agreed. Or Horace Grant, for example. But I'm afraid there will never be another 'Rodman' in the league...


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Rodman.


James Worthy from way back. Isiah Thomas.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> I'd trade any of our little guys plus a pick for Chris Paul without batting an eyelash. He's had the best rookie season of anyone not named Lebron in the past several years.


I agree, BTW, wanted to make sure you knew I was joking there!



rlucas said:


> Wynn, just to be 100% clear, I never said Jrich or Lewis are superstars. But an argument could be made for them. I said that you have to define a superstar and then go for them. I wouldnt put either in the superstar column but its close.


No problem there. I think *kukoc4ever!* brought them in. Not disputing definition of "superstar"... I guess I'm trying to (apparently unsuccessfully) make three points. *1* Sometimes "superstars" come into being through a player stepping up on a successful team, *2* Having a "superstar" is no guarantee of a winning ball club, and *3* without an effective front-court, any "superstar" we acquire will be just as frustrated on our team as on their last one. I think rather than trying to find some mis-fit superstar who is on a struggling team, we should either be looking to the draft, developing from within, or finding the guy who has not yet blossomed (in this I actually like JRich) but who would fit in well with the personnel we have in place. Finding an effective front court mix will increase our win total much more than adding a "superstar" will.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

To be a superstar you have to be one of the best at your position. Lewis and Jrich have a lot to compete with at the 2/3 in Kobe, TMac, Wade, Iverson, Peirce, James, Anthony, Artest, Ginobili, Allen, Redd, Hughes, Hamilton, Prince, Marion, Jefferson, and Carter.

Right now I wouldn't consider either of them superstars, but I think JRich has a chance. I think Chris Paul is a future superstar. If Hinrich were to continue to show improvement at PG he might have a chance at getting into that category.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Wynn said:


> No problem there. I think *kukoc4ever!* brought them in.


Jrich and Lewis are mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the original post.

I don't think anyone involved on this thread claimed they were superstars.


----------

