# Burns: "Chemistry Has Its Limits" (Pax quoted)



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> But let's not get carried away. While bad chemistry can wreck a team, good chemistry still ranks somewhere around fourth on the list of ingredients needed to win an NBA title. The first three, of course, are talent, talent and talent.
> 
> And at least one of those talents had better be of the superstar variety.
> 
> ...


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/marty_burns/10/20/chemistry/index.html

So . . . 

. . . does Pax see Deng and Gordon as our stars? Chandler? Kirk? Eddie Basden?

In all seriousness, I wonder. What kind of star have we set ourselves up to acquire? Nene's not it. Peja sure as hell isn't it. Al Harrington isn't it.

Any superstar we might acquire will have warts -- we wouldn't be getting Kobe or Garnett, e.g., because their current teams are thrilled with them, after all. Any other superstar of the ilk that West and Paxson are talking about probably isn't realistically obtainable. Guys like Amare and Yao are already locked down, Wade and James will be at the earliest opportunity, and Chicago doesn't have the lure of an LA or a Florida when it comes to wooing away that type of player.

I'm happy the Bulls pulled themselves out of the worst six-year tailspin in NBA history, but I fear they're about to be stuck in a rut of a different kind.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

This is basically the theme of the thread "what player out there can put the bulls over the top?"

I think it's a very hard question to address and answer. It's obvious to me that the team(s) with the very best chances for championships have depth, balance, and at least one player you can claim is the best in the NBA overall.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

We never know. We might acquire a major piece with one of our two first round picks this year, or heck, even get lucky and land a Finley-esque second rounder or an undrafted Ben Wallace. In any case, we DO have a good young core. I think Chandler could be a star, I also think Hinrich, Gordon, and Deng all have "star potential".


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

We will have to eventually get this "superstar" player and no I do not think we have anyone on this roster who is that guy. Paxson has the assets and the flexibility to get him. Problem is who will be available? I think the answer is KG. I really do. Other than that you are settling for a Peja/Nene/Pierce type player. I really think McHale will have to trade KG at some point and you can bet Paxson will be there to make an offer.


----------



## SPIN DOCTOR (Oct 31, 2002)

Right or wrong, this is exactly why pushing for Pax to get in the Vince Carter sweepstakes last trading deadline. A chance to get a real impact star (I know...when motivated), at a cost that does not decimate the teams core. No Vinsanity is not perfect, but he is a legitimite star and he could have owned Chicago.

Opportunity lost.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The Chicago Grizzlies. Makes sense to me.

Paxson traded away many of our players with the most upside and current production. 

Paxson built Cap Space for an off-season where no current superstars are available.

Now he claims talent is needed to win in the NBA? 

Of course it is. Of course its the most important thing in the NBA. Of course, everyone knows this Paxson.

How are we going to acquire it? High lotto picks? We're not bad enough for that.

Well, at least we can make a trade for a disgruntled star. Oh wait, the jib constraint. 

We're stuck in the very rut Krause wanted to avoid. Merely being average. 

We're Craig Ehlo to someones Jordan.

This team is built in Paxson's image. Solid. Average. Clean-cut. Boring.

*Fire Pax.* (should have done it a couple years ago)


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> We're stuck in the very rut Krause wanted to avoid. Merely being average.


I'd rather be stuck in that rut, than to be stuck in the rut of being one of the worst teams in the league every year. 

And besides, we've been stuck there for how long? One season, where we won 47 games. I wouldn't call that being stuck. Being stuck somewhere is a 5 or 6 year thing, like Krause had us stuck in the lottery. 

I really don't know what you guys expect from Paxson. Obviously we need a franchise player, and he knows that, but they don't grow on trees. This isn't NBA live where you can just throw three or four good players on the table for Tim Duncan and it's accepted. It's hard as hell to get a top 10 player, because everyone knows that, so when they get one, they don't let them go.


----------



## thebullybully (Jan 26, 2005)

Pro sports is a business afterall, and I'd be very curious to know if it's more profitable to have a regular playoff team with no championships, or a team with championship highs, and then very low lows. That may not be a real issue in Chicago where the fans show up regardless, but I'd bet a couple of those bad years hit the bottom line pretty hard.

Would the/any ownership intentionally design a steadier product in lieu of a better product? Chemistry and pretty good hard working athletes will certainly get you regular playoff appearances, and be much easier to maintain. I think the next offseason will tell me if they aim to step up to the elite. If no elite talent is available, what will they do with the flexibility? Draft well again, sign their guys to reasonable contracts, and wait for the next year?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Infact it was Krause who let two top 15 players go from our team. Not Paxson.


----------



## Deke (Jul 27, 2005)

i dont really think we need a star player in order to win another championship. we need a better team then we have currently but we dont need the next MJ or next shaq in order to win titles.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I'd rather be stuck in that rut, than to be stuck in the rut of being one of the worst teams in the league every year.
> 
> And besides, we've been stuck there for how long? One season, where we won 47 games. I wouldn't call that being stuck. Being stuck somewhere is a 5 or 6 year thing, like Krause had us stuck in the lottery.
> 
> I really don't know what you guys expect from Paxson. Obviously we need a franchise player, and he knows that, but they don't grow on trees. This isn't NBA live where you can just throw three or four good players on the table for Tim Duncan and it's accepted. It's hard as hell to get a top 10 player, because everyone knows that, so when they get one, they don't let them go.



That being said, perhaps hanging on to Eddy Curry might not have been such a bad idea huh?


----------



## YearofDaBulls (Oct 20, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> The Chicago Grizzlies. Makes sense to me.
> 
> Paxson traded away many of our players with the most upside and current production.
> 
> ...


Yeah....ok ...


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

ace20004u said:


> That being said, perhaps hanging on to Eddy Curry might not have been such a bad idea huh?


Curry isn't even a top 50 player, so he isn't anything close to a superstar, let alone an all star or a star. Paying the guy like a superstar doesn't mean he is one.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

LOL, with most of our players being under 25, I think it's a little too soon to break out the "this team has reached it's maximum potential" argument.

This team was led last season by SIX FREAKING ROOKIES, a 2nd-year player, and a pair of 22-year-olds. But they are maxed out? Please, that's just comical. 

And FWIW, Gordon's 4th quarter heroics last season were as "superstar" as any of the league's "superstars" (and above all of them save Shaq and Nash, I believe). Making winning plays in the clutch is what makes a "superstar", BTW. 

He was the first rookie in NBA history named 6th Man of the Year, I guess he has no talent?

And I believe Tyson was named 1st-Team 4th Quarter All-Star because of the way he dominates games down the stretch, I guess he doesn't have any "star" quality? If not, I guess Ben Wallace isn't a "star", either? 

Unless, of course, people believe that Gordon and Deng and Hinrich and Duhon and Chandler don't have talent, I really don't see the big deal in Paxson saying "You need talent to win"? DUH, of course you need talent.

Can a talented *team* beat a much more "talented" group of "superstars"? The 2004 Pistons beating the Lakers handily tells me the answer is "yes". 

Hell, one could easily argue that the Spurs didn't win Game 7 vs the Pistons because of their "superstar", it was Ginobli who did most of the damage late in the game, with a lot of help from Horry. 

I think that the last 2 NBA Finals have shown that being a dominant defensive team is currently the way to go, and the Bulls already have that.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I'd rather be stuck in that rut, than to be stuck in the rut of being one of the worst teams in the league every year.


That was the deal Krause made with the fans when drafting the twin towers. We're going to suck for a spell.

Hardly shocking that our top two players (PER) or two of our top three players (EFF) were the twin towers last season. 

That’s a long term investment paying off. 

Of course, Paxson messed this situation up as well.

Brand (all star), Chandler (top PER guy last season), Artest (all star), Curry (#2 guy in PER last year), Crawford (above average player). These are the guys that Krause goes after. Potential or current all-stars. The talent required to be difference makers in the NBA.

Paxson's crew? Gordon. Hinrich. Duhon. Deng. 

The difference could not be clearer.

The proof will be in the wins and losses though. We'll see how it goes. So far "the right way" has a losing record in every way that counts (wins n losses, championship runs).


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> The Chicago Grizzlies. Makes sense to me.
> 
> Paxson traded away many of our players with the most upside and current production.
> 
> ...



LOL. We're relevant for the first time since Jordan and after one year we're in a rut? I don't know k4e, this is too outrageous not to be considered baiting.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Curry isn't even a top 50 player, so he isn't anything close to a superstar, let alone an all star or a star. Paying the guy like a superstar doesn't mean he is one.



I think Curry quite clearly is one of the top 5 true centers in the league and centers are one of the more valuable positions, particularly when you have someone who can score at a high % from the post. Curry led the league a couple of seasons in fg%, he may not be top 50 but he is still young and is certainly one of the better true centers in the game already. Plus, his contract was hardly a "supertstar" contract, it was an eminently reasonable contract for a young big.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

badfish said:


> LOL. We're relevant for the first time since Jordan and after one year we're in a rut? I don't know k4e, this is too outrageous not to be considered baiting.


How are we relevant?

Are any of the top teams afraid of us on the way to the title?

Do you realistically think that given the crop of FAs, the likely mid-1st draft picks and the constrained pool of players that Paxson decides to choose from that this will change in the next couple years?

The Grizzlies and the Bulls are not relevant.


----------



## TonyMontana_83 (Dec 4, 2004)

I disagree with the basis of this thread. Instead of ranking the importance of the two I will just say this. Talent without chemistry is like a car without an engine and vice versa. If you have one but not the other there is no way your system is going to work.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> How are we relevant?
> 
> Are any of the top teams afraid of us on the way to the title?
> 
> ...


K4E, I agree with a lot of what you say and disagree with some. On this particular point I think I have to disagree...well..at least to a point. The Bulls ARE more relevant than they were, whether that means they have turned into Boston and will make the playoffs every year but not make any hay, or, whether it means that they show internal improvement, add a key piece, and legitimately compete for a championship still remains to be seen. Obviously the Bulls are more relevant, going from miserable losing for many years to 47 wins and a narrow playoff loss to Washington, missing key players, is certainly becoming "more relevant", just how relevant remains to be seen.

I think a lot of your feeling is sour grapes over Curry, which I agree with wholeheartedly, but even with the loss of Curry, lets not write this team off to mediocrity just yet, they do have some very good young players to grow with.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Brand, Chandler, Artest, Curry, Crawford. These are the guys that Krause goes after. Potential or current all-stars. The talent required to be difference makers in the NBA.


Krause had a 1st pick, 2nd pick, 4th pick, 4th pick, 7th pick, 16th pick. You might as well cancel out Brand because even a terrible general manager can handle a 1st pick. Overall he had four top 5 picks, and a couple of good 1st rounds picks. Yet, by the time he was done, all that was left was Chandler, Curry and Crawford. One who isn't even starting calibur, one who is an average center, and the other is one of the best rebounders and defenders in the league, who Paxson kept. 



kukoc4ever said:


> Paxson's crew? Gordon. Hinrich. Duhon. Deng.


3rd pick, 7th pick, 7th pick, 39th pick. Yet these guys came in and won 47 games in year 1. Paxson probably would have good picks like Krause did, but the team isn't winning 20 games every year. Maybe that's what you want? Should we tank to get Greg Oden? That seems more Krause-ish. 



kukoc4ever said:


> The proof will be in the wins and losses though. We'll see how it goes. So far "the right way" has a losing record in every way that counts (wins n losses, championship runs).


The right way was a top 10 team in the league last season, how is that a losing record? Counting the first season is just looking for something to criticize. We still had Jalen Rose and Jamal Crawford, two of the pieces holding the team in the lottery with their terrible defense and chucking tendencies.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

ace20004u said:


> I think Curry quite clearly is one of the top 5 true centers in the league and centers are one of the more valuable positions, particularly when you have someone who can score at a high % from the post. Curry led the league a couple of seasons in fg%, he may not be top 50 but he is still young and is certainly one of the better true centers in the game already. Plus, his contract was hardly a "supertstar" contract, it was an eminently reasonable contract for a young big.


Curry is an average center. If you want my feelings on Curry, Dan Rosenbaum sums it up about as well as I ever could in this post.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Curry is an average center. If you want my feelings on Curry, Dan Rosenbaum sums it up about as well as I ever could in this post.


I'm well aware of Rosenbaums statistical analysis on Curry. It still doesn't change the fact that he is a top 5 center in the league when you don't count all of the pf's playing out of position ala Ben Wallace. If Curry is an "average" center then the league must be littered with true 7'ers that are young and display a great post game, soft hands, and amazing athleticism. IMO, it is Shaq, Yao, Brad Miller, Z, and then Curry. I don't know any other center in the league I would put in 5th ahead of him. You just don't like or apprecciate Eddy Curry, which is fine, there are no shortage of people who think Curry is garbage but the simple fact of the matter is that it isn't true.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I'd rather be stuck in that rut, than to be stuck in the rut of being one of the worst teams in the league every year.
> 
> And besides, we've been stuck there for how long? One season, where we won 47 games. I wouldn't call that being stuck. Being stuck somewhere is a 5 or 6 year thing, like Krause had us stuck in the lottery.
> 
> I really don't know what you guys expect from Paxson. Obviously we need a franchise player, and he knows that, but they don't grow on trees. This isn't NBA live where you can just throw three or four good players on the table for Tim Duncan and it's accepted. It's hard as hell to get a top 10 player, because everyone knows that, so when they get one, they don't let them go.


The fact that Krause didn't execute the concept very well doesn't mean it was a bad concept to begin with.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Krause had a 1st pick, 2nd pick, 4th pick, 4th pick, 7th pick, 16th pick. You might as well cancel out Brand because even a terrible general manager can handle a 1st pick. Overall he had four top 5 picks, and a couple of good 1st rounds picks.


IN my original post, I also forgot to include free agents Brad Miller (all-star) and Donyell Marshall (very good player).

As for the 1st pick, all I have to say is Kwame Brown, Michael Olowokandi, Joe Smith and Pervis Ellison.

Also, Kruase turned the 1st pick into the 2nd pick, and that 2nd pick was the best player on our team last season. 

The 4th pick was our 2nd best player. 

The 16th pick is an all star. 

The 7th pick is an above average player. 

Fizer, of course, was a bust, but was acquired in a bad draft to make a trade that fell through... a failure, yes, but at least Krause was trying something (making phone calls... almost making deals).




> Yet, by the time he was done, all that was left was Chandler, Curry and Crawford. One who isn't even starting calibur, one who is an average center, and the other is one of the best rebounders and defenders in the league, who Paxson kept.



All three players have PERs above 15 (above average). Marshall and Rose were here as well (above average). Paxson was handed above average players. That's why he guaranteed playoffs.

People ridicule Rose's contract. The real joke is AD's contract and the TT contract, the two that Paxson acquired. 



> 3rd pick, 7th pick, 7th pick, 39th pick. Yet these guys came in and won 47 games in year 1. Paxson probably would have good picks like Krause did, but the team isn't winning 20 games every year. Maybe that's what you want? Should we tank to get Greg Oden? That seems more Krause-ish.


The team is average now. And average looks like the cap with the current crew, at least for this season. Perhaps I'm wrong. But, given that you think the Bulls will win fewer games and won't make much noise in the playoffs, it seems you agree with me.




> The right way was a top 10 team in the league last season, how is that a losing record? Counting the first season is just looking for something to criticize. We still had Jalen Rose and Jamal Crawford, two of the pieces holding the team in the lottery with their terrible defense and chucking tendencies.


Paxson has a career losing record, in the regular season and playoffs. Not fair to include the first season? He guaranteed playoffs that season.

Jalen was the best player on a team that went to the finals. So, it appears his tendancies were good enough that year.

I'd do a back-flip if any of our current players could do the same, for this team. 

We both agree that it won't be this team, this year. In fact, we both agree that our team will win fewer games than last year.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

ace20004u said:


> I'm well aware of Rosenbaums statistical analysis on Curry. It still doesn't change the fact that he is a top 5 center in the league when you don't count all of the pf's playing out of position ala Ben Wallace. If Curry is an "average" center then the league must be littered with true 7'ers that are young and display a great post game, soft hands, and amazing athleticism. IMO, it is Shaq, Yao, Brad Miller, Z, and then Curry. I don't know any other center in the league I would put in 5th ahead of him. You just don't like or apprecciate Eddy Curry, which is fine, there are no shortage of people who think Curry is garbage but the simple fact of the matter is that it isn't true.


If Ben Wallace isn't a center, then it just shows how unnecessary a center really is. The Pistons are contenders, and won a title with two power forwards. Not only that, but most would agree they have the best frontcourt in the league. So counting out Ben Wallace as a center to boost Curry up the ladder of being a "true" center is pretty irrelevant. 

Duncan, Yao, Shaq, Ilgauskas, Camby and Miller are all definitely better than Curry at the "true" center position. Then guys like Dalembert, Mehmet Okur, PJ Brown, Jamal Magloire and Erick Dampier are all in the same class of centers with Curry after that.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> The fact that Krause didn't execute the concept very well doesn't mean it was a bad concept to begin with.


And this is why Krause needed to go.

Sadly, he was replaced with a guy with a flawed concept (IMO).


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> But, given that you think the Bulls will win fewer games and won't make much noise in the playoffs, it seems you agree with me.


The Bulls right now are above average, but that's not my points, my point is that the team Krause put together was terrible. For someone who looks at wins and losses as the main indication, you sure stick up for Krause a lot more than I'd expect, considering he had the team in the lottery for like 5 years, with the team winning around 10-30 games every year. That is terrible, point blank. 

If talent wins games, and those guys were talented, then they should have won more than that over a span of several years. I just don't think Rose, Crawford and Curry are near as good as you want to believe.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The team that Krause built was extremely young and....

Went from 15 to 21 to 30 wins in the last three seasons. I sense some sort of trend in those numbers.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> How are we relevant?
> 
> Are any of the top teams afraid of us on the way to the title?
> 
> ...


Are was as irrelevant as the previous 5 or 6 years? We're one of the top defensive teams in the NBA. We're one of the youngest teams in the league. We have gobs more national air time than before. We have the flexibility to faciltiate trades or sign FAs. We're no longer the lowly Bulls...laughingstock of the NBA. It's a step forward. Hardly a rut.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> The Bulls right now are above average, but that's not my points, my point is that the team Krause put together was terrible. For someone who looks at wins and losses as the main indication, you sure stick up for Krause a lot more than I'd expect, considering he had the team in the lottery for like 5 years, with the team winning around 10-30 games every year. That is terrible, point blank.


Krause made a deal with Chicago. We'll have to be bad, very bad, to be good again. It was not executed well, but at least I think it had a chance. Krause was hell-bent on winning a title again though. That's why he had the stones to go the twin towers route.

Paxson's plan to win a title? I don't think there is one. I think Paxson is pleased with the current state of the Bulls, limited upside and all.



> If talent wins games, and those guys were talented, then they should have won more than that over a span of several years. I just don't think Rose, Crawford and Curry are near as good as you want to believe.


Paxson felt strongly enough about those guys to guarantee playoffs that season. 

The team he put together last season he felt confident enough to go with "Through Thick and Thin."

This year.... it seems like he's complaining that the team needs talent. Hmmm. Where did it all go?


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Krause made a deal with Chicago. We'll have to be bad, very bad, to be good again. It was not executed well, but at least I think it had a chance. Krause was hell-bent on winning a title again though. That's why he had the stones to go the twin towers route.
> 
> Paxson's plan to win a title? I don't think there is one. I think Paxson is pleased with the current state of the Bulls, limited upside and all.


Seems to me Krause made several deals with the fans during the rebuilding eras. Didn't he hit the reset button at least a couple times? That didn't feel too good.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Paxson's plan to win a title? I don't think there is one. I think Paxson is pleased with the current state of the Bulls, limited upside and all.


If that's the case, then I agree with you. But I disagree that Paxson is satisfied with the team right now. We're almost at the point where the Pistons were before acquiring Rasheed Wallace. It's just a timing thing. I'll be pretty skeptical of the team's future if he can't get anything done with the cap space and draft picks next summer.

I mean, it was just 2004 when the team only won 23 games. This is 2005. It takes a season or two to jump from level 1 to level 2, and from level 2 to level 3, etc. Stuck in a rut? I doubt it. 

Regardless, if we jumped up to being contenders, made the finals a few years, but never won it, would you be saying we're stuck in a rut then? I think you would. It's title or no titles to you, from what I've observed. 

One rut is better than the other though. If we're in a rut of being average, that's better than being in one where we're a lottery team. And a rut of being a contender is better than one of being average.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

badfish said:


> Seems to me Krause made several deals with the fans during the rebuilding eras. Didn't he hit the reset button at least a couple times? That didn't feel too good.


He could have just gone the Paxson route and been average. Keep Pippen. Keep Kukoc. Get Brent Barry. Draft in the middle of the 1st. Draft grinders that are ready to play right away. But, he was hell-bent on winning another title.

He hit reset once during the rebuilding phase. It was a ballsy move, and it ultimately cost him his job.

But, the fruits of his decision, Chandler and Curry, were the two best players on our team last year.

Sadly, Paxson has squandered his talented inheritance and we're left to be Grizzles East. 

I'd rather be bad with explosive upside than average with limited upside. But, that's just me. Seems kind of pointless to get all involved in this if we're just going to be average. 

The goal of a team would be to win a title or do what it takes to be on the path to win a title.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> This year.... it seems like he's complaining that the team needs talent. Hmmm. Where did it all go?


You don't think he is talking about Crawford, Curry or Rose. He is talking about productive talent. Superstar talent. We have a few guys who are better than Crawford, Curry and Rose, but he wants someone who can shoulder the team at certain points, and we all agree that player is difficult to find.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> But, the fruits of his decision, Chandler and Curry, were the two best players on our team last year.


Ehh, you keep saying this, and it's quite obviously where we disagree. Chandler was one of our top 3 players last season (with Hinrich and Deng), but Curry was probably our 5th or 6th best player.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Paxson's plan to win a title? I don't think there is one. I think Paxson is pleased with the current state of the Bulls, limited upside and all.


Its funny, I'd think what he said in this article would suggest just the opposite.

When I first read the quote in the article that started this thread, my first thought was that guys like you would respond with something like "Finally! At least it looks like Paxson gets it. He understands we can't just keep over-achieving and that we need to get more talent."

Imagine my surprise to see the reaction become quite the opposite.


----------



## Nobull1 (Oct 6, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> We never know. We might acquire a major piece with one of our two first round picks this year, or heck, even get lucky and land a Finley-esque second rounder or an undrafted Ben Wallace. In any case, we DO have a good young core. I think Chandler could be a star, I also think Hinrich, Gordon, and Deng all have "star potential".


Finley was a first round 23 by the suns


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> If Ben Wallace isn't a center, then it just shows how unnecessary a center really is. The Pistons are contenders, and won a title with two power forwards. Not only that, but most would agree they have the best frontcourt in the league. So counting out Ben Wallace as a center to boost Curry up the ladder of being a "true" center is pretty irrelevant.
> 
> Duncan, Yao, Shaq, Ilgauskas, Camby and Miller are all definitely better than Curry at the "true" center position. Then guys like Dalembert, Mehmet Okur, PJ Brown, Jamal Magloire and Erick Dampier are all in the same class of centers with Curry after that.



Ben Wallace is not a center. He is a powerforward, as is Duncan. I'm not discounting Wallace as a center to "boost" curry up, he simply isn't. And as you astutely pointed out, Detroit DID get it done with two power forwards, two very good power forwards. Camby is a power forward playing center as well. I wouldn't put Dalembert, Okur, PJ Brown, Jamal Magliore or Erick Dampier as "in the same class as Curry". Curry is clearly better than all of those guys, the closes to to him would be Magliore, maybe Okur in a season or two but they aren't as gifted as Curry.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Nobull1 said:


> Finley was a first round 23 by the suns


My mistake. Point remains there have been some pretty good player selected in the second round.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> He could have just gone the Paxson route and been average. Keep Pippen. Keep Kukoc. Get Brent Barry. Draft in the middle of the 1st. Draft grinders that are ready to play right away. But, he was hell-bent on winning another title.
> 
> He hit reset once during the rebuilding phase. It was a ballsy move, and it ultimately cost him his job.
> 
> ...


I understand criticism directed at Paxson re: Curry, but I think it's a little early to damn his entire philosophy or claim that we're Grizzlies east. It's not like we don't have flexibility this coming offseason, let's see what we do with the capspace next year...


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I see K4E's point. A team of Crawford, Artest, Brand, Miller, and either Chandler or Curry is a pretty good looking team right about now. It got blown up too soon with the Rose trade. People can speculate why that trade was made, I know it wasn't something Krause was crazy about but was pressured into doing but that trade may have cost us dearly in the long term. Honestly, I am not sure why Krause traded Brand for Chandler, I assume he thought Chandler would be the better player and Chandler HAS been good, just not as good as Brand.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

That "Top 5 Center" moniker sounds awfully nice, but what it all boils down to is the sheer impact that the player makes. Ace, you have been harping on the importance of a "true" center. Moreover, you have claimed that Brad Miller and Z are top 5 "true" centers. Are they more valuable than PFs like Duncan, Amare, KG, Ben, JO, and Dirk? Hopefully, you share the same sentiment as I do. Aside from Shaq and Yao, there just aren't any other championship-caliber "true" centers. That's just the truth. The rest of the elite big men in the league are found at the PF position. Consequently, I can't lend much credence to the "top 5 center" arguement for Curry.


I don't think having an upper echelon power forward is neccessarily more valuable than having a true center. Perhaps having an upper echelon center is more desirable than having an upper echelon power forward because upper echelon centers are rarer than power forwards. There are a lot more upper echelon power forwards than there are centers. Plus, there are a lot more productive and servicable power forwards than there are centers. Thats the only argument I would make. And I do think Curry is a top 5 center and he is still very young. Personally I think he is going to be very good and is already on his way. You should have seen him last night playing against Philly. He played with an attitude. He threw down 3 or 4 dunks that were monsters, looked like he was trying to kill the guy under the basket. He had a block, a steal, 9 rebounds! He was actually jumping and fighting for boards and played well defensively. Anyway, I think shipping him off so early was a mistake, I am, I believe, entitled to that belief. Perhaps if we had shipped him off for an upper echelon pf like Wallace or Stoudemire I wouldn't have a complaint...but we didn't, did we?


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'd rather be bad with explosive upside than average with limited upside. But, that's just me. Seems kind of pointless to get all involved in this if we're just going to be average.


I think this is the distilled thesis of just about everything you've said on this board for the past year or two. 

However I still don't get how you can already judge Paxson a failure when we've finally returned to the league as a competitive team under his watch, with most of our biggest contributors being younger than me. I just don't understand that, and your waxing poetic about the glory days of the "Jalen/Jamal skillz-train" when we just won 47 games and made the playoffs just baffles me to no end. I think it's way too early to say that this team is doomed to be average. Our best players are in their early 20s and we have a ton of roster flexibility. We're not locked into anything yet.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

K4E...no offense, man, but I think this is the most irrational you've been probably ever. What's up, bad day at the office? You're giving credit to Krause for obtaining a bunch of players whom he TRADED away by his own hand, namely Brand, Artest, and Miller. And as far as Krause's grand master plan goes, I only saw an obsession with big guards and big men with "good hands". I didn't see a whole lot of vision other than trying to build around 2 high schoolers, which wasn't about to work until Paxson put "right way" players around them. 

The Bulls are not in a rut after only 1 short playoff run (and a run missing 2 starters at that). I admit that if Pax isn't careful, then yes, we become the Chicago Grizzlies. Right now, that's not the case. We're younger than the Grizzlies. We have a better package of draft picks. We don't have large salaries weighing the team down either. The key to our future is not any of these singular things, however. The key is flexibility. Pax can go any number of directions with all these assets. If 1 "superstar" becomes available, we probably have more to offer than any team in the league.

Personally, I really like our current team provided we make some tweaks here and there. But if you don't like the current squad as clearly some of you don't, you have to at least acknowledge that we have plenty to work with. And this is grounds for firing Paxson? Because a few people think his "right way" plan (essentially the same plan as Dumars, which earned the Pistons a championship) isn't going to work? Please. The man got us over one major obstacle by moving the Bulls from bad to good. At least give him 2-3 years to let his plan pan out. If it fails, then maybe giving him the boot would be appropriate.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> That was the deal Krause made with the fans when drafting the twin towers. We're going to suck for a spell.
> 
> Hardly shocking that our top two players (PER) or two of our top three players (EFF) were the twin towers last season.
> 
> ...



Krause chose Curry,Chandler and Rose over Brand, Artest, and Miller. Pax chose Gordon, Deng, Hinrich over Curry and Crawford. Which is a better trade-off? The Krause way resulted in the worse six year record by any team ever. How can you say he messed that up?

Had we retained two role players like Crawford and Curry for the big money they got from NY, we'd be just about as middle of the road as we are currently while also not having any cap space or extra draft picks to work with, in which case we truly would be Grizzlies East.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> The team that Krause built was extremely young and....
> 
> Went from 15 to 21 to 30 wins in the last three seasons. I sense some sort of trend in those numbers.



Wait, so seeing Krause go from 15 wins to 21 to 30 wins with an extremely young team in the seasons 3, 4, and 5 of rebuilding is adequate progress? It demonstrates the team was moving in the right direction?

What then, praytell, is indicated by jumping from 23 to 47 wins with an extremely young team in seasons 1 and 2? It certainly doesn't seem like a basis to start a club to fire the GM.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:



> But, he was hell-bent on winning another title.


Sure he was. Desire is nothing without the correct vision.



kukoc4ever said:


> But, the fruits of his decision, Chandler and Curry, were the two best players on our team last year.


They were? I would disagree.




kukoc4ever said:


> The goal of a team would be to win a title or do what it takes to be on the path to win a title.


I agree that this is the goal. I don't see how it is lacking now. I wish we had Curry, too, but I don't think his loss necessarily compromises the championship vision.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> I'm well aware of Rosenbaums statistical analysis on Curry. It still doesn't change the fact that he is a top 5 center in the league when you don't count all of the pf's playing out of position ala Ben Wallace. If Curry is an "average" center then the league must be littered with true 7'ers that are young and display a great post game, soft hands, and amazing athleticism. IMO, it is Shaq, Yao, Brad Miller, Z, and then Curry. I don't know any other center in the league I would put in 5th ahead of him. You just don't like or apprecciate Eddy Curry, which is fine, there are no shortage of people who think Curry is garbage but the simple fact of the matter is that it isn't true.



Being a top 5 "true" center by virtue of the fact that there are no true centers in the league is no accomplishment whatsoever. I think most people would take a lot of those PFs playing out of position (Wallace) over Curry. The fact that Curry can't distinguish himself at C when many play there out of position is a knock on Curry, not something indicative of high value.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> What then, praytell, is indicated by jumping from 23 to 47 wins with an extremely young team in seasons 1 and 2?


Peaking as average?

A first round exit?

A sacrifice of elite talent for mediocrity?

Grizzlies East?

Evil?

A dramatic, unexpected, and basically unprecedented turnaround in the fortunes of our previously embarrasing doormat team that played without passion or purpose?

Maybe I'll start a poll. :biggrin: I'd vote for the last one. But "Evil" is pretty tempting too.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

jnrjr79 said:


> Wait, so seeing Krause go from 15 wins to 21 to 30 wins with an extremely young team in the seasons 3, 4, and 5 of rebuilding is adequate progress? It demonstrates the team was moving in the right direction?
> 
> What then, praytell, is indicated by jumping from 23 to 47 wins with an extremely young team in seasons 1 and 2? It certainly doesn't seem like a basis to start a club to fire the GM.


Bingo. 15 to 30 in 3 seasons is great progress, but 23 to 47 in one season is leading to the team to mediocrity? I'm not sure how that works.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

ace20004u said:


> Ben Wallace is not a center. He is a powerforward, as is Duncan. I'm not discounting Wallace as a center to "boost" curry up, he simply isn't. And as you astutely pointed out, Detroit DID get it done with two power forwards, two very good power forwards. Camby is a power forward playing center as well. I wouldn't put Dalembert, Okur, PJ Brown, Jamal Magliore or Erick Dampier as "in the same class as Curry". Curry is clearly better than all of those guys, the closes to to him would be Magliore, maybe Okur in a season or two but they aren't as gifted as Curry.


Duncan is a center playing power forward, if you count Ben Wallace out because he is a power forward playing center, you have to count the centers playing power forward in with the centers. Ben Wallace is technically a center. Duncan is realistically a center. By your standards, one of them is a center. 

Regardless, having a "true" center is overrated. It doesn't make a difference at all. Would you rather have Curry as our center or Ben Wallace? Ben Wallace is a power forward, but he plays center better than Eddy Curry, so that makes him a better center, regardless of whether or not that's his best position. The same could be said for a ton of good power forwards that I would rather have playing center for us than Eddy Curry.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> This is basically the theme of the thread "what player out there can put the bulls over the top?"
> 
> I think it's a very hard question to address and answer. It's obvious to me that the team(s) with the very best chances for championships have depth, balance, and at least one player you can claim is the best in the NBA overall.


Ben Wallace
Rasheed Wallace
Tayshaun Prince
Rip Hamilton
C. Billups

Which one of those players can make a claim that they're the best in the NBA?


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Ben Wallace
> Rasheed Wallace
> Tayshaun Prince
> Rip Hamilton
> ...


This is what I was thinking. The Pistons don't have an offensive superstar but for their system that is predicated on defense, Ben Wallace certainly fits the bill as defensive superstar. 

The Bulls have some very good young talent and hopefully Tyson matures and becomes a defensive center that makes the Bulls a defensive powerhouse. 

I keep reading how the Bulls gave up their one legimate center but is it possible that Tyson is a legit defensive center?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Ben Wallace
> Rasheed Wallace
> Tayshaun Prince
> Rip Hamilton
> ...


In the 55 year history of the NBA, you can basically count on one hand the number of teams that won a title minus a legitimate top 5 player. It doesn't happen very often.

If we are chasing the Pistons/70s Knicks model, then it was really dumb to trade Curry. Those two teams won by having a starting lineup full of maybe not THE best guy in the league at a respective position, but by having a bunch of guys at the top 4-5 of his position.

Down the road, I actually could have seen the Bulls contending if things all panned out and Chandler was a top 3-4 PF, Curry was a top 3-4 C, Kirk was a top 3-4 PG, Deng a top 3-4 SF, etc. Without Curry, it just doesn't seem as feasible.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> Had we retained two role players like Crawford and Curry for the big money they got from NY, we'd be just about as middle of the road as we are currently while also not having any cap space or extra draft picks to work with, in which case we truly would be Grizzlies East.



Who do you think Paxson will use his Cap Space on? Chris Wilcox? Joel Prizbilla?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Its funny, I'd think what he said in this article would suggest just the opposite.
> 
> When I first read the quote in the article that started this thread, my first thought was that guys like you would respond with something like "Finally! At least it looks like Paxson gets it. He understands we can't just keep over-achieving and that we need to get more talent."
> 
> Imagine my surprise to see the reaction become quite the opposite.


Yah. I wonder if after making this quote he decided to see what free agents are available to use Cap Space on and was unhappy.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

yodurk said:


> You're giving credit to Krause for obtaining a bunch of players whom he TRADED away by his own hand, namely Brand, Artest, and Miller. And as far as Krause's grand master plan goes, I only saw an obsession with big guards and big men with "good hands". I didn't see a whole lot of vision other than trying to build around 2 high schoolers, which wasn't about to work until Paxson put "right way" players around them.


I'm giving Krause credit for acquiring players that have a chance to become all-NBA types. I don't see it in Hinrich or Gordon (maybe i'm missing something... but as of now... he's back to being a guy that you just can't start in a NBA game and is really only effective when told to abandon the team game and start chuckin'). 

At least when Krause made the Cap Space mistake he was gunning for TMAC and Duncan. Who is Paxson gunning for? 



> The Bulls are not in a rut after only 1 short playoff run (and a run missing 2 starters at that).


Yet nearly everyone here is predicting a regression from last years win total and not much of a playoff run, if any. Maybe Prizbilla will take us to the next level. Or maybe Gordon will be able to actually start. I just realized that y'all didn't probably see the game tonight. Gordon looked like crap once again. 




> I admit that if Pax isn't careful, then yes, we become the Chicago Grizzlies. Right now, that's not the case. We're younger than the Grizzlies. We have a better package of draft picks. We don't have large salaries weighing the team down either. The key to our future is not any of these singular things, however. The key is flexibility. Pax can go any number of directions with all these assets. If 1 "superstar" becomes available, we probably have more to offer than any team in the league.


Yes, clearly he has flexibility. He has mid range picks, Cap Space in a seemingly below-average FA class and the possibility to make a trade, but only for "right way" players that their original team is willing to get rid of. 

Lots of talk about the Pistons around here. Do you think Paxson would have traded for Rasheed Wallace, given his attitude in Portland?



> Personally, I really like our current team provided we make some tweaks here and there. But if you don't like the current squad as clearly some of you don't, you have to at least acknowledge that we have plenty to work with. And this is grounds for firing Paxson? Because a few people think his "right way" plan (essentially the same plan as Dumars, which earned the Pistons a championship) isn't going to work? Please. The man got us over one major obstacle by moving the Bulls from bad to good. At least give him 2-3 years to let his plan pan out. If it fails, then maybe giving him the boot would be appropriate.


I don't see plenty to work with. I just came back from the game tonight, which we lost (yah its only preseason) but I'm discouraged. Hinrich still can't complete a freaking drive to save his life. Gordon is lost out there. Just brutal tonight. Chandler looked sleepy for most of the game. Our two best players tonight were an undersized jump-shooting PF and a man who is clearly obese. We *are* the Grizzlies (of the last couple years) right now, IMO. About 10 guys... all of whom are OK or slightly above average right now... all deserve about 20-25 minutes except for a couple... not expected to make much noise but will be a solid team. That's what we are right now, IMO, and I don't think Chris Wilcox or Joel Prizbilla will change that. 

This is already year 3 of the Paxson regime. He has a losing record at this point.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Down the road, I actually could have seen the Bulls contending if things all panned out and Chandler was a top 3-4 PF, Curry was a top 3-4 C, Kirk was a top 3-4 PG, Deng a top 3-4 SF, etc. Without Curry, it just doesn't seem as feasible.


I agree. I thought the strength of this team going forward was our 3, 4 and 5. Its not the case anymore.

Damon and Eddie Jones looked tons better than the Captain and Gordon tonight.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> They were? I would disagree.


They were according to statistical measures like PER. EFF wise they were two of the top 3. And they had the most upside, along with Deng. 





> I agree that this is the goal. I don't see how it is lacking now. I wish we had Curry, too, but I don't think his loss necessarily compromises the championship vision.


Do you think we have the pieces in place now to make a championship run? If not, how has Paxson, given his philosophies, set us up to acquire them?


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm giving Krause credit for acquiring players that have a chance to become all-NBA types. I don't see it in Hinrich or Gordon (maybe i'm missing something... but as of now... he's back to being a guy that you just can't start in a NBA game and is really only effective when told to abandon the team game and start chuckin').


If you're going to argue this, at least point to the All-NBA types that Pax passed over in those drafts. Because unless you consider Pietrus, Iggy, J-Smith, or Al Jefferson all-NBA type players, I don't see how you can fault Pax in this respect. I mean, are you suggesting that Pax wouldn't have drafted Dwight Howard if given the chance?

And, ironically, wasn't it Krause, who radically decided to build his team around two HS'ers, that essentially decided to draft a "right-way" pg with college experience (i.e. J-Will) over a HS'er that has already developed into elite big man after 3 seasons(i.e. Amare)? I mean, my god. People were ready to call for Pax's head when he didn't seem to be considering Josh Smith during the 2003 draft. Did Krause, a man with championship aspirations that Pax could only dream of, even bring Amare in for a workout?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> If you're going to argue this, at least point to the All-NBA types that Pax passed over in those drafts. Because unless you consider Pietrus, Iggy, J-Smith, or Al Jefferson all-NBA type players, I don't see how you can fault Pax in this respect. I mean, are you suggesting that Pax wouldn't have drafted Dwight Howard if given the chance?


They are not yet. Gordon may turn out to be one. At this point, they can start NBA games. Pietrus does not right now, but he has some pretty good players ahead of him. I'm not sure the same can be said for Gordon. He's just not ready. Maybe its just the preseason and he'll turn it on when the regular season starts. I hope he does.




> And, ironically, wasn't it Krause, who radically decided to build his team around two HS'ers, that essentially decided to draft a "right-way" pg with college experience (i.e. J-Will) over a HS'er that has already developed into elite big man after 3 seasons(i.e. Amare)? I mean, my god. People were ready to call for Pax's head when he didn't seem to be considering Josh Smith during the 2003 draft.



Yeah, but we already had two high school big men. You think he should have drafted another?

JWill was considered to be as sure a thing as a sure thing could get. I was less than convinced... and his play certainly backed that up... hype be damned. But the thought of passing up on a "sure thing" like JWill was not considered. I guess you could criticize Krause for that... he's usually known for "out of the box" thinking and he didn't really employ it in that case. Its kind of hard for you to use this against Krause, given that he wrapped a motorcycle around a tree. 





> Did Krause, a man with championship aspirations that Pax could only dream of, even bring Amare in for a workout?


Not just championship aspirations. Actual championships. Six of them. Look at the banner. Paxson has a losing record, a stain on “the right way” that the Curry situation left and some Cap Space that Chris Wilcox is getting giddy about.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Who do you think Paxson will use his Cap Space on? Chris Wilcox? Joel Prizbilla?


I don't know. Paxson hasn't ever stated what he intends to do with it, as far as I know. I'd hope it wouldn't be on Pryzbilla, and wouldn't feel too horrible about Wilcox in lieu of Eddy honestly. And I'd think neither of those guys would cost so much that we couldn't save some for whoever is available the next year. Either way, my point stands. The big difference between us and the Grizz is that we actually have avenues through which we can make substantial personnel moves. The effectiveness of those possible moves remains to be seen,but honestly, I don't really think Curry and Crawford, the guys the current GM has gotten rid of, would make a great deal of difference in terms of making us contenders, and in fact would make us an even better approximation of the Grizzlies, having a buch of guys who can play, but none who are good enough to contend.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> I don't know. Paxson hasn't ever stated what he intends to do with it, as far as I know. I'd hope it wouldn't be on Pryzbilla, and wouldn't feel too horrible about Wilcox in lieu of Eddy honestly. And I'd think neither of those guys would cost so much that we couldn't save some for whoever is available the next year. Either way, my point stands. The big difference between us and the Grizz is that we actually have avenues through which we can make substantial personnel moves. The effectiveness of those possible moves remains to be seen,but honestly, I don't really think Curry and Crawford, the guys the current GM has gotten rid of, would make a great deal of difference in terms of making us contenders, and in fact would make us an even better approximation of the Grizzlies, having a buch of guys who can play, but none who are good enough to contend.




1.) You talk about substantial moves. Chris Wilcox is a substantial move? I certainly don't think so. Maybe he'll improve this year and become a star, but that seems pretty doubtful. I would not mind bringing the guy on, but he's the Lorenzen Wright of Grizzlies East. Or maybe the Stromile Swift. (the current griz are not going to be like the hubie-era griz, imo).

2.) Save some for next year? So Paxson will still be preaching financial flexibility and patience during his fourth year on the job? We're going to have to resign our players, which will harm our flexibility, but I have a sneaking suspicion that Paxson only wants to resign his guys, not to bring on a star that he'll have to pay the MAX. We'll see.

3.) Grizzlies east is not that much of an insult. The Grizzles have been a solid team the last couple of years. A winner. They make the playoffs and then get dispatched while the real contenders go for the glory. They went from being a horrible team to an average team. 

So many here were giddy about last year and predicting a worse, yet slightly winning performance for the team this year, and can't offer any ideas as to how to improve the team in a meaningful manner. Seems like the shoe fits, if people's expectations are correct. And, given that many here are happy with the direction of the team, Grizzles east is pretty much something to be proud of.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> 1.) You talk about substantial moves. Chris Wilcox is a substantial move? I certainly don't think so. Maybe he'll improve this year and become a star, but that seems pretty doubtful. I would not mind bringing the guy on, but he's the Lorenzen Wright of Grizzlies East. Or maybe the Stromile Swift. (the current griz are not going to be like the hubie-era griz, imo).
> 
> 2.) Save some for next year? So Paxson will still be preaching financial flexibility and patience during his fourth year on the job? We're going to have to resign our players, which will harm our flexibility, but I have a sneaking suspicion that Paxson only wants to resign his guys, not to bring on a star that he'll have to pay the MAX. We'll see.
> 
> ...



I don't think grizzlies East is something to be proud of, but I'm not ready to proclaim us that as of yet. We don't know what paxson has in mind nor what players will become available. Who knew Jersey could get Carter on the cheap? Or the Warriors would get Baron Davis on the cheap? It remains to be seen whether Pax would get guys of that mold, maybe not, but maybe Pax would be able to look past the jib/character issues for an All-NBA type where he wasn't for the underachieving role players he has gotten rid of. Honestly I believe either way it goes we'd have had a hard time becoming a contender, but I see getting lucky in the draft or lucking out on the free agent or trade market as more likely than Curry and Crawford becoming All-NBA types after several years of glacial rates improvement. Basically, can you tell me why our chances would that much greater with those guys? Wouldn't we still be missing the type of big time talent that we'd need to go over the top?


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

No personal attacks. -jnr


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

unBULLievable said:


> !


Thanks for adding some constructive thoughts to the discussion. EDIT: No swearing please. -jnr


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Not just championship aspirations. Actual championships. Six of them. Look at the banner. Paxson has a losing record, a stain on “the right way” that the Curry situation left and some Cap Space that Chris Wilcox is getting giddy about.


 Yeah that Krause did the impossible and won with Michael Jordan. With out Jordan from 98-2003 he amassed a record of 76-282 with his aspirations of Championships., I am sure Kraused dreamed on that next dynasty but the results don't lie.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

L.O.B said:


> This is what I was thinking. The Pistons don't have an offensive superstar but for their system that is predicated on defense, Ben Wallace certainly fits the bill as defensive superstar.
> 
> The Bulls have some very good young talent and hopefully Tyson matures and becomes a defensive center that makes the Bulls a defensive powerhouse.
> 
> I keep reading how the Bulls gave up their one legimate center but is it possible that Tyson is a legit defensive center?


Ben Wallace.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Being a top 5 "true" center by virtue of the fact that there are no true centers in the league is no accomplishment whatsoever. I think most people would take a lot of those PFs playing out of position (Wallace) over Curry. The fact that Curry can't distinguish himself at C when many play there out of position is a knock on Curry, not something indicative of high value.



You have a point but as I pointed out in another post, there are a gajillion talented and servicable power forwards in the league and only a handful of centers. That, in itself, sort of makes the center spot more valuable when it is easier to find a talented pf than a center. I think Eddy DID distinguish himself, he led the league in fg% one season and his pg average increased every year! Last season he was showing signs that he was learning to play better defense. So, I would take issue that he "didn't distinguish himself". Even the Philly anouncers were raving about how strong Eddy is and how unstoppable in the post...


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Duncan is a center playing power forward, if you count Ben Wallace out because he is a power forward playing center, you have to count the centers playing power forward in with the centers. Ben Wallace is technically a center. Duncan is realistically a center. By your standards, one of them is a center.
> 
> Regardless, having a "true" center is overrated. It doesn't make a difference at all. Would you rather have Curry as our center or Ben Wallace? Ben Wallace is a power forward, but he plays center better than Eddy Curry, so that makes him a better center, regardless of whether or not that's his best position. The same could be said for a ton of good power forwards that I would rather have playing center for us than Eddy Curry.


Nope. Tim Duncan is a natural power forward, not a center. He can play center and certainly is more adept at it than a lot of other power forwards playing out of position, that doesn't change what his natural position is though. Ben Wallace is a power forward playing center. And, no, I don't have to count power forwards playing centers as centers because...well..they aren't. 

Would I rather have Curry or a all star power forward who has been on the all defensive team how many years in a row? Umm..I'd take Wallace. I do think that it is a lot easier to find a talented pf than a talented center, thats why so many pf's are playing center and thats why teams that have good true centers typically don't give them up as easy as the Bulls did. As you said "there are a ton of good power forwards". How many talented 7' 23 year old centers are in the league? Btw, did we GET one of those talented pf's in return for Curry? We got Sweetney who is, in his own right, talented, but certainly no Ben Wallace or Amare.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Nope. Tim Duncan is a natural power forward, not a center. He can play center and certainly is more adept at it than a lot of other power forwards playing out of position, that doesn't change what his natural position is though. Ben Wallace is a power forward playing center. And, no, I don't have to count power forwards playing centers as centers because...well..they aren't.
> 
> Would I rather have Curry or a all star power forward who has been on the all defensive team how many years in a row? Umm..I'd take Wallace. I do think that it is a lot easier to find a talented pf than a talented center, thats why so many pf's are playing center and thats why teams that have good true centers typically don't give them up as easy as the Bulls did. As you said "there are a ton of good power forwards". How many talented 7' 23 year old centers are in the league? Btw, did we GET one of those talented pf's in return for Curry? We got Sweetney who is, in his own right, talented, but certainly no Ben Wallace or Amare.


Ace,

What would you say Chandler is? Is Chandler a 4 playing the 5 or would you say last season he was a 5 playing the 4?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

L.O.B said:


> Ace,
> 
> What would you say Chandler is? Is Chandler a 4 playing the 5 or would you say last season he was a 5 playing the 4?



Tyson Chandler is definitley a 4. I think he could, potentially, grow into a 5 spot but he is clearly a 4 at this point.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

FWIW

I think Chandler was always a 5 playing out of position at the 4.

He has virtually no skills as a 4 other than rebounding. 

He always looked extremely comfortable at the 5. Especially in the Cartwright days when he was our starting 5 (with Marshall at the 4, Rose at the 3) and Curry was getting about 7 minutes per game because he just wasn't ready.

Even last season, the Bulls effectively played Chandler at the 5. There was maybe 12 minutes/game of where he and Curry both played and he slid over to PF.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> Tyson Chandler is definitley a 4. I think he could, potentially, grow into a 5 spot but he is clearly a 4 at this point.


Why is he "definitely" a 4? Is it a weight thing? He's a 7'1 rebounding shot blocking fool with no outside game to speak of. Sounds a lot like Camby, Ratliff, Mutombo and other centers of that ilk. What did they weigh at his age?


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> FWIW
> 
> I think Chandler was always a 5 playing out of position at the 4.
> 
> ...


DaBullz,

I know this is going to scare you but those are my feelings as well. The Bulls won't miss Curry as much as many will think if they can get offensive production from the variety of 4's on the roster. I really like Sweetney's post game and think that Songaila could stretch the defense w/ his range.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

badfish said:


> Why is he "definitely" a 4? Is it a weight thing? He's a 7'1 rebounding shot blocking fool with no outside game to speak of. Sounds a lot like Camby, Ratliff, Mutombo and other centers of that ilk. What did they weigh at his age?



It is a weight and a strength thing. Chandler doesn't have the necessary body strength to prevent true centers from backing him down and scoring over him. He does have long arms and plays intense defense most of the time so that helps offset things a little but he just doesn't have the strength to be a "true center"...at least not yet. I agree with DaBullz assertion that he is more suited to the 5 spot stylistically, he just isn't physically matured/strong enough yet. I don't consider Camby or Ratliff as true centers either, they are power forwards who play center from time to time. Obviously Mutumbo is a good example of a true center. Chandler and Camby have much in common when it comes to reasons why they aren't true centers.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

L.O.B said:


> DaBullz,
> 
> I know this is going to scare you but those are my feelings as well. The Bulls won't miss Curry as much as many will think if they can get offensive production from the variety of 4's on the roster. I really like Sweetney's post game and think that Songaila could stretch the defense w/ his range.


It doesn't "scare" me at all. I'm also not really a critic of the Curry trade, though I think we left a considerable amount on the table (i.e. we could have gotten more for him under different circumstances). The loss of AD might be bigger in the end.

Since this thread is about CHEMISTRY, I would point out that Curry was somehow part of our chemistry last season.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

It's going to be interesting seeing the Bulls match up w/ teams centers. I am sure that Tyson can guard those out of position 4's playing center and Skiles can use Sweetney's bulk against the banging low post players Ace was alluding to. Part of the reason I am still pissed about the Brand trade was although Brand was undersized when he played the 5 he certainly had enough strength to play it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> It is a weight and a strength thing. Chandler doesn't have the necessary body strength to prevent true centers from backing him down and scoring over him. He does have long arms and plays intense defense most of the time so that helps offset things a little but he just doesn't have the strength to be a "true center"...at least not yet. I agree with DaBullz assertion that he is more suited to the 5 spot stylistically, he just isn't physically matured/strong enough yet. I don't consider Camby or Ratliff as true centers either, they are power forwards who play center from time to time. Obviously Mutumbo is a good example of a true center. Chandler and Camby have much in common when it comes to reasons why they aren't true centers.


Here's the thing, Ace. It's been argued that there's so few "true" Cs in the league, yet Chandler is somehow good enough to play PF but not good enough to play C against all those PFs stuck playing C. This makes no sense to me.

As for not being able to guard those few actual true Cs, I think it's evident that historically nobody can guard those guys. In the days when there were lots of true Cs, they all shot great FG% and scored and rebounded like you expect from a true C. That was playing against each other.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Here's the thing, Ace. It's been argued that there's so few "true" Cs in the league, yet Chandler is somehow good enough to play PF but not good enough to play C against all those PFs stuck playing C. This makes no sense to me.
> 
> As for not being able to guard those few actual true Cs, I think it's evident that historically nobody can guard those guys. In the days when there were lots of true Cs, they all shot great FG% and scored and rebounded like you expect from a true C. That was playing against each other.


I think you misunderstand what I am saying. Of course Tyson is capable of guarding most pf's that play center...just not most true centers. I do think there are some pf's out there that will be a handful for Tyson simply because they are so much stronger that they can back him down, like Zach Randolph, but these guys are also giving up 4 or 5 inches to Tyson which makes up for a lot. 

I disagree that "noone" can guard true centers. I just think it takes a true center, or an awfully good defensive pf like Ben Wallace to do so. Agreed that they often played well in the past despite there being 2 true centers playing against each other. Thats sort of a talent negate IMO. I mean, you have Mutombo and MOurning going head to head they sort of cancel each other out. On the other hand you take a prime center like Shaq and put him up against Nenad Krstic I am pretty sure Shaq is going to be a bigger factor than Mutombo & Mourning were playing against each other.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

Sorry to go even further off topic but when Ace brought up Tyson growing into the role of a 5 it got me thinking of some of the great centers in the past. Does this picture remind you of anyone? 










Looks like this kid was a 4 destined to grow into the role of a 5  Kareem came into the league at 230 and at the end of his playing career he was 267, then again it could be the weed that aided his appetite.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

L.O.B said:


> Sorry to go even further off topic but when Ace brought up Tyson growing into the role of a 5 it got me thinking of some of the great centers in the past. Does this picture remind you of anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thats very true. EVen Shaq was skinny when he came into the league.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> I think you misunderstand what I am saying. Of course Tyson is capable of guarding most pf's that play center...just not most true centers. I do think there are some pf's out there that will be a handful for Tyson simply because they are so much stronger that they can back him down, like Zach Randolph, but these guys are also giving up 4 or 5 inches to Tyson which makes up for a lot.
> 
> I disagree that "noone" can guard true centers. I just think it takes a true center, or an awfully good defensive pf like Ben Wallace to do so. Agreed that they often played well in the past despite there being 2 true centers playing against each other. Thats sort of a talent negate IMO. I mean, you have Mutombo and MOurning going head to head they sort of cancel each other out. On the other hand you take a prime center like Shaq and put him up against Nenad Krstic I am pretty sure Shaq is going to be a bigger factor than Mutombo & Mourning were playing against each other.


Shaq is a big factor against every center, period.

Bill Russell is regarded as the very best defensive C to ever play the game. Wilt destroyed him in head to head matchups. But Boston still won. Their strategy was to let Wilt have his points and shut down the rest of the team.

This strategy is still a great one in basketball, and it's the one used by teams that defeated one with BOTH Mourning and Shaq on it last season.

Chandler IS an intimidating presence in the paint on defense because of his height and ahtleticism. Teams seemed scared to drive to the hoop whenever we had two of Curry/Chandler/AD in the game. As long as we can maintain that kind of interior defense, it's going to take teams' outside shooting to beat us, which is a pretty good thing.

While I wrote that I'm not so critical of the Curry trade, I'd still much rather he were a Bull. But as I see it, we had a 2-headed C in Chandler/Curry who never were really able to play on the court together as a tandem like we hoped. I would have been plenty satisfied to tag-team them until they grew too old to play, but that's not the way it panned out.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> I think you misunderstand what I am saying. Of course Tyson is capable of guarding most pf's that play center...just not most true centers. I do think there are some pf's out there that will be a handful for Tyson simply because they are so much stronger that they can back him down, like Zach Randolph, but these guys are also giving up 4 or 5 inches to Tyson which makes up for a lot.
> 
> I disagree that "noone" can guard true centers. I just think it takes a true center, or an awfully good defensive pf like Ben Wallace to do so. Agreed that they often played well in the past despite there being 2 true centers playing against each other. Thats sort of a talent negate IMO. I mean, you have Mutombo and MOurning going head to head they sort of cancel each other out. On the other hand you take a prime center like Shaq and put him up against Nenad Krstic I am pretty sure Shaq is going to be a bigger factor than Mutombo & Mourning were playing against each other.


Ace, this fixation on 'True Centers' for the basis of your argument against Chandler playing C is a bit misguided, IMO. 

It's a word that you like to throw around, but when you get past the semantics, it's a pretty hollow term. How many 'True Centers' are there? And of those, how good are they? 

Truthfully, I think the only guy in the league that would truly outmatch Tyson would be Shaq, and he does that to everyone else anyway. The next best guys are Yao and Z, but they're tall and skinny just like Tyson, and I'd think he'd at least be able to hold his own against them. Outside of that you have guys like Primoz Brezec, Jamaal Magloire, and Nenad Krstic, who, even if they're bigger than Tyson, aren't especially good enough on offense for it to be much of a problem anyways. 

When you stop affixing meaningless labels to everyone, and just look at what Tyson can and can't do on the basketball floor, I don't think it'll be that much of a deal. Or at least, I don't think his inability to match up with 'True Centers' will be his biggest problem, which you seem to think is pretty important.


----------

