# Silence Is Golden [I Hope!!!]



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

We've been hearing about Jamal & Eddy at Ruckers, ERob and his problems, and Hinrich, Hassel, Baxter et. al. in the summer league. But curiously we've heard very little about Tyson Chandler and what he is doing this summer. 

:whoknows:

I hope he is somewhere training like a Navy Seal and getting ready to surprise us with some more refined post moves and stronger hands. And I want to see him be more aggressive like Kenyon Martin and Jermaine O'Neal. And I like to see his outside shooting improve too. He had Krause & Floyd drooling with his shooting ability as a rookie. I want to see some of that this year. Has anyone here heard anything about what he has been doing this off-season? What do you think about Kendall Gill's recent comment in essence saying TC has KG type talent.[I agree!:yes:] With Curry's lack of rebounding ability, I think TC will be a top 10 rebounder this season. Do you think he could lead the league in rebounding? [I do!]

:sup:

And lastly, for you stats experts out there, has there ever been a basketball team in college or pros that had one 7 footer be a top 10 rebounder and top 10 shot blocker and another 7 footer be a top 10 scorer and top 10 FG %? 

If yes, what was that team's won-loss record?

:wait:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

1984-85 Houston Rockets

Ralph Sampson .502 FG% 10.4 RPG, 2.0BPG, 22.1 PPG
Hakeem Olajuan .538 FG% 11.1 RPG, 2.7 BPG, 20.6 PPG

Sampson was 19th in scoring, Hakeem 25th

Hakeem was 4th in rebounding, Sampson was 12th

Hakeem was 18th in FG% and 2nd in blocked shots

(To match those guys in scoring alone, Curry would have to average something like 27PPG and Chandler 15PPG)

1985-86 Rockets

Hakeem .526 FG% 11.5 RPG, 3.4 BPG, 23.5 PPG
Sampson .488 FG% 11.1 RPG, 1.6 BPG, 18.9 PPG

Hakeem was 8th in scoring, 5th in rebounding, 3rd in blocked shots, 25th in FG%
Sampson was 6th in rebounding, 17th in blocked shots

(Note: Houston had other guys who were in the top 10 in FG%, like Rodney McCray)


McHale at 6'11.999" was pretty close to 7'. If you combine him with Parrish, you will find several seasons where they both were in the top 10 at everything.

Peace!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

86-87 Celtics

Bird (6'10") .525 FG% 9.2 RPG (7.6 APG), .8 BPG, 28.1 PPG
McHale (6'11") .604 FG% 9.9 RPG, 2.5 BPG, 26.1 PPG
Parrish (7'1") .556 FG% 10.6 RPG, 1.8 BPG, 17.5 PPG

Birth was 4th in scoring, 25th in FG%, 19th in rebounding
McHale was 6th in scoring, 1st in FG%, 17th in rebounding, 7th in blocked shots
Parrish was 9th in FG%, 10th in rebounding, 13th in blocked shots

Bird was 13th in assists, (Ainge and DJ were in the top 25 as well)

Bird was 13th in steals, topping off his best season, perhaps.

Other teams with two great centers would be San Antonio, the Lakers (Kareem and McAdoo), Knicks (Cartwright and Ewing), and probably a few others if you go back far enough.

There are a number of teams with C/PF combos that made this feat, as well. Like Philly with Moses Malone and Charles Barkley. Or San Antonio with Rodman and the Admiral. Or Portland with Bill Walton and Maruice Lucas. Detroit with Lambeer and Rodman.

(Those portland teams had a guard named Dave Twardzik who shot over .600FG % a couple of times, and was close others).


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 86-87 Celtics
> 
> Bird (6'10") .525 FG% 9.2 RPG (7.6 APG), .8 BPG, 28.1 PPG
> ...


Late last season Pat Riley compared Tyson & Eddy to McHale & Parrish! 


I'm praying that he will feel the same way at the end of their careers!

:gopray:


----------



## Ben1 (May 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Bulls4Life</b>!
> 
> 
> Late last season Pat Riley compared Tyson & Eddy to McHale & Parrish!
> ...


That's one hella comparison! 

Maybe, T&E can turn out *even better* than 'em!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

"Curry and Chandler" don't belong in the same sentence with "McHale and Parrish" (and / or Bird).


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> "Curry and Chandler" don't belong in the same sentence with "McHale and Parrish" (and / or Bird).


dont tell us about ...go and write pat riley and tell him how wrong he was ...i mean really what does he know about parish and mchale ?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> dont tell us about ...go and write pat riley and tell him how wrong he was ...i mean really what does he know about parish and mchale ?


Apparently he doesn't know much. Or he's on some very halucanegenic drugs.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Apparently he doesn't know much. Or he's on some very halucanegenic drugs.


so you know more than pat riley ...interesting :no:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> so you know more than pat riley ...interesting :no:


I know enough that McHale and Parrish were light years beyond Curry and Chandler, and the odds are SLIM that C&C will approach their performance.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I know enough that McHale and Parrish were light years beyond Curry and Chandler, and the odds are SLIM that C&C will approach their performance.


You must be the only person not employed by an NBA team at the time who saw both McHale and Parish in their sophomore seasons at Minnesota and Centenary respectively. Because that's exactly where Curry and Chandler are now on their development curve.

I think there's an excellent chance C & C could equal and surpass Parish & McHale. They might fall short, of course, but why you would be so pessimistic at this point is beyond me. Maybe you could explain further?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I know enough that McHale and Parrish were light years beyond Curry and Chandler, and the odds are SLIM that C&C will approach their performance.


Can't agree.....

McHale

http://stats.basketballboards.net/player.cgi?id=1640

Parish

http://stats.basketballboards.net/player.cgi?id=1907

Their early numbers look a lot like Curry and Chandler even with the benifit of several years of college each.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I woud like to know what exactly DaBullz you expect C & C to have done by now that they havent. I mean only two seasons out of HS. They are moving along at a very nice pace and there is no reason that they wont continue at that pace and be perennial allstars. To expect them to already be there now is unrealistic.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> You must be the only person not employed by an NBA team at the time who saw both McHale and Parish in their sophomore seasons at Minnesota and Centenary respectively. Because that's exactly where Curry and Chandler are now on their development curve.
> 
> I think there's an excellent chance C & C could equal and surpass Parish & McHale. They might fall short, of course, but why you would be so pessimistic at this point is beyond me. Maybe you could explain further?


The number of players who average 26PPG and 10 RPG are so few, the odds are slim for any player being that good. Considering C&C haven't even come close to averaging even 10/10 for a season, there's truly LITTLE to indicate they're going to be that good, let alone 26/10 guys.

Garnett is similarly a HSer who jumped to the pros, and a 26/10 guy. C&C are SIGNIFICANTLY behind Garnett at the exact same point in the "development curve."

McHale in a single season played fewer minutes than Curry and Chandler combined, but had more points, rebounds, assists, blocked shots, etc., as the two combined. Almost for Curry's and Chandler's combined CAREERS.

And then we can talk about Parrish. 

And then we can talk about the championships and 60+ win seasons, etc., that those guys contributed to.

Right now they resemble Darryl Dawkins and Bill Cartwright (in his last season).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Can't agree.....
> ...


McHale played behind Cedric Maxwell, the team's best player (pre-bird) and on a 62 win team.

Parrish played behind Clifford Ray, who as starting center had not been on a team that finished worse than 2nd, and was starter for the championship team that season.

Curry and Chandler played behind Corie Blount on a team that won 20 games the season before.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> I woud like to know what exactly DaBullz you expect C & C to have done by now that they havent. I mean only two seasons out of HS. They are moving along at a very nice pace and there is no reason that they wont continue at that pace and be perennial allstars. To expect them to already be there now is unrealistic.


I'd settle for C&C to show they can rebound and score and pass and defend and protect the ball, even if they don't put up big numbers at this stage of their careers.

At this point, they both look like VERY one-dimensional players.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I'd settle for C&C to show they can rebound and score and pass and defend and protect the ball, even if they don't put up big numbers at this stage of their careers.
> ...


you actually expect that after 2 years past high school for tyson and eddy to be the players they were projected to be during their primes 

how can you know more basketball than pat riley when dont even know what reality is?

no player not kobe or kevin garnett or tracy mcgrady were complete players after 2 years from a high school to nba jump 

but you expect eddy curry and tyson chandler to be there already 

i saw a tyson chandler that avg. about 15 or so a game before the team started to start eddy curry and made him the primary option down low 

ive seen curry at times rebound and block shots though i admit its very incosistent 

garnett is a great player but he didn't start out that way during his 2nd year he wasn't the go to guy ,marbury was and garnett wasn't the 2nd option either ,googs was 

kobe was not the the man yet either he was still a prety poor defender and wasn't the most pass happy player the world had ever seen (in other words he was selfish )

you need to stop falling in love with vets ,and wishing they were bulls , and embrace the players we have , they are going to be here awhile


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> The number of players who average 26PPG and 10 RPG are so few, the odds are slim for any player being that good. Considering C&C haven't even come close to averaging even 10/10 for a season, there's truly LITTLE to indicate they're going to be that good, let alone 26/10 guys.


Parrish never averaged 26/10 either. His career average was 14.5\9.1. His never even averaged 20ppg in any one year in his career. 

McHale did it in his 7th year in the league. Preceeding years his scoring was 10,13,14,18, 19 & 21 ppg. For his career, he averaged 17.9 and 7.3.

Rome was not built in a day. 

No reason to think that Chandler can not average 14.5 & 9.1 and Curry could not average 17.9 and 7.3. They each practically did that in the 2nd half of last year and they still are not legally drinking.



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> And then we can talk about Parrish.



Yep, and Parrish showed so much after his years in college and his first 3 years in the league that GSW traded him and the #3 pick (McHale) for the #1 pick (Jo Barry Carrol) in the draft.

Boy, GSW was smart....

On a similar note, I image that you would be pleased as punch if we traded one of our 2 studs for Juwan Howard or Antoine Walker. 

True?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I would have prefered we traded ONE of our young guys (and Marshall) for Walker, and signed Howard as a FA.

And played them full minutes.

And use the young guys (for the 7 years, rome built in a day, yada yada) as subs, 2nd string, etc.

Our 1st team would compete with other 1st teams. Our 2nd team would BURY other 2nd teams.

After 7 years, rome built in a day, yada, we still have Curry/Chandler in their prime to step up.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I would have prefered we traded ONE of our young guys (and Marshall) for Walker, and signed Howard as a FA.
> 
> And played them full minutes.
> ...


juwan howard is not a difference maker and really neither is walker they can play but they will never take you out the 1st round 

in a years time curry and chandler will be better than both of them 

but what do you care you want wins now ...in august


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I would have prefered we traded ONE of our young guys (and Marshall) for Walker, and signed Howard as a FA.


Just to be clear.... 

You would trade Chandler or Curry + Marshall for Walker?

Or would trade Chandler or Curry + Marshall + Pippen for Walker + Howard?


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

Dabullz, 

You have a very narrow way of thinking when it comes to this team especially the young guys, you need to look at the big picture.


----------



## XXXCalade (Jul 4, 2003)

i hate to break the news to everyone but i am 100% positive that Tyson Chandler hasnt been training all that hard because I was in the Bahamas (ATLANTIS) on July 18-23 I saw him there pretty much everyday. He looks exactly the same. I don't know about what he has been doing since then but he hadnt shown any strength improvement when i saw him. He was there with his girlfriend partying and playing craps the whole time. Which isnt bad I think its a good thing he has fun every once in a while but im jsut letting you know what i saw.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Hmmm. so which one's Parish and which one's McHale?

Parish: 21 years, 14.5ppg, 9.1rpg (Chandler?)
McHale: 13 years, 17.9ppg, 7.3rpg (Curry?)

I think when it's all said and done our boys have a shot at matching or exceeding those two Celtic greats' productivity.

And if you find some kind of way to match them up with a teamate as exceptional as Larry Bird, they might win as many or more championships as those vaunted Boston teams did (3). Because when you think about it, by the time the Parish/McHale Celtic teams had won their third title, I believe Bird had also earned his third league MVP. Not a bad sidkick to run with, wouldn't you say?


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>XXXCalade</b>!
> i hate to break the news to everyone but i am 100% positive that Tyson Chandler hasnt been training all that hard because I was in the Bahamas (ATLANTIS) on July 18-23 I saw him there pretty much everyday. He looks exactly the same. I don't know about what he has been doing since then but he hadnt shown any strength improvement when i saw him. He was there with his girlfriend partying and playing craps the whole time. Which isnt bad I think its a good thing he has fun every once in a while but im jsut letting you know what i saw.


*Six days does not an offseason make!* According to what appeared in the local papers, after the procedure on his throat Tyson worked out at Berto and then returned to his home in California with a member of the Bulls coaching staff to focus on his outside shooting touch.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Just to be clear....
> ...


I would trade Crawford + Marshall for Walker.

The starting lineup would be:
Pippen, Rose, Chandler, Walker, Howard

Bench would be:
Curry, Hinrich, Fizer, Gill, Mason Jr., Baxter

PG would be handled by Pippen, Rose, Hinrich, Mason Jr.

Start Curry at C if you like, but it would be giving up rebounding, defense, and blocked shots in exchange for nothing but offense (which we'd have plenty).

Alone, Walker and Howard aren't difference makers. Together with Rose and Pippen with all this youth (Chandler, Curry, Hinrich, Fizer, Mason Jr., Baxter), this is a roster that is at worst 3rd best in the conference and one that can compete with teams in the west (playoffs-wise).

Curry and Chandler will be better than Walker and Howard? Maybe 7 years from now. This season? Not a chance.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I would trade Crawford + Marshall for Walker.
> 
> ....
> ...


No cop outs. This thread is about Chandler (and Curry).

You think the odds are long that they turn out to be as good as Parish and McHale. So who would you trade them guys for?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> No cop outs. This thread is about Chandler (and Curry).
> ...


What cop out? 

I do not believe you "give up" on young tall players or point guards. Even Crawford.

I'm not suggesting we trade Crawford because I think we should give up on him. To the contrary, I suggest we trade him because it takes quality to get quality, we can have a great team without him (with Walker), and there's a LOT of other talented PGs in the league we could deal for if we ultimately had to.

The question raised in the "Dusty Baker Quote" thread was that the NBA doesn't have a minor league to develop players. Fine. But why use your starting lineup/1st squad to develop players if you can use the 2nd string to do it - AND WIN at the same time?

Would I trade Curry or Chandler? Yes, if the deal were right. And for quite a few players: TMac, Kobe, Iverson, Shaq, Pierce, Nowitzky, Duncan, Webber, Garnett, Marion, J. O'Neal, Vince Carter (if he passes a physical), Kidd, or Brand. We'd have to give up one of the 2 C's PLUS more to get one of those guys.

Regarding the McHale/Parrish comparisons. Those guys were ROLE players on playoff/championship teams for years and were there to step up when the older guys retired or were traded away. I like that formula. But we're putting the cart way before the horse here, comparing them to hall-of-famers/top 50 players in history - they're not even top 50 in the league.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> Would I trade Curry or Chandler? Yes, if the deal were right. And for quite a few players: TMac, Kobe, Iverson, Shaq, Pierce, Nowitzky, Duncan, Webber, Garnett, Marion, J. O'Neal, Vince Carter (if he passes a physical), Kidd, or Brand. We'd have to give up one of the 2 C's PLUS more to get one of those guys.


 You would only trade Chandler or Curry for one of the top 14 players in the league??? Since their stats were no way close to a top 14 level, you must see a lot of upside just like the optimists. Why do you belly moan about how these guys have proven nothing in the league? Or how Pat Riley is crazy to mention our kids in the same sentence with guys like Parish or McHale. :no:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Because they're not going to win now, this year. Or next, or next, or next, or next.


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Because they're not going to win now, this year. Or next, or next, or next, or next.


And you call yourself DaBullz?!?!?!?!?!?

:whatever:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Bulls4Life</b>!
> 
> 
> And you call yourself DaBullz?!?!?!?!?!?
> ...


Yep. We didn't win last year, or the year before, or the year before, or the year before, either.

BTW, if I weren't a fan, I wouldn't be here.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Yep. We didn't win last year, or the year before, or the year before, or the year before, either.
> ...



DaBullz, I respect you as a fellow fan but man I couldn't disagree more about your vision for the Bulls. I wouldn't want Antoine Walker on the Bulls even. And I'm a big time UK fan! The Bulls are headed in the right direction keeping this young nucleus together and I expect we will see results sooner rather than later...a championship may still be a couple of years away, but we're gonna be respectable and we're gonna start to become an elite team...I can be patient for the rings because once they start coming..they might just keep coming like they did in the 90's.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

DaBullz, for the most part, I enjoy your contrarian opinion on our youngsters, and how much more they need to develop, and to a certain degree, I agree with you on how we need a veteran infrastructure on the team, and how we do need seasoned talent on our roster to have a realistic chance of competing.

What I don't understand however, is your infatuation with Antoine Walker and Juwan Howard. They are veterans, but I don't think this team needs two more tweener PF's. 

Juwan Howard is a pretty close replication of Donyell Marshall (although I do realize that in many of your proposals, you have him being traded).

Antoine Walker is a volume shooter, ( a very low % one, at that) whose best position is PF, although he can play SF as well, who can dominate the ball at times. His game would not seem to fit very well with our team.

And while I agree that either or both of these players would be nice to have, and would help to a certain extent, I would NOT trade one of our 'holy trinity' for either of them, and I doubt that Paxson would either. 

Also, in most of your proposed veteran lineups, you have Pippen playing PG. In that case wouldn't it make more sense to pursue a true defensive SF, (although that's what Pippen was supposed to be, I thought) and rugged 4/5 type, as opposed to two offensive minded 3/4 types? To me, a veteran duo of PJ Brown and Matt Harpring, or something of that sort would make a lot more sense, according to what you want to do.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> BTW, if I weren't a fan, I wouldn't be here.


DB, a fan of what? A fan of the franchise, or a fan of the team?

You think we need major upheaval in players. You disagree with the vision that the GM's have set out for the team. You are pessimistic about who the team expects to be its greatest players, hopefully among the greatest in the NBA if not at least just really good.

So, you think we need new players, because you don't like the ones we've got, and the coaches and GM's are wrong about the way the team is run.

I think that sounds more along the lines of "critic" than fan.

A mother who wants to force her daughter into something that she's not with the cause that "I just want the best for you, honey" puts more faith in what she knows and little trust in what potential her daughter has. It may go either way, it's true, but parents need to learn how to be fans of their children, and not critics.

If you were a coach or a GM in real life, I think it entitles you to think however you want, though, just as a mother DOES have some license to guide her daughter. 

By the way, what rosenthall just said about Walker and Howard... right on the money. Marshall gives us what we need in Howard. We wouldn't want him for his offense. Howard's offensive skills are a little overrated... Juwan needs the ball a lot to get his points. His entire career he never played for really great teams and in Denver, he managed to average right around 18 points. To compare, Ron Mercer scored 18.3 in his time in Denver, and averaged right around 17.8 in his time in Chicago.

Walker gives us a lot of redundancy towards Jalen Rose (the T-Mac of our squad, according to you). A SF that likes to play point guard, shoots a ton and makes just some, and loves the three point shot. And Rose actually does most of those things better than Walker. The only thing Walker offers to the team is post offense, which is the ONE DIMENSION that Curry is useful for (according to you, he's a one-dimensional player, but at least he's good for that).

I think I might actually rather have Eddie Jones than either of those guys, and I'm only lukewarm towards him at all. At least he'd fit in with his defense and his pure SG skills, and he'd understand a role that he could fill really well with the Bulls and not kill his quickly deteriorating physique.

Trade youngsters away for vets? I might consider it, especially because I have a lot of fear that Crawford might get a ton of money thrown at him a la Arenas, and the Bulls just won't be able to match.

But the vets need to be better. If there was a deal to land us someone like Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, or even a guy like Ricky Davis (someone on ESPN once said that he's probably one of the nine guys in the league that once he's really on, no one can stop him... I totally agree. If we could harness that talent, it would be a huge boost to the SG/SF position.), then I'd take it.

But for now, we have some great band-aids while the team continues to develop. Curry and Chandler still need to get better, but they are going to show up as more than competent NBA starters while they continue to develop into stars. The rest of the slots are pretty well manned, with Gill, Rose, Pippen, Marshall. Crawford IS going to be a top 20 PG in this league beginning next season, and the rotation of 1-2-3 is going to be the most solid it has been since Jordan left the house he built.

I understand your desire for vets, but the straits are not as dire as you may think. To most of us, it seems like you have given up on the youngsters. It's one thing to think about insurance in the case that they don't pan out; it's another to encourage a plan that ASSUMES that they won't pan out.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Because they're not going to win now, this year. Or next, or next, or next, or next.


OK - prediction noted.

I predict the team will compete for the playoffs this year and are a lock next year.

Not much more to discuss here.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

In defense of *DaBullz!* (not that he needs my help), his "glass is half empty" (or a quarter empty, or a tenth empty) views are always backed up by a tremendous amount of research and analysis. Check out how many of the really good threads this summer have happened because of the tremendous job he does in defending and supporting his position.

Mostly, I disagree, but what a great asset to the board.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> In defense of *DaBullz!* (not that he needs my help), his "glass is half empty" (or a quarter empty, or a tenth empty) views are always backed up by a tremendous amount of research and analysis. Check out how many of the really good threads this summer have happened because of the tremendous job he does in defending and supporting his position.
> 
> Mostly, I disagree, but what a great asset to the board.


Yes, I agree with everything that Wynn says here.

I also disagree strongly with much of what DaBullz says, but he and Kismet really have been carrying the board the past month or so.

Thanks!


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

I agree, also. My own interaction on this board would be considerably less if it were not for the discussion evoked by DaBullz.

That being said, as a person I am oriented more for effectiveness and less for leisure, and the only reason I do engage with DB as much as I do is because I am of the idea that he is being honest, and not playing devil's advocate. He really does believe what he does, and he has tons of evidence to support it. My approach to respond is not to prove him wrong, but rather to question his interpretation of what his claims are.

Anyway. It's definitely been the mainstay of what I read on this board, lately. I think it'll be really interesting to look back on these discussions around December, and see where the Bulls are.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Because they're not going to win now, this year. Or next, or next, or next, or next.


and juwan howard and a.walker are going to win something sometime soon ?

give me a break they come 2nd and 3rd in the overpaid pf sweepstakes of recent years (and that they lose to vin baker )

they will never be the driving force of a winning team


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> and juwan howard and a.walker are going to win something sometime soon ?
> ...


:clap:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

First of all, I appreciate the kind words from everyone.




> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> 
> 
> DB, a fan of what? A fan of the franchise, or a fan of the team?


Both. I can be a fan of Curry, Chandler, and Crawford, even if I don't think they're ready this year (or next, or next, etc.).



> You think we need major upheaval in players. You disagree with the vision that the GM's have set out for the team. You are pessimistic about who the team expects to be its greatest players, hopefully among the greatest in the NBA if not at least just really good.


The case I've been trying to make is that we don't need a major upheaval in players, but rather an upheaval in the STARTING lineup. A quality starting lineup with the young guys we have filling role positions until they're truly ready is what I think is the ideal situation.



> So, you think we need new players, because you don't like the ones we've got, and the coaches and GM's are wrong about the way the team is run.


I never would have let Pippen and Jordan and Jackson leave. So, yeah, I have a huge problem with our GMs. Note that Pippen and Jordan were both still playing last season. No matter how anyone spins the breakup, it really boils down to a huge personality clash between the GM (Krause) and every player on the team. Hence, "organizations win championships." He insulted the great players we had, and I think that no FA in their right mind would come here (at that time) to get that same treatment somewhere along the line.



> I think that sounds more along the lines of "critic" than fan.


Going from first to worst, and then staying there with no end in sight is plenty good reason to be a critic.




> By the way, what rosenthall just said about Walker and Howard... right on the money. Marshall gives us what we need in Howard. We wouldn't want him for his offense. Howard's offensive skills are a little overrated... Juwan needs the ball a lot to get his points. His entire career he never played for really great teams and in Denver, he managed to average right around 18 points. To compare, Ron Mercer scored 18.3 in his time in Denver, and averaged right around 17.8 in his time in Chicago.


The difference between Howard and, say, Gill is HUGE. My mantra is "set our sights HIGHER," meaning don't settle for the low-end of the FAs out there, go after the best we can get.



> Walker gives us a lot of redundancy towards Jalen Rose (the T-Mac of our squad, according to you). A SF that likes to play point guard, shoots a ton and makes just some, and loves the three point shot. And Rose actually does most of those things better than Walker. The only thing Walker offers to the team is post offense, which is the ONE DIMENSION that Curry is useful for (according to you, he's a one-dimensional player, but at least he's good for that).


Walker coexists quite nicely, on a playoff team, with Pierce. He'll equally coexist (on a playoff team!) with Rose. Walker is absolutely not one dimensional as you say.The combination of Rose+Pippen+Walker would give the team THREE point forwards, in essense. Walker has handles, can shoot from the outside (I'd say an NBA record for 3PT attempts indicates he's not a one dimensional post player), rebounds, and plays D. His stats look quite like CWebb's:

Walker 
2000-2001 8.9 RPG, 5.5 APG, 1.7 SPG, 23.5 PPG
2001-2002 8.8 RPG, 5.0 APG, 1.5 SPG, 22.1 PPG

CWebb
2002-2003 10.5 RPG, 5.4 APG, 1.6 SPG, 23 PPG

We are talking about an all-star. Not a guy who plays on a rookie all-start team (the closest our guys get to the all-star game).

Three point forwards. Rose with ~5 APG, Walker with ~5 APG, Pippen with ~5 APG. That's NOT a selfish team. ~15 APG combined. (The bulls averaged 21.7 APG last season, and Utah led the league at 25.6, and those are for the WHOLE teams).

If we did have Walker, I envision some amazing passing and scoring from the outside combined with post scoring we get from Curry and Fizer and whatever we can get from Chandler. I also see a HUGE improvement in our team defense (a key to winning) and I see a balance of youth that our championship bulls team didn't have, the lakers haven't had, etc.



> I think I might actually rather have Eddie Jones than either of those guys, and I'm only lukewarm towards him at all. At least he'd fit in with his defense and his pure SG skills, and he'd understand a role that he could fill really well with the Bulls and not kill his quickly deteriorating physique.


I think there are several other candidates, besides Walker. I've had to keep stressing "don't get stuck on Walker, it could be someone like Jones or Finley" and it just may well have been Jamison, since we know he was traded. Someone who is already good, not someone we have to wait a long time for to be good.



> Trade youngsters away for vets? I might consider it, especially because I have a lot of fear that Crawford might get a ton of money thrown at him a la Arenas, and the Bulls just won't be able to match.
> 
> But the vets need to be better. If there was a deal to land us someone like Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, or even a guy like Ricky Davis (someone on ESPN once said that he's probably one of the nine guys in the league that once he's really on, no one can stop him... I totally agree. If we could harness that talent, it would be a huge boost to the SG/SF position.), then I'd take it.


People act like I suggest we trade away Curry AND Chandler AND Crawford. That's FAR from what I have in mind. The Walker trade was one we supposedly rejected (BAD GM!) where it was Marshall+Fizer+JWill for Walker. I think we could have substituted ERob for Fizer and got the deal done. When we drafted Hinrich, we now have 2 young PGs again, and are in a position to make that deal with Crawford instead of JWill.

What I think a good GM does is to make deals happen to improve the team. This means ASKING for guys like Pierce, Allen (who we may have been able to trade for, as he was traded), or even Ricky Davis.



> But for now, we have some great band-aids while the team continues to develop. Curry and Chandler still need to get better, but they are going to show up as more than competent NBA starters while they continue to develop into stars. The rest of the slots are pretty well manned, with Gill, Rose, Pippen, Marshall. Crawford IS going to be a top 20 PG in this league beginning next season, and the rotation of 1-2-3 is going to be the most solid it has been since Jordan left the house he built.


You are trying to sell me on two recently acquired vets who are 35 and 38 years old, and who don't come even close to Walker or Howard. And on the Bulls' company line that watching a bad team with lots of young/high draft picks is worth the price of a ticket. I'm not buying, because watching a team with REAL playoff chances is worth the price of a ticket.



> I understand your desire for vets, but the straits are not as dire as you may think. To most of us, it seems like you have given up on the youngsters. It's one thing to think about insurance in the case that they don't pan out; it's another to encourage a plan that ASSUMES that they won't pan out.


I've not given up on the youngsters. Though none of them has proven to be a rookie Jordan or Pippen or Grant or even Kukoc, they may pan out. Jordan, as great as he was, didn't win until his 7th season, and that was after he was a 28.8PPG player his 1st year. Should Curry (or Crawford) score 28.8PPG this year, then I see us waiting SIX MORE YEARS for the championship.

What I am encouraging is a plan that gives us the best of both worlds. A chance to win for the next six years AND to have our young guys championship ready after that to carry on the winning tradition.

What I am encouraging is a plan that worked for young guys like KG and Amare and Kobe, et al. They didn't play for a bad losing team full of other guys who were equally unready for the NBA. 

Kobe's teammates his rookie season were: Shaq, E Jones, Van Exel, Campbell, Horry, Kersey, Scott, Fischer (and Corrie Blount! ;-)

KG's teammates his rookie season were Rider, Laettner, Gugliotta, Terry Porter, Sam Mitchell, and Doug West.

Amare's teammates were Marbury, Marion, and Hardaway.

Chandler's teammates were Rose and Marshall (and JWill, Curry, and Hassell).

With that many unproven and not-ready-for-NBA players in the starting lineup, I think they cannot grow to be the players they ultimately should. On top of the lack of quality teammates, the losing is also a huge issue. Kobe, KG, and Amare's teams were all playoff contenders (if not participants).

You will find the same to be true of TMac and J. O'Neal, as well.

Any other guys you want to look at, hollar ;-)


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> and juwan howard and a.walker are going to win something sometime soon ?
> ...


Antoine Walker played for a winning team last season. He had just ONE quality veteran teammate (and vin baker). 

By any definition, he was the driving force of a winning team.

The Celtics won just 15 games his rookie season, then won 36 his second. (Then 19, 35, 36, 49, and 44).

Washington won 21 games in Howard's rookie season. In year two, they won 39, and in year 3, they won 44. He is both a winner and a class act.

That he could not win with Denver last season proves nothing, as denver was just a terrible terrible team around him.

Pippen has never played on a team that missed the playoffs. Two points. There's always a first time, and this is the first team he was traded to (or drafted on) that wasn't already a playoff team.


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/saying_010629.html 


"I think Tyson Chandler is the best player (in the draft). He's 7-foot. He's got like a 9-foot wingspan. It's incredible. He runs like a deer, has the ability to handle the ball, take it from the wing, pull up and shoot jump shots. He is an NBA talent right now. You would not have a doubt about his talent right now."
- Director of player personnel from the Western Conference 

"The pros really like Curry because of his physical presence, NBA-size body and his smash-mouth style of play. They see Chandler as a Kevin Garnett-type of a player who can put it on the floor, step back and hit the 17-foot jumper while also having a reliable jump hook inside."
- Van Coleman, national college recruiting analyst 

"Tyson Chandler is a tremendous runner and shotblocker. He has excellent athletic ability." 
- Boston Celtics GM Chris Wallace 

"Curry is an overpowering inside force." 
- Bob Gibbons, national college recruiting analyst 

"He (Eddy Curry) is physically stronger than Shaquille O'Neal was as a high school senior in 1989. Shaq was more athletic, but Curry is more physical and stronger." 
- Bob Gibbons, national college recruiting analyst 

"Chandler may have the best floor speed of any big man in recent memory. He's a new-look four (power forward). He's obviously not a power player, but because of his length and quickness, his ability to cover space in the lane and quickness of his feet, he can make an impact in the lane defensively. There are many successful fours today that are not power players, like Kevin Garnett and Rasheed Wallace."
- Jeff Weltman, Director of Player Personnel, L.A. Clippers 

Maybe comparisons to McHale & Parrish are not that far off!!!


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

What are you talking about? You honestly don't think Chandler, Curry, or Crawford will be "ready" next year, or next, or next. Listen, if they're not "ready" next year then chances are they'll never be. There is NO sensible reason why you don't think at least ONE of those three will be very good next year. 

And we're not the worst in the league and there is an end in sight. Are there a lot of knowledgable Bulls fans and NBA fans predicting we'll make the playoffs? Yes. So there is an end in sight.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

pierce is hardly 'a quality veteran teammate'

pierce is the #5 scorer in the league. he's also the #1 guy in the league at getting to the free throw line. PP matches walker on the boards and nearly in the assist line. if you want to go by efficency ratings then PP is the winner as well.

there's also a one year difference between the two. why is walker in all the trade rumors and PP virtually none.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

God, I love this board. Its like trench warfare with each side fighting for every inch. The Bulls board is and always will be #1! 

DaBullz, you my dawg. I mean that. I actually lean toward your assessments of players and your view of the franchise model. I don't agree with everything you've said, but the one underlying theme I see running throughout your posts is that <b>great players win championships</b>. Period.

The championship model for the modern NBA is such:
1) One uberstar at prime of his game, great supporting players, suffocating defense
[ie. MJ's Bulls, Duncan's Spurs, Hakeem's Rockets]

2) Two superstars, solid role players
[ie. Shaq/Kobe's Lakers]

Now if you following this line of reasoning for a second, the Kings could have broken that model last year... or the Mavs for that matter. Pre injury to Webber the Kings were the best team in the NBA. They would have added a third component of 'solid All-stars w/ no superstar' to the trend of the past decade. Sadly such a story didn't come to fruition.

So it boils down to this. DO WE HAVE ANY SUPERSTARS OR AN UBERSTAR ON THIS ROSTER?! If we can answer this question (and we probably won't know until 1-2 years from know)... then we can start the championship contender talk. 

My 2 cents.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

This is a great thread 

OK so Curry and Chandler are not Garnett or McGrady

And how many 1st round butt whoopings have these guys racked up ?

I purposefully left Bryant out as there is zero chance the Lakers have championship success without Shaq and Bryant would likely be fighting out of the 1st round with all the other preps to pros wunderkinds

How far do you think Lebron is going to go in the playoffs with no frontcourt to speak of ???( no disrespect to Carlos Boozer who had a good rookie campaign. ) Two preps to pros in Lebron and the fundamentally deficient Darius Miles together with guns for hire in Ricky Davis and Dejuan Wagner is not going to go far . First round in a year or three ...but same ole same ole for high school led prep to pro teams. But WTF... at least they will look sexy and fit the right marketing profile

Kwame Brown ? Hell the Wiz couldn't make it to the playoffs with Jordan, Stackhouse and Laetner ( yes Laetner who played damn well last season ) 

Would you rather have MJ of the last two years or Juwan Howard ? Stackhouse or Walker ( they both are shotaholics that don't make those around them better so its pretty well a wash )

Amare is closer to KG than our big boys . Amare has a greater developed intuition for the game which is underscored by the fact that he can handle and pass . I cringe when I watch Tyson trying to handle and pass on the break and its a crying shame Eddy has not learnt the law of sacrifice and how to be passing pivot man(my dream is that he models this aspect of his game of Chris Webber ) 

And I see Amare replicating KG's first round blues too. I mean their are plenty of cabs in the queue for the next several years ( on current team formations ) that will be in that Western final four over Phoenix .... and Amare has two of the top 20 players in the NBA ( arguably ) in Steph and Marion. I mean with Steph and MArion doing their think and Amare improving .. I still can't see them beyond the Lakers, Kings, Mavericks and Spurs for the next 3 or 4 years . And Minny ......

Yep first round blues for another preps to pros wunderkind for some time


So....what's the summation of this ?

High schoolers in the last couple of years are more fundamentally deficient for passing over the college game and are learning their fundamentals on the NBA's dime except perhaps Lebron and Amare that just "have it" from the get go and who may be the respective reincarmations of Kobe and KG 

But how far , really, are Lebron and Amare going to go in the playoffs in the next few years given the current composition of their teams and where teams are on the rise or in strongholds in their respective conferences. There may well be first round appearances ( particularly for Amare ) but beyond that ? 

Hell I can't think of any high schooler making it deep into the playoffs that played with anyone on their team not named Shaq. And most of them , if not all of them to a man , have been first round fodder.

So the reality is is that our boys are still developing on our dime and have just as good a chance ( I think better ) of making it to the playoffs before Kwame and Lebron and Darius. I also like their chances against TMac's Magic if we come up against them 

Will we have a chance to get past the 1st round blues with our preps to pros core ? 

Who knows

But I like Jalen Rose, Donyell Marshall, Scottie Pippen and Kendall Gill ( assuming the last two are still able to contribute some ) over Sam Mitchell, Doug West , Tom Hammonds and Dean Garrett ( to bring up the KG reference again ) 

And I would rather have Donyell to Juwan 

And I would much rather have Crawford or Chandler to Antoine bloody Walker. In fact I would rather slam my nuts in a drawer than have Antoine Walker a Bull

So 1st round with Eddy, Tyson or Jamal or 1st round with Antoine, Eddy and Tyson?

Seems pretty to simple to me but maybe that's because I'm simple

No highschooler has got out of or is getting out of the 1st round with any degree of regualrity ( and again I am not including Bryant because of the O"Neal factor ) until that highschooler or highschoolers (if more than one as in Curry/Chandler or James/Miles ) takes that responsibility on themselves and is able to belt through it with a pretty reasonable support ensemble

I know that maybe this is the point that DABullz is trying to make whilst bemoaning that they haven't come in and kicked butt like KG and Kobe ( how many first round pink slips for KG again ) but the supporting cast we have assembled with our vets , I think , is enough for us to get to the 1st round where we will take our beatings for the next 2 years 

At that time , effectively , that will be Eddy and Tyson's college career at ScrewU , and I would expect them thereafter to progress with what they have learnt and developed ( in terms of their specific skills that get added to their current limits ) and kick on .. and hopefully propel us forward deep into the playoffs

Its around about that time that they will have to start earning that money on their extensions to.. which is another point... if you bury them now behind Walker and Juwan ... don't expect to have a future with them when its time to re-up . And the reason is is that will not have had a chance to develop so we would try and keep their cost down but someone else is going to pay the money on the promise of what they might be . Are we prepared to pay that kind of money for unproven talent given the cost of our payroll in 2 years - particularly with Rose, Walker and Howard on contract ?

Like it or lump it this is what we're going into battle with with the objective being to make the 1st rounds for the next series of lessons at ScrewU


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

Oh ..

Jermaine, Al and Jonny 

3 more prep to pro 1st round buttcandies with veterans Reggie, Austin , Brad , Ron Mercer , Erick Strickand and one of the leagues better perimeter defenders in Chainsaw Ronnie


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> God, I love this board. Its like trench warfare with each side fighting for every inch. The Bulls board is and always will be #1!
> 
> DaBullz, you my dawg. I mean that. I actually lean toward your assessments of players and your view of the franchise model. I don't agree with everything you've said, but the one underlying theme I see running throughout your posts is that <b>great players win championships</b>. Period.
> ...


Great players win championships. I couldn't say it any better.

While some people see the 3 Cs as great, I don't. YET. YET. YET.

Pippen used to be a great player. He's 38 and coming off knee surgery and has averaged 60 games played over the last 3 years. Great? Not any more.

Gill used to be a very good player. He's 35 and coming off a season where he averaged about 24 minutes per game. Great? No.

All I am trying to convey is that I want our GM to bring in guys NOW who are GREAT so we can WIN. And without trading the two pillars of the franchise, Curry and Chandler.

Those two may someday be great. I don't advocate giving up on them. To the contrary, I advocate letting the develop as fast or as slow as their nature dictates, but on a WINNING team with a winning system and learning from GREAT players how the game is played.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Antoine Walker played for a winning team last season. He had just ONE quality veteran teammate (and vin baker).
> ...


1st of all the driving force on the celts is paul pierce without him the celtics are one of the worst teams in the league 

2nd for someone as good as you claim walker is he was absolutely horrible last playoffs he was destoyed by both power forwards he faced in kenyon martin ,and in jermaine o.neal

it was more like his lack of production was a driving force for the other team's success

juwan howard is good but he isn't great and any team he is the best player on will lose badly much like the nuggets did last season


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

F. Jerzy,

Only one team, every year, wins it all. As much as I want for the Bulls to regain that level of play, I would be happy making it to the conference finals a few times. Not just first round exits.

Back around 1980, there were two rookies who altered the fates of their teams and took them to the finals. That would be Magic and Bird. Since then, Duncan (along with a strong Admiral and a strong supporing cast) is the closest thing to achieving that feat, winning a championship in his 2nd season.

Jordan didn't do it. Kidd didn't do it. KG didn't do it. And so on.

Most importantly, your man Shaq didn't do it. In fact, Shaq didn't win a championship until his EIGHTH season (Jordan did it in his seventh).

Shaq's first season, he played 38 minutes a game, grabbed 13.8 rebounds, blocked 3.5 shots a game, and scored 23.4. Jordan scored 28.8 as a rookie.

Curry hasn't averaged 28.8 PPG like jordan or put up good Center numbers like Shaq. Neither has Chandler or Crawford. Our guys are NOT playing with a guy named Shaq, so I simply agree with you that their chance of having a meaningful playoff run in the near term is nill.

The question I have is: 
"If Curry puts up 28.8PPG or Shaq like numbers next season, does his EIGHT year clock start now?" And the correllary is: "What do we do for those EIGHT years?" As a fan, I don't want to wait EIGHT years.

So you don't like Antoine Walker. Well, he just did finish his 7th season, and he has put up Shaq-like numbers his whole career (for his position). I suggest that he's a LOT closer to being ready to go beyond the 2nd round elimination (note: 2nd round) his team suffered last season. Unfortunately, his team has only one other good player (outstanding, even), and not much else. And not much help coming from the draft position that comes with being a team that loses in the 2nd round of the playoffs.

And this raises the 2nd most important point I've tried to make. Tearing down other great players in the league, like the ALL-STAR Walker, doesn't make our guys good. I don't happen to be a big fan of Walker, but I do appreciate that he's a top quality player in this league, right now, and will be for years to come. Maybe for those EIGHT years, even.

Peace!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>F.Jerzy</b>!
> Oh ..
> 
> Jermaine, Al and Jonny
> ...


My observation about Indy is that they've been far more successful letting other teams, like Portland (O'Neal) and the Bulls (Miller and Artest) groom the young guys for them.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> 1st of all the driving force on the celts is paul pierce without him the celtics are one of the worst teams in the league
> ...


The Celtics with just Pierce would be a bad team. One of the worst in the league. 

Howard would be the third best player on our team in my scenario. How many teams have a player as good as Howard as their 3rd best?

Walker suffered a knee injury in January. He was supposed to miss two to three weeks but played on it anyway. I don't think it healed well, and that hurt his game all season. In spite of that, he had a terrific season, but I look at his previous ones and the offseason to get healthy (he's reported to be in the best shape of his career) and believe he'll be back to the Walker we knew from seasons past.

Read this:

http://www.hoopsworld.com/cgi-bin/news/exec/view.cgi?archive=14&num=4437


And this:

http://www.thesunlink.com/redesign/2003-01-22/sports/55688.shtml

January 22, 2003 

Knee injury sidelines Celtics' Walker

WALTHAM, Mass. -- Antoine Walker is expected to miss up to two weeks with a knee injury sustained in the Boston Celtics' comeback victory over the Philadelphia 76ers.

An MRI taken Tuesday, one day after Boston's 100-99 win, showed a mild ligament sprain of his right knee. Walker was hurt in the third quarter of the game in which his 3-pointer provided the last points, capping a rally from a 23-point deficit.

Walker finished with 33 points and, on Tuesday, was chosen as the NBA player of the week in the Eastern Conference.

Walker's 21.8-point average ranks 15th in the NBA and second among the Celtics, who have won four straight games.

(Walker played 78 games last season. Compare his "guts" to ERob!)


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> The Celtics with just Pierce would be a bad team. One of the worst in the league.
> ...


pierce is a far better player than walker a celtic team without walker and only him might resemble orlando 

a team with walker and no pierce would likely look like last year's denver squad with juwan howard

who may be the 3rd best player on our team at the start of the season and also may not be and likely wouldn't be the 3rd best player by the end of the season and a lot of teams have a player better than howard on their teams ...in fact i would say most do


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> The question I have is:
> "If Curry puts up 28.8PPG or Shaq like numbers next season, does his EIGHT year clock start now?" And the correllary is: "What do we do for those EIGHT years?" As a fan, I don't want to wait EIGHT years.


 Just b/c Shaq averaged 28 ppg and then took 8 years to win it all means squat.

As you said, Duncan won in his second year even though he as never scored 28 ppg. 

Yea, our guys are still years away from winning a championship. But so is every team that is not the Lakers, Spurs, Dallas, Kings or possibly the Nets or Wolves.

Picking up vets at the expense of our current talent other than Chander and Curry is not going to change that.

As long as we are unwilling to trade Chandler and Curry b/c of their potential, we are stuck waiting for them to fullfill that potential.

No Crawford +Marshal + reserve for psuedo All-Star trade is going to change that.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Great players win championships. I couldn't say it any better.
> ...


Its tough to bring in players that are great. Teams that have great players (garnett, kobe, tmac, duncan) are not getting rid of them. So.... what do you do? History has shown that you have to build through the draft (unless you are looking for a massive 7 footer who wants to be a genie on the silver screen).... which is what the bulls are doing.

Walker and Howard are very good players. But... you have to admit... they are not the GREAT players that lead a team to a title.
If we can trade Crawford for a GREAT player... then lets do it. Walker is not GREAT. IMO, Crawford can become a great player based what I've seen. This can't be backed up with stats yet since he's yet to play a full season as a starter... its just talent evaluation ..... not statistical evaluation. Its the kind of stuff that scouts do (not that i'm anywhere near an NBA scout). Walker could propel us to the 6th seed next year... maybe we can get out the first round... but he won't lead us to a title. Crawford could develop into someone, IMO, that can. I would not make the deal.

One flaw about not playing the youngsters much is that basketball players (especially young ones that are hyped up) want to play. They will want to leave your team if they are not playing. They will develop a negative attitude... get down on themselves... if they are not playing. That's no good. So... if you have not played them... when it comes time to re-up the 'ol contract... its a tough call as a GM since you have little to go on. You stand a greater chance of overpaying if you want to resign them... or if you let them go you could watch them become superstars for another team. You love stats... imagine having to make that call with no stats to go on. Yuk! If you rip their per-game averages now.... just imagine if they didn't get hardly any minutes... while Juwan Howard and Antoine Walker log 40 a game so we can win 50, 48 and 45 games the next 3 years.

Typing this very fast since i have to jet...... i just wanted to agree that i love your posts as well dabullz. What kind of DB to you have at home/work to get all these stats? Do you just write the SQL yourself or do you have some kinda reporting software?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> God, I love this board. Its like trench warfare with each side fighting for every inch. The Bulls board is and always will be #1!
> 
> DaBullz, you my dawg. I mean that. I actually lean toward your assessments of players and your view of the franchise model. I don't agree with everything you've said, but the one underlying theme I see running throughout your posts is that <b>great players win championships</b>. Period.
> ...


This is my response to kukoc4ever, johnston797, and happygrinch. See the text in red.

I look at this lineup:

Pippen, Rose, Chandler (or Curry), Walker, and Howard

and see a team that is competitive with Sacto and Dallas. And deeper because of our bench.

I see the current projected linup as a team that resembles the Bulls team of two years ago, pre-Rose trade, with Mercer, Artest, and Miller. That was a BAD team.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I look at this lineup:
> 
> Pippen, Rose, Chandler (or Curry), Walker, and Howard
> ...


Portland had a similar lineup:

Pippen = Pippen
Rose ~ Bonzi Wells
Curry or Chandler ~ Randolph
Walker ~ Wallace
Howard ~ Dale Davis \ Sabonis

And the Blazers lost in the first round.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Portland had a similar lineup:
> ...


Portland had other issues, like drug abuse.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> Typing this very fast since i have to jet...... i just wanted to agree that i love your posts as well dabullz. What kind of DB to you have at home/work to get all these stats? Do you just write the SQL yourself or do you have some kinda reporting software?


I wrote the stats.basketballboards.net site (see link at the top of this page). It uses an SQL database for the backend. I bought the rights to use the stats for the WWW site.

For the most part, I've been using Excel (spreadsheet) and typing in the more recent numbers I gather from other WWW sites. I use Yahoo! mostly, because it is fast. And nba.com and google for other things.

Peace!


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

This boils down to 2 basic viewpoints:

A. The performance of the 3 C's the 2nd half of last season was an awakening for those three and a preview of much greater things to come. 

B. The performance of the 3 C's the 2nd half of last season was an aberration. They only won because teams were either resting to get ready for the playoffs or just didn't take them seriously.

Obviously I am in Group A because I think the Bulls could end up as a 5th or 6th seed in the playoffs this season and be a JUGGERNAUT in 2-3 years. With the quality additions to the coaching staff and the aquisition of seasoned vets (what BC has wanted since he began) I see definite improvement coming! Just look at the defense played by our summer league squad. Expect more of the same this coming season. 

I am confident that you Group B guys are going to be pleasantly surprised, and I'm happy for you all!

:bsmile:


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Bulls4Life</b>!
> This boils down to 2 basic viewpoints:
> 
> A. The performance of the 3 C's the 2nd half of last season was an awakening for those three and a preview of much greater things to come.
> ...


Absolutley! Count me in group A too. I don't even see how there can be a group A. Sure, NBA players take years to develop, ok, the three C's might be another 5 years before they are being fitted for their rings...ok, I'lld buy that. I can understand DaBullz point that it might be a while before they mature into great players but that IS whats happening. There was too much consistency for last season's play to be an abberration, heck, you could look at the way they were playing BEFORE they started putting up gaudy stats and SEE it was coming if you have any eye for evaluating talent at all. The Bulls have not one, not two, but THREE potential All Stars or very close to All Stars in the young up and comer group of the three C's, they also have a guy in Rose who plays at a near All Star level, and a guy in Pip that USED to be an All Star. I have always been of the opinion that teams are better developing their own young talent and only making trades that are very beneficial in the long term. For instance, I love Ron Artest's game but the guy is crazy as hell and that was detremintal to the teams long term plans...boom, he got dealt. Miller, great center, good guy, holding up the development of Curry...boom he got dealt. 

Anyways, my point is that the Bulls young talent is developing as expected and there is absolutely no reason to try to turn a future dynasty into a quick fix gimme a championship this year.


----------



## THE'clip'SHOW (Sep 24, 2002)

Like my AVI


<--------- :grinning:


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>THE'clip'SHOW</b>!
> Like my AVI
> 
> 
> <--------- :grinning:


:laugh:


----------



## Hilary_Duff (Aug 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>THE'clip'SHOW</b>!
> Like my AVI
> 
> 
> <--------- :grinning:



not funny











...... j/k :laugh:


----------



## Hilary_Duff (Aug 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rosenthall</b>!
> DaBullz, for the most part, I enjoy your contrarian opinion on our youngsters, and how much more they need to develop, and to a certain degree, I agree with you on how we need a veteran infrastructure on the team, and how we do need seasoned talent on our roster to have a realistic chance of competing.
> 
> What I don't understand however, is your infatuation with Antoine Walker and Juwan Howard. They are veterans, but I don't think this team needs two more tweener PF's.
> ...



:yes:


----------



## nwasquad (Aug 1, 2003)

it seems that everyone here thinks that with a few tweaks here adn there, the bulls are championship worthy in 2-3 yrs....lemme tell u, until ppl like shaq, kobe, nowitzki, webber, bibby, etc retire in the western conference or move to the east, the west will alwyas be stronger than the east and the bulls will nto win a championship, although they may get close


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Bump

I really enjoyed this thread.


----------



## Nater (Jul 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Bump
> 
> I really enjoyed this thread.


You're disgusting. :no:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Forget about my predictions... the thread is interesting becuase of the twin towers thing. We're at a point where some threads are talking about Paxon hinting he's may trade Chandler, and I found this topic and thread relevent to that discussion.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Forget about my predictions... the thread is interesting becuase of the twin towers thing. We're at a point where some threads are talking about Paxon hinting he's may trade Chandler, and I found this topic and thread relevent to that discussion.


are you going to bump all the threads with you talking about how great jalen rose is?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> are you going to bump all the threads with you talking about how great jalen rose is?


Why don't you tell me what his stats were since coming back from his injury and then we can talk about it some more ;-)


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Is it ironic that so many people are ready to dump our future twin towers when just a year ago they were suggesting TC/EC were going to be the next Parrish/McHale?

Paxson bet the entire farm, and a lot of its future production on these guys. Maybe he's right, just a year or two (or three) premature.


----------

