# K.C.: Luxury Tax Concerns Likely Prevent Deal For A 2nd Tier Post Player



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

> General manager John Paxson is said to be contemplating several smaller deals for players with long-term contracts but ultimately comes to the same conclusion: None of them make the Bulls appreciably better and would damage the organization's fiscal plan.


http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...lsbits,1,1337472.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

I guess this still leaves the door open for an expiring contract like Magloire but would seem to rule out a deal for someone like Nazr or Etan Thomas. I'm still somewhat disgusted that Reinsdorf is unwilling to use liberal spending to give the team a competitive advantage after all the sell-outs during the dark years but I've more or less come to gripps with it at this point. Assuming that Pax is working under the restriction of stearing clear of the luxury tax threshold - I think it's hard to come to any other conclusion at this point - he's wise to avoid taking on a long term contract for what would likely be a negligible impact this season with the NY pick and more trade talks on the horizon in the offseason.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Can I LOL at the luxury tax card being played now that KC laid it out there in a Bulls beat article?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

If you were a GM, would you saddle the franchise in LT territory to land Nazr Mohamad? You would? Really?

As to the LOLs, feel free to sprinkle your posts liberally with them wherever you see fit.

I'm more of a banana guy, myself.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Fiscal Plan makes his free throws in the clutch. Fiscal plan is the ideal big to pair with Wallace, too.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Fiscal Plan does neither of those things. Nonetheless, Fiscal Plan is a part of most GMs' reality.

But hey, its not my money. If Paxson can convince Jerry Reinsdorf and the trust funds that its a worthwhile investment to pay millions of dollars in Luxury Taxes to the league in order to secure the long term services of Etan Thomas, fine with me.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Of course not, but the decision signals the end of the road for this team. My beliefs at this point

1. Pax is unwilling to trade two of his core four to get Gasol. Based on reports, he appears unwilling to trade one plus the pick as well, though it's unclear that will even get it done.

2. The team, as constituted, is going nowhere.

3. That's why the Bulls, somewhat desperately, are contemplating guys like Rahim, Etan Thomas, and Nazr Mohammed. 

4. But the conclusion they reach is the right one... those guys won't help enough and they'll cost a lot.

5. That's laughable, in a bad way, just because it's about money, but also because it signals 

6. *We're out of options with the current hand we've got. * The Knick's pick is maybe a wild card, but the odds of it being a difference-maker are low. Our current young core is nice, but not special. And they're all up for new contracts this summer, meaning our ability to add that difference-making player is going away. 

Putting together a core the way the Bulls are trying to do is all about timing. High picks and Rookie contracts in the NBA are great because they enable you to collect a bunch of very good players at below market prices. Getting under the cap and signing a guy is also all about timing. As time goes on, you have to pay your rookies and you have to pay the guys you've signed.

To borrow Eddie Jordan's phrase, when you're rebuilding, it's time to gather your nuts for winter. Winter, in the form of no more quality assets at low-low prices or through cap manuvering is here on Thursday and then here for good in June.

*In short, the window of opportunity to add meaningful players to this team is slamming shut. *

And we shouldn't feel good about that, because as noted in point 2, what we've got now isn't a championship team.

7. So what are the Bulls options?
a) Continue on the road they're on and hope they run into an Amare Stoudemire or Gilbert Arenas like player later in the draft. 90% chance, however, is they're the Chicago Grizzlies.
b) Reshuffle the deck by trying some sort of rebuilding. There's a couple ways that could go. The best would be to swallow some pride and try to turn Wallace into something younger. That might not work though. 

And if the truth is we aren't going anywhere with the guys we've got, we need to figure out which ones we can't live without and then adding cheaper and higher potential assets by moving the rest of them. Of course, that would mean Pax needs to make some hard decisions about his beloved core, and if he was willing to do that, we'd likely be getting Gasol.

So my guess is that we continue to be a middle of the pack team. We're out of options and Pax is pretty tied to his core. The only option I see for keeping the core, and I'm not even sure how much of an option it is, is to try and trade Wallace for a younger player. If we could move Wallace and keep a guy like Randolph, we've got options. It's a risk, but doing nothing is a risk too.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> 6. *We're out of options with the current hand we've got. * The Knick's pick is maybe a wild card, but the odds of it being a difference-maker are low. Our current young core is nice, but not special. And they're all up for new contracts this summer, meaning our ability to add that difference-making player is going away.



I think you undervalue that pick. Even if it isn't going to pick up th pride of Texas or Ohio State, as long as it remains in lotto territory, its going to net a player who can be a difference maker for this Bulls team. We aren't in a typical lottery situation where we need to save the franchise with a player to build a team around. We need a hump piece -- And I think there are enough players in this draft who can put our solid team over the hump.

At the right price, I think most of us agree that Gasol would be a hump piece.

But I think we also agree that overpaying for Gasol raises the hump we have to overcome too high for him to make the difference we want him to make.

I'd still like to see that deal get done, but it takes two to tango. 

If Pax is truly unwilling to trade ANY of his good players, I want a damn solid explanation as to why he thinks that is the best move.

On the other hand, if West isn't budging, well, that is that.

If not Gasol, I don't want to see a move for the sake of making a move, especially if the improvement is minimal and it cripples our ability to re-sign the very players Pax seems to want to keep together.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> Of course not, but the decision signals the end of the road for this team. My beliefs at this point
> 
> 1. Pax is unwilling to trade two of his core four to get Gasol. Based on reports, he appears unwilling to trade one plus the pick as well, though it's unclear that will even get it done.
> 
> ...


:lol: 

In a matter of weeks you went from an unwillingness (or strong reluctance) to include Gordon and then Deng in any trade for Gasol, calling for the low ball. Now that it appears we won't make such a trade that would require 2 of our core, you are essentially saying "the franchise is a wash" with no legitimate options.

I think that west coast road trip depression you acknowledged a week ago comes with a lingering hangover. 

A young and undeniably still improving (or likely to improve in the case of the rooks) list of players consisting of:

Hinrich
Deng
Gordon
Thomas
Thabo
Duhon
Nocioni
Plus a lottery pick.

And our opportunities are "slamming shut" and the "end for this team" is near? 

Very good players come on the market every single season and every offseason at varying degrees of cost. This season, the one that made the most sense had too high of a price tag - something which we pretty much ALL universally agree on. 

Gasol could very well be shopped again this summer or on draft day. Same with Garnett. Same with Randolph. Same with Brand if the Clip-show continues to falter. Who knows? The list is constantly changing, and often in surprising ways. 

Step back from the ledge brother. The team does need to make a change on the interior. And there will still be many opportunities to accomplish it. As you said, its important not to overpay in the process.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I think you undervalue that pick. Even if it isn't going to pick up th pride of Texas or Ohio State, as long as it remains in lotto territory, its going to net a player who can be a difference maker for this Bulls team. We aren't in a typical lottery situation where we need to save the franchise with a player to build a team around. We need a hump piece -- And I think there are enough players in this draft who can put our solid team over the hump.
> 
> At the right price, I think most of us agree that Gasol would be a hump piece.
> 
> ...


+1 

This is my take as well. Though for the purposes of clarity, I'd note that Paxson should be willing to trade one of those core players and the Knicks' pick for Gasol (maybe not if its Gordon).


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> +1
> 
> This is my take as well. Though for the purposes of clarity, I'd note that Paxson should be willing to trade one of those core players and the Knicks' pick for Gasol (maybe not if its Gordon).


I agree, although as I've said, I have waffled over whether its better to keep Gordon or Deng and I currently favor keeping Deng over keeping Gordon.

But I wouldn't let the prospect of moving either/or stand in the way of a deal.

As I posted the other day (and I'm sure Ron is familiar with the saying too) I've heard many the old time lawyer say that the surest sign of a fair settlement of a dispute is where the deal gets done and both sides walk away a little bit unhappy.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I agree, although as I've said, I have waffled over whether its better to keep Gordon or Deng and I currently favor keeping Deng over keeping Gordon.
> 
> But I wouldn't let the prospect of moving either/or stand in the way of a deal.


In a vacuum, I'd keep Deng over Gordon too. Its simple: Deng is better. And over time Deng will continue to widen the gap of "betterness" with Gordon.

But Nocioni, in my opinion, makes Deng more expendable from a team balance/quality perspective. 

I still think its possible a deal gets done tomorrow.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> In a vacuum, I'd keep Deng over Gordon too. Its simple: Deng is better. And over time Deng will continue to widen the gap of "betterness" with Gordon.
> 
> But Nocioni, in my opinion, makes Deng more expendable from a team balance/quality perspective.


I agree with all of this and it is why I've waffled. 



> I still think its possible a deal gets done tomorrow.


Agree.

Some are calling the deal dead, and you never know, they could be right. However, I certainly wouldn't start throwing shovelfulls of dirt on the coffin just yet.

Ron, how many times have you had a time-sensitive offer out there, been basically told to flip off and then got that conciliatory call at 4:55?

I know its happened in my cases plenty.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> :lol:
> 
> In a matter of weeks you went from an unwillingness (or strong reluctance) to include Gordon and then Deng in any trade for Gasol, calling for the low ball.


Because it appeared possible we could get Gasol for a low ball price. No need to buy the cow if you can get the milk for free.



> Now that it appears we won't make such a trade that would require 2 of our core, you are essentially saying "the franchise is a wash" with no legitimate options.


No, just rapidly dwindling options. I still held out about a 10% chance.

Of course, you've gone from saying we needed Gasol and would be mad if we didn't get him to latching on to every shred of evidence that suggests the asking price is too high. But I don't see a lot of value in pointing that out. I'd rather talk about whether you actually agree or disagree with the basketball content of my post.



> I think that west coast road trip depression you acknowledged a week ago comes with a lingering hangover.
> 
> A young and undeniably still improving (or likely to improve in the case of the rooks) list of players consisting of:
> 
> ...


Yes. Listing those guys out doesn't make them project to be any better than they are. I like them, but they don't expect them to be special in any way.

It'll take a real stroke of luck (that 10%) to make that happen. I don't think, if you were being honest and trying to assess the situation objectively, you'd really disagree with that. 



> Very good players come on the market every single season and every offseason at varying degrees of cost. This season, the one that made the most sense had too high of a price tag - something which we pretty much ALL universally agree on.


As mentioned earlier, I think you've done a pretty sudden about face on what it would take to get Gasol. One I don't see supported by the weight of the evidence. You've got direct interviews with Michael Heisley spelling out what they want. 

Even the articles that suggest West wants "two of the core" are somewhat ambiguous about which two. I know there are combinations I'd give up, and I recall reading some you'd consider too.



> Gasol could very well be shopped again this summer or on draft day.


And if so, how do we acquire him? Several of the pieces we have to trade for him - Brown, Noc, Sweetney - will be off the table. I'm not sure, but I think Kirk may well by BYC next year, so trading him will still be difficult. Deng and Gordon will be due extensions, making their time as cheap quality players shorter.

In short, it won't be impossible, but it'll be harder and more of what we have to give up will be "productive asset" and less "tradable asset" (Brown, Sweetney, etc).

That was the underlying point... the days of cheap assets are over. We can trade expensive assets for other expensive assets, of course, but we have a hard time getting cheap replacements.

Adding something for very little is harder when you're capped out and don't have high draft picks. That's hardly contraversial, though I understand it's not what people want to hear about our favorite team.



> Same with Garnett. Same with Randolph. Same with Brand even if the Clip-show continues to falter. Who knows? The list is constantly changing, and often in surprising ways.


Yep, the 10% chance. We've gone two years with an incomplete, mediocre team, so what's 3 or 4 more.



> Step back from the ledge brother. The team does need to make a change on the interior. And there will still be many opportunities to accomplish it. As you said, its important not to overpay in the process.


It is, but at some point you need to recognize the bigger picture. The idea was to add interior help without compromising what would be a championship caliber team _with _interior help.

Two seasons in, no help is forthcoming that doesn't compromise that core. Meanwhile the financial side of things has fundamentally changed, both because our young players are or will sign expensive deals and we've also tied up a lot of money in a significantly older player - Wallace - who doesn't appear to be pulling his weight.

Yes, things move in surprising, unexpected ways. But the truth of that is that while the Bulls have been waiting two years for that "right opportunity", other things have been happening to them, and they're quite foolish if they don't take that into account.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> A young and undeniably still improving (or likely to improve in the case of the rooks) list of players consisting of:
> 
> Hinrich
> Deng
> ...


Unless lottery lightning strikes and the Knicks move up 8-10 spots, and Durant and/or Oden come out, and Durant and/or Oden are as good as advertised and contribute right away, to borrow your word, it seems undeniable that this core is not a year-in, year-out championship contender. It's a very good team, yes. But it's a notch below. 



> This season, the one that made the most sense had too high of a price tag - something which we pretty much ALL universally agree on.


Only if the "2 out of the 4" is Deng and Gordon (and even then, I'd think about it as long as P.J. was the only other piece coming from our end). If the "2 out of the 4" could be Hinrich and Deng, or Noce and Gordon, or any other combination, then Paxson is making a horrible mistake. 



> Gasol could very well be shopped again this summer or on draft day. Same with Garnett. Same with Randolph. Same with Brand if the Clip-show continues to falter. Who knows? The list is constantly changing, and often in surprising ways.


Any trade for those guys without P.J. Brown's contract would gut our team. Not moving PJ's contract tomorrow will be an enormous, stinking, disturbing missed opportunity. And that's even before you consider what we gave away to get that contract!


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> If you were a GM, would you saddle the franchise in LT territory to land Nazr Mohamad? You would? Really?


I wouldn't. I wouldn't do it for Melvin Ely, Etan Thomas, Jackie Butler, or any of the other low-priced (alleged) low-post threats that have been on everybody's lips lately.

Then again, I wouldn't float those names to beat writers, either, and give the fans the laughable impression that my team is just one of those types of players away from being a contender.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Unless lottery lightning strikes and the Knicks move up 8-10 spots, and Durant and/or Oden come out, and Durant and/or Oden are as good as advertised and contribute right away, to borrow your word, it seems undeniable that this core is not a year-in, year-out championship contender. It's a very good team, yes. But it's a notch below.


The list is intended to illustrate the potential for future moves. Not just to note a young improving core. 

O


> nly if the "2 out of the 4" is Deng and Gordon (and even then, I'd think about it as long as P.J. was the only other piece coming from our end). If the "2 out of the 4" could be Hinrich and Deng, or Noce and Gordon, or any other combination, then Paxson is making a horrible mistake.


I don't agree with that. I'd fire bomb the Berto if they traded Hinrich and Deng for Gasol. I think a fair argument could be made to add Nocioni to another core argument. But I'm torn on that one. 

Maybe if it were Hinrich and Nocioni, but I'm not seeing that from West's perspective without the Knicks' pick - which I definitely would not do. 



> Any trade for those guys without P.J. Brown's contract would gut our team. Not moving PJ's contract tomorrow will be an enormous, stinking, disturbing missed opportunity. And that's even before you consider what we gave away to get that contract!


You'll get no argument from me that not trading Brown = Chandler trade looking like Paxson's worst move ever. I've been saying this for a couple of weeks.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Here's a question about Deng and Gordon:

When push really comes to shove, is whether, in a world where we're capped out and don't have a lot incoming high value assets, it's easier to luck into capable Deng and Gordon replacements or a capable Pau Gasol replacement?

I think that's a fair and relevant question. Suppose we've got a 10% chance of finding a good enough big to get over the top with Deng and Gordon as the basis of the team. What's our chance of finding good enough Deng and Gordon replacements if we had Gasol? Higher or lower than 10%?

I'm not sure, but I'm slightly inclined to think it'd be easier to get Deng and Gordon replacements. 

Somehow missing from the discussion is that we've already got a Ben Wallace replacement (hopeul) in the long run. As I said in my earlier post, the smart money would be on trying to move him out in exchange for a younger asset (or so we don't have to give up so many of our younger assets).


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> I don't agree with that. I'd fire bomb the Berto if they traded Hinrich and Deng for Gasol. I think a fair argument could be made to add Nocioni to another core argument. But I'm torn on that one.


+ eleventy billion

Gasol is _marginally_ better than Deng right now. I expect Deng to be putting up nearly identical numbers within the next year or two. Deng also plays with a better team and I think his numbers would be more gaudy on the Grizz. The idea of throwing Hinrich in with him as well seems laughably tragic.

Gasol is good, but he is not Duncan or KG. He's very good. But there's no sense crippling ourselves making a move for him. Deng + Hinrich for Gasol does not make this team one iota better.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Because it appeared possible we could get Gasol for a low ball price. No need to buy the cow if you can get the milk for free.


Yeah, there were a number of people throwing that concept around like it was fact.

Guess what?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Of course, you've gone from saying we needed Gasol and would be mad if we didn't get him to latching on to every shred of evidence that suggests the asking price is too high. But I don't see a lot of value in pointing that out. I'd rather talk about whether you actually agree or disagree with the basketball content of my post.


That's simply false. Just Sunday I think it was that I got into a discussion with Jeremy saying that the evidence to date was that one core player, the Knicks' pick, and Brown would get it done and that it would be reasonable to make that assumption. Then for three straight days EVERY media report has said either Deng and Gordon or "two of the core". 

The evidence changed. If, after the deadline is over, the evidence changes back to 1 core/pick/Brown, I'll return to my position calling it a royally botched opportunity. 



> Yes. Listing those guys out doesn't make them project to be any better than they are. I like them, but they don't expect them to be special in any way.


Two of them were already borderline allstars this year at ages 23 and 21 respectively. And the point, as I noted to Scott, was not to argue that that is a champioship core. It was to note that with a young, improving, and large core of assets like that, there will remain plenty of opportunities to trade them in the future for the betterment of the team. 



> It'll take a real stroke of luck (that 10%) to make that happen. I don't think, if you were being honest and trying to assess the situation objectively, you'd really disagree with that.


I don't disagree with that. I don't think that core, without modification, wins the Championship. That wasn't the point of the list. 



> As mentioned earlier, I think you've done a pretty sudden about face on what it would take to get Gasol. One I don't see supported by the weight of the evidence. You've got direct interviews with Michael Heisley spelling out what they want.


Thats false. See above. I've been entirely consistent. Its the media reports that changed. 

If the reports change back to what they were, my opinion of a non-move will change back to what it was. I've been just about the biggest proponent of a trade under the right parameters on this entire board. A bigger advocate than you. Under those parameters, my opinion is exactly as it has always been: Pau must be acquired

Your opinion, however, has done an abrupt about face. 



> Even the articles that suggest West wants "two of the core" are somewhat ambiguous about which two. I know there are combinations I'd give up, and I recall reading some you'd consider too.


Ambiguous. Appropriate word. Not worthy of comment from anyone then. For the record, I *would* trade Hinrich and Nocioni for Gasol. But based on the weight of reports over the last 3 weeks, that doesn't seem to be a likely combination from Memphis' perspective. Indeed, there haven't been any reports from the Memphis press mentioning Hinrich's name at all. 



> And if so, how do we acquire him? Several of the pieces we have to trade for him - Brown, Noc, Sweetney - will be off the table. I'm not sure, but I think Kirk may well by BYC next year, so trading him will still be difficult. Deng and Gordon will be due extensions, making their time as cheap quality players shorter.
> 
> In short, it won't be impossible, but it'll be harder and more of what we have to give up will be "productive asset" and less "tradable asset" (Brown, Sweetney, etc).


Obviously true. Though under recent reports we'd be trading "productive assets" and "tradable assets". And that is too much. Perhaps later the price comes down. Faced with an obvious overpayment now, its worth that risk. 



> That was the underlying point... the days of cheap assets are over. We can trade expensive assets for other expensive assets, of course, but we have a hard time getting cheap replacements.
> 
> Adding something for very little is harder when you're capped out and don't have high draft picks. That's hardly contraversial, though I understand it's not what people want to hear about our favorite team.


I don't disagree with any of that. But you should also note that we do have a high pick coming up. This team will continue to have opportunities to improve. 

I'm not happy about the prospect of losing the value of Brown's contract. It will make the Chandler trade a total failure. 

And I'm not happy about the prospect of not getting Gasol this week. But I had a vision for what was an appropriate price (which was actually higher than the vast majority of fans on this board, including you). Am I supposed to now condemn the GM when the price appears to have exceeded that?



> Yep, the 10% chance. We've gone two years with an incomplete, mediocre team, so what's 3 or 4 more.


That is your number. I don't think its subject to quantification. Certainly I'd agree that the less expiring contracts we have the more difficult it becomes. But as our players individually improve, then it is reasonable to assume it will take less of them to effect a trade as well.

For example, right now it appears Deng isn't enough to get Gasol. But if he continues to improve, while the team still obviously needs post scoring, he and lesser considerations might get it done in the form of expendable players like Duhon, an MLE player and future late first round draft picks. You aren't considering all angles. 



> It is, but at some point you need to recognize the bigger picture. The idea was to add interior help without compromising what would be a championship caliber team _with _interior help.
> 
> Two seasons in, no help is forthcoming that doesn't compromise that core. Meanwhile the financial side of things has fundamentally changed, both because our young players are or will sign expensive deals and we've also tied up a lot of money in a significantly older player - Wallace - who doesn't appear to be pulling his weight.
> 
> Yes, things move in surprising, unexpected ways. But the truth of that is that while the Bulls have been waiting two years for that "right opportunity", other things have been happening to them, and they're quite foolish if they don't take that into account.


You are just stating the obvious. But if we trade away too much and then have a flawed roster with 2 max contracts on it and players getting recent extensions, we are still in the same restricted position you are describing here, only with a smaller number of assets to change it - which actually makes it worse. 

Remember, there was a time in the not too distant past when many, many fans - including you - thought the mere inclusion of Gordon would negate the impact of the trade due to opening another hole to fill.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Maybe if it were Hinrich and Nocioni, but I'm not seeing that from West's perspective without the Knicks' pick - which I definitely would not do.


It'd set my teeth on edge, but I just might do that -- Kirk + Andres + pick for Pau.

Ouch. But I just might.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Here's a question about Deng and Gordon:
> 
> When push really comes to shove, is whether, in a world where we're capped out and don't have a lot incoming high value assets, it's easier to luck into capable Deng and Gordon replacements or a capable Pau Gasol replacement?
> 
> ...


I think its easier to get a Deng or a Gordon replacement. Finding both at the same time is a significantly tougher task.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

But now ESPN has reported this:



> Of course we haven't forgotten Pau Gasol.
> 
> But there's a reason we haven't mentioned him until now: Gasol-to-Chicago, by all accounts, is less likely to happen at this point than anything involving Kidd, Bibby or Carter.
> 
> The Bulls, according to NBA front-office sources, are the only bidder at the moment, but the Grizz have abandoned hope of convincing Chicago to part with Luol Deng. Ben Gordon, sources say, is the only member of Chicago's core four youngsters -- along with Deng, Kirk Hinrich and Andres Nocioni -- who has been made available.


So who knows what to think. We are going to have to see how it all sorts out.

If it is as ESPN is reporting, and its the mere inclusion of Deng that is holding things up, then Paxson is making the most significant mistake of his tenure. 

(This report also appears to contradict my opinion that Gordon makes more sense from Memphis' perspective - I still don't understand why they'd want Deng more, given the construction of their team.)


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> That's simply false. Just Sunday I think it was that I got into a discussion with Jeremy saying that the evidence to date was that one core player, the Knicks' pick, and Brown would get it done and that it would be reasonable to make that assumption. Then for three straight days EVERY media report has said either Deng and Gordon or "two of the core".


Deng and Gordon is really the only issue, to you though, since you've stated the "two of the core" isn't "worthy of comment".

So for three straight days, did EVERY media report say Deng and Gordon is what's needed to get it done? No, of course not. 

How many reports said that? What was the source. How do they stand up to the more numerous reports, before and since, that suggested other deals could get it done?



> The evidence changed.


It often does when you see what you want to see and then stop looking. It's much more comforting to believe the Griz are just asking for too much than to believe the Bulls aren't willing to give anything up.

Of course, it's also quite possible that both are the case. Perhaps the Griz are asking for the moon and stars, but it's also true that most everything I've read (and I've read everything that's out there I think) suggests that Pax isn't willing to give up Deng, whether it'll get the deal done or not.

Obviously it's more important if it gets the deal done, but it's still not exactly encouraging as a Bulls fan if he's not willing to.



> If, after the deadline is over, the evidence changes back to 1 core/pick/Brown, I'll return to my position calling it a royally botched opportunity.


Um... there have been several reports that have suggested that already. So it seems the consistent thing for you to do would be to take that position.

*Edit: you just posted one of those reports! The Heisley interview is also pretty convincing to me.
*


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> If it is as ESPN is reporting, and its the mere inclusion of Deng that is holding things up, then Paxson is making the most significant mistake of his tenure.


Wow. Yikes. Hang on to your hats, folks. I hope either this deal gets done or that the ESPN report is flat out wrong.



> (This report also appears to contradict my opinion that Gordon makes more sense from Memphis' perspective - I still don't understand why they'd want Deng more, given the construction of their team.)


If it is as is being reported, West is obviously looking long term, from a BPA perspective and thinks Deng is a better overall player than Gordon with more potential for continued improvement.

I think he's right.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> But now ESPN has reported this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have an incredibly hard time believing that out of all of the core members, Ben Gordon is the only one made availible. That's ridiculous.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

The ROY said:


> I have an incredibly hard time believing that out of all of the core members, Ben Gordon is the only one made availible. That's ridiculous.


I agree there is something about that part of the report that seems...oddly out of tune.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Deng and Gordon is really the only issue, to you though, since you've stated the "two of the core" isn't "worthy of comment".


No it isn't. And I even stated my opinion in this thread about different combinations. As in "I'd trade Hinrich and Nocioni for Gasol."



> So for three straight days, did EVERY media report say Deng and Gordon is what's needed to get it done? No, of course not.


I think I was pretty clear in pointing out that the reports were two-fold: (a) some said Deng and Gordon; (b) some said "two of the core". 



> How many reports said that? What was the source. How do they stand up to the more numerous reports, before and since, that suggested other deals could get it done?


Recency counts. If for two weeks the reports suggest its one thing, and then the vast weight of reports say something else in the closing days, I'm going to lean toward the accuracy of the recent reports.

And the after-the-fact reports will be the best. But we aren't there yet. 




> It often does when you see what you want to see and then stop looking. It's much more comforting to believe the Griz are just asking for too much than to believe the Bulls aren't willing to give anything up.


Nothing about this comforts me. I want Gasol. But at the same time I've gut a well-defined, as stated daily for several weeks, opinion of the appropriate price. 



> Of course, it's also quite possible that both are the case. Perhaps the Griz are asking for the moon and stars, but it's also true that most everything I've read (and I've read everything that's out there I think) suggests that Pax isn't willing to give up Deng, whether it'll get the deal done or not.


Which renders it all pretty pointless to talk about by any of us. 



> Obviously it's more important if it gets the deal done, but it's still not exactly encouraging as a Bulls fan if he's not willing to.


I couldn't agree more. I think I've been more vocal about this than anyone other than perhaps ScottMay. DMD has shared this opinion as well.



> Um... there have been several reports that have suggested that already. So it seems the consistent thing for you to do would be to take that position.


I am taking that position. 



> *Edit: you just posted one of those reports! The Heisley interview is also pretty convincing to me.
> *


See? I am basing what I write (as you will see how it changed from Sunday in which I argued the position you are arguing now, to what I'm saying today) on the weight of reports as they come in. 

The ESPN report, as soon as I read it, changed me to the "who knows what to think" position. Which I think is where we pretty much all have to be at this point.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

As far as me changing my opinion... well, I'm trying to think everything out. 
1. Get the best deal possible.

2. I've softened on Gordon because I don't think the rest of the team is good enough for the short-run advantage of Gordon over Deng (to the rest of the team as constituted) to matter. Short of not giving up any of the core, it's a long-run positioning trade.

3. Giving up more of the core than 1? No to Deng and Gordon, but it's at least worth mulling over. I'd probably include Nocioni with any of the other 3 core guys.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> As far as me changing my opinion... well, I'm trying to think everything out.
> 1. Get the best deal possible.
> 
> 2. I've softened on Gordon because I don't think the rest of the team is good enough for the short-run advantage of Gordon over Deng (to the rest of the team as constituted) to matter. Short of not giving up any of the core, it's a long-run positioning trade.
> ...


Nothing wrong with changing your opinion. When this whole thing started, I wanted to include Gordon above Deng. Now I feel the opposite despite the fact that Deng has been playing at his highest level ever, while Gordon has been a disappointment. 

How's that for logic? :biggrin:


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I agree there is something about that part of the report that seems...oddly out of tune.


Agreed. Can you see Pax saying "You can have Gordon, but you can't have Nocioni under any circumstances."? Ridiculous.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

It sounds to me like Ron, Scott, Mike, K4E, DaBullz and me join the vast majority of the board in more or less the same position when it comes down to it.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> If it is as ESPN is reporting, and its the mere inclusion of Deng that is holding things up, then Paxson is making the most significant mistake of his tenure.



What? Really? The failure to swap Deng for a guy who puts up slightly better stats would be a bigger mistake than dumping the NBA's leading rebounder for a broken down player who doesn't want to be here and whose only value is as trade fodder? Hardly.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> It sounds to me like Ron, Scott, Mike, K4E, DaBullz and me join the vast majority of the board in more or less the same position when it comes down to it.


I don't know. Based on today's postings, I think Scott and Mike might be willing to go a bit further than I would. 

Scott's proposal of Hinrich and Deng goes WAY beyond what I'd be willing to do. And I think Mike suggested that Gordon and Deng is at least worth consideration - while I would never consider that.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> It sounds to me like Ron, Scott, Mike, K4E, DaBullz and me join the vast majority of the board in more or less the same position when it comes down to it.


Every last one of us was wrong about the Wallace acquisition.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> What? Really? The failure to swap Deng for a guy who puts up slightly better stats would be a bigger mistake than dumping the NBA's leading rebounder for a broken down player who doesn't want to be here and whose only value is as trade fodder? Hardly.


They are connected. I assume Brown would be traded as part of that deal with Deng. 

The refusal to include Deng, includes the failure to get value for Brown's contract. So, in short, I agree with you.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I think we all agree that one of the core -- even Deng -- is acceptable. The details of what else we would include varies to some degree. We seem to be marching out of step with Paxson on this line of thinking, which is disturbing. I think we mostly agree that the inclusion of Deng being in and of itself a dealbuster -- is unacceptable.

I think we mostly agree that there is such a thing as a price too high for the Gasol deal to be worthwhile. Scott has floated the Deng+Gordon briefly as something he'd do, but he really hasn't pushed it and I'm not sure how adamant he is in holding that position. Most of the rest of us seem to agree that Deng+Gordon digs us a hole that Pau can't get us out of.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Does John Paxson believe any one of the core is worth giving up? That seems to be the relevant question far beyond what any of us think. 

And as far as I can tell, the answer is no. At least, that's what ESPN, Sam Smith, KC Johnson and others have suggested.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Well, West wants Deng for the same reason Pax wants to keep Deng. I've been wanting to ask this question - so here goes: How many players currently in the NBA who are Dengs age or younger would you take over Luol? The only one that comes to mind is Dwight Howard. Andres Biedrins would be a close call for me (I really like this kids game) but I'd still take Deng. For all this clamouring over Gasol, I don't think I'd trade Deng for him straight-up. Flame me as a homer - that's fine. Deng came into the league at 19 and produced. He's, by far, the most consistant player on this team. He's putting up nearly 19ppg, 7rpg, 2apg on 52% shooting in 37 minutes and he doesn't even have close to a complete offensive repitoire. Gasol puts up 20ppg, 9rpg, 3.2apg on 53% shooting in 35 minutes where he is by far the focus of the offense. Are there that many folks here who think that Deng is done developing? Within 2 years he'll eclipse most of what Pau does other than shot blocking and possibly rebounding. THAT'S why West wants him. He's no fool.

As for the ESPN piece about Gordon possibly being the piece offered - it makes a great deal of sense to me. I think Pax feels that Gordon is the more flawed player and is also the one more easily replaced via the draft or free agency. West probably feels the same. There's a lot of gamesmenship going on from both sides. West with his "two of the core or no deal" and Pax with his "none of the core" stance.

At this point neither club "needs" to make a deal. The Grizz are in decent shape player-wise if they just keep Pau and add a top-5 pick. They've got usable cap space and some good players. The Bulls, all hand-wringing and consternations aside, don't either. The should have, at worst, a top 15 pick. Not great, but there are good players to be had there that can help. I figure they'll have the MLE to work with. The Heat aren't going anywhere. Detroit is still getting older. The Magic have holes just like the Bulls. The Cavs just don't seem to have "it". The Wizards are flawed also. The Pacers are kind of like the Bulls - middle of the pack. I look at the east and I don't see a need to panic. There is no dominant team. Gutting the team for Pau doesn't make a lot of sense. 

It seems to me like both GM's here are more than willing to push away from the table. If that's the case, nothing gets done. The next 24 hours should be pretty telling, but I'm leaning more towards nothing geting done.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Deng + Gordon should have been put to rest wwith Heisley's interview. I think that has always been speculation. Heiley's direct statements refute that asking price IMO.

With all the blah, blah, blah going around...I still contend the deal will go down as Deng, Thabo, NY pick, PJ Brown and Sweetney for Gasol, Cardinal and Dahntay Jones or Hakim Warrick.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Well, West wants Deng for the same reason Pax wants to keep Deng. I've been wanting to ask this question - so here goes: How many players currently in the NBA who are Dengs age or younger would you take over Luol? The only one that comes to mind is Dwight Howard. Andres Biedrins would be a close call for me (I really like this kids game) but I'd still take Deng. For all this clamouring over Gasol, I don't think I'd trade Deng for him straight-up. Flame me as a homer - that's fine. Deng came into the league at 19 and produced. He's, by far, the most consistant player on this team. He's putting up nearly 19ppg, 7rpg, 2apg on 52% shooting in 37 minutes and he doesn't even have close to a complete offensive repitoire. Gasol puts up 20ppg, 9rpg, 3.2apg on 53% shooting in 35 minutes where he is by far the focus of the offense. Are there that many folks here who think that Deng is done developing? Within 2 years he'll eclipse most of what Pau does other than shot blocking and possibly rebounding. THAT'S why West wants him. He's no fool.
> 
> As for the ESPN piece about Gordon possibly being the piece offered - it makes a great deal of sense to me. I think Pax feels that Gordon is the more flawed player and is also the one more easily replaced via the draft or free agency. West probably feels the same. There's a lot of gamesmenship going on from both sides. West with his "two of the core or no deal" and Pax with his "none of the core" stance.
> 
> ...


agree with pretty much everything you said. especially deng. we've had a ton of young guys in the past, none have been as consistent, as productive, and developed so clearly and so much in just one year. finally we have a youngster that doesn't need 5 years to develop. or a whole team built to minimize his faults. not trading straight up for gasol is a bit drastic, but isee you're line of thinking.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Well, West wants Deng for the same reason Pax wants to keep Deng. I've been wanting to ask this question - so here goes: How many players currently in the NBA who are Dengs age or younger would you take over Luol? The only one that comes to mind is Dwight Howard. Andres Biedrins would be a close call for me (I really like this kids game) but I'd still take Deng. For all this clamouring over Gasol, I don't think I'd trade Deng for him straight-up. Flame me as a homer - that's fine. Deng came into the league at 19 and produced. He's, by far, the most consistant player on this team. He's putting up nearly 19ppg, 7rpg, 2apg on 52% shooting in 37 minutes and he doesn't even have close to a complete offensive repitoire. Gasol puts up 20ppg, 9rpg, 3.2apg on 53% shooting in 35 minutes where he is by far the focus of the offense. Are there that many folks here who think that Deng is done developing? Within 2 years he'll eclipse most of what Pau does other than shot blocking and possibly rebounding. THAT'S why West wants him. He's no fool.
> 
> As for the ESPN piece about Gordon possibly being the piece offered - it makes a great deal of sense to me. I think Pax feels that Gordon is the more flawed player and is also the one more easily replaced via the draft or free agency. West probably feels the same. There's a lot of gamesmenship going on from both sides. West with his "two of the core or no deal" and Pax with his "none of the core" stance.
> 
> ...



You know, I'll second you.

So for me bottom line is:
No Deng.
Gordon and a minor acquisition (2008 pick); or,
Kirk and maybe a larger acquisition (Sefolosha, no Thomas, maybe Noc if we get a lesser piece of value in return); or,
Noc and a larger acquisition if we also get something worthwhile in return (2007 pick protected and Thomas if they include a lesser piece in return. I.e. 2008 or 2009 conditional pick, or Warrick.)

But alas. I am also a self-proclaimed homer.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

To paraphrase K4E, there are two components to considering the Bulls fate given the likelihood that a significant trade is not on the table. Their Win-now prospects and their win-later prospects. I'll leave the win-later issues for after the season.


I haven't given up on this season yet. The Win-Now prospects:

The good.
The Bulls backcourt has been their strength this season. It is deep and talented on both ends of the floor. One could wish for a bit more consistency, but as a group they can compete with any other backcourt in the league.

The small forward position. The Bulls don't have Kobe or Lebron, but they have enough talent at this position that they don't have to be afraid of these guys. They have two very good players who fill the position very well, and are backed up by two or three other players who are not slouches. As a group they can compete with the best if they play agressive defense like they are capable of. 

The could be good
PJ Brown may be on his last legs, but he could just have enough in the Bank to make one last playoff run. He's no Pau Gasol, but he'll have Deng and Nocioni as teammates, which Gasol would not have had. 

Wallace has been taking mini-vacations all season, but I look for him to wake up and provide leadership from now on. Hopefully last nights game was a harbiger of things to come. The Bulls fortunes will rise or fall with the play of these two veterans, backed up by Allen and Nocioni.

The should be good
The Bulls have taken some pains to integrate this squad and incorporate a fairly strong bench. This is the time of the season when that sacrifice pays off. The lack of major changes in the team at the trading deadline is a plus for chemistry. They should have moved beyond the stupid turnover phase of development, although the first half of last nights game was not very comforting in that regard.

The bad
The Bulls have been consistently bad at two things :
1. Limiting talented opponent 7 footers scoring and rebounding without giving up perimeter defense. On those rare occasions when PJ Brown has brought energy to a game this problem is reduced. But they really should play a bit more zone defense against teams with dominant centers.
2. Scoring against aggressive zone defenses. The Bulls have not developed an effective attack against zone defenses that effectively neutralize the pick and roll and drive and dish plays that are the staple of the Bulls offense. If they don't figure a way to operate aginst zone defenses, they will be seeing a lot more of them from now on.

The potentially ugly
Ultimately, the Bulls fortunes in the playoffs depend on the accuracy of their long range shooting. When they're hot, the Bulls are a formidible offensive team as opponents are forced to try to defend the 3 point line, making themselves vulnerable to driving plays. Observers often use jump-shooting-team as a derogatory term. But when a good jump-shooting team is hitting its shots, it can be as unbeatable as a team with great inside scoring. This season they have usually been hot at home, and often cold on the road. It will be interesting to see if they can bring more consistency at the end of the season and in the playoffs. If not, home court advantage will be critical. After all, one only has to win four out of seven games to win a series.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> Does John Paxson believe any one of the core is worth giving up? That seems to be the relevant question far beyond what any of us think.
> 
> And as far as I can tell, the answer is no. At least, that's what ESPN, Sam Smith, KC Johnson and others have suggested.



Are you including Nocioni as one of the core? If so, I don't think this quote is accurate.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> 2. The team, as constituted, is going nowhere.
> 
> 6. *We're out of options with the current hand we've got. * The Knick's pick is maybe a wild card, but the odds of it being a difference-maker are low. Our current young core is nice, but not special. And they're all up for new contracts this summer, meaning our ability to add that difference-making player is going away.
> 
> ...


Mike, I'm surprised and somewhat disappointed to see you make the dubious Grizzlies comparison. Those teams only had one player in the class of our big four (maybe you can make an argument that Battier was a second) and lacked the the youth of this team. Even if you think this team will not advance past the first couple rounds as currently constructed, it figures to have a window of contention larger than three seasons considering the large number of very young players, many of whom are already playing at a high level.

I've been thinking a lot lately about the proclamations that this team is going nowhere without a move and is stuck in a rut. Everyone agrees the season has been a disappointment and hopes aren't particularly high for the playoffs. However, taking a step back it seems to me that we're on pace for 45 wins, preseason expectations were for 50 wins, and a championship team usually wins 60 games. People were pretty bullish on the team's long term chances of a title prior to this season so my question is what happened to the ten games people that people previously thought we would improve in the long run? What has changed in our long term prognosis? Because if the team improves around ten games in the next few years then we still need to pick up five wins via a deft draft pick, trade, and/or MLE signing - I think it's unrealistic to expect even a brilliant Gasol deal to improve the team much more than five games - but we're far from stuck. If anything we would just be a little behind schedule. That's not ideal because we're less competitive during Big Ben's best seasons but no one should have ever expected him to be particularly effective beyond the first two or three years of the deal.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Well, West wants Deng for the same reason Pax wants to keep Deng. I've been wanting to ask this question - so here goes: How many players currently in the NBA who are Dengs age or younger would you take over Luol? The only one that comes to mind is Dwight Howard. Andres Biedrins would be a close call for me (I really like this kids game) but I'd still take Deng. For all this clamouring over Gasol, I don't think I'd trade Deng for him straight-up. Flame me as a homer - that's fine. Deng came into the league at 19 and produced. He's, by far, the most consistant player on this team. He's putting up nearly 19ppg, 7rpg, 2apg on 52% shooting in 37 minutes and he doesn't even have close to a complete offensive repitoire. Gasol puts up 20ppg, 9rpg, 3.2apg on 53% shooting in 35 minutes where he is by far the focus of the offense. Are there that many folks here who think that Deng is done developing? Within 2 years he'll eclipse most of what Pau does other than shot blocking and possibly rebounding. THAT'S why West wants him. He's no fool.
> 
> As for the ESPN piece about Gordon possibly being the piece offered - it makes a great deal of sense to me. I think Pax feels that Gordon is the more flawed player and is also the one more easily replaced via the draft or free agency. West probably feels the same. There's a lot of gamesmenship going on from both sides. West with his "two of the core or no deal" and Pax with his "none of the core" stance.
> 
> ...



I think Chicago is more hard pressed to make a deal. Even weith a relatively young team, if Chicago gets knocked off again in the 1st round is the core really a core? Is Deng, Hinrich, and Gordon ever going to be better than LeBron, Hughes and random NBA player:biggrin: ? Or Arenas, Butler, Jamison? Or Billups, Hamilton, Prince, and Sheed? Then you have some other teams just as young coming up. 

The first playoff run kind of came out of nowhere with the horrible start. Any result was good. The second playoff run was after a restructuring and it looked like that team was going to be bolstered by the NY Knicks pick and your impending caproom. However, a first round defeat this year and what do you have to look forward to...the development of Tyrus and Thabo? A middle of the pack 1st rounder? Once Deng and Gordon are extended, you are almost stuck with that core and the extension decision has to be made before the season. What if Deng underperforms in the playoffs? What if Nocioni gets a retarded offer this summer from another team?

Promising situations can turn rather mediocre very quickly.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Well, West wants Deng for the same reason Pax wants to keep Deng. I've been wanting to ask this question - so here goes: How many players currently in the NBA who are Dengs age or younger would you take over Luol? The only one that comes to mind is Dwight Howard. Andres Biedrins would be a close call for me (I really like this kids game) but I'd still take Deng. For all this clamouring over Gasol, I don't think I'd trade Deng for him straight-up. Flame me as a homer - that's fine. Deng came into the league at 19 and produced. He's, by far, the most consistant player on this team. He's putting up nearly 19ppg, 7rpg, 2apg on 52% shooting in 37 minutes and he doesn't even have close to a complete offensive repitoire. Gasol puts up 20ppg, 9rpg, 3.2apg on 53% shooting in 35 minutes where he is by far the focus of the offense. Are there that many folks here who think that Deng is done developing? Within 2 years he'll eclipse most of what Pau does other than shot blocking and possibly rebounding. THAT'S why West wants him. He's no fool.
> 
> As for the ESPN piece about Gordon possibly being the piece offered - it makes a great deal of sense to me. I think Pax feels that Gordon is the more flawed player and is also the one more easily replaced via the draft or free agency. West probably feels the same. There's a lot of gamesmenship going on from both sides. West with his "two of the core or no deal" and Pax with his "none of the core" stance.
> 
> ...


Excellent post. My 2 minor quibbles are I'd trade Deng for Howard any day of the week, and I would be willing to trade Deng for Gasol straight up.

Since neither of those are actual possibilities, the quibbles are minor indeed.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> Deng + Gordon should have been put to rest wwith Heisley's interview. I think that has always been speculation. Heiley's direct statements refute that asking price IMO.
> 
> With all the blah, blah, blah going around...I still contend the deal will go down as Deng, Thabo, NY pick, PJ Brown and Sweetney for Gasol, Cardinal and Dahntay Jones or Hakim Warrick.


Trying to put myself in Paxson's place (or more likely Jerry Reinsdorf's) - there's simply no way I'd make this deal with Memphis. Three quality young players (Deng for sure, Thabo is good and the Knick pick has decent value) PLUS cap relief in Brown and Sweetney and on top of that you want Reinsdorf to pick up the tab on Cardinal/Jones or Warrick? Further helping out the Grizzlies financial situation while directly reducing the Bulls financial position? Ain't gonna happen. Pax, and more specifically Reinsdorf, isn't that desperate to make a move and neither man is that gullible.

Both sides know what they want and both sides know what they're willing to settle for. I get the feeling that they're both far enough apart that there won't be a meeting of the minds and that both sides are fine with that.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Nice read guys! 

I agree with the idea that Gasol is not THAT much better than Deng. I can see why some of you do not want to trade him. I dont! However, the position Deng plays is our position of strength! Noc can step in and gasol and noc together with gasol at pf(our weak spot) can improve us as a team. Improve us just enough to go further than the first round. Gasol is young enough to help us for a long time! 

I want to keep Gordon. I have stated before that is outside game and Gasols inside game will stretch the defense and make us better. Gasol can pass and can play weakside defense with a block or two here and there. 

I dont think Gordon is better or will be better than Deng. Its just we will have a harder time filling in for Ben than we would Deng. `

I am for the nocioni package. I hope it happens. Looks like it wont.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

MemphisX said:


> Deng + Gordon should have been put to rest wwith Heisley's interview. I think that has always been speculation. Heiley's direct statements refute that asking price IMO.
> 
> With all the blah, blah, blah going around...I still contend the deal will go down as Deng, Thabo, NY pick, PJ Brown and Sweetney for Gasol, Cardinal and Dahntay Jones or Hakim Warrick.


You knowk, Heisely could have lied.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Excellent post. My 2 minor quibbles are I'd trade Deng for Howard any day of the week, and I would be willing to trade Deng for Gasol straight up.
> 
> Since neither of those are actual possibilities, the quibbles are minor indeed.


I believe you misread me. I said the ONLY player that comes to mind is Dwight Howard. As in: I would trade Deng for Howard in a heart-beat. Andres Biedrins would be a close call for me but I'd keep Deng. I also firmly believe that Deng has barely tapped what he can become and he's that rare individual that is willing to work at getting there. In the comming years, he'll add a post game (jump hooks and turn-arounds off both shoulders) and extend his range beyond the arc. He will become one of the more difficult players to guard in this league. You don't move a guy like that without serious consideration. You don't move a guy like that for Pau Gasol. As much as I like Pau's game (and I do) - that's a horizontal move.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> Nice read guys!
> 
> I agree with the idea that Gasol is not THAT much better than Deng.


This is just not the case. This is like saying Caron Butler is better than Gasol based on stats. You cannot give the ball to Deng and say get us to the playoffs. You can't build an offense around Deng and likely never will be able to do so. People get caught up in the raw stats and think that equates to similar game effect and it is not close. I mean Pau was better as a rookie than Deng is now and Deng is never going to be a 7 foot back to the basket center.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> I believe you misread me.


You are correct. I did misread.

And the answer to the guady flashing ad at the top of my page :curse: :sigh::brokenhea is "NO. Britney does NOT look better bald. But she is still HOT, even bald, and I'd tap that in a second."

But I'm not going to click through the ad to let them know that.

I already have an iPod anyway.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> This is just not the case. This is like saying Caron Butler is better than Gasol based on stats. You cannot give the ball to Deng and say get us to the playoffs. You can't build an offense around Deng and likely never will be able to do so. People get caught up in the raw stats and think that equates to similar game effect and it is not close. I mean Pau was better as a rookie than Deng is now and Deng is never going to be a 7 foot back to the basket center.


Deng plays better d. Deng is 21. He can play. No he wont. But what does that have to do with anything? He isn't a pf. Is pau a sf? 

If you get Deng, you may be surprised at his overall game.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> Deng plays better d. Deng is 21. He can play. No he wont. But what does that have to do with anything? He isn't a pf. Is pau a sf?
> 
> If you get Deng, you may be surprised at his overall game.


Nah, I know Deng is a very good player and will get better. I, however, really appreciate the dynamic of drawing double teams *and* understanding how to attack it with the shot and the pass. Get Gasol around some players with higher BBall IQ's and more BBAll talent and he would look even better.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> I think Chicago is more hard pressed to make a deal. Even weith a relatively young team, if Chicago gets knocked off again in the 1st round is the core really a core? Is Deng, Hinrich, and Gordon ever going to be better than LeBron, Hughes and random NBA player:biggrin: ? Or Arenas, Butler, Jamison? Or Billups, Hamilton, Prince, and Sheed? Then you have some other teams just as young coming up.
> 
> The first playoff run kind of came out of nowhere with the horrible start. Any result was good. The second playoff run was after a restructuring and it looked like that team was going to be bolstered by the NY Knicks pick and your impending caproom. However, a first round defeat this year and what do you have to look forward to...the development of Tyrus and Thabo? A middle of the pack 1st rounder? Once Deng and Gordon are extended, you are almost stuck with that core and the extension decision has to be made before the season. What if Deng underperforms in the playoffs? What if Nocioni gets a retarded offer this summer from another team?
> 
> Promising situations can turn rather mediocre very quickly.


Everything you cite has merit. By the same token, how much better are Arenas, Butler and Jamison going to get? What avenues do the Wizards have to improve? How much more time do Billups, Hamilton, Prince and Sheed have? What room for improvement do they have? The LeBrons haven't lit the world on fire so far, what's to say they suddenly will? When the Celtics, Hawks and Bobcats put it together, I'll worry about them. About the only team in the east that no one really talks about but who I'd worry about the most are the Raptors.

As the saying goes... If it's and buts were candies and nuts... One can only work with the here and now and do their best to chart their own destiny. Worry about what might happen and you'll miss what is happening. The Bulls are in no worse (or necessarily no better) shape than any other team in the east.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

MemphisX said:


> Deng + Gordon should have been put to rest wwith Heisley's interview. I think that has always been speculation. Heiley's direct statements refute that asking price IMO.


One problem may be that Heisley and West are not on the same page.

Jerry West is one of the greatest basketball players of all time. He's dedicated his entire life to the game, and will be remembered as the GM who built championship teams in LA, and a playoff team from scratch in Memphis. Now that he's going to retire, I doubt very much that he wants his last effort to be the GM who negotiated a bad, money-saving trade for owners who have every intention of scrapping the franchise. 

The Logo probably could care less about Heisley's financial problems or his promises to Gasol & friends. If the Grizzlies want a fire sale of talent, they'll have to wait until next summer to hold it under a new GM. 

Jerry West wanted and wants Gordon and Deng in exchange for Gasol. Nothing less. 
For their part, the Bulls simply have to say that West's price is too high, and good luck in your retirement Jerry.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

McBulls said:


> One problem may be that Heisley and West are not on the same page.
> 
> Jerry West is one of the greatest basketball players of all time. He's dedicated his entire life to the game, and will be remembered as the GM who built championship teams in LA, and a playoff team from scratch in Memphis. Now that he's going to retire, I doubt very much that he wants his last effort to be the GM who negotiated a bad, money-saving trade for owners who have every intention of scrapping the franchise.
> 
> ...


Like I said, you are confusing speculation with fact. It has been speculated West wanted Deng and Gordon. Heisley said differently. I choose to believe the quaoted story rahter than writer speculation. Sometimes "NBA sources" is the article written yesterday.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> Deng plays better d. Deng is 21. He can play. No he wont. But what does that have to do with anything? He isn't a pf. Is pau a sf?
> 
> If you get Deng, you may be surprised at his overall game.


You don't think there's an added value to Pau because of his ability to play center/power forward?

If nothing else, I'll be happy when the trading deadline passes and I don't have to read all these claims (not singling out you in particular, TBF)about how Deng's stats are basically the same as Gasol's. There are enormous differences in the raw numbers when you consider pace -- look at Gasol's PER vs. Deng's, look at Gasol's usage rate vs. Deng's, etc. 

Gasol has amassed his numbers as the focal point of one of the league's most deliberate offenses. Deng has amassed his numbers as the 3rd or 4th option on one of the league's quickest offenses. It's apples and oranges.

But putting that aside, can some of the folks who are talking about how Deng's game is a pretty sure bet to evolve into something better than Gasol's please elaborate as to how they see him accomplishing that?

Right now, Deng does not create baskets for others, and while he usually makes good decisions, he seems to me to have extremely poor natural play-making skills. He doesn't draw double-teams. He scores the majority of his points outside the traditional half-court sets that are the bread and butter of playoff basketball -- quick hitting jumpers set up by drive and kick plus lots of fast break/semi fast-break finishes. He does not spread defenses via the threat of a three-point shot. He is an average athlete at his position (at best).

The bottom line for me, as its been since the end of last season, is that Deng is an immensely capable second or third banana. I would like the folks who think Deng will grow into our "superstar" to describe in detail how they think he'll make that transition.

EDIT: Memphis has played much faster in the Tony Barone era. Under Fratello/Brown they were the slowest-paced team in the league, as many as 12 possessions/game fewer than the average.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Have we completely given up hope that Tyrus could become the star that pulls us out of mediocrity? He doesn't inspire that much hope in me, I'll be honest.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> Every last one of us was wrong about the Wallace acquisition.


We weren't wrong about the Wallace acquisition. DC posted at the time about Wallace's statistical decline. Many of us felt that signing a 32 year old had potential flop written all over it. Think about all the posts about "window of opportunity" too.

Why potential flop? 

The signing of Wallace was absolutely a "win now" move. In order to make the signing worthwhile, we all knew that we needed even more to be true contenders. 

Instead of getting that one more player, Pax moronically traded away Chandler for PJ Brown, making it clear that Financial Plan was more important than winning. It still is, apparently.

So here we are, clearly able to win games, but looking doubtful come playoff time. We've been fed the "win now and win later" line, though a bunch of us clearly don't buy that bill of goods.

Now, I read DC's post earlier and those who think "win now and win later" is possible jumped all over it. But I think there's a lot of merit to it. Here's why:

This core of players does NOT have that much more upside. They're very good players, but still lacking the Nash or Kobe or Shaq or Nowitzki or Duncan level player that champions have (we do have Wallace who was once that level of player). Because of Financial Plan, we'll end up paying close to $50M a year for our top 5 or 6 guys. Our ability to sign a difference maker kind of FA will be zero. We may have the MLE but Financial Plan may not make sense to spend it. If the draft pick doesn't solve it all, we could easily be the Grizzlies of the East: perennial 40+ game winning teams that go nowhere in the playoffs; mediocre draft positions that won't help get us over the top. Maybe the Kings of recent years would be a reasonable comparable as well.

I also think people are vastly underrating how good Gasol is and how rare it is to find a guy at his position and ability.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Are you including Nocioni as one of the core? If so, I don't think this quote is accurate.


Sorry, it was vague wording following on TB#1's post where he said the consensus here seemed to be that we would give up any of those four guys, even Deng.

I don't think Pax would give up any of those guys. Noc, yes. Maybe Gordon but only one report has suggested he would and many suggest he wouldn't. Most suggests he won't give up Deng. I haven't seen anything suggesting he'd give up Hinrich either, though it's much less speculated upon.

---------------



JeremyB0001 said:


> Mike, I'm surprised and somewhat disappointed to see you make the dubious Grizzlies comparison. Those teams only had one player in the class of our big four (maybe you can make an argument that Battier was a second)


Gasol Battier and Miller looks pretty comparable to Kirk, Ben, Lou and Noc to me. Battier and Miller are quality players. Throwing out salary, they're both pretty comparable to Noc, and maybe Kirk. Gasol is the best of the bunch and plays the hardest to fill position so it somewhat makes up for the disparity as well.



> and lacked the the youth of this team.


Grizzlies in their 50 win season
Gasol (23), Battier (25), Miller (23), Watson (24), Williams (28), Posey (27), Wells (27), Swift (24)

Bulls this year
Deng (21), Gordon (23), Hinrich (25), Nocioni (27), Duhon (24), Wallace (32)

That's really not a big difference to me. We also have Tyrus and Thabo, of course, and they may prove to be good, but we didn't have several of those other guys like Williams and Wells.



> Even if you think this team will not advance past the first couple rounds as currently constructed, it figures to have a window of contention larger than three seasons considering the large number of very young players, many of whom are already playing at a high level.


Well, if we don't advance past the first couple of rounds, we don't have a window of contention at all. That's not actually the point I was making though. This team will certainly improve, and I think as constructed it can be a second round team and tease for the semis. But beyond that is pretty unlikely.

My point was not that these guys won't improve. They will. The point was more that the die is increasingly cast. The guys we have are the guys we're going to have, and getting new guys for not much loss from our current team is going to get harder and harder.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Have we completely given up hope that Tyrus could become the star that pulls us out of mediocrity? He doesn't inspire that much hope in me, I'll be honest.


Between his skill set, his size, and his temperament, I'd say the chances of his becoming a multiple-time All Star suitable as a linchpin for a championship contender are extraordinarily slim to none.

I'd be happy to have this opinion proven wrong, but based on what I've seen so far, that's where I'm at.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> You don't think there's an added value to Pau because of his ability to play center/power forward?
> 
> If nothing else, I'll be happy when the trading deadline passes and I don't have to read all these claims (not singling out you in particular, TBF)about how Deng's stats are basically the same as Gasol's. There are enormous differences in the raw numbers when you consider pace -- look at Gasol's PER vs. Deng's, look at Gasol's usage rate vs. Deng's, etc.
> 
> ...


+1

Great post.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Sorry, it was vague wording following on TB#1's post where he said the consensus here seemed to be that we would give up any of those four guys, even Deng.


Maybe I jumped the gun on the "consensus" thing.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Between his skill set, his size, and his temperament, I'd say the chances of his becoming a multiple-time All Star suitable as a linchpin for a championship contender are extraordinarily slim to none.
> 
> I'd be happy to have this opinion proven wrong, but based on what I've seen so far, that's where I'm at.


Yeah, that's about where I'm at too.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> We weren't wrong about the Wallace acquisition. DC posted at the time about Wallace's statistical decline. Many of us felt that signing a 32 year old had potential flop written all over it. Think about all the posts about "window of opportunity" too.


As I've said before, if I were running the Bulls, we'd be in an even deeper hole with Wallace. I would have given him more money and a longer term. It was a no-brainer signing in my book, a crippling blow to one of the best teams in the East, a nail in the coffin of the free-agent frustration we've experienced since 1999, and basically sort of a clarion call to the league that the Bulls were back.

But I did point out over the summer that Wallace was a considerable jib risk. He has openly feuded with every coach he ever played for. He pretty much quit on his team in the playoffs. He exhibits "diva" behavior on a regular basis. 

I also felt there were limits to how much better Wallace could make our defense. That worry turned out to have a lot of merit, too. The Bulls are a marginally better defensive team this year, but to what degree that has anything to do with Wallace is up in the air.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Well, West wants Deng for the same reason Pax wants to keep Deng. I've been wanting to ask this question - so here goes: How many players currently in the NBA who are Dengs age or younger would you take over Luol? The only one that comes to mind is Dwight Howard. Andres Biedrins would be a close call for me (I really like this kids game) but I'd still take Deng. For all this clamouring over Gasol, I don't think I'd trade Deng for him straight-up. Flame me as a homer - that's fine. Deng came into the league at 19 and produced. He's, by far, the most consistant player on this team. He's putting up nearly 19ppg, 7rpg, 2apg on 52% shooting in 37 minutes and he doesn't even have close to a complete offensive repitoire. Gasol puts up 20ppg, 9rpg, 3.2apg on 53% shooting in 35 minutes where he is by far the focus of the offense. Are there that many folks here who think that Deng is done developing? Within 2 years he'll eclipse most of what Pau does other than shot blocking and possibly rebounding. THAT'S why West wants him. He's no fool.
> 
> As for the ESPN piece about Gordon possibly being the piece offered - it makes a great deal of sense to me. I think Pax feels that Gordon is the more flawed player and is also the one more easily replaced via the draft or free agency. West probably feels the same. There's a lot of gamesmenship going on from both sides. West with his "two of the core or no deal" and Pax with his "none of the core" stance.
> 
> ...


Melo is a full year younger than Deng. Bosh is the same age. Kevin Martin is just a year older. Monta Ellis is younger.

But what does age really matter if you're 26 (Gasol's age) or under or so? It means Deng will still be a good player when Hinrich, Gordon, and Nocioni are older than Wallace.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

I was for the Wallace signing as long as he signed no more than a four year contract.

I also thought Tyson Chandler was in a tailspin that he wasn't going to escape from anytime soon.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> You don't think there's an added value to Pau because of his ability to play center/power forward?
> 
> If nothing else, I'll be happy when the trading deadline passes and I don't have to read all these claims (not singling out you in particular, TBF)about how Deng's stats are basically the same as Gasol's. There are enormous differences in the raw numbers when you consider pace -- look at Gasol's PER vs. Deng's, look at Gasol's usage rate vs. Deng's, etc.
> 
> ...


You asked, I'll supply.

You talk about not looking at the numbers and yet you go ahead and cite your numbers (per, usage and such). Kind of a disconnect there from my point of view. You state it's apples and oranges because Deng is a third option on a fast paced offense and Pau is a first option on a slow-paced offense. Is the difference really that great? I'll agree Deng isn't necessarily a "go-to" guy. I really don't see how Pau is that much more of a "go-to" guy though. Go-to guys get it done when it counts. Pau is 0-12 when the games really matter. Am I missing something here?

If you think that what Luol Deng is now, as a player, is all that he'll ever be; I can't help you. This kid will develop a back-to-the-basket game. I'm 100% sure of it. He's long and he's strong. You're right, he's not the most athletic guy out there, but is that the only requirement to be a good player? I certainly hope not. Guys like Larry Bird and Kevin McHale would have never gotten into the league. (and before you jump off the deep end - I'm not equating Bird or McHale with Deng). He works on his shortcommings. He was told to quit shooting 3's. Guess what, he did and he's that much better for it. If you believe, at the age of 21, that he's incapable of extending his range another two feet, again, I don't know what to say to you. Look at his form. He's already one of the better mid-range shooters around. He'll extend his range. This kid works on his weaknesses. He's bulked up from last season. He knows what he needs to work on and I'm thoroughly convinced he's got the drive and fortitude to make the effort to improve. I don't see how you can't ask for much more from a 21-year-old under any circumstances.

You use the term "superstar" and I don't believe that anybody has applied that label to Luol. I truly believe he'll be a perennial all-star, but his style of play just doesn't have that flash or pizzaz that lay people associate with the "superstar". This kid will go out and get you 22 and 8 pretty much every night in the very near future and also play pretty solid defense. I, personally, don't give a rats *** whether that 22 and 8 comes from the SF spot or the PF/C spot.

Pau's a helluva player. He directly fills a need that my favorite team has. So is/does Luol Deng. I won't put up much of a fuss over asserting that Pau is a better player right now, but I will, pretty emphatically state, that Deng becomes the better player - three years out at the most (possibly by next year).

In a nutshell, I have no reason to believe that Luol Deng will not get better. Everything I've seem from him indicates he's got a helluva lot of room for growth and, more importantly, the desire to do something about it. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Scott makes good points. What fl_flash says has merit as well.


Thats what has made this trade rumor such a cunundrum.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Melo is a full year younger than Deng. Bosh is the same age. Kevin Martin is just a year older. Monta Ellis is younger.
> 
> But what does age really matter if you're 26 (Gasol's age) or under or so? It means Deng will still be a good player when Hinrich, Gordon, and Nocioni are older than Wallace.


Carmello Anthony d.o.b.: 5/29/84
Chris Bosh d.o.b. 3/24/84
Luol Deng d.o.b. 4/16/85

Maybe math works differently in your world.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> We weren't wrong about the Wallace acquisition. DC posted at the time about Wallace's statistical decline. Many of us felt that signing a 32 year old had potential flop written all over it. Think about all the posts about "window of opportunity" too.


Just to make clear, I was still happy we signed Wallace at the time... I should have looked harder at the numbers. The money would have been better spent elsewhere, 

But taken by itself it was worth the risk to get a difference-making player.

What I wasn't happy about was the magnification of the risk inherent in signing Wallace by trading Chandler for an expiring contract. 



> We may have the MLE but Financial Plan may not make sense to spend it. If the draft pick doesn't solve it all, we could easily be the Grizzlies of the East: perennial 40+ game winning teams that go nowhere in the playoffs; mediocre draft positions that won't help get us over the top. Maybe the Kings of recent years would be a reasonable comparable as well.
> 
> I also think people are vastly underrating how good Gasol is and how rare it is to find a guy at his position and ability.


Yep. That's sort of the LOL at the beginning of this thread. We actually could take back a player like Rahim or (gag) Etan Thomas and not face more luxury tax than we would by paying an MLE player. Those guys signed to MLE contracts themselves, so if we trade an expiring contract to get them now or sign this year's equivalent in the summer it's about the same deal.

Based on my projections, I think we could add one such guy and skirt the luxury tax. That doesn't mean I want that guy to be Etan Thomas, it's an option. But it looks like the Bulls aren't even willing to do that.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Carmello Anthony d.o.b.: 5/29/84
> Chris Bosh d.o.b. 3/24/84
> Luol Deng d.o.b. 4/16/85
> 
> Maybe math works differently in your world.


You're right. But I still think you're being aribtrary about the question you ask.

For example, I would trade Deng for either of those two in a heartbeat. Other guys who are plenty young enough would be Arenas, Wade, LeBron, Amare, etc. The list is bigger than that.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Just to make clear, I was still happy we signed Wallace at the time... I should have looked harder at the numbers. The money would have been better spent elsewhere,
> 
> But taken by itself it was worth the risk to get a difference-making player.
> 
> What I wasn't happy about was the magnification of the risk inherent in signing Wallace by trading Chandler for an expiring contract.


I was happy we signed Wallace at the time, too. Enough so I scrapped the fire pax club from my signature. But I expected it to be followed with another big move to make us real contenders right now and for the next few years. The Chandler deal made me think I was too hasty.

The Grizzlies comparison isn't really fair. They won 50 games and against tougher competition (tougher schedule). But it's good enough to get the point across.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I think we mostly agree that there is such a thing as a price too high for the Gasol deal to be worthwhile. Scott has floated the Deng+Gordon briefly as something he'd do, but he really hasn't pushed it and I'm not sure how adamant he is in holding that position. Most of the rest of us seem to agree that Deng+Gordon digs us a hole that Pau can't get us out of.


I think it's important to remember that the reports deal with what Pax is supposedly offering not what he's actually willing to give up. Conventional logic has stated for a while that he won't make his best offer until just before the deadline. I'm willing to part with Deng but I'd rather part with another member of the core, so if I haven't yet made my best offer, Deng is off the table.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Between his skill set, his size, and his temperament, I'd say the chances of his becoming a multiple-time All Star suitable as a linchpin for a championship contender are extraordinarily slim to none.
> 
> I'd be happy to have this opinion proven wrong, but based on what I've seen so far, that's where I'm at.


My optomistic scenario for TT is that he will gradually and seamlessly replace Wallace in the next four years. 

TT certainly has Wallace's shot-blocking skills and quickness on defense. Right now he's trailing badly in basketball IQ.

TT is potentially as great a rebounder as Wallace -- and that's saying a lot. But he's got to learn how to position himself and block out.

TT has a long way to go before he's as strong as Ben Wallace but he's just as tall, and has just as long a reach. 

TT has worlds of need to improve his basketball IQ, but he does have the advantage of learning and practicing with the master for the next four years. If he stays humble, he can learn a lot.

Attitude-wise Wallace is a pretty tough cookie to live with. TT can't be that much worse.

Offensively, TT is already better than Ben Wallace, but I don't really expect that aspect of his game to become very good or even above average in absolute terms.

All in all, I have hope for TT; but a lot depends on his attitude and willingness to learn.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> You can't build an offense around Deng and likely never will be able to do so. People get caught up in the raw stats and think that equates to similar game effect and it is not close. I mean Pau was better as a rookie than Deng is now and Deng is never going to be a 7 foot back to the basket center.


That's a very bold claim to make about a borderline All-Star who's still just 21. I agree with you that if all else is equal Gasol is more valuable to the Bulls and most all teams than Deng since post offense is more rare and coveted in the league. However, your logic seems to place no end on the extent to which position trumps production. Is Gasol more valuable than LeBron or Wade?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> I, personally, don't give a rats *** whether that 22 and 8 comes from the SF spot or the PF/C spot.


I don't care about *where* it comes from, either. But I do care about *how* it comes -- Antawn Jamison and Tim Duncan put up pretty similar numbers, after all. The difference is that Jamison's a clean-up, safety valve kind of guy, while Duncan not only gets his own, he enables others to get theirs. I see Deng as being cut from the Jamison safety-valve cloth (and that is not meant to be pejorative), and Gasol is cut from the Duncan hub-of-the-spoke cloth. 

The rest of your post did nothing to convince me. I like Deng a lot too, and I think he'll get better at what he does, but I can't proceed on blind faith that he'll develop a post-up game when I've seen precious little evidence of one in his three years in the league. Same goes for his passing skills, and I've covered my thoughts on the shooting in DMDs thread. 

He might get a little stronger, but he probably won't get any quicker or add to his vertical. Hard work counts for a lot, but this is the rarified air of the NBA -- some deficiencies won't be overcome no matter the effort.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> That's a very bold claim to make about a borderline All-Star who's still just 21. I agree with you that if all else is equal Gasol is more valuable to the Bulls and most all teams than Deng since post offense is more rare and coveted in the league. However, your logic seems to place no end on the extent to which position trumps production. Is Gasol more valuable than LeBron or Wade?


That is your strawman argument, not his.

I mean, you're not saying that Deng could be as good as Wade or LeBron, are you?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

McBulls said:


> All in all, I have hope for TT; but a lot depends on his attitude and willingness to learn.


I agree. Without making a lengthy quote, I also agree with each and every one of the "but he has a long way to go" observations.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> Right now, Deng does not create baskets for others, and while he usually makes good decisions, he seems to me to have extremely poor natural play-making skills. He doesn't draw double-teams. He scores the majority of his points outside the traditional half-court sets that are the bread and butter of playoff basketball -- quick hitting jumpers set up by drive and kick plus lots of fast break/semi fast-break finishes. He does not spread defenses via the threat of a three-point shot. He is an average athlete at his position (at best).


I think you could have used that logic to argue Deng would be nowhere near as good as he was this year. I also think the logical conclusion is that he won't improve very much from this point forward which is a very difficult argument to make in respect to a 21 year old. I don't want to get caught up in the definition of a star player or exactly what Deng's game will look like three or four years down the road but if Deng can increase his scoring one point (5%) a year until he reaches his prime, he'll be a top 10 scorer and one of the best rebounders at his position.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

OT, but my apologies to anyone who finds the gazillion youtube links in my sig distracting.

I tried for YEARS to get some quality bootleg Genesis video from the Peter Gabriel era, and other than short snippets of performance clips from a BBC Genesis documentery, failed miserably.

Now I'm finding all these full performance clips free on youtube. Genesis clips. Zappa clips. Little Feat clips. Rare Grateful Dead clips.

I will miss youtube almost as much as I miss the wild and woolly sharing days on Napster. I had nearly 20G of files, almost none of which was commercially available material.

Alas, then my hard drive got the Click of Death.

And shortly thereafter, Selloutica won its battle against Shawn Fanning.

:sigh:


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I don't care about *where* it comes from, either. But I do care about *how* it comes -- Antawn Jamison and Tim Duncan put up pretty similar numbers, after all. The difference is that Jamison's a clean-up, safety valve kind of guy, while Duncan not only gets his own, he enables others to get theirs. I see Deng as being cut from the Jamison safety-valve cloth (and that is not meant to be pejorative), and Gasol is cut from the Duncan hub-of-the-spoke cloth.


Kinda stretching things aren't ya? Now Gasol is lumped with Duncan as a "hub-of-the-spoke" player? Gasol is closer to Jamison and Deng than he is to Duncan. If Gasol is so Duncan-like, why the appalling lack of post-season success? Hell, even Garnett can win a few postseason contests. You keep downplaying what Deng does while putting forth these glowing things that Gasol does and yet there seems to be very little support for your assertions. Interesting.



> The rest of your post did nothing to convince me. I like Deng a lot too, and I think he'll get better at what he does, but I can't proceed on blind faith that he'll develop a post-up game when I've seen precious little evidence of one in his three years in the league. Same goes for his passing skills, and I've covered my thoughts on the shooting in DMDs thread.
> 
> He might get a little stronger, but he probably won't get any quicker or add to his vertical. Hard work counts for a lot, but this is the rarified air of the NBA -- some deficiencies won't be overcome no matter the effort.


I didn't realize that you were asking to be convinced. I find that it's relatively pointless to try to convince someone who has no intentions of being convinced. You asked for something and you got it. Whether you agree with anything I wrote or not really doesn't matter. It's like I tell my kids, if you didn't want it, why did you ask for it?

As for Dengs development; I'll stand by my position on him. You call it blind faith. I call it steady improvement from a guy who's improved each of his three years in the league and he's yet to reach the limits of what he can do. I can't help it if you choose not to see that. We both agree he's a good player. I simply put his ceiling higher than you.

Luol Deng is going to be a very, very good basketball player for years to come. I hope he ply's his trade as a member of my favorite team for those many years.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> Gasol Battier and Miller looks pretty comparable to Kirk, Ben, Lou and Noc to me. Battier and Miller are quality players. Throwing out salary, they're both pretty comparable to Noc, and maybe Kirk. Gasol is the best of the bunch and plays the hardest to fill position so it somewhat makes up for the disparity as well.


You're right, I overlooked Miller. I still think this group is quite a bit better. If we look at average PER during those three seasons we get rougly Miller(17), Gasol (22.5), Battier (15). Using PER from this season the Bulls core looks superior: Gordon (18.3), Deng (18.8), Kirk (16.9), and Noc (16.1). PER doesn't account for defense but if anything the Bulls group has an edge. You're right that they clearly have the best player of the bunch but I think a balanced team like the Bulls have (in the sense of the number of contributors not position) is much less susceptible to a backslide. The Grizzlies traded one of their three best players, lost some depth, and had their star injured and their season went down the tubes. This is much more unlikely to happen to this Bulls team since they aren't dependant on one player. We struggled some without Noc but didn't collapse.



MikeDC said:


> Grizzlies in their 50 win season
> Gasol (23), Battier (25), Miller (23), Watson (24), Williams (28), Posey (27), Wells (27), Swift (24)
> 
> Bulls this year
> ...


Yeah. I was looking at it more like Deng (21), Gordon (23), Hinrich (25), Nocioni (27), Tyrus (20), Thabo (22), NY pick (19-22). Watson was never more than a role player than a major contributor. Some of the others contributed a lot more than I realized but really only Williams was consistently solid all three seasons that Memphis made the playoffs. The other guys were very much up and down and Mephmis chose to part with them in almost every single case. The possibility that one or more of our core players could see their production drop off suddenly due to injury or for some other reason - I've mentioned this possibility with Noc before - but it doesn't strike me as particularly likely. Looking at the lists I'm struck by the fact that 1) the Memphis players are closer to their late 20s ie their prime than our players who are younger with the exception of Noc have not entered their prime yet 2) in some cases our players have alread established more consistency depite being younger 3) Memphis lost those players out of their own volition whereas the Bulls seem very intent on locking up Noc, Deng, and Gordon for the long haul.



MikeDC said:


> Well, if we don't advance past the first couple of rounds, we don't have a window of contention at all. That's not actually the point I was making though. This team will certainly improve, and I think as constructed it can be a second round team and tease for the semis. But beyond that is pretty unlikely.
> 
> My point was not that these guys won't improve. They will. The point was more that the die is increasingly cast. The guys we have are the guys we're going to have, and getting new guys for not much loss from our current team is going to get harder and harder.


I probably should have been more clear. I didn't mean contention in the sense of the five or six teams considered title contenders, I meant a team considered a lock to reach the playoffs.

Again, if this years projected 50 win team was expected to eventually become a 60 win title contender then it seems to me that this season's 45 win team should be able progress to a 55 win Easter Conference Finals team. I don't understand how we went from a projected 50 win team with a good chance of reaching the conference finals this season to a 45 win team unlikely to reach the conference finals any time in the indefinite future. 

I'm not sure I agree that the die is increasingly cast either. Losing P.J.'s expiring contract is obnoxious but Noc, Deng, and Gordon will be signed to extensions meaning at which point if we deal one of them we won't need (or even be able to include) a large expiring contract as part of the deal. I think that as time passes, the players develop more, and the Knicks draft picks run out we'll be dealing established players more than assets in the form of raw players, draft picks, and cap space. That leads to different deals with different teams perhaps but not necessarily better or worse deals. Really, it comes down to Pax's ability to judge talent. If the NY pick is wasted on a bust, Tyrus never develops, and a member of the core backslides then yeah, we have lesser assets than we do right now and are far worse off. However, if those assets develop well we benefit from a better idea of our needs, greater certainty of who are most valuable players are, and the fact that a young player thriving in the NBA is far more valuable than the uncertainty of a lottery pick.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> You asked for something and you got it.


No, I didn't get it.

I asked for detailed examples of how Deng would add to his game.

You gave me "I don't know how he'll do it, but he'll do it." That's not an answer, really.

I like Deng a lot and hope he's a Bull for many years, too. Unless he's part of a package to get us a significantly superior player. Gasol's career PER and usage rates compare very favorably with Duncan's and are miles ahead of Jamison's.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> That is your strawman argument, not his.
> 
> I mean, you're not saying that Deng could be as good as Wade or LeBron, are you?


My only assertion in the post about comparing big men to wing players was that his claim that a wing player is "not even close" in value to a post player with similar production places no limit on the point at which a far superior wing player closes that gap in value. I don't see how that's a stawman argument.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> No, I didn't get it.
> 
> I asked for detailed examples of how Deng would add to his game.
> 
> ...


I think that was my post not flash's though I said "I won't get into it..." and not "I don't know how...." It's pretty hard to look into the future and see exactly how Deng _will_ add to his game. I mean I can tell you he'll probably never become a point forward or a center. Flash already answered it, but my best guess is that Deng becomes an effective three point shooter and gets up into the 22-25 PPG range. 

I can't say I really understand your arguments claiming that Deng will not substantially improve. You basically just described his game right now and asserted that he currently doesn't have the qualities of a star player. There is just such a strong presumption against the claim that a hard working, All-Star calliber player who has excelled in every stage of his career is at or very close to his peak at the age of 21. Why can't Deng improve his play making skills, develop moves (or even just the reputation) to draw double teams, or extend his range a couple feet to the three point line? 

As I said before your analysis that he is an unathletic, system player without a plethora of great natural skills would seem to rule out the possibility that he could be this convincingly successful.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> No, I didn't get it.
> 
> I asked for detailed examples of how Deng would add to his game.
> 
> ...


Ah. _detailed_ examples. As in he'll develope both a jump hook off either shoulder as well as turnaround jumpers off either shoulder in the post as well as extending his range to three points. Improve his ballhandling. Added strength (which his frame can easily support) and continued progress both in his recognition of situations and the decisions he makes from his experience.

Oh, but wait. I'm sure that's still to pie-in-the-sky-blind-faith for you. 

[edit - leave the personal sniping out -vf]


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Pretty amazing how Gasol is seriously underrated and undervalued by bulls fans.

He's tall, blocks shots, rebounds, scores efficiently, and last season dished 4.6 APG (compared to Hinrich's ~6 APG), and can play 2 positions for us - ones that we (and most of the league) have real needs.

It's downright silly for a jumpshooting team to covet its plethora of jumpshooters to the point of having terrible roster balance.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Snarkiness aside, the post is valid.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Pretty amazing how Gasol is seriously underrated and undervalued by bulls fans.
> 
> He's tall, blocks shots, rebounds, scores efficiently, and last season dished 4.6 APG (compared to Hinrich's ~6 APG), and can play 2 positions for us - ones that we (and most of the league) have real needs.
> 
> It's downright silly for a jumpshooting team to covet its plethora of jumpshooters to the point of having terrible roster balance.


I'll say it again: there's no player I wouldn't package together with the NY pick for his services. Gordon/Hinrich/Deng, PJ, plus the 07 pick. No problem.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I'll say it again: there's no player I wouldn't package together with the NY pick for his services. Gordon/Hinrich/Deng, PJ, plus the 07 pick. No problem.


How about Gordon + Deng + PJ + Pick?

Not a swipe -- just wondering how far is too far for you? Everyone here, myself included, seems to have a "reasonable" level and a "too much" level at the back of their head.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> How about Gordon + Deng + PJ + Pick?
> 
> Not a swipe -- just wondering how far is too far for you? Everyone here, myself included, seems to have a "reasonable" level and a "too much" level at the back of their head.


Nope, I would not do that.

Listen, West can play hardball all he wants, but the truth of the matter is that there continues to be more word out of the Gasol camp (most recently Pau's father) that he would prefer to be elsewhere. Memphis fans can say that Pau hasn't asked for a trade, but at this point, there's been a lot of damage done. Jerry West really should trade the guy now. Pau has just pushed too hard to get out, and letting the year finish up should not be pleasant.

I'm extrapolating, but I don't believe West could turn away a deal for one of our best players (Gordon or Deng) plus PJ plus the 07 pick. 

Basically, if this deal doesn't go down, I'm going to hold it against Paxson. I will never know what exactly was discussed, but I know West and Paxson had several discussions, and in the end West seemed to channel out all other teams and focus on the Bulls. I just can't believe the two sides couldn't come to an agreement. 

It should be a long time before a player of Pau's caliber, age, and size comes available for a trade. This is a move Paxson has to finish on. That's my stance.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Basically, if this deal doesn't go down, I'm going to hold it against Paxson. I will never know what exactly was discussed, but I know West and Paxson had several discussions, and in the end West seemed to channel out all other teams and focus on the Bulls. I just can't believe the two sides couldn't come to an agreement.


Haha. I so hope that if I'm ever charged with a crime you're not sitting on my jury.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Haha. I so hope that if I'm ever charged with a crime you're not sitting on my jury.


This is not a crime, this is basketball. Sorry, I don't mind putting on two different kind of thinking caps for two totally different situations. 

I have generally sided with the "Paxson camp." As fans, we will probably never know the majority of what was discussed between general managers in the league. However, what we do know is that Gasol and Paxson have been talking about Gasol for weeks. We also know that Paxson is loathe to give up his best players, none of which, in my opinion, are or ever will be as good, or at least as valuable, as Pau Gasol will be for the next 5-6 years. Unlike some posters on this board, I am not as concerned with "overpaying." I am more interested in getting the closest thing we can to a real honest to goodness star, and in my mind Gasol is that good. 

This time, in a rare move for me, I would implore Pax to get this deal done one way or another. So many of the options we have discussed on this board would make the Bulls a better team, not just for this year, but for the near future. I am willing to do anything short of a Gordon/Deng deal, and from all that I've read, I'm almost sure that other deals we could offer would appeal to West.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> This is not a crime, this is basketball. Sorry, I don't mind putting on two different kind of thinking caps for two totally different situations.


Fair enough I guess, they are differen situations. I just happen to err on the side of not blasting someone when all the facts aren't at my disposal. I'd feel much less guilt and regret if I gave sommeone the benefit of the doubt than if I heavily critisized them, called for their job, etc.



Darius Miles Davis said:


> We also know that Paxson is loathe to give up his best players, none of which, in my opinion, are or ever will be as good, or at least as valuable, as Pau Gasol will be for the next 5-6 years.


I'll go ahead and say that know is way too strong of a word there. Considering the fact that all reports are that Pax would be foolish to offer his best package prior to the deadline and the unavoidable inaccuracy of 70% of the reports regarding what West is willing to move Gasol for, I find it highly presumptuous to assume you have a very good idea of what Pax is and is not willing give up in a Gasol deal.



Darius Miles Davis said:


> Unlike some posters on this board, I am not as concerned with "overpaying." I am more interested in getting the closest thing we can to a real honest to goodness star, and in my mind Gasol is that good.


This has always been a strawman/putting words in peoples' mouth argument. Do you really thing anyone values getting the better of West over improving the team?



Darius Miles Davis said:


> This time, in a rare move for me, I would implore Pax to get this deal done one way or another. So many of the options we have discussed on this board would make the Bulls a better team, not just for this year, but for the near future. I am willing to do anything short of a Gordon/Deng deal, and from all that I've read, I'm almost sure that other deals we could offer would appeal to West.


Without knowledge of what West is demaiding in a Gasol trade, I fail to understand the argument. The fact that there are apprently many Gasol offers discussed on this board that would benefit the team is highly irrelevant if each of those offers fall short of West's asking price. How can you be "almost sure" that the asking price is less than Deng/Hinrich when there has been at least one (I think two) reports this week that Gordon _and_ Deng is the asking price?

Out of curiosity, how many wins do you predict we get next season out of a roster of:

Gordon
Thabo
Noc
Gasol
Wallace


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

I see a lot of the Pax Fan club are going to hang their hat on West demanding Deng and Gordon. They will choose to ignore the fact that Paxson has failed to offer either Gordon, Deng, Hinrich, or Nocioni. I am holding out hope that we can get Deng out of Chicago but I have to agree with Sam Smith...Pax does not have the guts to trade one of those four.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Without knowledge of what West is demaiding in a Gasol trade, I fail to understand the argument. The fact that there are apprently many Gasol offers discussed on this board that would benefit the team is highly irrelevant if each of those offers fall short of West's asking price. How can you be "almost sure" that the asking price is less than Deng/Hinrich when there has been at least one (I think two) reports this week that Gordon _and_ Deng is the asking price?


Look, I read the Heisley interview where he said that he wants two good players, and one of the players could be a draft pick. I know that's not West talking, but I have to add it to my knowledge base when considering the situation. 

There's a lot of information out there in regard to this trade, and some of it conflicts. I have to do some reading in, and that requires me to weigh the evidence and draw my own conclusion. I see two sides of this. I have to look at the Memphis side of this. The Gasol situation has turned into a bit of a disaster for them. First there's a leak of a meeting in which Gasol at least expresses to some to degree that he wants out. Now the Memphis fans are booing him. The team and the player do what they can to publically patch things up, but then Gasol speaks to the Spanish media and says he thinks he will be traded. Then his father comes out and says that sooner or later, Pau should move on. Are we supposed to assume that Pau's father isn't expressing his son's opinions? That's ugly. I feel bad for the Grizzlies franchise, and to be honest it makes me wonder a little about Gasol's character, but that is a conversation for another thread.

I believe that Pau's actions have put West in a position where he should trade him now and cut his losses. That's an opinion. Take it for what it's worth. I think Gasol has gone too far down the road for a friendly reconciliation. Whereas West is forced to put up a good defense and say that he's not going to give Pau away, I think (and again, this is my opinion), that at this point he will take an offer that gives him some of what he wants. I see West in a position of weakness, and it seems to me that Paxson is in the position to pounce. I give West credit that he's played his hand well, but despite the comments which suggest that there won't be anything done tomorrow, I would not be surprised if Gasol moves somewhere tomorrow. 

I realize, Jeremy, that I am extrapolating to come to my conclusion. However, if no deal comes down tomorrow for Gasol, or even worse, or if West makes a deal with another team, I will hold the belief that there were deals that Paxson could have made for Gasol that required less that Gordon and Deng. I even believe there are deals that West would, when up against the deadline, take that only include one member of the core.

West will have his chance to lower his demands tomorrow, and I wouldn't be surprised if he does. He's played his hand valiently, but I think Pau has made too much of a fuss for the franchise to want him to remain a Grizzlie. I hope Paxson will consider meeting West half way when the hour grows short. And much like the Roy, I wouldn't be surprised if a surprise deal goes through in the final hours tomorrow.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Look, I read the Heisley interview where he said that he wants two good players, and one of the players could be a draft pick. I know that's not West talking, but I have to add it to my knowledge base when considering the situation.
> 
> There's a lot of information out there in regard to this trade, and some of it conflicts. I have to do some reading in, and that requires me to weigh the evidence and draw my own conclusion. I see two sides of this. I have to look at the Memphis side of this. The Gasol situation has turned into a bit of a disaster for them. First there's a leak of a meeting in which Gasol at least expresses to some to degree that he wants out. Now the Memphis fans are booing him. The team and the player do what they can to publically patch things up, but then Gasol speaks to the Spanish media and says he thinks he will be traded. Then his father comes out and says that sooner or later, Pau should move on. Are we supposed to assume that Pau's father isn't expressing his son's opinions? That's ugly. I feel bad for the Grizzlies franchise, and to be honest it makes me wonder a little about Gasol's character, but that is a conversation for another thread.
> 
> ...


Analysis. That's what that post is called. Mighty fine, too!
:clap2:


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I believe that Pau's actions have put West in a position where he should trade him now and cut his losses. That's an opinion. Take it for what it's worth. I think Gasol has gone too far down the road for a friendly reconciliation. Whereas West is forced to put up a good defense and say that he's not going to give Pau away, I think (and again, this is my opinion), that at this point he will take an offer that gives him some of what he wants. I see West in a position of weakness, and it seems to me that Paxson is in the position to pounce. I give West credit that he's played his hand well, but despite the comments which suggest that there won't be anything done tomorrow, I would not be surprised if Gasol moves somewhere tomorrow.
> 
> I realize, Jeremy, that I am extrapolating to come to my conclusion. However, if no deal comes down tomorrow for Gasol, or even worse, or if West makes a deal with another team, I will hold the belief that there were deals that Paxson could have made for Gasol that required less that Gordon and Deng. I even believe there are deals that West would, when up against the deadline, take that only include one member of the core.


Theoretically, the Bulls have a good incentive to acquire him and the Grizzlies have a good incentive to trade him. If we want to base our evaluations on what the parties would rationaly do - not a bad idea - they would reach the most reasonable deal possible between the two parties. However, there are equally credible (IMO) reports that both sides have made unreasonable requests (posturing?). West has supposedly asked for two members of the core and maybe even Deng and Gordon while Pax has reportedly refused to trade Noc. Maybe you're right that Memphis will lower their offer and information to that effect will surface today and tomorrow. In the absence of such information though, why couldn't we just as easily use your standard of rationality to say West didn't lower his offer because if he had Pax has too much of an incentive to make the move to turn the new offer down?


----------

