# Ford says we turned down Murphy/Pietrus for Chandler



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=12214



> Brandon, Bay Area: Are the Warriors moving Troy Murphy? Also, is there much interest for Pietrus?
> 
> Chad Ford: They've talked to a number of teams about moving Murphy and have included Pietrus as a way of sweetening the deal. They had that offer on the table with Chicago for Chandler, but the Bulls decided to go with P. J. Brown because of the cap flexibility it gives them next summer. The Jazz have shown some interest in the past, but the truth is that they're running out of teams that would be willing to absorb that salary.


Oh boy. This would have made us a better team for the future than the trade we went with. I know this deal has been rumored before, but this is the first time I have seen it confirmed.

Ouch. We'd be a better team in the long run with Murphy/Pietrus than Brown/Smith, and we'd probably be a better team this year as well.

Paying for a winner?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=12214
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I disagree, Brown and JR is better than Pietrus and Murphy.


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

Pietrus ios just a 3 point chucker. He can't dribble and he can't make a shot from mid range not even a free throw.Als ohe gets easily injured.

JR has off the charts athletisism and an NBA ready body for his age.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=12214
> 
> 
> 
> ...


isn't murphy basically a huge guard who rebounds amazingly
great and is unfortunately forced to guard post players? 

honestly I don't feel so bad about declining this trade b/c
of pietrus' IQ and murphey's one dimensional game. unless you 
count poor % on long range shots a plus


----------



## Pain5155 (May 28, 2006)

Murphy alone is better, and has more potential then Chandler.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=12214
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This team has been a better team for the future for too damn long!!!!


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=12214
> 
> 
> 
> ...


All I can say is they better use every penny.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Murphy is such an awful player though. I wouldn't be happy if management was spending money on crappy players, either (and I don't feel Chandler is nearly as bad as Murphy).

If we had signed Murphy to a 6 year 60 million contract, I would be perfectly fine with dumping him for Pj Brown.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

sloth said:


> I disagree, Brown and JR is better than Pietrus and Murphy.


Brown may have one more good year left in him, but he's an aging player. Murphy meanwhile put up 14/10 on a team full of scorers. I know he's more of a shooter than a post scorer, and I know he's a poor defender, but we desperately need a big who can score. With Wallace on board, Murphy would have been valuable to us.

Meanwhile, Pietrus might actually have a future with this team. He's got the crazy, Artestian defense that Skiles would love, and he also can put the ball down and slash to the hoop. Smith pretty much shoots 3's and dunks when he gets a good pass, but he's not that much of a slasher or a handler.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

lorgg said:


> This team has been a better team for the future for too damn long!!!!


and why do you think that is?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Someone catch RLucas before he gets to the Berto center.


Both for Paxson's sake and his own!!!!


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=12214
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know. I don't really think Murphy/Pietrus would've made us better, for several reasons:

a) Murphy's contract is just awful.

b) Pietrus is nice, but if Paxson's right about Sefolosha, he's redundant.

c) Pietrus is coming up for an extension this off-season. If you take on Murphy's deal and give Pietrus an extension, in addition to our other guys, we're running into salary cap/luxury tax hell.

d) I'm not a Murphy fan and don't see a place for him here. If Tyrus Thomas isn't a better player than Troy Murphy in a year or two we're in trouble.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> All I can say is they better use every penny.


Next year you mean? 

I think the best thing that happens next year is we draft a scoring big: Oden, Durant, Noah?, Horford, McRoberts (if he pans out), or Hansbrough. 

I think we're done acquiring good players with cap room otherwise.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I'm not buying the Cap Space argument anymore either.

Not a big fan of Murphy. Pietrus would fit in well. Would have allowed us to draft Simmons too.


----------



## 7RINGS? (Sep 28, 2004)

Forget that trade ,we got who we wanted for a reason.Pax wants to save cap space for next year. He is taking his time building this team because he wants to do it right and not rush everything and mess it up.I can respect him for that. :clap:


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm not buying the Cap Space argument anymore either.
> 
> Not a big fan of Murphy. Pietrus would fit in well. Would have allowed us to draft Simmons too.


The Simmons thing is a non-issue. It's not like Paxson knew pre-draft that we could land Wallace.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

MikeDC,

Here are your 2007 free agents. Who do you think we might be able to afford that might be worth it? Kaman is going to be out of our range. Dirk signed an extension and would never be in our range anyway. Brezec?



> The 2007 NBA Free Agent Class
> Player Option Year Player Option Year Player Option Year
> Aleksander Pavlovic team '07 Earl Boykins player '07 Mickael Pietrus team '07
> Allan Houston '07 Eduardo Najera player '07 Mike Bibby player '07
> ...


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Thank goodness this trade didn't go down.

Troy Murphy is simply an awful basketball player. I know there are plenty of folks who agree with me, but to those who disagree I urge you to not let his stats fool you. He's terrible defensively, incredibly one-dimensional offensively (he's a spot-up shooter, which he isn't terribly effective at anyways), and that doesn't even touch his contract. We're better off having PJ Brown for 1 season and signing a vet PF with our MLE next summer.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> The Simmons thing is a non-issue. It's not like Paxson knew pre-draft that we could land Wallace.


Wallace or no Wallace, I'd rather have Simmons and Pietrus.

We knew were going to aquire some big man (prz, gooden, wallace).


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Not surprised the Bulls turned this down. The last thing they wanted was to trade Chandler's questionable long-term contract for another questionable long-term contract. Once they saigned Wallace, they wanted to get out from under Chandler's contract...and they did.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

The only thing Murphy does better than Noc is rebound. We have Wallace when we want to slide Noc over to the PF slot. PJ at least gives us another capable guy that can play Center. Drafting Sefolosha kind of makes Pietrus redundant as well.

Murphy is more overpaid than Chandler IMO.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

transplant said:


> Not surprised the Bulls turned this down. The last thing they wanted was to trade Chandler's questionable long-term contract for another questionable long-term contract. Once they saigned Wallace, they wanted to get out from under Chandler's contract...and they did.


so you root for financial relief?
woohoo increased revenue?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

If he's referring to the Murphy/Pietrus offer that existed pre-draft then it has no bearing on the post-draft, post-Wallace, Chandler trade. 

If he's saying this offer was on the table when the Chandler/Brown trade was agreed to, then thats different. 

Anyway, I need to watch more Golden State games this year. Every time Murphy's name has come up in the context of Chandler, I want to do the deal. Then everyone and their mother writes about what an overpaid bum Murphy is and how he should be avoided. I seriously must have a flawed mental image of that guy's game.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

yodurk said:


> Thank goodness this trade didn't go down.
> 
> Troy Murphy is simply an awful basketball player. I know there are plenty of folks who agree with me, but to those who disagree I urge you to not let his stats fool you. He's terrible defensively, incredibly one-dimensional offensively (he's a spot-up shooter, which he isn't terribly effective at anyways), and that doesn't even touch his contract. We're better off having PJ Brown for 1 season and signing a vet PF with our MLE next summer.


these stats don't fool me:

fg% .433
3p% .320
bpg .35

that's rather meh, isn't it?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

paxman said:


> so you root for financial relief?
> woohoo increased revenue?


Allow me to say, with all due respect, that I'm sick and tired of this crap.

A fan understanding and accepting the financial realities of professional athletics is not the same thing as a fan rooting for the owners to maximize their revenue.

Almost every single owner in the NBA - including the owners of some of the most successful teams of the recent era such as the Pistons, Lakers and Spurs - avoid luxury tax implications. Understanding that and accepting it as part of being a fan does not = rooting for revenue.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

you said nothing new to me.
the chandler trade had nothing to do with luxury tax relief.

actually, re-reading transplant's post, i retract my response for 
a different reason. i actually didn't state that he was happily for
the trade, but said he understood it.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Wallace or no Wallace, I'd rather have Simmons and Pietrus.
> 
> We knew were going to aquire some big man (prz, gooden, wallace).


Simmons and Pietrus over Wallace? Hahaha. I guess that implies that Curry would be your center. Maybe we can trade Jamal for Kirk and Gordon?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Simmons and Pietrus over Wallace? Hahaha. I guess that implies that Curry would be your center. Maybe we can trade Jamal for Kirk and Gordon?


What the heck are you talking about?

Perhaps I don't understand the trade that Ford was talking about, but it appears to be Chandler for Pietrus and Murphy.

Either way, we'd have Wallace at this point.

I'd rather have Pietrus, Murphy and Cedric Simmons than Swiss guy, PJ and Smith.

Perhaps I'm missing something.....


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> What the heck are you talking about?
> 
> Perhaps I don't understand the trade that Ford was talking about, but it appears to be Chandler for Pietrus and Murphy.
> 
> ...


Hmm. Swiss guy, PJ, Smith = $10M salary this season, $2M next season.
Peitrus, Murphy, Simmons = $11M salary this season, $17M next season, $19M season after, etc.

Pietrus, Murphy, Simmons would be our 5, 6, 7 players in our rotation (just like Swiss guy, PJ and Smith). Is $15M per season worth it when you have to resign Kirk and Noc for the 5, 6, 7 players in your rotation? Besides, Pietrus, Murphy, Simmons would be only marginally better than Swiss guy, PJ and Smith.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

kukoc4ever said:


> What the heck are you talking about?
> 
> Perhaps I don't understand the trade that Ford was talking about, but it appears to be Chandler for Pietrus and Murphy.
> 
> ...


Whats with the Cedric Simmons talk? His not even in GS, so what are we talking about?

We had a chance to get Simmons through the NO deal with PJ but we opted for Smith. Which is just plain stupid, to not have stolen one of their bigs, instead getting Smith.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Allow me to say, with all due respect, that I'm sick and tired of this crap.
> 
> A fan understanding and accepting the financial realities of professional athletics is not the same thing as a fan rooting for the owners to maximize their revenue.
> 
> Almost every single owner in the NBA - including the owners of some of the most successful teams of the recent era such as the Pistons, Lakers and Spurs - avoid luxury tax implications. Understanding that and accepting it as part of being a fan does not = rooting for revenue.


Undertsanding and accepting != to some of the "we should be happy to have saved all that money" type statements we have heard people say in favor of the Chandler trade.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> MikeDC,
> 
> Here are your 2007 free agents. Who do you think we might be able to afford that might be worth it? Kaman is going to be out of our range. Dirk signed an extension and would never be in our range anyway. Brezec?


Hard to say so far away. Some of those guys who look good now we won't want for whatever reason, or won't be able to get.

If I had to target a couple of guys who I think might be in reach for $6-8M, I'd look at
Kaman
David West
Diaw
Magloire
Brezec
Perkins
Darko

I'd probably be inclined to offer Gordon and our cap space, for example, in a sign and trade for Kaman. Or Darko if he keeps looking up.

And of course if hell freezes over and they're out there, you can look at Lebron and Wade.

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

Personally, I think a team in our situation should be willing to pay some luxury tax. Does anyone doubt that Dallas would have had a better shot at winning last year with Nash? I tend to think a big market team seemingly on the cusp of a long-term championship run ought to be willing to open the pocketbooks a little. We aren't talking about being unprofitable. Perhaps it's the status quo to avoid the luxury tax at all costs, but I'll continue to criticize it if 1) doing so hurts what's on the court and 2) the team is still making a heft profit, especially over the long run.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Pietrus, Murphy, Simmons would be our 5, 6, 7 players in our rotation (just like Swiss guy, PJ and Smith). Is $15M per season worth it when you have to resign Kirk and Noc for the 5, 6, 7 players in your rotation? Besides, Pietrus, Murphy, Simmons would be only marginally better than Swiss guy, PJ and Smith.


Oh yah that's right, we're cheapskates.

Have you ever even seen Thabo play? Smith will not play for Skiles. That will not work out.

PJ is good, but old. Malik would fill his role just fine.

Pietrus is the perfect fit at "big guard" and Cedric Simmons would be a fine young center that we could have drafted.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

kulaz3000 said:


> Whats with the Cedric Simmons talk? His not even in GS, so what are we talking about?


Draft Simmons in place of Swiss guy. Sign Wallace. Make Chandler to GS trade.


----------



## LuCane (Dec 9, 2002)

> Brown may have one more good year left in him, but he's an aging player. Murphy meanwhile put up 14/10 on a team full of scorers. I know he's more of a shooter than a post scorer, and I know he's a poor defender, but we desperately need a big who can score. With Wallace on board, Murphy would have been valuable to us.


I think you have overvalued Troy Murphy. You just throw things like "he's a shooter" and "he's a [piss] poor defender" aside because "we need a big man that can score?"

Sorry man, you're usually chalk full of solid comments, but I find this one to be very weak. Murphy is a glorified Malik Allen (jump shooting "big men" aren't that rare these days apparently), playing on, as you stated, a scoring team. His stats are inflated. 

I think many of you are overlooking the true value of a move like acquiring a P.J. Brown: we have instilled a certain mentality here. We will continue to pound that mentality into our roster, even on a short-term basis, until it is instilled as our franchise identity. You may ask where that leaves a notorious "non-defender" like J.R. Smith? Well, it leaves him as a 20 year old athlete with potential, easily left at the end of the bench, and later tossed aside if he cannot prove he is willing to work toward that identity.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Oh yah that's right, we're cheapskates.
> 
> Have you ever even seen Thabo play? Smith will not play for Skiles. That will not work out.
> 
> ...


Murphy's contract is ridiculous. He is a good player, but why bother with that contract? I'd rather have Tyson's crap contract than Murphy's. Murphy is a terrible defender and marginal rebounder. Why do we need another offensive first, defense second player? That goes against our philosophy as a team.

Remember, we averaged 97.8 points per game last year with Tyson as our center. That was good enough for 12th in the NBA. 12 out of 30.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> Personally, I think a team in our situation should be willing to pay some luxury tax. Does anyone doubt that Dallas would have had a better shot at winning last year with Nash? I tend to think a big market team seemingly on the cusp of a long-term championship run ought to be willing to open the pocketbooks a little. We aren't talking about being unprofitable. *Perhaps it's the status quo to avoid the luxury tax at all costs, but I'll continue to criticize it if 1) doing so hurts what's on the court and 2) the team is still making a heft profit, especially over the long run*.


And thats fine. My comment was directed only at those who chastise fans who don't share that view as "rooting for profits" or "rooting for the suits" as though we value their financial success over the success of the team. 

I don't think any of us do that. But there are many of us who accept and understand the realities of the situation. 

And for what its worth, I'm on record as saying that I expect Reinsdorf to pony up and at least be willing to pay some luxury tax for a player(s) who is worth it. Chandler didn't happen to be that guy, in my mind, so I accept the trade (I accept it for several other reasons as well). If it were Hinrich or Deng, for example, my reaction would be quite different.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

kukoc4ever said:


> Draft Simmons in place of Swiss guy. Sign Wallace. Make Chandler to GS trade.


Oh fair enough. Didn't read the earlier posts..

Regardless isnt anyone upset that we didn't hold for one of NO's rookie bigs in Simmons or Armstrong instead of Smith? or is everyone satisfied with him? I don't see how if they are willing to take on Chandlers big contract they wouldn't have been more that willing to part with one of their bigs or atleast for Paxson to force their hand and demand one of them...

Also concerning this Murphy/Pietrus trade. The only player id want on that team right now is Andris Biedrins. He is going to be a player, he has good size, good skills around the basket, and his not your pro typical euro style player, he'll bang inside and get physical. I would love him on our roster.. 

We need to keep trading, we need some length on this team.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I would definitely have done this deal. The kicker here is how much younger Murphy is than Brown. 

Right now, Smith and Pietrus are comparable, because neither has shown anything but flashes on offense and defense, respectably. 

I would have done this one in a second, because Murphy's probably better than Brown, and he's a lot younger.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Murphy's contract is ridiculous. He is a good player, but why bother with that contract? I'd rather have Tyson's crap contract than Murphy's. Murphy is a terrible defender and marginal rebounder. Why do we need another offensive first, defense second player? That goes against our philosophy as a team.


Screw Murphy, I want Piertus and Simmons.

Muprhy would be a fine bench guy. 



> Remember, we averaged 97.8 points per game last year with Tyson as our center. That was good enough for 12th in the NBA. 12 out of 30.


Murphy is the last guy I want in this deal. We get a good, aggressive young center that we can groom for the future and the "big 2" that we've been pining for. We could use a little offensive punch off the bench as well. Malik plays the PJ role just fine.

Sorry, I'm not used to always worrying about the luxury tax. I always thought Chicago, 3rd largest market, one of the top teams in attendance, fat revenue stream, that we'd go over the cap within reason. I don't have an Oklahoma City state of mind, sorry.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

No biggie. Murphy is a novelty 4 whose great to have on Fantasy Bball teams, but I wouldn't want him on the current Bulls team


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

_Dre_ said:


> .


Alex Wright. :laugh:


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Pietrus gets hurt every year. His contract is up soon and I want to see him get through a full season first. I love his size/defense but I'd rather have a big guard who can also handle the ball. Better fit alongside Gordon / Hinrich in a 3-guard rotation. 

This is why I wanted Roy or Brewer in the draft, but I'm happy we got Thabo. At first I was upset we traded up for him with Brewer still on the board, but Thabo is growing on me. 

We would have lost this trade simply by taking back Murphy. Mike McGraw said it best, he wouldn't trade a 2nd rounder for Murphy straight up, and I agree. A 2nd rounder has more value.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

paxman said:


> so you root for financial relief?
> woohoo increased revenue?


Don't really see what the trade has to do with revenue. The Bulls pretty much fill their stadium and the TV revenues are shared. Profit, yes, but not revenue.

One of the things I've liked about this board is that you have a lot of fans here that are smarter about the game, including the financial realities, than the folks I hang with. A lot of people here get the salary cap, luxury tax and the tough business decisions you need to make to put the best possible team on the floor. A lot of people here truly put themselves in the position of the GM, accepting the financial limitations and looking for the key opportunities available. These are the posters I look for and I've learned a lot from them.

Do I root for the Bulls to make a profit? Not directly (woohoo!). However, I do admire a GM like Paxson, who has similar budgetary limitations to what exist in the "real world" and is still able to _smartly_ build a contending team. Paxson hasn't done a good job...he's done a phenomenal job IMO.

Well then, it's Reinsdorf's fault that we don't spend money like the Mavs or the Knicks. Absolutely. I don't know it for a fact, but I strongly suspect that Reinsdorf has told Paxson that he won't accept luxury taxes unless he believes that a championship is TRULY within our grasp, and then only if he can be convinced that the moves that put the team over the luxury tax threshhold will also put the team over the top competitively. 

I've said it before. Reinsdorf is the best owner in Chicago sports history and I can't even think of who comes in second. I was 9 years old in 1963 when the Bears won an NFL championship. It was 22 years 'til I saw another Chicago championship team. Then along came Reinsdorf. 

I don't mean to be confrontational, but if you hate Reinsdorf and/or think he's cheap, I think you're an idiot. Yeah, I'm a big fan.

Woohoo! again.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

transplant said:


> Don't really see what the trade has to do with revenue. The Bulls pretty much fill their stadium and the TV revenues are shared. Profit, yes, but not revenue.
> 
> One of the things I've liked about this board is that you have a lot of fans here that are smarter about the game, including the financial realities, than the folks I hang with. A lot of people here get the salary cap, luxury tax and the tough business decisions you need to make to put the best possible team on the floor. A lot of people here truly put themselves in the position of the GM, accepting the financial limitations and looking for the key opportunities available. These are the posters I look for and I've learned a lot from them.
> 
> ...


great post (mostly)
this is exactly why I've said before that it's senseless to blame pax for contract dumps.

sorry about the revenue/profit mistype. there is a big difference, you are right about that.
by the way, nice subtlety about the self complimenting by
stating you like talking with SMART fans.

and oh yeah, saying that reinsdorf is the best chicago sports
owner in history isn't saying much. I, in the same way as you, don't mean 
to be confrontational, but if you don't think he is cheap you certainly are an idiot.
(sorry, i know the difference between smart and not is hugely important to you)

and if you look soon after my post you quoted, i wrote that after re-reading your
post i was wrong about you rooting for the owners.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

paxman said:


> and oh yeah, saying that reinsdorf is the best chicago sports
> owner in history isn't saying much. I, in the same way as you, don't mean
> to be confrontational, but if you don't think he is cheap you certainly are an idiot.


I've been called worse.

If your pre-conceived notion about Reinsdorf is set in stone, I don't suppose I should try to loosen it, but I have to point out that, duiring the last 3 dynasty years, the Bulls team he owned had the highest payroll in the NBA. Odd for a truly cheap owner. He got what he paid for. When the White Sox showed they could truly contend, he authorized the additional funds. The fact that the White Sox payroll is higher than the Cubs still amazes me. Never thought I'd see it.

Still, we should never let the facts get in the way of a good argument.


----------



## BULLS23 (Apr 13, 2003)

Is Jerry Reinsdorf cheap? Absolutely. Do I think the White Sox firesale a few years back was a real punk move? Absolutely. 

Can I, however, deny that he has surely had sucess even while being a tremendous cheapskate? I certainly can't . . . I don't think the he is the most beloved owner in Chicago, but he has been a winner.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

transplant said:


> I've been called worse.
> 
> If your pre-conceived notion about Reinsdorf is set in stone, I don't suppose I should try to loosen it, but I have to point out that, duiring the last 3 dynasty years, the Bulls team he owned had the highest payroll in the NBA. Odd for a truly cheap owner. He got what he paid for. When the White Sox showed they could truly contend, he authorized the additional funds. The fact that the White Sox payroll is higher than the Cubs still amazes me. Never thought I'd see it.
> 
> Still, we should never let the facts get in the way of a good argument.


i appologize for the name calling. i just was returning the favor.

"pre-conceived notion" sounds pretty cool to say, but my notions
of him reflect who he is.

what you're saying actually falls exactly into my description of him.
he won't break the bank until we are miraculously an elite team.
the first miracle (they ARE cool, you're right  ) was landing jordan.
will the second one be pax's genius maneuvering? too soon to tell.

but when you are willing to spend more (and the fans certainly have been 
showing up to games), you increase the chance of winning. it's not a sure thing,
but it increases the chance. when you say that you'll only spend big bucks
if we are already winning (which, seriously, is such a given, almost any 
sports owner would extend his best players when the team is super elite) you
are basically pinning the hopes on a draft miracle or a genius gm.


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

transplant said:


> I've been called worse.
> 
> If your pre-conceived notion about Reinsdorf is set in stone, I don't suppose I should try to loosen it, but I have to point out that, duiring the last 3 dynasty years, the Bulls team he owned had the highest payroll in the NBA. Odd for a truly cheap owner. He got what he paid for. When the White Sox showed they could truly contend, he authorized the additional funds. The fact that the White Sox payroll is higher than the Cubs still amazes me. Never thought I'd see it.
> 
> Still, we should never let the facts get in the way of a good argument.


I'm pretty sure the Bulls had been making a nice profit during the dynasty years. Moreover, Jordan and Pippen drastically increased the value of the franchise, manifold.

In the post Jordan, NBDL era, I'd imagine the Bulls have been making money hand over fist: they are among the top in the league in attendance, notwithstanding the Janero Pargos and Kornel Davids that have been trotted out onto the court...

I would venture to guess that the Bulls are and have been among the most profitable teams in the NBA for some time now. 

It's this context in which the Tyson salary dump controversy can be placed. That's what makes this mentality hard to take: basketball decisions are sacrificed in the name of an ever increasing bottom line, notwithstanding the fact that those with the biggest bottoms have been lining their pockets quite nicely for some time now. 

Back to this trade: I'm not sold on Murphy, I wouldn't have traded Tyson for him. But Michael P. added in? I'd have thought twice, at least. Perhaps hagled enough to see if they could substitute someone else for Murphy.


----------



## Ghost (Jun 21, 2002)

sloth said:


> I disagree, Brown and JR is better than Pietrus and Murphy.



I agree with sloh, Brown gives them the cap flexiblity that they need and JR Smith can become a great scorer in the league.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

The Brown trade was freakish. A freakish trade.

'Nuff said.

It was freakish.

You can't argue with freakish.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> What the heck are you talking about?
> 
> Perhaps I don't understand the trade that Ford was talking about, but it appears to be Chandler for Pietrus and Murphy.
> 
> ...


What I think you're missing is that Murphy's is a long-term contractual albatross with very limited game, and that we simply don't have the dollars to re-up a third guard for substantial dollars. Pietrus would've been history after this year. Or another salary dump. Sefolosha could be every bit as good as Pietrus. What you'd be dealing with after this season would be Chandler for Murphy straight up and whatever you could S&T Pietrus into. Ugh.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Screw Murphy, I want Piertus and Simmons.
> 
> Muprhy would be a fine bench guy.


Murphy makes $8-$11M per season. That's starter money in the league. You don't absorb that huge contract for the sake of a Pietrus and Simmons (who by the way haven't proven anything in this league) and (who by the way would be 7 and 8 players off the bench themselves.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

lougehrig said:


> Murphy makes $8-$11M per season. That's starter money in the league. You don't absorb that huge contract for the sake of a Pietrus and Simmons (who by the way haven't proven anything in this league) and (who by the way would be 7 and 8 players off the bench themselves.


No, you don't. You don't absorb Murphy's deal, and lose Chandler (a better player than Murphy) for the right to re-up Pietrus for biggish money next off-season. It's crazy. The proposed GS trade has two end results:

a) Pietrus walks at year's end and you're stuck with Chandler for Murphy even up.

or

b) A substantial portion of our payroll in coming seasons is commited to Troy Murphy and a third guard.

Both stink.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> we simply don't have the dollars to re-up a third guard for substantial dollars.


I don't understand why a team with the 2nd highest attendance in the 3rd largest market can't be in the top 8 in payroll.

You are right though, it is more fiscally responsible to make the deal the Bulls eventually made.

Have to get that Oklahoma City state of mind.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

paxman said:


> i appologize for the name calling. i just was returning the favor.
> 
> "pre-conceived notion" sounds pretty cool to say, but my notions
> of him reflect who he is.
> ...


Paxman, I didn't intend to directly call YOU an idiot, but when I look back on what I wrote, I pretty much did. I apologize.

Outside of Dallas, probably every fan of every NBA team would like to have Mark Cuban as their team's owner. To him, it's a toy, and he's perfectly willing to throw all kinds of money at his toy to make it more fun. He's the ideal - smart and wide-open pockets.

Dolan in NY gave IT an open-ended salary budget and got the second-worst team in the NBA. Dumb and wide-open pockets.

From the feedback, it looks as though I can't convince anyone that Reinsdorf isn't cheap. Appears to have at least something to do about the definition of cheap. Clearly, no one can say that Reinsdorf has consistently been among the lowest spending owners...the usual definition of a cheap owner. By this traditional definition, Philip Wrigley was cheap. The much-revered Bill Veeck was cheap. Reinsdorf, not cheap.

Rather, it appears that Reinsdorf is "cheap" because he doesn't give his GM the ability to spend in the upper 25% of NBA teams.

OK. In the immortal words of folk singer Steve Goodman, "It ain't hard to get along with somebody else's troubles," and it's corollary, "it's always easy to spend somebody else's money."

I'm done for tonight. Have a good one.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> b) A substantial portion of our payroll in coming seasons is commited to Troy Murphy and a third guard.
> 
> Both stink.


Sending your highest paid, productive player home to sit stinks.

This would just be taking on a contract for a guard many here have been pining for.

Swiss is cheaper, and he's locked into that rookie deal.

I'd rather have Murphy, Pietrus and Simmons and the Bulls should be able to pay them

Given Uncle Jerry's constraints though, you are right, it would not happen.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I don't understand why a team with the 2nd highest attendance in the 3rd largest market can't be in the top 8 in payroll.


If you're in favor of taking on Troy Murphy with his awful contract and like Pietrus so much more than Sefolosha that you'd pay him MLE type money, great. I'm not. I think it would be stupid, and I'm glad Paxson didn't do it. Having Troy Murphy and Michael Pietrus on the books for 15 to 17 million dollars a year just isn't smart. Especially if you don't see either of them starting long term.

When our core comes up for extensions in the coming seasons we had better move into the upper eschelon of the league in terms of payroll. Instead of pithy one line responses to reasoned arguments I would love to hear in detail just how far you think Reinsdorf ought to go over the cap in coming seasons and how Troy Murphy and Michael Pietrus would fit into our salary structure and our team in coming years, assuming we aim to keep our core.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! said:


> I'm pretty sure the Bulls had been making a nice profit during the dynasty years. Moreover, Jordan and Pippen drastically increased the value of the franchise, manifold.
> 
> In the post Jordan, NBDL era, I'd imagine the Bulls have been making money hand over fist: they are among the top in the league in attendance, notwithstanding the Janero Pargos and Kornel Davids that have been trotted out onto the court...
> 
> ...


Well put. 

It's OK with me that the Bulls make money, but it gets on this fan's nerves to follow the development of a young big man for five years, and then just when he could be expected to start to show what he has, we are left to watch him succeed or fail on another team, largely because of financial considerations. When this is repeated over and over again, it can stretch one's loyalty to the laundry a bit. Jerry should be careful not to be too smart with his money, at least in my case. 

Unbridled free agency killed my interest in baseball more than thirty years ago; and I was a rabid fan who followed not only my favorite major league team but also all of its farm teams. I began to lose interest in baseball when Kirk Gibson was allowed to migate to the LA Dodgers from the Detroit Tigers without compensation, after having followed his developement in college, the minor leagues and in the majors for nearly a decade. When the best players began unrestricted migration to the Yankees and Dodgers for free agent money in the late 1970s I lost interest in the game permanently and turned to other passtimes.

I prefer to be a fan of a sport that is ostensibly fair, and presents a level playing field to all of its teams, even if they are located in Minneapolis, Detroit, San Antonio or Cleveland. Basketball succeeds in this respect because the large market teams clearly do not dominate the sport in spite of clear financial advantages. The NBA has salary caps and restrictions that make movements of Ben Wallaces and Garnetts from team to team much more difficult than in baseball. Otherwise, my interest in the sport would quickly disappear. 

So, it's a disappointment when the "real world" considerations of millionaire owners, who have enjoyed uninterrupted profits and growth in equity over the years, have an influence on the micromanagement of the Bull's personnel as they have in the case of the Chandler trade.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Sending your highest paid, productive player home to sit stinks.
> 
> This would just be taking on a contract for a guard many here have been pining for.
> 
> ...


How on earth did Tim Thomas get into this? Let's keep this thread from going totally off the rails. I can see we're a handful of posts away from unearthing the Curry debate.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Sending your highest paid, productive player home to sit stinks.


but it's defintely not cheap


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> How on earth did Tim Thomas get into this? Let's keep this thread from going totally off the rails. I can see we're a handful of posts away from unearthing the Curry debate.


I'm just saying there have been a lot more stupid use of Bulls funds than paying Troy Murphy that many people had no problem with.

I'm not sure how much the TV deal is and the luxury box revenue, it has to be near the top of the league, but the Bulls must have been just socking it away the last 5-6 years. Yowza. What team made more profit than the Bulls during this span... I'd like to know. Not many I would bet.

They could absorb the cost of Murphy, who had a PER of 16 last year, shore up the need @ big guard with Pietrus and draft a young center in Simmons. I'd prefer that over PJ, Swiss and some guy Skiles is going to hate. 

We should not have to do this on the cheap. I'm all for the Bulls making a healthy profit, but I think Murphy, Pietrus and Simmons would be better short term and long term and the Bulls should be able to absorb that extra cost while still giving the shareholders a healthy return.

The Big Red Foam Finger I wear at the UC should not have to stand for ROA.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

RoRo said:


> but it's defintely not cheap


LOL. Yah, we really break the bank when it counts!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

This lineup actually looks good to me.

Hinrich
Gordon
Deng
Murphy
Wallace

2nd unit

Duhon
Pietrus
Nocioni
Allen/Thomas
Simmons/Sweets

Not bad at all.

Murphy, while overpaid, is better than PJ Brown and the Deng/Murphy/Wallace trio would complement each other quite nicely I think.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

I just love how you're already, in your own signature way, belittling our recent draft. I mean, Tyrus must be a complete afterthought to you. He's not even in your rotation! And Thabo is just...swiss guy? Whatever. I think you, rlucas, and Frenchie should get a room.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> This lineup actually looks good to me.
> 
> Hinrich
> Gordon
> ...


And that lineup is appreciably better than...

Hinrich
Gordon
Deng
Brown
Wallace

Duhon
Sefolosha
Nocioni
Allen/Sweets/Khyrapa
Thomas

???????

What a hoot! Oh the revisionism that will be taking place six months from now!


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

fl_flash said:


> And that lineup is appreciably better than...
> 
> Hinrich
> Gordon
> ...


 I think the goal of the PJ Brown trade was the 1) acquire a big man who complements Wallace well and 2) to acquire cap space so that the Bulls can re-up the 4 core players (which if they had kept Chandler, IMO, Deng would've been gone eventually and Bulls fan would be complaining in 2 years). For #2, it would've been almost impossible to have Wallace, Chandler, Hinrich, Gordon, Nocioni, and Deng to have contracts ranging from an average of $7 mil/year to $15 mil/year. In the Murphy trade, only point 1 is addressed. Point 2 only creates more cap problems, because Murphy has a long and fat (and overpaid) contract, while Pietrus, if he develops into the big 2 guard the Bulls need so badly, would require an extension next season (I believe), albeit at a lower price. That gives the Bulls another young player who needs to be re-uped, making the cap situation worse. Bad trade, I'm glad the Bulls turned this down.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> I mean, Tyrus must be a complete afterthought to you. He's not even in your rotation! And Thabo is just...swiss guy?


To be honest, I forgot to type his name in. My bad. The Bulls are saying he's 2 years away... whatever that means. He's good for 15 a night next season, if the Bulls are good. Perhaps he's better... I hope so.

I know very little about Thabo. I don't watch a lot of French league. I guess he wowed Paxson in the workouts. Pietrus/Murphy/Simmons would be a better trio, IMO, based on what I know.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> To be honest, I forgot to type his name in. My bad. The Bulls are saying he's 2 years away... whatever that means. He's good for 15 a night next season, if the Bulls are good. Perhaps he's better... I hope so.
> 
> I know very little about Thabo. I don't watch a lot of French league. I guess he wowed Paxson in the workouts. Pietrus/Murphy/Simmons would be a better trio, IMO, based on what I know.


Sefolosha played in the Italian League and did pretty well. He's in Pietrus' league as a defender. Pietrus is more physical but also commits more fouls. Thabo plays angles and uses space well. Also Thabo is a MUCH better offensive player.

Keep pining for what's not here. That way you've got more to piss and moan about.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Sefolosha played in the Italian League and did pretty well. He's in Pietrus' league as a defender. Pietrus is more physical but also commits more fouls. Thabo plays angles and uses space well. Also Thabo is a MUCH better offensive player.


Have you ever seen Thabo play much? 

I have no idea how many fouls Thabo will commit in the NBA.

Let's hope the Swiss Miss can ball.

I'll take Murphy/Simmons over Brown/???? anyday though.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Sefolosha played in the Italian League and did pretty well.


Pretty well in the Italian League?

Sweet.

Doubt erased.



I hope he's as good as you guys advertise. I remember hearing similar about Basden last year. This guy should be better based on where he was picked.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

hhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmm?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Pretty well in the Italian League?
> 
> Sweet.
> 
> ...


Instead of *****ing and complaining and comming up with unoriginal stuff like this; why don't you take a little time and educate yourself on one of the newest Bulls? It really isn't all that difficult to do, but then again, the easiest thing in the world to be is a pessimist - it takes no effort whatsoever and I can tell that you know absolutely nothing about Thabo Sefolosha and rather than expend any effort to become an informed person, you'd rather just play the same old tired tune.

Thabo Sefolosha is a legit NBA talent. Both the Suns and Jazz wanted him also. You're gonna have to take other folks word on this because you're apparently too lazy to go out and investigate this young man for yourself. Ignorace is bliss.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Thabo Sefolosha is a legit NBA talent. Both the Suns and Jazz wanted him also. You're gonna have to take other folks word on this because you're apparently too lazy to go out and investigate this young man for yourself. Ignorace is bliss.


I'm sure I've read about him about as much as you have.

I just have not seen much game footage. Have you? If yes, can you hook me up with it? I saw one highlight reel, that's it.

Don't let the French league typo throw you off (i could have sworn i read somewhere he played in a french league... oh well)

Actually, I'm excited to see him play. Could be a great pick. I've always been nervous about putting too much stock in scouting reports since Chandler was compared to KG and the whole Skita thing.... so I really don't know much about him. 

I'd still rather have Pietrus/Murphy/Simmons though. Short term and long term. That could change the more I see of Thabo.

Thanks for the advice though. I’ll file it appropriately.

Ignorance is bliss == In Pax We Trust, IMO. You seem to have a much better handle on Thabo. Its not just In Pax We Trust I'm sure.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

I'll ride with Pax. He's the one whos usually right.... detractors have a lot of ground to make up


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> This lineup actually looks good to me.
> 
> Hinrich
> Gordon
> ...


Murphy is very limited defensively. He is the exact type of player other non successful teams build around. He is not the defensive minded player we are built around. We would score more points with Murphy as our PF, but we certainly wouldn't win more games. PJ Brown (although 37) brings more of the defensive and all-around game that is required by Skiles and Pax.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm just saying there have been a lot more stupid use of Bulls funds than paying Troy Murphy that many people had no problem with.
> 
> I'm not sure how much the TV deal is and the luxury box revenue, it has to be near the top of the league, but the Bulls must have been just socking it away the last 5-6 years. Yowza. What team made more profit than the Bulls during this span... I'd like to know. Not many I would bet.
> 
> ...


PER doesn't win basketball games.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Ignorance is bliss == In Pax We Trust, IMO. You seem to have a much better handle on Thabo. Its not just In Pax We Trust I'm sure.


You're saying it's ignorant to favor Thabo over Pietrus?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Murphy is very limited defensively. He is the exact type of player other non successful teams build around. He is not the defensive minded player we are built around. We would score more points with Murphy as our PF, but we certainly wouldn't win more games. PJ Brown (although 37) brings more of the defensive and all-around game that is required by Skiles and Pax.


We have plenty of defense. We broke the bank for a guy that brings nothing but defense.

This is the reason why Murphy would be a decent, not ideal, better than Brown, guy to pair with Wallace. Murphy still crashes the boards and can keep the defense honest. I agree he's not a good defender. Thankfully we have plenty of other good defenders so the Bulls will be a net very good defenseive team.

Just like its OK to have guys on the floor that bring mostly defense and little offense, its okay to have a player thats balanced the other way as well. As long as the team is net strong. We don't have much to gain vs last years team defense wise anyway.

Not in love with Troy Murphy... just think Deng/Murphy/Wallace looks better the Noc/Brown/Wallace in the starting lineup.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> You're saying it's ignorant to favor Thabo over Pietrus?


Nope. An opinion is an opinion. Who am I to judge?

Blind "In Pax We Trust" is "ignorance is bliss" though, IMO.

Everyone is banking on Thabo to be very good. I'm just curious who has actually seen him play a basketball game. If you have, please point me to one I can watch. Thx.


----------



## Zeb (Oct 16, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Nope. An opinion is an opinion. Who am I to judge?
> 
> Blind "In Pax We Trust" is "ignorance is bliss" though, IMO.
> 
> Everyone is banking on Thabo to be very good. I'm just curious who has actually seen him play a basketball game. If you have, please point me to one I can watch. Thx.


Trusting the opinion of a *proven* GM is less ignorant than simply not wanting "Swiss Guy" because you've never even seen him play.

When Thabo pans out, you're just going to move on to your next bit of whining. I don't think there's a single move Pax could do without you complaining, regardless of your lack of knowledge on the situation/players involved.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Zeb said:


> Trusting the opinion of a *proven* GM is less ignorant than simply not wanting "Swiss Guy" because you've never even seen him play.


Its more that I like Cedric Simmons because I have seen him play... and guess what... we need a long term big man, in case you didn't know.





> When Thabo pans out,


In Pax You Trust.


If Thabo pans out, whatever "pans out" means, I'll give Pax his props. I have no judgement on the guy at this point, since he's scouting reports and youtube videos right now. He had a better workout than Brewer and Roy... that's a positive.

Perhaps you have more knowledge to share. Please, share.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I don't know about you guys, but playing for our Chicago Bulls should be a damn privilege! The league's few elite organizations (such as San Antonio) are VERY selective about who they allow on board. Very selective. Why should we be any different? Anyone disagree?

With that said, I think there are tons of players in this league who aren't worthy to be a part of our team. Paxson and Skiles have brought a terrific hardworking, team-oriented culture here. Guys like Troy Murphy who make twice as much as they should to play for a lottery team don't deserve to be on the Chicago Bulls. We can do better than that; our dollars are better spent on someone else. I bet we can save our MLE for next season and find a much better fit for half the price.


----------



## Zeb (Oct 16, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its more that I like Cedric Simmons because I have seen him play... and guess what... we need a long term big man, in case you didn't know.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think you do.

You openly admit you have no knowledge on the subject, yet post _dozens_ of posts in favor of Pietrus over "Swiss Guy". Why don't you simply NOT post on a subject you admittedly have no clue on, rather than argue with anyone and everyone excited about Thabo as our draft pick.

Don't worry, I know the answer, you enjoy the conflict and your pessimistic view on the Buls future.

I have to define "pans out"? It obviously meant a successful pick/good decision.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

Let's not be soooo up in arms that Paxson did NOT make this move. If our team looks shakey and is in need of something we can always go back and trade for Murphy and Pietrus. 

Having over 11 million in expiring contracts will allow the Bulls to make a move at the deadline to sure up some parts of the team if they have to.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Nope. An opinion is an opinion. Who am I to judge?
> 
> Blind "In Pax We Trust" is "ignorance is bliss" though, IMO.
> 
> Everyone is banking on Thabo to be very good. I'm just curious who has actually seen him play a basketball game. If you have, please point me to one I can watch. Thx.


So what if I told you that, in general, I trust Paxon's direction with this team?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Zeb said:


> You openly admit you have no knowledge on the subject, yet post _dozens_ of posts in favor of Pietrus over "Swiss Guy". Why don't you simply NOT post on a subject you admittedly have no clue on, rather than argue with anyone and everyone excited about Thabo as our draft pick.


I have has much of a clue as most of those who are excited.

I'm neutral, since I only have scouting reports and youtube videos. 

That being said, I think Pietrus/Murphy/Simmons is a better trio than OLD PJ/Swiss/Guy who Skiles will hate.

Swiss will have to be quite a player to change that. I hope he is. 

I’m looking forward to seeing the guy play as well, BTW. The mystery box is always exciting. The mystery box could be…. Anything. Let’s hope its not a night at the comedy club…. I’m leaning towards the speedboat right now.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> So what if I told you that, in general, I trust Paxon's direction with this team?


In general, I would have no opinion.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

2/3 of Murphy's offensive attempts last season were jumpshots, with an eFG of 40.2%

Worse than Songalia, Allen, and Harrington who all take over 60% of their attempts as jumpers too. (43.7%, 49.7%, and 46.3% eFG respectively). Stretch that defense Troy


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> We have plenty of defense. We broke the bank for a guy that brings nothing but defense.
> 
> Not in love with Troy Murphy... just think Deng/Murphy/Wallace looks better the Noc/Brown/Wallace in the starting lineup.


Plenty of defense? Defense is ALL about a team approach. You can't have 4 guys playing D and 1 not. That's not chemistry. That's individuality. The Bulls and Skiles are about team unity and teamwork.

Why did you flip flop Deng and Noc? To me Brown > Murphy on our team. He is a defensive player who is an efficient offensive player.

Murphy needs 11.3 shots per game and only scores 14 ppg.
Brown needs 7.3 shots per game and scores 9 ppg.
Where are those extra shots going to come from? Deng who doesn't get enough shots? Gordon who doesn't get enough shots?

You don't simply add his 5 ppg, you need to take those shots from other players.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> In general, I would have no opinion.


Gee k4e, you never have an opinion on ANYTHING! :biggrin:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

superdave said:


> 2/3 of Murphy's offensive attempts last season were jumpshots, with an eFG of 40.2%
> 
> Far worse than Songalia, Allen, and Harrington who all take over 60% of their attempts as jumpers too. (43.7%, 49.7%, and 46.3% eFG respectively). Stretch that defense Troy



Something tells me Skiles would not have him shooting the three as much. Take out the 3s and he shoots 47% last season.

Rebounds better than any of the players you listed, none of which shoot 3s.

PJ Brown took 70% jumpshots and his FG% was 46%. He averaged 0 3 point attempts per game.

And, obviously, Murphy grabs more rebounds.

http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2006/jh_ALL_REB.htm

And he's not ancient.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Murphy needs 11.3 shots per game and only scores 14 ppg.
> Brown needs 7.3 shots per game and scores 9 ppg.
> Where are those extra shots going to come from? Deng who doesn't get enough shots? Gordon who doesn't get enough shots?


Murphy would not be shooting the 3 ball as much. Murphy does not need to take all those 3s, I agree. But that's how the Warriors play.

Skiles would not have him doing that... is Murphy a problem child?

Something tells me the Warriors play at a higher pace than the Hornets (http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2006/o_pace.htm), so they way you are going about those shot attempts is off, IMO.

Murphy is a better rebounder. And he's not decrepit.

Meanwhile, we have Wallace grooming young Cedric Simmons and turning him into a nasty center.

Pietrus is the big guard.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

Haha, now we have posters who are talking up Murphy.

God knows if we would have traded for Murphy+Pietrus we would hear the same people knocking the deal. "We traded Chandler for a guy who sits outside and chucks 3pointers. A guy who has yet to play in a playoff game." 

Interesting crowd to say the least.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

remlover said:


> Haha, now we have posters who are talking up Murphy.



(Murphy/Pietrus/Simmons) > (Swiss/PJ/Guy who Skiles will hate)

Next season, and the seasons after that.

(based on neutral rating of Swiss)

http://www.draftexpress.com/viewprofile.php?p=280

Nice evaluation of him, but almost all their evaluations are glowing,


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

remlover said:


> Haha, now we have posters who are talking up Murphy.
> 
> God knows if we would have traded for Murphy+Pietrus we would hear the same people knocking the deal. "We traded Chandler for a guy who sits outside and chucks 3pointers. A guy who has yet to play in a playoff game."
> 
> Interesting crowd to say the least.


Have to agree.


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

I'm surprised that trade was on the table; Pietrus has always seemed like a ready solution to our need for a young, big defensive guard (which hopefully Thabo will also be). And, offensively, Murphy doesn't look entirely dissimilar to Rasheed, who teamed well with Ben... But to me the bold font in that snippet is on "because of the cap flexibility for next summer." That's not room under the luxury tax they're concerned with, thank goodness, if we are to believe Ford and Pax, which I guess I do. It's cap flexibility, as in, flexibility to do more things. After reading the cap guys' posts this past year I had given up on any chance of us having cap space in the relative bonanza that is the 2007 free agency period - so that's good, right?

I really don't think Pax is done. There's a lot of smoke around regarding more trades - particularly KG of course - as well as more free agent dealings to come. 

Pax: "Sometimes you can't do everything all at once. Down the road we'll be able to maybe make another move that helps us out even more.""

And I think maybe he's being coy. So why does Pax turn down clearly superior players like Al Harrington and Murphy/Pietrus in favor of alphabet soup in PJ and JR, plus impending cap space? Sure, we get leadership and jib and athleticism - but there is a decent likelihood neither one of these guys is on the team in 18 months. So just what is it Pax needs cap flexibility for? I'm going to try to reserve judgment until this string of moves plays out, which will likely be next summer, and try not to expect to understand everything completely at the moment it happens. And, until I see some of these guys, you know, play basketball or something. I think I trust Pax enough to do that, at least for a while. Exciting times. Go Pax.


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

If Cedric Simmons was a large chance of turning into a 'nasty center', he wouldn't have gone 15th.

No more or less of a marginal prospect than Sefolosha. I don't know this personally of course, but I would place a bit of faith in the various GMs that were hot on him just outside the lottery.


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

Edit - Well I realized that this isn't entirely on topic, but it's mainly to address the fact that Murphy/Pietrus would not have fit well on the Bulls (IMO).

A lot of people seem to misunderstand Murphy's game. Murphy is a strong 6'11" 4 and only 4 (he struggled immensely playing the 5 next to Diogu, perfect inside-outside game on paper). Offensively, Murphy's game is all jump shots. There is absolutely no back to the basket game with Murphy. The frustrating thing about Murphy's offensive game is that he will catch the ball on the elbow, about 17' from the basket, and jab step, pump fake, jab step, jab step, pump fake, and jab step again before stepping back for a jumper, that he tends to miss. This is almost always the case, unless the Warriors swing the ball around outside the arc to him and he takes a 3. His shooting ability is average, despite the fact that jump shots are his entire offensive game. He is a good offensive (and defensive) rebounder, however. He has mastered the art of tipping a rebound away from a defender, then tipping it again and catching it. Defensively, he is atrocious. He has very slow feet and in general lacks the athletic ability and smarts to be an effective man defender. Face-up forwards blow by him all the time. In terms of help defense, he's more or less nonexistent. He doesn't block shots, he doesn't alter shots, nor does he intimidate opponents. But I reiterate that he is a very, very good rebounder. In terms of talent, Murphy is superior to PJ Brown. But I'd rather have PJ Brown for his defense.

Also, I'd like to point out that Pietrus' career has been a roller coaster ride (as have my expectations for him). His rookie season, he played in about 10 games at the end of the season and sparked the Warriors for a winning record during that stretch. He played excellent defense and showed intensity and hustle (Musselman was the coach). He was very raw offensively. However, over time he has developed his offensive game. He is a good spot up shooter, but struggles to create for himself. He too frequently receives a pass, tries to drive, and turns the ball over or hoists up a bad shot. The term "black hole" isn't inaccurate for his play, at times, last season. He does have a tendency to nail 3s as a quarter/half ends. Defensively, he is rather inconsistent. Sometimes he is very aggressive, bodying up his man, and shutting down the offensive player (see Michael Redd, for one). However, he will sometimes go into stretches where he doesn't move his feet at all, which results in cheap fouls or breakdowns on defense. Pietrus has been a frustrating player, and IMO, he lacks the basketball IQ and instincts. I had high expectations for him, but I honestly don't see him developing into anything special or consistent. He is, however, still very young and has plenty of time to fulfill his potential.

In terms of pure talent, Murphy and Pietrus (and say, Simmons) trumps PJ Brown, JR Smith, and Thabo. But the second group not only fits the Bulls better (assuming everything about Thabo is more or less true) and provides salary relief in the near future.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> We have plenty of defense. We broke the bank for a guy that brings nothing but defense.
> 
> This is the reason why Murphy would be a decent, not ideal, better than Brown, guy to pair with Wallace. Murphy still crashes the boards and can keep the defense honest. I agree he's not a good defender. Thankfully we have plenty of other good defenders so the Bulls will be a net very good defenseive team.
> 
> ...


You'd better be in love with Murphy to want to take that deal on. Unless you're in favor of handing out 10 million dollar a year deals to okay players. I don't think that's a great strategy, personally.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> (Murphy/Pietrus/Simmons) > (Swiss/PJ/Guy who Skiles will hate)
> 
> Next season, and the seasons after that.
> 
> ...


Can you stop giving the guys you don't like cute nicknames in your player comps? Why don't we go with...

(One dimensional overpaid stiff/Pietrus/Question Mark) > (Swiss/PJ/Guy who Skiles will hate)?


----------



## LIBlue (Aug 17, 2002)

I do think there is one thing often overlooked about PJ Brown, and this trade. First, let me set the table:

First, the future of the Bulls at the Power Forward is going to be Tyrus Thomas. We had best hope he develops nicely.

Second, I would hope that with the Knick pick next year (I am assuming a 8 through 13 lottery pick), the Bulls could select a solid player to add depth at the PF or Center position.

Third, I think Paxson realized how much he missed the veteran leadership of Antonio Davis and Adrian Griffin.

Fourth, if the Bulls do win this year and advance a few rounds in the playoffs, and with the young nucleus, they will be a very desirable team for free agents, even at the MLE.

So, PJ Brown is stated to be a great locker room influence, and will likely be a much better teacher for Tyrus Thomas than Tyson Chandler. Chandler would view Thomas as a threat. Brown would view Thomas as a pupil. So for the long term development of Tyrus Thomas, Brown makes more sense.

After this year, we can resign Brown, or draft another young big, so the long-term loss of Chandler will be lessened.

PJ Brown and Ben Wallace both provide the vital leadership for a very young nucleus, and Wallace comes from a winning background. Installing a winning mentality/mindset is the most important objective for the Bulls in 2006.

PJ Brown also does provide some financial flexibility, and even if we cannot sign a free agent abouve the MLE, being able to resign the young nucleus will help in the free agency period. 

For these reasons, I prefer PJ Brown/JR Smith/Sebolosha to Troy Murphy/Pietrus/Cedric Simmons. Plus, I think Sebolosha has amazing upside, and fits a major need for the Bulls.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

FanOfAll8472 said:


> Edit - Well I realized that this isn't entirely on topic, but it's mainly to address the fact that Murphy/Pietrus would not have fit well on the Bulls (IMO).
> 
> A lot of people seem to misunderstand Murphy's game. Murphy is a strong 6'11" 4 and only 4 (he struggled immensely playing the 5 next to Diogu, perfect inside-outside game on paper). Offensively, Murphy's game is all jump shots. There is absolutely no back to the basket game with Murphy. The frustrating thing about Murphy's offensive game is that he will catch the ball on the elbow, about 17' from the basket, and jab step, pump fake, jab step, jab step, pump fake, and jab step again before stepping back for a jumper, that he tends to miss. This is almost always the case, unless the Warriors swing the ball around outside the arc to him and he takes a 3. His shooting ability is average, despite the fact that jump shots are his entire offensive game. He is a good offensive (and defensive) rebounder, however. He has mastered the art of tipping a rebound away from a defender, then tipping it again and catching it. Defensively, he is atrocious. He has very slow feet and in general lacks the athletic ability and smarts to be an effective man defender. Face-up forwards blow by him all the time. In terms of help defense, he's more or less nonexistent. He doesn't block shots, he doesn't alter shots, nor does he intimidate opponents. But I reiterate that he is a very, very good rebounder. In terms of talent, Murphy is superior to PJ Brown. But I'd rather have PJ Brown for his defense.
> 
> ...


Great post. Kudos.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

FanOfAll8472 said:


> Edit - Well I realized that this isn't entirely on topic, but it's mainly to address the fact that Murphy/Pietrus would not have fit well on the Bulls (IMO).
> 
> A lot of people seem to misunderstand Murphy's game. Murphy is a strong 6'11" 4 and only 4 (he struggled immensely playing the 5 next to Diogu, perfect inside-outside game on paper). Offensively, Murphy's game is all jump shots. There is absolutely no back to the basket game with Murphy. The frustrating thing about Murphy's offensive game is that he will catch the ball on the elbow, about 17' from the basket, and jab step, pump fake, jab step, jab step, pump fake, and jab step again before stepping back for a jumper, that he tends to miss. This is almost always the case, unless the Warriors swing the ball around outside the arc to him and he takes a 3. His shooting ability is average, despite the fact that jump shots are his entire offensive game. He is a good offensive (and defensive) rebounder, however. He has mastered the art of tipping a rebound away from a defender, then tipping it again and catching it. Defensively, he is atrocious. He has very slow feet and in general lacks the athletic ability and smarts to be an effective man defender. Face-up forwards blow by him all the time. In terms of help defense, he's more or less nonexistent. He doesn't block shots, he doesn't alter shots, nor does he intimidate opponents. But I reiterate that he is a very, very good rebounder. In terms of talent, Murphy is superior to PJ Brown. But I'd rather have PJ Brown for his defense.
> 
> ...


Magnificently stated...I only wish others could see the truth. We're getting better players for a much smaller price. It's beyond me why anyone would want Murphy locked in for 4 years! Talk about untradeable...if he was really that good, Mullin wouldn't be trying to trade him.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

jbulls said:


> You'd better be in love with Murphy to want to take that deal on. Unless you're in favor of handing out 10 million dollar a year deals to okay players. I don't think that's a great strategy, personally.


Actually K4E seems to be in love/hate relationship with Bulls' trade moves. 

I have yet to see the moves Bulls made that K4e doesn't hate.

And I have yet to see the moves Bulls didn't make that K4E don't love.

Hmm... hopeless case of love/hate relationship.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> Actually K4E seems to be in love/hate relationship with Bulls' trade moves.
> 
> I have yet to see the moves Bulls made that K4e doesn't hate.
> 
> ...


You'll note a common theme about k4e's posts -- they're all about the Bulls.

Most of your posts, however, are about other posters. That makes you a troll.

I'm sure you have some strong opinions about the team and its direction. Why not try joining the dialogue?


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

LIBlue said:


> I do think there is one thing often overlooked about PJ Brown, and this trade. First, let me set the table:
> 
> *First, the future of the Bulls at the Power Forward is going to be Tyrus Thomas.* We had best hope he develops nicely.


This is the bottom line in my opinion.

But the other argument is simply this: PJ Brown is league-known as the veteran rocksteady locker room presence. I don't think Paxson is underrating this quality, understanding that our locker room last year LACKED LEADERSHIP. Say what you want about how Hinrich is a great floor general, how Chandler brought emotion, how Duhon was wise beyond his years... there's no one that could bring the credibility or the leadership of either PJ OR Ben. We talked it up on this board quite a bit, what we lost in AD in terms of intangibles.

THAT is what we paid for: a year of leadership, performance, and tutelage for young guys. The salary benefits make the deal, but even without it, Troy Murphy isn't the guy that provides leadership or veteran experience.

If Tyrus Thomas is our future at PF (and we're really banking that he is), and also taking into consideration that Paxson is looking to invest into another big man (Wilcox or someone)... PJ Brown makes a whole lot more sense than Troy Murphy. Maybe you can say that putting some expectation on Tyrus Thomas (4th pick overall) and going out to S & T for a younger big man isn't a wise move, but if THAT is the strategy (and it certainly sounds like one), then the choice is clear.

Pietrus vs. JR Smith: JR is a great 3rd stringer. I don't know why there's an assumption that he's not going to play for Skiles. It's true that we might miss out on an athletic defender that's somewhat proven in this league in Pietrus, but I don't think that's a deal breaker.

It's a close call, but contract issues and a lack of leadership from Troy Murphy are deciding factors to me to take on PJ Brown instead.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ben Wallace is plenty of leadership.

He's the anchor... the AD leader who can be one of the best players on the team and has championship cred.


PJ Brown is likely a one year and out guy. Hinrich / Duhon / Wallace is a sound core of leadership. PJ's leadership is redundant. He's a flashlight to Wallace's superstar.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Ben Wallace is plenty of leadership.
> 
> He's the anchor... the AD leader who can be one of the best players on the team and has championship cred.
> 
> ...


Do you have any articles or quotes that suggest Wallace is a leader? Only thing I've heard about him is that he *****es about coaches. Also, his "leadership" did not seem to do too much for Darko who florished as soon as he left Detriot.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Ben Wallace is plenty of leadership.
> 
> He's the anchor... the AD leader who can be one of the best players on the team and has championship cred.
> 
> ...


And that suddenly makes PJ Brown's leadership completely useless? Who says you only need 1 leader?

Besides, if you took a poll around the league I'm pretty sure you'll fine Brown to be a superior leader and mentor. Ben Wallace leads by example...he's an anchor on the court, not sure about off the court. Brown is our AD for the upcoming year. His leadership ability is a positive aspect of this trade no matter how you look at it.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

yodurk said:


> And that suddenly makes PJ Brown's leadership completely useless? Who says you only need 1 leader?


What does Ben Wallace do to Tyson's rebounding/shot blocking?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Do you have any articles or quotes that suggest Wallace is a leader?


ESPN article called him the heart of a champion.

DPOY. Multiple time all-star.

Lead by Example.

Assistant coaches can be the hand-holders.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> ESPN article called him the heart of a champion.
> 
> DPOY. Multiple time all-star.
> 
> ...


So essentially every good player is, by definition, a leader.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Do you have any articles or quotes that suggest Wallace is a leader? Only thing I've heard about him is that he *****es about coaches. Also, his "leadership" did not seem to do too much for Darko who florished as soon as he left Detriot.


So that means we have to acquire another grizzled veteran leader to keep Wallace in line once P.J. Brown's gone? Is Tree Rollins available?

Jeez, I guess $60 million doesn't buy you what it used to. Chandler doesn't work out in the off-season; Wallace clashes with his last three coaches (for a variety of perceived injustices, some of them laughable), refuses to re-enter a game, and goes after his teammates/coach when the chips are down in a conference final. 

Very upsetting.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> So that means we have to acquire another grizzled veteran leader to keep Wallace in line once P.J. Brown's gone? Is Tree Rollins available?
> 
> Jeez, I guess $60 million doesn't buy you what it used to. Chandler doesn't work out in the off-season; Wallace clashes with his last three coaches (for a variety of perceived injustices, some of them laughable), refuses to re-enter a game, and goes after his teammates/coach when the chips are down in a conference final.
> 
> Very upsetting.


Wallace's lack of reputation as a AD like vocal leader was one reason I was against signing him. ADs contract/production ratio was a bit easier to swallow because of his leadership -- with Wallace it doesn't seem like that will be the case.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> What does Ben Wallace do to Tyson's rebounding/shot blocking?


Having 2 solid leaders = positive 

Having 2 players side-by-side who can't shoot outside 5 feet = questionable

I love the Ben Wallace signing, and I like Tyson, but even so I had some major concerns what our team would look like offensively if these guys were on the floor together. 

I was not in favor of making this particular trade, but I was in favor of trading Chandler to avoid this problem.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Having 2 solid leaders = positive
> 
> Having 2 players side-by-side who can't shoot outside 5 feet = questionable
> 
> ...


But do you really think PJ Brown is a significant upgrade offensively?


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

So, leaders must be vocal?

Well, then, can we dust off Jack Haley? He can reincarnate his prior role, now we have another Dennis Rodman like player from Detroit. Problem solved, he-he. Where is he,these days, at Redondo Beach, catching a wave with Jud Buschler?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> But do you really think PJ Brown is a significant upgrade offensively?


If he gets those wide-open 15-foot Js, he could be.

But then you realize that he's played with Tim Hardaway and Baron Davis and Chris Paul for so long, all much better drive, draw, and kick PGs than what we've got, and you wonder how many of those he's going to get.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> So essentially every good player is, by definition, a leader.


I wonder if Paxson and Skiles would classify Ben Wallace as a leader.

What do you think?

I thinkey YES.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> But do you really think PJ Brown is a significant upgrade offensively?


Yes and no.

Yes, because defenders can't leave him alone from 15-feet in, and that helps spread the floor. He's also an excellent FT shooter (nice to have down the stretch of games), and a smart team-oriented player. A career assist-per-turnover of 1.6/1.25 is very good for a big man. There's also the intangibles that Tyson did not possess, such as setting good picks, etc. 

No, because he's not a high volume shooter, you might never see him dribble the ball and drive, he doesn't really post up or add a new dimension that we're lacking. So the big question is, how significant of a upgrade. At the very least, I know it's an upgrade.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> If he gets those wide-open 15-foot Js, he could be.
> 
> But then you realize that he's played with Tim Hardaway and Baron Davis and Chris Paul for so long, all much better drive, draw, and kick PGs than what we've got, and you wonder how many of those he's going to get.


Brown's career high (11.4) was 8 season ago. Chandler's career high (8.0) was one season ago. There's not really a substantial upgrade there.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> If he gets those wide-open 15-foot Js, he could be.
> 
> But then you realize that he's played with Tim Hardaway and Baron Davis and Chris Paul for so long, all much better drive, draw, and kick PGs than what we've got, and you wonder how many of those he's going to get.


With how well we run the pick-and-roll, and with how often Skiles likes to utilize that play, I would think Brown gets a good handful of looks every game.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

yodurk said:


> Having 2 solid leaders = positive
> 
> Having 2 players side-by-side who can't shoot outside 5 feet = questionable
> 
> ...


What about beyond this debateable year of a better fit? Is nothing preferable to Chandler? The logic that the trade is good because PJ will supposedly be a good fit next to Wallace is pretty short sighted.

The only time I can see a one year rental move being justifiable is if the move brings a championship. And I'm sorry no way do you win a title with 37 year old PJ as your starter, unless you have Tim Duncan next to him.

Beyond this year, it simply indefensible unless there actually is cap space and it is used to get a legit third big man, preferably one who could possibly be groomed to succeed Wallace as center, which is what we gave up in Chandler.

I don't know if you're going to get a big guy that good or better with the MLE, unless its a McDyess type situation where there are serious concerns and risks surrounding signing him.

The 07' pick could fill that bill, but I'd like to not be in a situation of drafting for need as opposed to looking for the best player available.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I wonder if Paxson and Skiles would classify Ben Wallace as a leader.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> I thinkey YES.


Everything I know about Ben Wallace, other than not always liking his coach, points to an unequivocal YES as a leader.

And while I can't say Ben and Scott will never clash, I do think Wallace is Skiles' kind of player, and Skiles is Wallace's kind of coach.

I think Ben is going to thrive under this system.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> What about beyond this debateable year of a better fit? Is nothing preferable to Chandler? The logic that the trade is good because PJ will supposedly be a good fit next to Wallace is pretty short sighted.
> 
> The only time I can see a one year rental move being justifiable is if the move brings a championship. And I'm sorry no way do you win a title with 37 year old PJ as your starter, unless you have Tim Duncan next to him.
> 
> ...


It's a legit concern, but I think it's also short-sighted to assume we won't be able to fill the starting PF slot after next season. The way I see it, there are several options:

a) Use MLE to sign a replacement - likely a vet looking to join a good team, ala McDyess, Donyell Marshall, guys like that
b) Tyrus Thomas starts to explode toward the end of his rookie year and is ready to start in year 2
c) Our swapped 1st rounder turns into an NBA ready player
d) PJ Brown chooses to re-sign on the cheap for another 1-2 seasons

And that doesn't even consider trade options. I think one of these things could easily happen next summer, and if they do, we're in good shape.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> You'll note a common theme about k4e's posts -- they're all about the Bulls.
> 
> Most of your posts, however, are about other posters. That makes you a troll.
> 
> I'm sure you have some strong opinions about the team and its direction. Why not try joining the dialogue?


Sure I comment on poster but when that is related to his whole posts, isn't it valid? 

Of course evrybody is entitled to his opinion and that is what make the board interesting. But hang around here and you happened to notice the general feel of posts from each posters no matter how they put it on the paper. One sentence or long, long analysis after analysis.

Maybe K4E, you Scottmay and MikeDC to a degree have been all quite right and I was naive to follow the company line as you guys put.

But that doesn't prevent all these doomsday posts from being tiresome either.

For certain posters Paxon can't do one single right it seems. And that is the fact. Whether I am a troll as you stated or not.

I am happier than ever with the current state of my beloved Bulls and predict that it will only get better with another cap space available and free agency next year, let alone NY pick.

I am just having a hard time why there are so many negative tone in some of posts and guess what? They are mostly from the same posters predicting doomsday from the moment Paxon got his job or the same ones calling for the end of the time after Curry fiasco.

I am just pointing that obvious trend and happened to mention K4E's name while doing that. If that is offensive to some, my aplogy.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

My frustration with the Chandler trade comes mostly out of what I feel our roster needs. I still feel we need a post scorer. I think we can handle most centers in the league with 6' 9" Wallace, 6' 11" Brown, and 6' 10" Allen, although I still think this leaves us a little short. I'd like one more big man who is at least 6' 10" and who can really score in the post, and not just jumpers. That's what this trade didn't give us that I wanted. That's why I'm somewhat concerned.

I know Murphy isn't exactly the guy I described, but at least he can score. On our roster right now, we have nobody who plays power forward or center (other than 6' 7" Nocioni) who averaged more than 10 points in the NBA this year. Thomas did it, but not in the league. If he can actually score this year, we might be in great shape, but I'm not expecting too much. 

ScottMay made a comment a few days back that we had 20 million dollars in cap room, and with that rare resource, we did not acknowledge our lack of post scoring. I agree, but in looking back, I can see why it happened. Paxson wanted to improve our length, our athleticism, and our professionalism, and he did it. I FIRMLY expect to have a considerably better record this year. I would be shocked if this team wasn't much improved as it is presently organized. That being said, I still want post scoring, and I'd like if I didn't have to wait until the draft of '07 to get it.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I love Pietrus' game but we already have Thado and they seem to be very similar players and Troy Murphy is someone pax and skiles would never want. And his contract is a mess. GS has been trying to give him away for the last year and a half. I would much rather have Brown and his contract that comes off the books and Smith who we can trade than Murphy. We all have to remember we have the knicks pick next year (i assume it will be a lotto) and KH to sign next year and then deng and BG the year after that. The last thing we need is someone like Murphy who will not be a starter but is making 10 million a year.

david


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

yodurk said:


> It's a legit concern, but I think it's also short-sighted to assume we won't be able to fill the starting PF slot after next season. The way I see it, there are several options:
> 
> a) Use MLE to sign a replacement - likely a vet looking to join a good team, ala McDyess, Donyell Marshall, guys like that
> b) Tyrus Thomas starts to explode toward the end of his rookie year and is ready to start in year 2
> ...


I'm not too worried about the starting PF. It seems Pax is setting things up so the way is clear sooner than later for Tyrus to step up in the slot, and just as I did in the case of the draft, I'll defer to Pax's judgement. Though it would be nice to have some insurance.

The idea of banking on PJ for additional years is exponentially more distasteful to me than is the idea we're going to do so this year.

I'm really looking at the need for a third good legit big, like the role McDyess plays with the Pistons, and the role Tyson played with us in 04-05. I don't know if getting anyone with as high a quality is that likely with the MLE. McDyess was in a unique situation. Players like Tyson get overpaid like crazy. 

The 07 pick probably will be a better player than Tyson, but it might not be a player who is a bigman.

I don't think Tyson was that good, but I do think he's a guy who can play an important role off the bensh in 25ish minutes. And it was somewhat possible he could've developed and stepped into the center slot once Wallace is gone or diminished.

The reason this trade is bad is because unlike the Curry and Crawford trades, this trade creates a hole, but it might not create any avenues to upgrade or replace the player being traded. I still like the way things are going, but I think havin Chandler would have been preferable.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> Sure I comment on poster but when that is related to his whole posts, isn't it valid?


No, it's not. Stick to talking about hoops.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> ScottMay made a comment a few days back that we had 20 million dollars in cap room, and with that rare resource, we did not acknowledge our lack of post scoring. I agree, but in looking back, I can see why it happened. Paxson wanted to improve our length, our athleticism, and our professionalism, and he did it. I FIRMLY expect to have a considerably better record this year. I would be shocked if this team wasn't much improved as it is presently organized. That being said, I still want post scoring, and I'd like if I didn't have to wait until the draft of '07 to get it.


I am very happy that after three-odd years, we finally landed what looks to be a quality role-playing big 2, though.

I actually don't care about the "post" part of "post scoring," which is why I was so high on Bargnani (who had an impressive summer league opener). I just want a 4/5 who can score, period, but a lot more efficiently than someone like Murphy, and not always need someone else to get him his shot.

I truly and firmly believe that until we land a 4/5 who can average 20 ppg over the course of a big playoff series, or bust out a 30 point game here and there, it will severely limit how far the team can go. If our guards' jumpers are falling and we're getting good scoring from Deng and Nocioni, we can probably hang with anyone. But we need a frontcourt guy who can pick up the slack and take some of the pressure off on the bad nights.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I am very happy that after three-odd years, we finally landed what looks to be a quality role-playing big 2, though.
> 
> I actually don't care about the "post" part of "post scoring," which is why I was so high on Bargnani (who had an impressive summer league opener). I just want a 4/5 who can score, period, but a lot more efficiently than someone like Murphy, and not always need someone else to get him his shot.
> 
> I truly and firmly believe that until we land a 4/5 who can average 20 ppg over the course of a big playoff series, or bust out a 30 point game here and there, it will severely limit how far the team can go. If our guards' jumpers are falling and we're getting good scoring from Deng and Nocioni, we can probably hang with anyone. But we need a frontcourt guy who can pick up the slack and take some of the pressure off on the bad nights.


Yeah, Thabo sounds great. Now he better actually be great. I'm so looking forward to streaming those summer league games. Now what was Garcia talking about when he said we were holding off signing their contracts until Wednesday? I can't imagine they'll play in summer league unless they've signed deals.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Yeah, Thabo sounds great. Now he better actually be great. I'm so looking forward to streaming those summer league games. Now what was Garcia talking about when he said we were holding off signing their contracts until Wednesday? I can't imagine they'll play in summer league unless they've signed deals.


Reportedly, they will be holding off on signing deals so the Bulls can remain under the cap and complete the trades.

They are procuring insurance which will allow them to play in summer league.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Reportedly, they will be holding off on signing deals so the Bulls can remain under the cap and complete the trades.
> 
> They are procuring insurance which will allow them to play in summer league.


Haven't the Bulls always waited as long as humanly possible to sign draft picks, even going back to the Krause years?


----------



## LIBlue (Aug 17, 2002)

Long-term versus short-term? Intersting debate ...

Tyrus Thomas is the long-term PF, whether we like it or not. So the question is simple - who will help Thomas develop at the Power Forward position? Brown will be mentor, more or a student-pupil relationship. Chandler could easily be a tormentor, viewing Thomas as a compeitive threat, and would be less likely to help develop the kid. Plus 13 years in the NBA is infinitely more expereince than Tyson could provide. That is vital.

Ben Wallace is not the guy I would want schooling Thomas on the offensive game. Defensive intensity and rebounding, yes, but not on the other aspects.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Reportedly, they will be holding off on signing deals so the Bulls can remain under the cap and complete the trades.
> 
> They are procuring insurance which will allow them to play in summer league.


Do draft picks really not act as cap holds before they're signed?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Haven't the Bulls always waited as long as humanly possible to sign draft picks, even going back to the Krause years?


Yes, but there does seem to be an actual reason for it this year. We need to be under the cap to complete the trade. Also, as mentioned in another thread, if we are under cap and a trade comes up that involves one or more of our recent acquisitions, we have the ability to onclude them in a trade package, which we could not do if we are over the cap.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Do draft picks really not act as cap holds before they're signed?



Yeah, it looks like you are right.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm



> 14. Exactly what is included when computing total team salaries?
> 
> When determining team salaries (for example, to determine whether a team is over the salary cap), the following are included:
> Salaries of all active and inactive players, including likely bonuses.
> ...


Now I'm kinda confused. Maybe it is just foot dragging.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I am very happy that after three-odd years, we finally landed what looks to be a quality role-playing big 2, though.
> 
> I actually don't care about the "post" part of "post scoring," which is why I was so high on Bargnani (who had an impressive summer league opener). I just want a 4/5 who can score, period, but a lot more efficiently than someone like Murphy, and not always need someone else to get him his shot.
> 
> I truly and firmly believe that until we land a 4/5 who can average 20 ppg over the course of a big playoff series, or bust out a 30 point game here and there, it will severely limit how far the team can go. If our guards' jumpers are falling and we're getting good scoring from Deng and Nocioni, we can probably hang with anyone. But we need a frontcourt guy who can pick up the slack and take some of the pressure off on the bad nights.


I pretty much agree with all that. Especially the post scoring comments. Frankly I don't care whether or not we have a guy who does his scoring in the post; I just want an efficient frontcourt scorer, period.

To really go all the way, we do probably need a more consistent scoring threat at the 4 or 5 than what we currently have. That's why I'm hesitant to call our current squad a contender. I think we're near-contenders, ala Cleveland last year, good for 50 wins and maybe a bit more. But for the next and final step, I would at least like to see someone who can provide close to 15 ppg without much hassle. If that guy isn't Thomas, maybe that player comes in next year's draft. Or maybe via consolidation trade.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

yodurk said:


> But for the next and final step, I would at least like to see someone who can provide close to 15 ppg without much hassle. If that guy isn't Thomas, maybe that player comes in next year's draft. Or maybe via consolidation trade.


cough cough troy murphy cough cough

Not the "FINAL STEP" as in a star but he was available and would fit in and play this role OK.

I just don't think we're going to be going after Gooden or Wilcox. I'd rather Gooden, but I think Pax is done for now. I agree this team is one decent, in their prime player away from making some real noise before Ben Wallace starts declining.

With Wallace and Murphy, we'd have two of the top 12 rebounders in the league in the starting lineup. We'd own the boards. OWN THEM!!!!!!


----------



## Zeb (Oct 16, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> cough cough troy murphy cough cough
> 
> Not the "FINAL STEP" as in a star but he was available and would fit in and play this role OK.
> 
> ...


Out of curiosity, I checked some of your quotes on Murphy before it was obvious Pax isn't trading for him.



> Murphy? Blah. Does not make a difference, IMO.





> Back to the trade... Troy Murphy is a meaningless player.





> Not a big fan of Murphy.


Now you're his biggest fan, what gives?


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Zeb said:


> Out of curiosity, I checked some of your quotes on Murphy before it was obvious Pax isn't trading for him.
> 
> Now you're his biggest fan, what gives?


What do you get out of posting on a message board, Zeb? It might be different than some others. :angel:


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

Electric Slim said:


> What do you get out of posting on a message board, Zeb? It might be different than some others. :angel:


What are you trying to insinuate? Questioning his motives?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Zeb said:


> Now you're his biggest fan, what gives?


I've said in this thread that I'm not a big Troy Murphy fan as well. I'm far from his biggest fan. Heck, if you bothered to read the thread, I think I've said this several times.

He's just not a complete stiff and I'd rather him on the team than PJ Brown. And I'd rather have the package of Murphy/Pietrus/Simmons over Safolosha/Guy who won't play for Skiles/PJ.

Oftentimes, people would talk about trading for Murphy giving up one of the core players or sacrificing Cap Space for him.... but now that Cap Space was really a Wallace for Chandler swap, I would not mind taking him on. I'm done waiting on Cap Space.

He's better than PJ Brown and if we want to maximize Wallace we should try to make the team as good as possible right now.

If not, we'll just build for the future and Wallace will be the AD role if we contend.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Yeah, it looks like you are right.
> 
> http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm
> 
> ...



Well, in the old CBA, the cap hold was 100% of the draft pick's scaled salary. Teams have the ability to pay 20% more than that scaled salary and I can't can't think of one time a team didn't do that. 

Since we are under the cap, paying out rookies that 120% now could matter w/ signings and/or trades. So once the Chandler and Wallace signings go through, I would imagine they would sign soon after. 

I am fairly positive this still holds true in the new CBA.


----------



## Zeb (Oct 16, 2005)

remlover said:


> What are you trying to insinuate? Questioning his motives?


Never


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I've said in this thread that I'm not a big Troy Murphy fan as well. I'm far from his biggest fan. Heck, if you bothered to read the thread, I think I've said this several times.
> 
> He's just not a complete stiff and I'd rather him on the team than PJ Brown. And I'd rather have the package of Murphy/Pietrus/Simmons over Safolosha/Guy who won't play for Skiles/PJ.
> 
> ...


We'll just choose to disagree here. I think PJ is a way better fit for the short term and the cap space is useful for the long term. Fans don't have to root for the suits but the further they are away from the luxury tax, the more likely JR will be ready to dole out the cash to our RFA's that will deserve it and keep this team going. Finances are inevitable so I'd rather be happy about choosing a way to make it work than to just be really sour when we let a star walk away for nothing.

It's the bolded statement that most reveals the difference between what you think and what many of us think. Ben Wallace coming to our team does NOT shorten our window, in my opinion. He enables us to be a contender for several seasons and brings an attitude and culture to the team that outlasts his contributions to the court, and while not a "tutor" per se, but he sets the standard of what is necessary for Tyrus Thomas and other forwards to become. If Big Ben is still getting 7 points and 10 rebounds with 1.6 bpg and a steal when he's 35 (very reasonable numbers, and I actually expect much better from him), and Tyrus Thomas can't get the boards or play the defense, then he won't deserve to be on the court. He'll know this and work in those areas, as WELL as add the offensive game that is inherently better than Ben's. This is the value of Ben Wallace, and the 4 years works out perfectly since Tyrus Thomas, will be up for an extension in three years, which doesn't give him all that much time before he has to put his performance on the court.

And the thread is huge, so I apologize if I missed your reasoning, but why do you keep insisting that JR Smith won't play for Skiles? I mean he's not the jibbiest guy out there but having problems with Byron Scott doesn't mean that you're uncoachable by any means. From what I hear of Scott, he plays favorites big time. JR Smith is still a young player that can work on his game in a lot of ways, and I don't think he's so rebellious yet that he can't be coached. He'll be one of the youngest players on the team and unlike Tim Thomas, come in without any reason to feel entitled to anything.

And most importantly, assuming Thabo's a quality backup at least, whatever guard comes in through the trade would have to be battling for backup minutes. Pietrus as our third-string guard doesn't seem that appealing, as he's griped plenty about his playing time in GS as well.

I definitely concede that Murphy and Pietrus are more talent, but I don't agree with more talent being the most important thing in building a winning team. Paxson has proven that in the last two years, I feel. I hate to open a can of worms, but... Jalen Rose, Eddy Curry, Jamal Crawford... how many wins did they get last season? How many playoff games in the last two years? Yet they were considered the most talented guys on the squad two and a half seasons ago.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

And with respect to leadership, Marlene adds:



> Wallace probably won't be a vocal leader, but the younger players will get guidance from Brown, 36.
> 
> Thomas, 19, the rookie from Louisiana State, should benefit the most from Brown's 13 years in the NBA. Thomas and Brown are from Louisiana and have worked out together in New Orleans, Thomas said.
> 
> "I probably would have been doing some workouts with P.J. this summer if I had stayed in school," Thomas said. "It's not a tight relationship, but we're very familiar with each other."


http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...ul07,1,3241156.story?coll=cs-basketball-print


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

Showtyme said:


> And with respect to leadership, Marlene adds:
> 
> 
> 
> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...ul07,1,3241156.story?coll=cs-basketball-print


 This is true. Ben Wallace has been reported to be a more lead-by-example type guy, than a vocal leader. Billups was the vocal leader of the Pistons, just as Brown and Hinrich will be vocal leader of the Bulls. But Ben Wallace's actions speak for him as a leader.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

FanOfAll8472 said:


> But Ben Wallace's actions speak for him as a leader.


You mean like how he's clashed mightily with every coach he's ever played for and thrown them under the bus in the media and the locker room? Over laughable "grievances" like their not running plays for him? 

Or how he showed leadership by refusing to re-enter a game when the coach asked him to?

Or how he completely bailed on the team and turned on his coaches when the going got rough in the Pistons' last two playoff series?

Or how, by outward appearances, he's done nothing over the course of his career to correct a very correctable flaw, a flaw that probably singlehandedly loses his team a handful of games every year? 

Look, I'm not saying there aren't things a young pup can learn from Wallace -- namely, how to keep yourself in optimal physical shape 365 days a year. But people are just blithely glossing over a LOT of negatives he brings to the table. I mean, frankly, I'd just as soon he take a vow of silence whenever Tyrus is within earshot.


----------



## Zeb (Oct 16, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> You mean like how he's clashed mightily with every coach he's ever played for and thrown them under the bus in the media and the locker room? Over laughable "grievances" like their not running plays for him?
> 
> Or how he showed leadership by refusing to re-enter a game when the coach asked him to?
> 
> ...


You championing jib now?


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> You mean like how he's clashed mightily with every coach he's ever played for and thrown them under the bus in the media and the locker room? Over laughable "grievances" like their not running plays for him?


The only coach I recall him clashing with was Saunders. Even Detroit media said after the season that it was overblown by the example you used below, when he refused to re-enter the game against the Magic, which was definitely not a representative of leadership.



> Or how he completely bailed on the team and turned on his coaches when the going got rough in the Pistons' last two playoff series?


Really? Did you miss Game 6? Ben Wallace played a pivotal role that game. His energy and intensity was definitely there in Game 6. Sure he didn't show up in Game 7, but who did? Only Rip did, sort of. 



> Or how, by outward appearances, he's done nothing over the course of his career to correct a very correctable flaw, a flaw that probably singlehandedly loses his team a handful of games every year?


Free throw shooting? Well he has worked on shooting in general. Yes, he is still hilariously bad, but he has good form and knocks down a jumper every couple of games. He worked on his post game, too. That's one of the great things about Larry Brown (despite his off the court prima donna antics) - he had his players work on their weaknesses. For some, it showed more than others (Rip's passing, Tayshaun's post game), but if you watched Ben closely over the years, he began to show a sweeping hook and occasional jump shot under Brown.



> Look, I'm not saying there aren't things a young pup can learn from Wallace -- namely, how to keep yourself in optimal physical shape 365 days a year. But people are just blithely glossing over a LOT of negatives he brings to the table. I mean, frankly, I'd just as soon he take a vow of silence whenever Tyrus is within earshot.


Well there are no doubt many negatives that Wallace brings to a team. Most obvious is that he's an offensive liability. But he's still a big addition to the team.

That was a bit OT, sorry, but I do believe PJ Brown is a wonderful fit with Ben Wallace. Even if Wallace does have off-court problems, Brown is a 37 year old, vocal veteran who, if history continues its course, will help set things straight. But of course, most of this is academic, considering neither I nor most of us here have access to the lockerroom, team bus/plane, and practices.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Zeb said:


> You championing jib now?


Not at all . . . just keeping things at least loosely tethered to reality around here.

There are certain parts of Wallace's approach to the game that I wouldn't want emulated by any young player. PaxSkiles gets some points for relaxing the jib restriction.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> It's the bolded statement that most reveals the difference between what you think and what many of us think. Ben Wallace coming to our team does NOT shorten our window, in my opinion. He enables us to be a contender for several seasons and brings an attitude and culture to the team that outlasts his contributions to the court, and while not a "tutor" per se, but he sets the standard of what is necessary for Tyrus Thomas and other forwards to become. If Big Ben is still getting 7 points and 10 rebounds with 1.6 bpg and a steal when he's 35 (very reasonable numbers, and I actually expect much better from him), and Tyrus Thomas can't get the boards or play the defense, then he won't deserve to be on the court. He'll know this and work in those areas, as WELL as add the offensive game that is inherently better than Ben's. This is the value of Ben Wallace, and the 4 years works out perfectly since Tyrus Thomas, will be up for an extension in three years, which doesn't give him all that much time before he has to put his performance on the court.


Listen, I buy all this, re the value of Ben Wallace long term. 

The thing is, I've been sold Cap Space for 3 years. Three years of sacrificing talent in the name of Cap Space. Three years of blowing up, more rookie jitters, regressions, failed playoff guarantees, blah blah blah.

Cap Space was supposed to result in a contending team. A contender for the NBA title. Soon. Sorry, I just don't see the horses on this squad to tangle with Miami, Dallas, San Antonio, Phoenix and the like. Not yet. Maybe TT or Thabo will be special right out of the gate, but probably not, especially with TT. Could happen though. But, this isn't THE YEAR. Cap Space was supposed to bring in an elite player as an ADDITION, not part of a SWAP (Chandler dumped) and yet another Cap Space promise. This was supposed to be the year the promises for the future end. This was supposed to be the completion of the Paxson vision. Now I’m being told another few years by many. The Knicks being unexpectedly bad is the only thing keeping that window open for the future, thank goodness for that, otherwise we'd be hosed going forward, in terms of winning a title.



> but why do you keep insisting that JR Smith won't play for Skiles? I mean he's not the jibbiest guy out there but having problems with Byron Scott doesn't mean that you're uncoachable by any means.


I hope you are right. All I know about this guy is that he had issues with his previous team, who was happy to dump him, his YouTube video proclaims his thunderous dunks and hand jestures after shots made an assult on "white america" and that he likes to be on sportscenter more than winning games. He's going to have to have a *serious* attitude adjustment to see eye to eye with Skiles. And, we have Hinrich, Duhon, Gordon, Thabo.... all ahead of him. Something tells me New Orleans made us take him. He'll be our Frank Williams / Tim Thomas ..... I hope I'm wrong... he certainly has talent. 




> And most importantly, assuming Thabo's a quality backup at least, whatever guard comes in through the trade would have to be battling for backup minutes. Pietrus as our third-string guard doesn't seem that appealing, as he's griped plenty about his playing time in GS as well.


I was talking about drafting Cedric Simmons over Thabo. Murphy/Pietrus/Simmons > Brown/Thabo/Smith ... IMO.



> I definitely concede that Murphy and Pietrus are more talent, but I don't agree with more talent being the most important thing in building a winning team. Paxson has proven that in the last two years, I feel.


We have plenty of leadership. Hinrich. Duhon. Wallace. Even Nocioni. The jib is strong. Murphy, Pietrus and Simmons are not JR Smith style punks from what I've read. Skiles is the coach, the captains of the team help enforce the policy and the assistant coachs do the hand holding. We don't need an AD anymore.... and Wallace is more than enough of a lead by example type for Tyrus. If Tyrus has the jib inside him, he'll think Ben Wallace is a God.



> I hate to open a can of worms, but... Jalen Rose, Eddy Curry, Jamal Crawford... how many wins did they get last season? How many playoff games in the last two years? Yet they were considered the most talented guys on the squad two and a half seasons ago.


The best season the Bulls have had since MJ was with Eddy Curry as our leading scorer and getting the 2nd most MPG. Rose is done, IMO, but could be a good role guy on a decent team. Crawford got the stamp of approval from Larry Brown, that's good enough for me that he can play "the right way." I have a hard time slamming Channing Frye and David Lee as well, just because the Knicks are losing. We've seen with Elton, Artest and Miller, who were on a team worse than the Rose Bulls, that winning players can lead very bad teams.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Zeb said:


> You championing jib now?


What do you get out of posting on a message board, Zeb? It might be different than some others. :angel:


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Listen, I buy all this, re the value of Ben Wallace long term.
> 
> The thing is, I've been sold Cap Space for 3 years. Three years of sacrificing talent in the name of Cap Space. Three years of blowing up, more rookie jitters, regressions, failed playoff guarantees, blah blah blah.
> 
> ...


All good responses. 

To be clear, adding Ben Wallace is a direct result of the Cap Space. Making the PJ Brown move is to balance out the move, but the move wouldn't have been possible at all if not for the Cap Space. So it might seem frustrating, but consider this. Wallace, with all his flaws or redundancy, is the best player available in free agency. We spent all the Cap Space we got to grab the best player available, and we got him. Trading away a younger, redundant, largely unproven expensive player under contract for only one extra year means that we've upgraded that position with experience.

I don't think that Cap Space has been twisted to disappoint you. In other words, you seem frustrated that this Cap Space, supposedly the savior of the franchise, isn't doing enough to put us into that Finals contending status because we're losing pieces to try and balance the finances. But I don't think keeping Chandler or trading him for Murphy/Pietrus really put us into championship contending status. The fact is, anything short of a superstar "consolidation" trade keeps us out of that Finals mentality. I'm of the camp that hopes we can get there without one, but if I were to put myself in your shoes, nothing short of a legit proven star would really satisfy me.

Your difference on opinion about the draft picks is just a matter of opinion, and the proof will be in the pudding in a year or so. I'm big on Thabo but my pre-draft disposition still thinks Brewer will be a safer and possibly better pick. Tyrus Thomas is the freak we need but I would have rather had Aldridge, the consummate support big that would give us a longer version of the young AD. We'll both see what happens with the kids from this draft. Some will exceed expectations; others will fall terribly short.

That last part about great players being able to be on a terrible team also considers a converse statement: a lot of times just solid players can translate into a winning team. This is the hope that I cling to, that adding the right pieces up front and keeping the core in the backcourt will lead to a WINNING squad, even a championship-quality squad. 

A lot of times people might compare our team to Memphis: a solid team of a collection of good players that play together and focus on defense but always fall short in the playoffs. I think that we already have more talent than Memphis, although no star like Gasol, and more FUTURE young talent that can blossom than Memphis (their best young player was Hakim Warrick, leading them to trade a proven core wing, Battier, for huge upside gamble in Gay). We are not going to be the "next" Memphis; we're way ahead of them, because we have the potential to not only trade assets for a star, but GROW one out of the guys on our team.


----------



## LIBlue (Aug 17, 2002)

**


----------



## LIBlue (Aug 17, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Listen, I buy all this, re the value of Ben Wallace long term.
> 
> The thing is, I've been sold Cap Space for 3 years. Three years of sacrificing talent in the name of Cap Space. Three years of blowing up, more rookie jitters, regressions, failed playoff guarantees, blah blah blah.
> 
> ...


First, the Kincks were the second worst team in the NBA with Curry and Crawford on the roster, and it was a vateren team with the highest pay role in the league. So they did not help that franchise. Plus, if we use Larry Brown as the stamp of approval for Crawford, then it hurts Curry. He averaged 25.9 minutes per game, but during April (11 games), his minutes decline to under 22 per game. Larry Brown was so unimpressed, he was cutting back his minutes. It could be the .3 assist to 2.49 turnovers per game ratio. It is nice to have an inside-out game, but Curry has always had trouble passing out of the post. Hell, the rookie Channing Frye had a better season than Curry, with a 12.83 efficiency rating (# 109 overall) versus 12.43 (# 114 overall) for Curry. By the way, PJ Brown has a 13.03 Efficiency Rating (# 103 overall) and Ben Wallace had a 18.49 Efficiency Rating (# 44 overall).

Now, if you look at Crawford, he has improved. But, his Efficiency Rating was 13.02 (# 104 overall), which was behind Hinrich (16.40; # 62), Deng (15.53; # 70), Nocioni (14.22; # 85). He was ahead of Gordon (12.31; # 118 overall). Plus, Curry, Crawford and Chandler would have a cap impact of close to $30MM. Ouch.


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

Bottom line, k4e, Paxson has done a the best job of an GM in building/rebuilding a franchise in the last 5 or so years without having been handed a saviour on a platter. There is no free agent or draft pick that he has passed up that has performed markedly superior to any of his signings/picks, and those who may marginally have (some may argue say, Howard over Hinrich, Iggy over Deng _for example_) would not have delivered contendership. Paxson's strike rate of success would be as a high, if not higher, than the GMs of the franchises listed that you hope to contend with.

I do understand, as a fan of a historically succesful sporting franchise, the level of expectation and scrutiny that every move will deliver and be subject to, respectively. I have done the exact same thing, with my teams in other sports. But your franchise is the envy of every other one that, as I said, hasn't been handed their status basically on a platter. Does that not count for something?


----------

