# It's Corie Blount



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...s/cs-020730bulls.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by *ScottMay *
> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...s/cs-020730bulls.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


Corie B is a Bull again...

I love the fact he's a good defender and rebounder. We can never get enough of that if you ask me, especially in the paint.

Does this mean Fizer is buried even further on the bench? Or does Blount get some minutes at C, and not just PF (assuming TC starts)?


VD


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I'd guess that either Blount or Tyson get more minutes at center.

At this point, I'm guessing our frontcourt rotation is something like:

Center - Curry 30, Chandler 18
Power Forward - Chandler 12, Fizer 26, Blount 10


----------



## HJHJR (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by *Mikedc *
> I'd guess that either Blount or Tyson get more minutes at center.
> 
> At this point, I'm guessing our frontcourt rotation is something like:
> ...


I disagree. Both Fizer and Bagaric have been replaced. Blount was not signed to play 10 minutes per game. When Fizer and Bags were on the floor together last year our interior defense and rebounding suffered greatly. Blount should make a positive difference in those two areas. Both Fizer and Bags are now eminently available for trades.


----------



## blkwdw13 (Jun 12, 2002)

I think we can get a third rounder for Bags, I'd be fine with that trade also it would help the Bulls a lot.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by *HJHJR *
> 
> 
> I disagree. Both Fizer and Bagaric have been replaced. Blount was not signed to play 10 minutes per game. When Fizer and Bags were on the floor together last year our interior defense and rebounding suffered greatly. Blount should make a positive difference in those two areas. Both Fizer and Bags are now eminently available for trades.


First, if we were looking for a guy to play heavy minutes, I'm sickened that Blount is the guy we picked. He's a one year, veteran minimum player. 10 minutes a game is kind of an "ideal", if everyone is healthy. In reality, his average mpg will be higher, given that he'll play more when other guys are hurt.

Second, it does eliminate Dillybar from the every day rotation (I hope). I personally wouldn't be giving Fizer's minutes to Blount though. Fizer's a limited defender, but he's shown steady improvement in his time here. By this year, he should be passable as a defender and a rebounder, and he offers an immense upgrade over Blount on offense.

And who are we going to trade them for? We can sign Harpring and/or a cheap veteran PG without trading them. I don't disagree that they're on the block, but in the short term, I think this move signals that *NO* trades are close at hand. Maybe we move at the deadline or next season. I could be wrong, of course, but I think signing a guy like Keon Clark would signal a move. Signing a guy like Blount means Krause is basically happy with who he's got.

My realistic, non wishful thinking prediction is that we get Harpring and basically call it a day. Crawford, ERob, and Fizer will be showcased this year for use in a sign-and-trade next summer for one of next year's bumper crop of FAs. Or one or more of them will exceed expectations and we keep them.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by *HJHJR *
> 
> 
> I disagree. Both Fizer and Bagaric have been replaced. Blount was not signed to play 10 minutes per game. When Fizer and Bags were on the floor together last year our interior defense and rebounding suffered greatly. Blount should make a positive difference in those two areas. Both Fizer and Bags are now eminently available for trades.


See suggested NY trade on other thread

ERob, Fizer and Dali for Ward and Thomas


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

MikeDC:

Blout played over 1400 minutes last year for a team that went to the playoffs and averaged more rebounds per 48 minutes (12.4) than anyone on the current Bulls' roster. He also did not take a lot of bad shots, a la Oakley, hitting 46% of his shots, which is better than Fizer and Bags. I think we could spare 1000-1500 minutes of playing time for him.

Crawford, ERob, and Fizer are going to get caught in a minutes crunch this year. I think they could be at their maximum trade value right now.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

In the season before last when he was with the Warriors he averaged over 8 rebounds in 21 minutes . That's what we need him to do - rebound the ball and put a body on the low post stud

He'll get his minutes alright 

All in all I am happy with the acquisition


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

Thanks HJ as always. Blount is a very good fit for us. Even though it was a one year contract acquisition, I do think ir is a matter of time until Fizer is moved. I wish him him well and I have been a supporter of his. I am not as sure about Bagaric being moved. He is young enough, big enough and cheap enough that we can put him at the end of the bench and wait on him. He is very young and centers take a long time to develop and even back up centers have major worth in the NBA. historically centers reach their peak close to 30. I am not big on just dumping him. Time will tell.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

Blount.

Whoopie...

Guess we should all get in line now and purchase those playoff tickets early.

Simpkins or Jud Buechler could be next.


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by *sinkingship *
> Blount.
> 
> Whoopie...
> ...



Given your answer and your name here I would guess the glass is always half empty.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

With guys like Corey Blount the glass isn't half empty, it's broken. He is a career 11th man who is probably playing his final NBA season. I'm not finding a negative in this because is it completely insignificant. The only negative is I have to believe through trade or looking at someone else we could have gotten a contributor instead of Blount.

Blount is a filled roster spot and nothing else. He will not contribute much at all on the court.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by *HJHJR *
> 
> 
> I disagree. Both Fizer and Bagaric have been replaced. Blount was not signed to play 10 minutes per game. When Fizer and Bags were on the floor together last year our interior defense and rebounding suffered greatly. Blount should make a positive difference in those two areas. Both Fizer and Bags are now eminently available for trades.


Blount = very nice pickup at the price. At least Bill will have the option to play a vet who can play some D and board instead of all of the kids. Blount can play next to Chandler or Curry and form a decent sized front court.

Any chance that we don't pick up Bags or Fizer's options for year 4?


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by *Songcycle *
> Thanks HJ as always. Blount is a very good fit for us. Even though it was a one year contract acquisition, I do think ir is a matter of time until Fizer is moved. I wish him him well and I have been a supporter of his. I am not as sure about Bagaric being moved. He is young enough, big enough and cheap enough that we can put him at the end of the bench and wait on him. He is very young and centers take a long time to develop and even back up centers have major worth in the NBA. historically centers reach their peak close to 30. I am not big on just dumping him. Time will tell.


 
Wow. I think you had a post recently that mentioned we should pick up Bags option for a fourth year. I admire your support for the guy but honestly I feel we'd be better off ridding ourselves of him and using his roster spot on someone else.

The 2 most glaring reasons why I would be in favor of trading (even waiving) Bags are...

1) Mentally, he's done things I've never seen before. Last year when we were beating the crap out of the Warriors and everyone was laughing and high fiving each other during the final minutes, in comes Dalibor and he pulls his infamous "antics". He was making it a POINT to everybody in the arena how unhappy he was when he walked up and down the court like he didn't give a damn. On a play where he was standing in the paint and could have made a play for a blocked layup attempt he started walking back towards the other end of the court while the ball was still in play rather than play D. This of course resulted in Tyson screaming at him from the bench and later Jalen giving him an earfull. What a way to ruin the atmosphere coming off an impressive team victory. 

Then there was a play last year where a player was all alone for a layup attempt downcourt and here comes Dali to deliver a hard foul sending the player down hard. Now, it was a good play to not allow the uncontested layup, but afterwards Dali RAISES HIS HAND to acknowledge it was he who commited the foul. No sh*t ! Nobody else was even downcourt besides those two. 

And this year in the summer league game that was televised, he pulls a freaking shoulder block move that looked straight out of pro wrestling school. I never seen a flagrant foul like that in my life. What provoked it? Then you see Tyson raising his arms in disgust and immediately Dali goes off to the bench, and we see a closeup of his facial expression and it's like he doesn't even care.

2) Let's face it, as far as backup centers go, Dali is bad. I think we're all hoping he can become a "decent" backup, but in my opinion, he'll never even become that. Plus, he's probably the slowest player I've ever seen. (thinking for somebody even slower than him.... still thinking ...) 


Now regarding Corie Blount, I really like this move. And so far it fits in to what Jalen Rose was talking about just the other day, in that he said we were probably not going to sign anybody to a long-term deal this summer so we could really make a run at next summer's free agents. If we use our 4.5 mill on another 1 year contract then it looks like both Rose and Krause are on the same page. 

I hope we go after Harpring now because he's another tough guy type. Like a more talented Ed Najera. I was originally in favor of using our 4.5 on Keon Clark, as I thought his marijuana problem was behind him. I now admit that would have been a bad move considering our overall team youth. You wouldn't want Tyson & Eddy learning from this guy.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

I've always been a big proponent of Krause, but the signing of Blount has me a little befuddled. Unless Krause is planning to ship Blount out as a part of a sign-and-trade, adding another PF doesn't make a lot sense to me. If anything, we need someone to replace Baga-nasty. Blount may be able contribute a little at C, but he's not our answer to Eddy's back up. One other possibility would be let Chandler back up Eddy at C. Although it's not his natural position, I can see Tyson playing the position similar to a Camby type. That would give Fizer, Baxtor, and Blount additional minutes at PF.


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

Salo, one word. Patience.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Song, the thing that is so disturbing about Bags is that it appears he took a step back this summer. Last summer, I think he may have led us in scoring at the RMR, while this summer, he couldn't keep from fouling. But I still have hopes for him, though it is hard. I just remember how much every team hates their back-up centers.


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

With all due respect NCBullsFan, the summer league doesn't count for much in my book. If we can really get something for him, I am not opposed to a trade, but I do think based on his age and low salary, I'd just as soon be patient and gamble. We really have nothing to lose here by letting him sit at the end of the bench.


----------



## HJHJR (May 30, 2002)

*What's next?*

From the Chicago Trib:

*Blount's signing leaves the Bulls with the mid-level exception of $4.546 million, which they hope to split between a defensive-minded small forward and veteran point guard. Krause is also pursuing sign-and-trade possibilities with point guard Travis Best.*

If KC Johnson is correct, the mid level exception will probably be used on players like Kevin Ollie (who knows the triangle) and Matt Harpring.

Let's say Ollie and Harpring are signed. The Bulls rotations might look something like this: 

PG: Williams and Ollie.
SG/SF (swing positions): Rose, Robinson, Harpring, and a little bit of Hassell.
PF/C: Chandler, Curry, Blount.

Who does that leave in reserve? Fizer, Crawford, Bagaric, Hoiberg, Mason and Baxter.

And if Krause is able to work a sign and trade with Best, it's quite possible that one of the so-called reserves could be pushed even farther down the bench.

Most people will agree that Crawford's and Fizer's pure talent far exceeds that of Ollie and Blount. The difference is that Crawford and Fizer both think they should be starting, and that's just not going to happen. Ollie and Blount, however, would know and accept their roles as support players, and both would offer much more at the defensive end of the court.

So where does that leave us? Fizer, Crawford, Bagaric and Hoiberg are trade bait. So much for the Bulls 2000 draft. Barring injuries, Mason and Baxter will probably spend most of the season on the Bulls developmental squad, better known as the IR.

The problem is that despite Krause's positive statements about Crawford and Fizer, the rest of the league knows what's up with these guys. That's going to make it real tough for the Bulls to get anyone of real value for them via a trade.

We'll just have to be patient and see how it all plays out.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

*Whew!*

HJ, I sure am glad you finally got this post out. I had seen you twice in "Who's Online" working on this post, only to see you disappear shortly thereafter. I jokingly accused Showtyme, our new moderator, of deleting your posts.

You seem to have soured quite a lot on Hassell. I thought his RMR play was disappointing, but I still am not convinced that Harpring and Robinson are much of an upgrade over Hassell, if at all. He also appears to be a player who will accept a role.

Good points about the difficulty Crawford and Fizer would have in accepting roles on this team. But are there any folks down at Berto worried about the poor play of JWill in the Summer League? He really turned the ball over a lot.

Given the scenario you painted, Baxter is going to get minutes at PF, unless Blount, Curry, and Chandler are all going to be playing 32 mpg. Of course, that is assuming we don't get a PF or C in a trade.

HJ, any ideas why Krause seems to have absolutely no interest in Lewis?


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

*Re: What's next?*



> Originally posted by *HJHJR *
> From the Chicago Trib:
> 
> *Blount's signing leaves the Bulls with the mid-level exception of $4.546 million, which they hope to split between a defensive-minded small forward and veteran point guard. Krause is also pursuing sign-and-trade possibilities with point guard Travis Best.*
> ...



I also like the idea of bringing back Ollie. I know a lot of people bashed on him last season but I thought he played well for us. Do you really think he would command more than the veteran's minimum though? I mean he seems like the type of player that's just happy to be playing in the NBA with a guaranteed contract. He'd be the perfect replacement for Guyton's spot.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Corie Blount is a serviceable backup center. He will be the man to play behind Curry's minutes for a year, and we didn't spend too much money to get him.

He'll know his role, and he'll play hard every night.

It's not the absolutely best thing Krause has ever done, but I don't have any particularly bad feelings about it. I think we should be able to pick up a second-rounder next year that might be able to fill that role of a bench center.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by *Songcycle *
> With all due respect NCBullsFan, the summer league doesn't count for much in my book. If we can really get something for him, I am not opposed to a trade, but I do think based on his age and low salary, I'd just as soon be patient and gamble. We really have nothing to lose here by letting him sit at the end of the bench.



Nothing to lose? How bout this... Blount gets dinged up and placed on IR a couple of weeks. There goes our sole veteran big man. Curry and Chandler (especially Curry) get quick fouls. HERE COMES DALIBOR. This scenario is entirely possible ( very likely in the case of foul trouble). I think we'd stand a good chance of losing, oh I don't know... a lot of games? This is where I'd be in favor of adding a 2nd veteran big man to go along with Blount, at the expense of Bags.


----------



## Songcycle (May 29, 2002)

Salo we are not going for the championship and not even the playoffs and even for the playoffs, being the 8th seed is meaningless and we are not getting there anyway.
Curry and Chandler would only be college sophmores and we will see plenty of screwups and youthful mistakes.
What is the worry, 31 wins instead of 34, and to get 34 we need to get real lucky.
I'm not against a trade, but too many people don't understand the maturation process of NBA centers, There are plenty of decent reserve NBA centers who would look eminently dumpable at the same age as Bagaric who now have legitiamte value. Go look at team rosters and see how many half decent there are.
Say no to dumping Bagaric.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

Say "YES" to dumping Bagaric. The guy is going to hurt one of our own players one day. His feet are made of lead. He pouts like a baby. He stinks. The more time that passes the more dangerous he gets. Cut him loose!!

Who cares how big he is. I have a cousin who is 7 feet tall and he is a Plumber. Tallest Plumber in the world probably, but he can't play basketball at all. 

Bagaric has had his chance for two years. You don't just put him in a game because he is there. He must be an asset. Obviously he isn't or else he would be on the court all the time with his size.


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*I just am not sure about Blount!*



> Originally posted by *Showtyme *
> Corie Blount is a serviceable backup center. He will be the man to play behind Curry's minutes for a year, and we didn't spend too much money to get him.
> 
> He'll know his role, and he'll play hard every night.
> ...


The only PLUS I can muster into this acquistion is, that Blount was expendable to us once.......so what IF that was when Jordan, Pippen, Kerr, Harper and Longley was here! LOL That being said, I guess I can see where he could help some. I am like some of the other posters here tho....something is cooking...too many players who have expressed their desire about starting on this roster....Something has to give. Now that we have blount back, why not pick up that ol' alabama boy, jason caffey??? good hard banger under the boards.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

I think the Blount signing basically says that JK is fairly content with the roster as is heading into this season-- at least as far as adding players without subtracting some at the same time (via trade). Blount was signed as a one-year placeholder and as somebody for the young guys to play against and learn from in practice. I don't expect him to play more than 10 mpg unless there is injury or foul trouble in front of him. We already have too many guys who deserve and expect a fair amount of playing time. We need a season to separate the wheat from the chaff and see who the real players are on this team. We won't accomplish that with guys buried on the bench.

No way the Bulls sign Ollie and play him in front of Crawford (is that what you were really saying HJHJR?)


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Nobody is going to learn anything from Blount. Sorry. He is a bench specialist. He averages few points and decent rebounds in small minutes.. that's his entire life story. 

Why would Curry want to learn how to give energy off the bench, or how to play hard against the other team's backup center?


----------



## Professor (Jun 6, 2002)

Blount is a good acquisition, given the paucity of respectable big men available this summer. His one year contract will serve as a place holder for Rose's old running mate Juwan Howard who I believe will be a willing free agent target for the Bulls at the mid-level exception next summer.

The only way Fizer and Crawford get traded this summer is if Lewis somehow chooses the Bulls and the teams work out a sign and trade. Otherwise, I look for Fizer and Crawford to get their minutes and a chance to prove their worth (or increase their trade value).

If Lewis doesn't join the Bulls, Harpring is probably the next choice, but only if he comes on Krause's terms. Especially now that the Clippers/Cavs deal has put Sterling in the salary cap crapper. Odom, Maggette, and Q will all be unhappy free agents next summer because they will not be getting the contracts they deserve. If Harpring doesn't come around, Krause may not add another SF this summer.

I really hope the Bulls pick up a veteran PG. Especially after the mediocre summer league play of Crawford and Williams. They will both develop into fine players, but they have a ways to go. Anthony, Ollie, and Hardaway are all available for cheap. Given the mutual admiration that appears to exist between Rose and Hardaway, I personally hope Hardaway is the choice, bad knees and all. If he is willing to take on the mentor role, he'd be a good player/coach for our young guard court and would add a "name" veteran that could help draw other free agents to the team.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by *Professor *
> Blount is a good acquisition, given the paucity of respectable big men available this summer. His one year contract will serve as a place holder for Rose's old running mate Juwan Howard who I believe will be a willing free agent target for the Bulls at the mid-level exception next summer.
> 
> The only way Fizer and Crawford get traded this summer is if Lewis somehow chooses the Bulls and the teams work out a sign and trade. Otherwise, I look for Fizer and Crawford to get their minutes and a chance to prove their worth (or increase their trade value).
> ...


I was thinking the exact same thing last night but i couldnt get online to post it. Blount will do just fine for what we need him for. Howard could very well be the guy we go after next year. He is a good player. 

As for trading fizer and crawford i agree with you on that. But you can add miller in there as well. Thats a rumor that wont go away. And could happen since Clark might not go to Orlando. I don't know how much, if any getting caught with post will affect his chances of signing. I think it would! 

Im glad we got blount. We needed rebounding. We got it! And as for SF, i would be happy with any of the three mentioned. And i do think we will get one of them. E Rob is still a question mark with his toe. 

I wanted hardaway last year. Now im not so sure what he will bring to the bulls. Ollie? Im not so sure of him either. I kind of got tired of seeing all the missed lay ups.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Wow. Juwan joining the Bulls after next season. A very interesting thought.

Question though.. isn't the vet exemption (4.5 mil or whatever it is) only available for a team every other season? Maybe I'm crossing up my information, but I've heard it said this way before.

For the record, Juwan would be a nice addition, though at a reasonable cost of course. And yes, him being a Chicago guy and UMich alumn w/ Rose doesn't hurt it either.

VD


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Blount will help because of his being a veteran, but based on his moxie shown in the summer leagues, I think Baxter could be a pleasent surprise after he gets his feet under him. He might end up making the Blount signing an unnecessary move.


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*I think as far as a center goes, any center....*



> Originally posted by *SALO *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


....we should be able to gain someone of value to our team for him. He is still young and someone like a sacramento or spurs team could use the extra fouls against SHAQ!! lol maybe after shaq takes him to school, he'll stop that stupid shoulder rammin' of his? Still, we SHOULD get SOMETHING for him.


Harpring.....this guy is the one who was just "bullying" tyson around during one game last season. I remember it vividly! Thats when it was obvious to ME, anyways, that tyson would have to bulk up SOME. He would be a great acquisition. GO BULLS!~~~:yes:


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Blount is coming on more to backup Curry, not Chandler. I think he's an okay addition too, but not as a "mentor" role... no way. He's just cheap dependable backup help.

Howard over to the Bulls after next season... hmmm... extremely interesting. Hopefully, though, Chandler will be really ready to be an NBA starter by his third year so that Howard's role is clearly defined. I actually hope Howard has a worse year this year... if he declines to a 13 ppg 7 rbs role this season, then he'd be easier to pick up for us, since other teams won't be as interested.

Tim Hardaway is another great backup PG veteran. People say that there are two great young guards competing for that role already, but in reality, there's Jay Williams who seems to be comfortable with taking a LOT of shots (and he's the purer point guard) and Jamal Crawford, a non-penetration threat whose quickness is blazing but basketball smarts are still quite raw (SUS made comments about Craw holding the ball far too long on occasions during summer play... that was a nasty habit he had last year too). Tim Hardaway can jack the three and he used to be a star point in the league... he's the TRUE mentor type. He's a winner, used to be a tough defender, and a fairly good decision maker (even though he was a little 3-point trigger happy). He knew what to do when he penetrated the lane.

He would be perfect for the Bulls. More perfect if Crawford got traded or moved over to SG, but perfect in either case.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

bamabull your pm box is full. Please delete inbox and sent items


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Blount's a very smart addition. Smart because he's a serviceable defense-minded vet big man, smart because it's one-year and smart because he doesn't cost much. JK has strengthened his team a bit and left all his options open for this year and next.

As the roster stands now, I agree with Showtyme that Blount will play more C than PF. He's insurance against the frightening prospect that Bagaric is about as good as he's going to get.

The Bulls needed this kind of player for this season and just there weren't many better alternatives.


----------



## ChiTownFan (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by *blkwdw13 *
> I think we can get a third rounder for Bags, I'd be fine with that trade also it would help the Bulls a lot.


Did the draft magically extend a round when I wasn't looking? Third rounder?  Well anyways, it looks as if JK got his vet in the middle and all that's left is the SF we so desperatly need.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

damn, some of you are really negative about this.. did anyone WATCH Blount play last season with Philly?? He was their ENERGY guy, he got a bunch of boards, played excellant defense but was tentative to shoot the ball... this is a nice pick up. Keep in mind when we had Blount on the team he really did SUCK bad.. that doesn't mean he didn't learn and get better.. people don't live in the past people change and I _KNOW_ Blount got better from watching him in a few games last year... anything is better than dalibor.. now lets just sign Harpring


----------



## blkwdw13 (Jun 12, 2002)

I was just joking around, my way of saying to just cut him loose.


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*Ollie ollie .......uh uh.*



> Originally posted by *Kneepad *
> I think the Blount signing basically says that JK is fairly content with the roster as is heading into this season-- at least as far as adding players without subtracting some at the same time (via trade). Blount was signed as a one-year placeholder and as somebody for the young guys to play against and learn from in practice. I don't expect him to play more than 10 mpg unless there is injury or foul trouble in front of him. We already have too many guys who deserve and expect a fair amount of playing time. We need a season to separate the wheat from the chaff and see who the real players are on this team. We won't accomplish that with guys buried on the bench.
> 
> No way the Bulls sign Ollie and play him in front of Crawford (is that what you were really saying HJHJR?)



He would not even be able to consistently play in front of Khalid el amin, the donut king. Where is the UCONN poster anyways??? LOL:laugh:


----------



## Kramer (Jul 5, 2002)

I think getting Blount is a yawner, although I'm ok with it. Definitely nothing to get excited about. It's good that we only get him for a year so we have more flexibility next year. I DO think he can teach our young guys how to play D, box-out, etc. and not just teach them how to be a "role-player". I don't think he's a natural 5, but I guess in the east it's not too tough. Even if he can't, I know he can better than Dali. DALI IS HORRIBLE! I don't think he has ANY positives other than his size and age. The 4 is jam-packed now, so I hope that means Blount is Curry's backup. If Dali were truly our 15th man, destined to be on IR for the whole season, I guess it wouldn't matter. But, inevitably he will play this season, which is just a bad, BAD thing. I don't think we need a vet point unless Jamal is gone. I do NOT want Ollie. He's the master of the intangible. He does nothing of value that can be seen. He's Dickey in a PG body. As TrueBlueFan said, he misses EVERY lay-up. The only reason the guy ever scored was because other teams would foul him going to the hoop only because they didn't realize he'd never make it if they didn't foul him! He also held onto the ball forever. That said, he did get a few assists and boards and can play some D, but I just can't help it if I hate him. Something about him reminds me of Dickey...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Personally, I don't read anything into the fact that Blount is a 4.

If he plays at the 4, it just means Tyson will slide over to the 5.

Dillybar is still the odd man out of the rotation.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by *Mikedc *
> Personally, I don't read anything into the fact that Blount is a 4.
> 
> If he plays at the 4, it just means Tyson will slide over to the 5.
> ...


LOL!

Dillybar is freakin hilarious. Did you make that nickname up? If you did, I gotta give you props on that one.

The only Dalibor nicknames I could think of (none of which are particularly good):

1. Dolly
2. Bags
3. Dolemite
4. Dragan Tarlac, the return

Awww yeaaahhhh. Dillybar is hopefully on the end of the bench, or better yet sitting down next to the cameramen.

VD


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I might have made it up, I can't remember... I've been calling him that for so long, it's like second nature. If I didn't it was someone on the World Crossing board.

Some of my favorites:
* Candybar
* Dillybar
* Dillypooh
* Bag-O-<insert something you don't want to get in a bag here>
(IE, Bag-O-****, Bag-O-Rocks, Bag-O-Crap)

Anyway, I really don't dislike the guy as much as some people seem to. He's a sloth, but he's 290lbs and counts for 6 hard fouls a game. By the end of the year he was somewhat serviceable.

Considering the sad state of NBA centers, that qualifies for something.

The real problem I see with him is that he has trouble not getting burned by smaller, quicker players (which is almost everyone). When he matches up against other backup big slow guys, he seems to do ok. When he's matched against quicker guys (like when teams basically go with two PF sized guys instead of a real center), they're too athletic for him. He's gotten a little better at retaliating against the small, quick guys by using his size to get position, but he ought to be better at it.


----------



## Kramer (Jul 5, 2002)

> Originally posted by *Mikedc *
> Anyway, I really don't dislike the guy as much as some people seem to. He's a sloth, but he's 290lbs and counts for 6 hard fouls a game.


You're giving sloths a bad name.


----------



## k^2 (Jun 11, 2002)

Im from PA so I watched basically every 6er game last year. Blount is a rebounder and garbage man. He gets rebounds and he gets garbage points, simple as that. Don't expect to run an offense through him but you can expect him to play hard. All in all a good pickup for the bulls but nothing to write home about.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

If the point of the signing was a backup bench player then it was a decent deal. If the point was a mentor then it was a miserable deal.

The Bulls would have been better served to go after Popeye. He is a class act that wants to get into coaching when he is done. He has a willingness to teach.


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

Popeye would have been a better addition. I guess Krause just wanted someone to play 15 mpg as a F/C to grab rebounds.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by *BCH *
> If the point of the signing was a backup bench player then it was a decent deal. If the point was a mentor then it was a miserable deal.
> 
> The Bulls would have been better served to go after Popeye. He is a class act that wants to get into coaching when he is done. He has a willingness to teach.


I believe Krause wanted someone who would be willing to accept limited minutes and still play hard and not ***** about it. Popeye would have taken too many minutes from the young guys.

Just a guess.


----------



## ABull (Jun 15, 2002)

I liked the Blount pickup - more so than Skinner who I thought would be signed. Blount can and will play plenty of backup C eventhough he isn't a true C and has little to teach about being a C (obviously some backup PF too this year). Some have talked about him like he's short - he 6'10" and in the EC 6'10" is GOOD. Alonzo is 6'10", Ben Wallace is 6'8", Kurt Thomas is 6'8", Ratliff is 6'9", Mohammed is 6'10", Magloire is 6'9" etc. We now have 4 players we can rotate at C. They are 7'1", 7'1", 6'11" and 6'10". We are one of the lucky teams. For what we needed he is fine.

But.... He is much less talented than Fizer and not that much better a rebounder. It's just that he focuses solely on defense and rebounding. In 26 mpg Fizer averaged 12ppg/5.5rpg in 20 mpg Blount averaged 3.5ppg/5rpg. Lets get realistic here...  Now he is a MUCH BETTER defender than Fizer and that might prove more valuable than Fizer's scoring on many nights, but he isn't replacing Fizer.

The only way we can comfortably trade away Fizer is if we used the mid level on Popeye Jones etc. And no Baxter isn't going to step right in a get 10ppg or anything even if he got the minutes. He will still have to adjust the same way Fizer and Brand had to except Baxter is an inch shorter than they are. Blount is a good addition because he is used to the 1/2/3 throwing up shots and Deke and himself are responsible for grabbing the boards and throwing the ball back out. He was even better at it in GS.

Now all that being said I think the kids will have a shorter leash this year than they had towards the end of last season and Blount will get around 15mpg. It really isn't fair to Rose to force him to play with the kids if they just aren't getting it done some nights. Thus the focus on vets who play small roles well.


----------



## ABull (Jun 15, 2002)

And way way back in response to ?'s/ideas

About exceptions...

1.4 VET exceptions can only be given to vets every other year or any year you chose not to use it the previous season. So we cannot use it next year.

Mid level Exceptions - can be used every year as long as you are over the cap- (The Knicks keep on using theirs - Weatherspoon last year/ Now Doleac and they still have half left over to spend on someone else) and the way it looks now we won't be over the cap next year so it might not even matter. Of course if we spend the full mid level on someone for multiple years JK can manipulate things again to keep us over the cap by not renouncing our FA's again.

JHoward...

I see people have dug up the old Juwan Howard to the Bulls in 2003 idea.  Yeah I remember all the outrage when a couple of us on another board supported it (me included) glad to see people are more realistic about his contract demands/ability etc now. Back then the majority was saying how he would get near max money and was a horrible player too. I never could see how he could be both  If there is one thing Howard won't worry about it's money and would make an EXCELLENT 25mpg bench player. Now he would BE a replacement for Fizer. I still think Rose has yet to fully payoff and show his true value. He will have a lot of pull on some of the older FA's next year.


----------



## Nater (Jul 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by *ABull *
> If there is one thing Howard won't worry about it's money and would make an EXCELLENT 25mpg bench player. Now he would BE a replacement for Fizer.


No question he'd be an upgrade. And you would think he's financially set. But how much of a pay cut can we realistically expect him to take? Yeah, he's got $10s of millions from his last contract, but he's got an ego too. Do you think he's worth the whole mid-level exception? I don't think he'd be willing to accept much less than that, given his presumably high opinion of himself. 

I guess we can hope Rose will talk some sense into him...


----------



## ABull (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by *Nater *
> 
> No question he'd be an upgrade. And you would think he's financially set. But how much of a pay cut can we realistically expect him to take? Yeah, he's got $10s of millions from his last contract, but he's got an ego too. Do you think he's worth the whole mid-level exception? I don't think he'd be willing to accept much less than that, given his presumably high opinion of himself.
> 
> I guess we can hope Rose will talk some sense into him...


I think he would except a deal starting at mid level. Not one of those 1yr deals but maybe a 4 year deal with a player option after 2 yrs. So $10 mill/2 or $22 mill/4. I picked the 4 year deal to coincide with the 4 years Rose will have left after this season.

But remember if we don't spend money this offseason and trade Fizer we can easily clear $8 or so million *even after the probable lotto pick. I think AT MOST it would take $6 of that $8 mill to sign him if we went that route. Or maybe $27.5 mill/4yrs.

If we did that dumped bags and traded Fizer for vet player and a pick or just a pick next year to any of the teams with cap room. Our team would still look like.

Williams Crawford 
Rose Hassell
Robinson (*our lotto pick*)
Chandler Howard
Curry (vet signed for $1.1mill) (*2nd 1st rounder from Fizer trade)


----------



## robg (Jul 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by *Mikedc *
> I'd guess that either Blount or Tyson get more minutes at center.
> 
> At this point, I'm guessing our frontcourt rotation is something like:
> ...


That sounds like a possible rotation but what does that mean for Bagaric & baxter? Will baxter not make the team or bagaric not play?


----------



## robg (Jul 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by *sinkingship *
> Say "YES" to dumping Bagaric. The guy is going to hurt one of our own players one day. His feet are made of lead. He pouts like a baby. He stinks. The more time that passes the more dangerous he gets. Cut him loose!!
> 
> Who cares how big he is. I have a cousin who is 7 feet tall and he is a Plumber. Tallest Plumber in the world probably, but he can't play basketball at all.
> ...


I agree Bags is definitely going to hurt someone, the way he intentionally fouls other players, either that or someone is going really crack Bags upside his head. Oh and I bet your cousin can play better than bags. maybe he should tryout


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Bagaric and Baxter both make the team.

I'm just thinking of that minutes breakdown as an ideal. I mean, if you sat down and asked the coaches what their "rotation" was, it would probably be something like what I posted.

In reality though, factors like injury, ineffective play, very effective play (if a guy gets on a hot streak), situational matchups, the desire to give young players PT, and foul trouble will mean that the guys not in the "normal rotation" will end up getting minutes.

For example, in many games, I expent Curry and Chandler to get into fould trouble. If Curry (for example) picks up two quick fouls, he might end up playing only 20 minutes that night. That adds another 10 minutes or so for the other guys.

Over the course of the season, I'd expect to see an average mpg of like 30-32 for Curry and Chandler, 25-30 for Fizer, and 15 or so for Blount. Bags and Baxter will spend time on the IR and/or receive lots of DNPs, but when they do play, they'll probably average 10-15 mpg.


----------



## Cyanobacteria (Jun 25, 2002)

*Much ado about not much*

Yeah, there may be better mentors out there, but are they still athletic enough to challenge others in practice consistently? How much triangle experience do they have? These 2 things make it a worthwhile signing to me, even if uneventful. If Blount gets every rebound in practice, give him his minutes, maybe others (read: Marcus) will follow suit. If I'm ok with this as much as I hate Cinci, surely others can accept it as well


----------



## settinUpShop (Jun 8, 2002)

> Originally posted by *HJHJR *
> 
> 
> I disagree. Both Fizer and Bagaric have been replaced. Blount was not signed to play 10 minutes per game. When Fizer and Bags were on the floor together last year our interior defense and rebounding suffered greatly. Blount should make a positive difference in those two areas. Both Fizer and Bags are now eminently available for trades.


HJ is right of course. BUT...

Krause will only trade Fizer and Bags for fair value, which is kinda ironic since they don't really have any value to begin with. Okay, maybe Fizer has a little tiny bit, but other GM's are going to want to see at least another half year of him putting up consistant numbers in order to buy into the future development of him. Of course we all know that the chance of that happening are very low with him practicing J-s this summer. It says to me that he's missed everything. I would have rather have had heard that he was busy this summer perfecting methods of removing ear wax with a q-tip, than hear that he was working on his 3 ball. When will he ever learn. Your a damn 4! Play like one for once in your life! Ugh!


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by *ABull *
> I liked the Blount pickup - more so than Skinner who I thought would be signed. Blount can and will play plenty of backup C eventhough he isn't a true C and has little to teach about being a C (obviously some backup PF too this year). Some have talked about him like he's short - he 6'10" and in the EC 6'10" is GOOD. Alonzo is 6'10", Ben Wallace is 6'8", Kurt Thomas is 6'8", Ratliff is 6'9", Mohammed is 6'10", Magloire is 6'9" etc. We now have 4 players we can rotate at C. They are 7'1", 7'1", 6'11" and 6'10". We are one of the lucky teams. For what we needed he is fine.
> 
> But.... He is much less talented than Fizer and not that much better a rebounder. It's just that he focuses solely on defense and rebounding. In 26 mpg Fizer averaged 12ppg/5.5rpg in 20 mpg Blount averaged 3.5ppg/5rpg. Lets get realistic here...  Now he is a MUCH BETTER defender than Fizer and that might prove more valuable than Fizer's scoring on many nights, but he isn't replacing Fizer.
> ...


I can most definitely agree with this, well said ABull.

Blount and Fizer certainly offer very different things (defense vs offense). Hopefully they can each contribute solid minutes for the Bulls if Fizer stays. If Fizer goes, then our only post offense becomes a foul proned Eddy Curry. I'm not sure if it's wise to eliminate Fizer unless we are confident we can do something to help replace his post offense to some extent. I think trading Fizer, Crawford and possibly Erob (and Bags/Hoiberg if it helps the deal get done) for a proven young SF to play next to Rose is a great idea. If we do that, then I hope we also put solid vet role players in place at PG and another PF/C type via the mid-level exception. Ollie and Jones would work ok, although I might prefer Willis to Jones for post offense off the bench and I would much prefer Best to Ollie if he'd be willing to stay.


----------



## Sicky Dimpkins (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by *settinUpShop *
> Of course we all know that the chance of that happening are very low with him practicing J-s this summer. It says to me that he's missed everything. I would have rather have had heard that he was busy this summer perfecting methods of removing ear wax with a q-tip, than hear that he was working on his 3 ball. When will he ever learn. Your a damn 4! Play like one for once in your life! Ugh!


I'm still on my chair(barely) and my a$$ is intact but I am laughing. Thank you very much! :laugh:

We Bull fans agree on just about nothing as far as I can tell. Could this be the exception? Does anyone want MF to play "power 3"? Who doesn't want him to play inside more? Maybe if he gets the wax out of his ears he'll hear the unified rant of Bull fans. I really think he could be a monster on the glass IF he changed his focus. He's NOT a player I want to dislike and he's not a player who doesn't have the tools to excel. I hope the new head coach doesn't still see him as the old one did. 

MF career(2 years) 3's:80 @ 25.6 & 17.1 %
262 pounds!

ERob: (3 years): 4/13
205 pounds

With apologies to Buffalo Springfield I will close by saying ... there's "something" happening here but what it is 'aint exactly clear...


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

Just thought it was interesting to go back and read what we all were saying about Mr. Blount back after he was first signed.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: It's Corie Blount*



> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> Corie B is a Bull again...
> 
> I love the fact he's a good defender and rebounder. We can never get enough of that if you ask me, especially in the paint.
> ...


Kneepad, I'll let it be known that I've made some pisspoor posts from my time here at BB.net... this may go down as one of my worst!









Hooray for Corie.



VD


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: It's Corie Blount*



> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> Kneepad, I'll let it be known that I've made some pisspoor posts from my time here at BB.net... this may go down as one of my worst!
> 
> 
> ...


Yep, Corie is a mystery…he must have some hypnosis skills, because he isn’t cut yet. Or maybe he is a candidate for a “six man award”. And I can bet on it, that all teams except The Bulls will vote for him. No one is helping them better to beat Chicago, then Corie... :laugh:


----------



## airety (Oct 29, 2002)

This is too funny to read, people were happy when we got Blount? I won't lie, I don't think I ever said so but I was kinda happy too, I thought to myself, "Perfect! It gets rid of Dalibor and he can play some spot minutes here and there to grab a few rebounds, maybe sink a jumper or two and keep the young guns, the FOCUS of our team, fresh!"

Boy, I sure am an idealist sometimes...


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

BOY WHAT A MORON I WAS... LOOK AT WHAT I WROTE WHEN WE SIGNED HIM:


"damn, some of you are really negative about this.. did anyone WATCH Blount play last season with Philly?? He was their ENERGY guy, he got a bunch of boards, played excellant defense but was tentative to shoot the ball... this is a nice pick up. Keep in mind when we had Blount on the team he really did SUCK bad.. that doesn't mean he didn't learn and get better.. people don't live in the past people change and I KNOW Blount got better from watching him in a few games last year... anything is better than dalibor.. now lets just sign Harpring"





HAWK23---> MORON! :sour:


----------

