# Big Guard / Swing Player



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

So where are they going to get big minutes ?

Luol has the 3 spot locked down and whatever is left over is taken with Andres who makes up a fair lot of his minutes at the other forward spot 

Let's say there is 6 minutes left over with Luol playing 32 and Andres 10 

At guard , Kirk will play at least 36 , Ben 34 and Duhon 16 

There is 6 minutes left over here and 6 left over at forward 

We need a handler with some size that can defend , pass and shoot the open shot 

At the #16 spot ...Ronnie Brewer may be there and if he's not does Darius Songaila get offered up to move into say Orlando's spot where we could nab Brewer ( on the basis that Songaila replaces Pat Garrity's role albeit with less range ) 

We won't be in position to draft Carney and Roy and they are guys that are probably more pure frontliners in how they will develop 

Outside of Brewer that is probably more a fit for what we need and the available minutes we have available ( say 15mpg tops across the 2 and 3 spots ) the options in free agency are :

Salmons and Welsch ..with Welsch being the better defender 

Are you able to get guys like that here at $2M per to clearly be a reserve that will have to fight like all hell to demand bigger minutes in the rotation 

The thing we have going aganist us in chasing a frontliner like Roy in the draft or a stud in free agency is that Kirk and Ben have the big minutes at guard ( supported by Chris ) and Luol and Andres have the minutes at the 3 ...so you really need a guy that is going to complement and support these guys on the assumption that these guys are to be left intact 

Choice 1 - Brewer from the draft ( and offer up Songaila to trade up and get him if Songaila intends picking up his player option and if we can't get him at #16 ) 

Choice 2 - Welsch - a better fit for us than Salmons IMO and who may be easier to pry away from Milwaukee with his limited opportunities there than Salmons in Philadelphia that plays decent minutes in the rotation


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> At the #16 spot ...Ronnie Brewer may be there and if he's not does Darius Songaila get offered up to move into say Orlando's spot where we could nab Brewer ( on the basis that Songaila replaces Pat Garrity's role albeit with less range )


If we were moving up that high, I'd prefer to nab O'Bryant than Carney, Brewer or any other big guard projected at that range. That being said I'm not against taking Brewer, I just feel it would take alot more than Songalia to upgrade our pick.

My gut feeling tells me that we're not going to get anyone special with our pick, and smartmouf's idea of trading down for both of Minny's second rounders (or even Portland's) has really grown on me.
Trade down and nab Bobby Jones and James White, the former being a "defensive specialist" and the latter a project, who by chance if we can instill him with a decent work ethic could put it together and become a phenomenal player.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

if the #16 pick & Songalia can nab u Rodney Carney!? YOU DO IT. That kid's gonna be ATLEAST as good as Richard Jefferson in the NBA.


----------



## dogra (Nov 12, 2003)

_SausageKingofChicago_ --

When you say that Welsch is a better defender than Salmons, what are you basing that on?

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just curious how you arrived at that opinion. From stats? Watching them play? Coach or player talk in newspaper articles?


----------



## Aesop (Jun 1, 2003)

Is Songaila even tradeable? He has a player option that he will probably turn down so he can be a free agent.


----------



## dogra (Nov 12, 2003)

Aesop said:


> Is Songaila even tradeable? He has a player option that he will probably turn down so he can be a free agent.


I was thinking the exact same thing. The free agency period is AFTER the draft isn't it?


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

dogra said:


> SausageKingofChicago --
> 
> When you say that Welsch is a better defender than Salmons, what are you basing that on?
> 
> I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just curious how you arrived at that opinion, from stats? watching them play? coach talk?


Watching them play 

To me , Welsch has quicker feet and seems to me put a greater effort forward 

He really has not been used a bunch in Milwaukee with Stotts going with Mo Williams and Charlie Bell to round out the minutes at guard / small forward behind Ford, Redd and Simmons ..its actually a pretty small perimeter - smaller than ours 

Then you have Toni and Joe Smith sharing time at foward and Magliore, Bogut and Gadzuric upfront

Jiri seems to have been lost when he got traded to the Cavs last year and was cut after half a season and really hasn't been used a lot in Milwaukee

I remember watching him play a bunch of games in Boston and he played really really well - kind of like how this team plays right now . He was shooting the 3 ball , passing well and guarding bigger guard/forward types pretty well 

He just doesn't seem to have a home right now but barring anything unforeseen that is limiting his time - he is definately worth a look and a guy I think you could take off the Bucks


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Aesop said:


> Is Songaila even tradeable? He has a player option that he will probably turn down so he can be a free agent.


Yeah fair enough - it makes it pretty much impossible if Songaila doesn't give a clear indication as to what he intends 

I just thought it may be possible if there was a mutuality to it 

Songaila averaged what ? 9 and 5 in a reserve role and is a decent passing high post big man 

I would think it fairly plausible that at his cost for production that you could use him as a chip to move from #16 to #12 or #13 to get a guard/swing player like Brewer in a pick swap - if he signalled his intention and he were agreeable . 

But that's just me


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Two kinds of big guards:

1) Big scoring guard. Lets Hinrich (Skiles' Pet) play PG full-time.
2) Big point guard. Lets Gordon play PG on D and SG on O.

Du could be the odd man out. Gains you 16 more minutes and 28 total for the new guy.

And/Or 

Nocioni plays more PF

EDIT:

Photo of the world's largest sausage (for real):


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

step said:


> If we were moving up that high, I'd prefer to nab O'Bryant than Carney, Brewer or any other big guard projected at that range. That being said I'm not against taking Brewer, I just feel it would take alot more than Songalia to upgrade our pick.


The idea is is that the Knicks pick gets our big and that our pick is for a complementary wing player to fit around what we already got 



> My gut feeling tells me that we're not going to get anyone special with our pick, and smartmouf's idea of trading down for both of Minny's second rounders (or even Portland's) has really grown on me.
> Trade down and nab Bobby Jones and James White, the former being a "defensive specialist" and the latter a project, who by chance if we can instill him with a decent work ethic could put it together and become a phenomenal player.


After 4 years in College you either have a work ethic or your don't 

James White won't make it as a pro ( IMO )

Think Corey Benjamin


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Two kinds of big guards:
> 
> 1) Big scoring guard. Lets Hinrich (Skiles' Pet) play PG full-time.
> 2) Big point guard. Lets Gordon play PG on D and SG on O.
> ...


That's rational 

Allthough I would bet the farm that the organisation is going to have Chris Duhon in its future and as a regular member of the rotation playing a support role 

My thinking therefore is working back from that which is highly likely ( as it pertains to Chris Duhon )


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> That's rational
> 
> Allthough I would bet the farm that the organisation is going to have Chris Duhon in its future and as a regular member of the rotation playing a support role
> 
> My thinking therefore is working back from that which is highly likely ( as it pertains to Chris Duhon )


Big Scoring Guard. Trade Gordon. Addition by subtraction and all that.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Big Scoring Guard. Trade Gordon. Addition by subtraction and all that.


Trade the one guy on the team that is most capable of creating the most amount of excitement 

Bums on seats = Bucks 

And I don't see a small scoring guard being traded for a big scoring guard straight up anyway without giving up other assets which I would not want to do 

Why anyway if Ben is getting the job done ?

Sometimes I think we're too married to this mantra of 'big scoring guard" when when you look at Ben and how he's developing it is clear he is truly a unique player that can finish in the paint ( he needs to develop this more and be more aggressive which will come ) and is killer ( as we know ) if he sees daylight from outside - even without daylight he still consietently makes shots with mits in his face against bigger players

I just think leave the guys - as I think the organisation will , and get a complementary 4th guard/forward that can play in a support / complementary role

And if he gets it done I could not care less if he's 6'2 or 6'6


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Two kinds of big guards:
> 
> 1) Big scoring guard. Lets Hinrich (Skiles' Pet) play PG full-time.
> 2) Big point guard. Lets Gordon play PG on D and SG on O.
> ...


The thing that is appealing about Brandon Roy, and perhaps to a slightly lesser extent Ronnie Brewer, is that they appear to have the ability to score, defend, and distribute. They fit the combo guard mold of Gordon and Hinrich, but they're just bigger.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

I think ultimately Duhon would be the odd man out an a big guard would pick up his minutes.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Duhon is going to the back of the bench once we draft a big SG. Pax wants a three guard rotation of KG, KH, and whoever we draft this year to be our third guard. Duhon is a marginal player who cant score or shot. As ben matures he will start and both BG and KH will play PG with our new soon to be draft big SG.

david


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Chris Duhon will play at least 18mpg while he remains a Chicago Bull

Book it

Its the esteem he's held in by the organisation and Coaching staff - in addition to which he's the nearest thing to a complete and true leader we have


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

giusd said:


> Duhon is a marginal player who cant score or shot.
> david


Ya think ?

9 ppg and 5apg in 29mpg whilst playing excellent pressure defense whilst not fouling terribly often

A guy who shot 36% from 3 whilst taking his fair volume of shots and a guy who is 7th in the league in assists per turnover 

In a pure objective sense Duhon is a remarkably efficient player - a support player to be sure but his ethos as a player fits this team like a hand in glove .

He will stay a Bull and he will play regardless of whether you or others like it or not ..so will Kirk and Ben

Which means we need a 4th wheel and not to the huge detriment of what we've got

That's the logical reality out of what will happen


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

Duhon's been playing with a bad back and still hit a key shot for us down the stretch last night. Skiles has been playing him together with Hinrich and Gordon at times for what might be about the smallest 1-2-3 combo in the league. I think Duhon's probably not going to lose too many of his minutes right away to a mid-1st round rookie project. Skiles will (rightly) worry more about how a guy plays and less about his height & athleticism. Our current guards may give up a few inches, but they can more than make up for it with quickness, smarts and gutty play.

I think Brewer, Carney and Roy will all be gone by the time we pick at 16. If not (or if O'Bryant is still there), then I'll be thrilled assuming Pax takes the bait. Of course, a lot of things could change between now and draft time given the camps, measurements, workouts, withdrawl of names, etc. Sefolosha could be who we end up with.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> The idea is is that the Knicks pick gets our big and that our pick is for a complementary wing player to fit around what we already got


Understandable, but again my opinion would be if we were going to trade up to say the 11th pick, I'd still chose him. More talented bigs can't hurt.



> I think ultimately Duhon would be the odd man out an a big guard would pick up his minutes.


I don't ever see that happening.



> He will stay a Bull and he will play regardless of whether you or others like it or not ..so will Kirk and Ben
> 
> Which means we need a 4th wheel and not to the huge detriment of what we've got
> 
> That's the logical reality out of what will happen


Spot on.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Chris Duhon is the PERFECT back-up PG for the Chicago Bulls. We won't find a FIT in the league better than him for us.

I said he was trade bait, and in some cases HE IS, but overall, I don't think he's going anywhere.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

a big 2/3, who is MIA in this series, is Dorrell Wright. He always appeared to be an intriguing prospect. What happened to him and could we get him for a future #2?


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> What happened to him and could we get him for a future #2?


The Heat are too busy trying to contend to develop their youth. He's barely played 2 hours over the course of the season, most of them being the last 2 games of the season where he played 58 minutes. He did however get 20 points in each game (19 and 20, close enough).
I'd be willing to offer a future 2nd rounder, heck I'd give them the two we're expecting from the Knicks (in 07 and 09 I believe).


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> The idea is is that the Knicks pick gets our big and that our pick is for a complementary wing player to fit around what we already got
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Or a poor man's DeShawn Stevenson at best.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

The Bulls want size in their guard positions, but they probably want one who is fundamentally sound (a typical Pax pick) or is a tremendous shooter.

The typical Pax pick at #16 would probably be Mardy Collins. Scouting reports basically call him a fundamentally sound big PG who uses craftiness to create his own shot and is an excellent defender. Basically, he could be a 6'6" version of Kirk Hinrich. With four years under Temple coach John Chaney, Collins is exactly the type of player Paxson and Skiles ordered. There is no question this guy would buy into Skiles' system right away.

I still believe Paxson would like to get another great shooter and, thus, make the Bulls perimeter offense even more effective. I think Paxson has JJ Redick on his radar. Sure, the guy is just 6'4" and not quite the defender, but, as many have said, the Bulls defense is effective because is it team-based and not a sum of individual defenders. The guy spent four years at Duke, was nearly a nation-leading scorer, and is arguably one of the greatest shooters in college history. Imagine the final seconds of a close game with Kirk, Ben, Red Bull, and JJ on the floor. How exactly do you defend that? JJ got shut down against LSU because he was the only real shooter on his team. Does anyone think JJ would get the kind of attention in the pros when Ben Gordon must also be dealt with? His great conditioning is also a plus.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Trade the one guy on the team that is most capable of creating the most amount of excitement
> 
> Bums on seats = Bucks
> 
> ...


If the Bulls had Michael Redd, would you feel the same way?


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> If the Bulls had Michael Redd, would you feel the same way?


So long as he gets it done - sure


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> So long as he gets it done - sure


So you're saying that a Michael Redd kind of big SG on the team doesn't make Gordon somewhat expendable? 

Seems to me if you find that big SG who can replace Gordon's scoring AND who's complimentary to Hinrich and Duhon, then Gordon would be expendable.

Until the Bulls play Gordon at PG, he's going to be shoehorned into the pure scoring role, which CAN be replaced.

Seems to me, that is.


----------



## bullstown4life (May 2, 2006)

Depends.. Gordon is only 23, and he's proved time and time again, that he can play in big games, and make big shots. His clutch factor is so important, that I for one wouldn't trade him. Sure, Michael Redd is an All-Star and a tall guard, but I really don't see Gordon being a worse player than him in a year or 2.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bullstown4life said:


> Depends.. Gordon is only 23, and he's proved time and time again, that he can play in big games, and make big shots. His clutch factor is so important, that I for one wouldn't trade him. Sure, Michael Redd is an All-Star and a tall guard, but I really don't see Gordon being a worse player than him in a year or 2.


Nice post.

The thing is, you make the same point I do. Gordon may be exactly as good as Redd in a year or two. Gordon is 4 years younger than Redd, so you might get a couple more years of that Redd-like production out of him than you would with Redd. What you gain with Redd is height.

And I don't mean to suggest we can get Redd. I do mean to suggest that a player LIKE Redd is one of the two kinds of big SG types I talked about in my earlier post.

Suppose the Bulls traded for Diaw. There you have a big guy who can play PG. That might make Hinrich expendable (or certainly Duhon).

A backcourt of Diaw and Gordon would let Diaw play PG on offense and Gordon be a small scoring SG. On defense, Diaw could guard the big SGs and Gordon could guard the PGs.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I think Duhon is heady player that plays with a lot of heart and has shown some substantial improvement since being drafted. I think he will continue to be an important part of this team...unless we have to trade him for a much bigger cog, we will see. I also think that we really NEED a big 2 guard or combo guard to at least give our backcourt some size for certain matchups. I say we sign John Salmons who should come relatively cheap and has shown some promise playing both guard spots unless Brewer or another good player drops to us at 16 and there are no good bigs left. I'd LOVE for us to get Shelden Williams at 16 but he will probably be gone by then unfortunately.


----------



## bullstown4life (May 2, 2006)

DaBullz said:


> Nice post.
> 
> The thing is, you make the same point I do. Gordon may be exactly as good as Redd in a year or two. Gordon is 4 years younger than Redd, so you might get a couple more years of that Redd-like production out of him than you would with Redd. What you gain with Redd is height.
> 
> ...


That's true. However, we need to ask ourselves if that's realy necessary, though. Of what I've seen between Ben and Kirk, they seem to funtion well together on the floor. Perhaps changes aren't as necessary as many people indicate. A Diaw-Gordon back-court will certainly also have it's share of flaws. First of.. We have one of the highest 3pt shooting back-courts in the league. That will be gone with Diaw. Some say, the 3 isn't that important, but I beg to differ in this certain situation. Gordon and Hinrich got a lot of open looks thanks to Curry last year. Well, now Curry isn't here, and they still combined for a mind-boggling 292 of them, which they (In thoery) made from stracth. With a draftee like Aldridge, they will once again get tons of open looks, and I suspect Gordon to chase the newly-sat record by Ray Allen (269 three-balls this year). 

But I got off-topic here. I just think we need to let this team play through whatever, and let them grow as a group, and not dismantle them every 2nd year. Besides, I love me some Hinrich, Gordon back-court! :angel:


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Sometimes I think we're too married to this mantra of 'big scoring guard" when when you look at Ben and how he's developing it is clear he is truly a unique player that can finish in the paint ( he needs to develop this more and be more aggressive which will come ) and is killer ( as we know ) if he sees daylight from outside - even without daylight he still consietently makes shots with mits in his face against bigger players
> 
> I just think leave the guys - as I think the organisation will , and get a complementary 4th guard/forward that can play in a support / complementary role
> 
> And if he gets it done I could not care less if he's 6'2 or 6'6


I tend to feel the same way about our guard situation, and really, I think most people on this board do too. It's not so much that you have a guy in your backcourt that's tall, but rather, that you have a guy in your backcourt that plays like it, and does the things that someone 6'6 should do. And for the most part, Kirk does this just fine. (I'd rather have Kirk playing SG than taller guys like Jalen Rose or Jonathan Bender). And furthermore, what we'd need in a big SG is getting a little more flexible as well as Ben seems to be doing a good job of continually expanding his game. So, ideally, I think it'd make sense to acquire a guy that generally falls into two categories of player:

1). A solid, all around guy who's good at all facets of the game that'll be effective playing 20 mpg. and can just sort of fill in the cracks where we need it or

2). A player that's so good that he's clearly better than one of Kirk or Ben and delegates one of them to a backup role. 

I think acquiring a guy from the second group is pretty unlikely, since there's no one like that in FA, or in the draft (at least that's what it looks like), and it doesn't look like such a player is readily available in a trade, and I'm not sure that Pax would be willing to break into our core to get him anyway, since it'd just be a luxury.

As for the first group, Carney, Brewer and Roy all seem like they'd be decent fits, but things look worse in FA to me. Guys like Salmons and Welsch don't do anything for me, since I don't think they really do anything better than Kirk, even with their added height. And if I had the choice between giving them 3 million dollars or using that same amount of money to frontload a contract on a restricted FA big man that we like, I'd much rather do that, I think.

However, I think it might make sense to one of our picks, and or our cap space to target a young guy in a trade who sort of falls into the first category I mentioned. Some guys who I think would make sense are:

Kevin Martin
Francisco Garcia
Josh Childress
Boris Diaw
Carlos Delfino

There are probably a few more as well, but I think those guys are good examples of players that I'd like to target in a trade with some combination of our picks and/or taking on a bad (but not too bad) contract, if we decide to go that route.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

TwinkieTowers said:


> The Bulls want size in their guard positions, but they probably want one who is fundamentally sound (a typical Pax pick) or is a tremendous shooter.
> 
> The typical Pax pick at #16 would probably be Mardy Collins. Scouting reports basically call him a fundamentally sound big PG who uses craftiness to create his own shot and is an excellent defender. Basically, he could be a 6'6" version of Kirk Hinrich. With four years under Temple coach John Chaney, Collins is exactly the type of player Paxson and Skiles ordered. There is no question this guy would buy into Skiles' system right away.
> 
> I still believe Paxson would like to get another great shooter and, thus, make the Bulls perimeter offense even more effective. I think Paxson has JJ Redick on his radar. Sure, the guy is just 6'4" and not quite the defender, but, as many have said, the Bulls defense is effective because is it team-based and not a sum of individual defenders. The guy spent four years at Duke, was nearly a nation-leading scorer, and is arguably one of the greatest shooters in college history. Imagine the final seconds of a close game with Kirk, Ben, Red Bull, and JJ on the floor. How exactly do you defend that? JJ got shut down against LSU because he was the only real shooter on his team. Does anyone think JJ would get the kind of attention in the pros when Ben Gordon must also be dealt with? His great conditioning is also a plus.


Interesting idea on Reddick. I'm by no means a Reddick fan, and I especially don't think he fits on our team, but I also formed that opinion when we were expecting to draft in the 10-12 range (which would've been too high). However, if Reddick is there at 16, he wouldn't be the worst pick in the world, and he further supplies us with an insane amount of shooting. As a backup SG playing 20 minutes or so, maybe there's a fit for the reasons you mentioned. I mean, how do you seriously defend a halfcourt offense with Gordon and Reddick squaring up on 3's? But if there's a BETTER fit at 16, like Shelden, O'Bryant, Brewer, or even Collins, then I'll be a little peeved if we take Reddick.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

like I said last year , get another Noc like steal and sign one of those two experienced Euro big gaurds:

PAPALOUKAS, THEODOROS  - great PG skills , good defense , has big affect on the game with his all around skills. was the best player in his team cska in the euro final four.

DIAMANTIDIS, DIMITRIOS  - won the DPOY of euroleague for the second straight year , called 'sticky hands' in greece , totally alters opposing offense plan with smart plays , great PG skills and size for point.

I have no idea about thier current contracts in Pana and Cska , but we can get them just like we got Noc.

then we can go for another big in draft , especially with gaurd contribution we're getting in playoofs. Guys like O'bryant , Saer Sene , maybe even Shelden might be available...


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

bullet said:


> like I said last year , get another Noc like steal and sign one of those two experienced Euro big gaurds:
> 
> PAPALOUKAS, THEODOROS  - great PG skills , good defense , has big affect on the game with his all around skills. was the best player in his team cska in the euro final four.
> 
> ...


Very cool idea, Bullet. 

Do you know of any other sources of information on these guys? Any good scouting reports? Or any other euro players that might fit the bill for us?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

rosenthall said:


> I tend to feel the same way about our guard situation, and really, I think most people on this board do too. It's not so much that you have a guy in your backcourt that's tall, but rather, that you have a guy in your backcourt that plays like it, and does the things that someone 6'6 should do. And for the most part, Kirk does this just fine. (I'd rather have Kirk playing SG than taller guys like Jalen Rose or Jonathan Bender). And furthermore, what we'd need in a big SG is getting a little more flexible as well as Ben seems to be doing a good job of continually expanding his game. So, ideally, I think it'd make sense to acquire a guy that generally falls into two categories of player:
> 
> 1). A solid, all around guy who's good at all facets of the game that'll be effective playing 20 mpg. and can just sort of fill in the cracks where we need it or
> 
> ...


Who is Sergio Garcia?

And getting a guy like Salmons (or Welsch) would be good because they would ALLOW us to use size in the backcourt when we needed too, not because they are BETTER than either Hinrich or Gordon. Just that sometimes you need size and atheleticism.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Who is Sergio Garcia?
> 
> And getting a guy like Salmons (or Welsch) would be good because they would ALLOW us to use size in the backcourt when we needed too, not because they are BETTER than either Hinrich or Gordon. Just that sometimes you need size and atheleticism.


Whoops, I meant Francisco Garcia, my bad.

Concerning guys like Salmons and Welsch, getting them wouldn't be bad, I just think it's an inefficient use of our assets. They'd help a little bit, but I just don't think the marginal benefit of adding them would be very big. 

For one, the situations where we're really outmatched in the backcourt due to our size are pretty rare, and guys like Salmons and Jiri Welsch are fringe players, and I'm not sure that they'd do any better a job on guys like Lebron and Kobe than Luol Deng would. 

If I was going to add someone like that, I'd only do it it was after we signed everyone else, and we had a little bit left over that we couldn't use anywhere else. But it'd be foolish to actually allocate a portion of our cap space just to sign someone like that, when the opportunity cost of doing so might be our ability to sign or trade for someone that'd be much more vital to our team structure.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

rosenthall said:


> Whoops, I meant Francisco Garcia, my bad.
> 
> Concerning guys like Salmons and Welsch, getting them wouldn't be bad, I just think it's an inefficient use of our assets. They'd help a little bit, but I just don't think the marginal benefit of adding them would be very big.
> 
> ...


I understand what your saying. I am just thinking that we should have enough to be able to sign a couple of guys like Pryz or Mohammed, Gooden, and still have plenty left over for a guy like Salmons. Of course, I don't consider Salmons as a "fringe" player either I think he is a little underrated. Certainly he isn't any better than Hinrich or Gordon just gives us a different look in the backcourt when we need it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Bring me the head of Sergio Garcia. Or Francisco Garcia. Any old Garcia will do.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Bring me the head of Sergio Garcia. Or Francisco Garcia. Any old Garcia will do.



And the Beatles White album!


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Nice post.
> 
> The thing is, you make the same point I do. Gordon may be exactly as good as Redd in a year or two. Gordon is 4 years younger than Redd, so you might get a couple more years of that Redd-like production out of him than you would with Redd. What you gain with Redd is height.
> 
> ...


Why does anyone need to be expendable if they're getting it done ?


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> So you're saying that a Michael Redd kind of big SG on the team doesn't make Gordon somewhat expendable?


You putting words in my mouth DB ?



> Seems to me if you find that big SG who can replace Gordon's scoring AND who's complimentary to Hinrich and Duhon, then Gordon would be expendable.


Why ? 

Just so we can satisfy our sense of symmetery in how things should be in an "ideal" physical blueprint of how tall we like players at what positions 

If we're a contending team in the East in 3 years and Ben is scoring 24 per and doing his clutch thing and we still rank amongst the league leaders in lowest opponents fg% I would think a trade of Ben for Redd or Ben for Magette or Ben for Paul Pierce , Jason Richardson etc etc Would not happen or work for us or our prospective trading partner 

Its tinkering for tinkering sake 

Its like having holes in your pockets and fidgeting with you nuts ..because you can 

Seems to me, that is


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

ace20004u said:


> And the Beatles White album!


Can I get you anything ?

Um Yes ..bring me the head of Alfredo Garcia , a cup of hot fat and the Beatles White Album


----------



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

I think a player like Iggy would look GREAT in a bulls uniform. Ben Gordon can thrive as a 6th man, and I think Philly would do a #1/Sweetney or Songalia for #12/Iggy. If we could pick up a guy like Splitter or Shelden Williams at 12 and still have the 16th pick to go with another big man, I would be VERY VERY happy with our wing and future in general.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Why does anyone need to be expendable if they're getting it done ?


Depends on how you define "getting it done."

41 wins, perhaps a 1st round exit? That's not getting it done.

Even the Championship Bulls teams adjusted their rosters, including trading for some aussie C, signing Kukoc, and replacing Ho with Rodman.


The issue isn't symmetry at all. It's getting beat in the playoffs when opponents figure out they can post up our small guards and score at will. Like the Wizards did last year. It's also about the flexibility to create the biggest variety of mismatches with our lineups - it's great to be able to go small, but it's also great to be able to go big.


----------



## bullstown4life (May 2, 2006)

I'd rather go after Aldirdge than have Iggy on our roster.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

4door said:


> I think a player like Iggy would look GREAT in a bulls uniform. Ben Gordon can thrive as a 6th man, and I think Philly would do a #1/Sweetney or Songalia for #12/Iggy. If we could pick up a guy like Splitter or Shelden Williams at 12 and still have the 16th pick to go with another big man, I would be VERY VERY happy with our wing and future in general.


The problem is that Ben has been thriving as a starter in this series, except for game 2. There was also a reason why Paxson drafted Gordon and Deng and not Igoudala. I don't know what that reason is, but I doubt Igoudala will be in a Bulls uniform anytime soon despite what he could bring to the team.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Depends on how you define "getting it done."
> 
> 41 wins, perhaps a 1st round exit? That's not getting it done.


Michael and Scottie didn't "get it done" for 4 straight years, but that didn't render either core piece expendable. In short, I'm tired of the moaning about a possible first round playoff exit by the youngest team in the playoffs - at the hands of a team with 2 of the top 10 players in the entire league.

Crawl. Walk. Run. 

As to the mismatches you describe, I completely agree with you. But a role player can be obtained to address that issue. A core talent need not be made "expendable" to fill that hole. 

Maybe I'm being blinded by the outstanding finish to the season and this impressive playoff showing, but I'm getting more and more reluctant to trade any core guard or small forward we have - especially not for another guard or small forward.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Michael and Scottie didn't "get it done" for 4 straight years, but that didn't render either core piece expendable. In short, I'm tired of the moaning about a possible first round playoff exit by the youngest team in the playoffs - at the hands of a team with 2 of the top 10 players in the entire league.
> 
> Crawl. Walk. Run.
> 
> ...


I understand where your coming from and agree to a point. Still, if you could trade Gordon straight up for say..Paul Pierce, you would STILL have a dynamic scoring guard just one that is 6'6" which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Not that that will or could happen, just making a point that there ARE other dynamic scorers other than BG that might "fit" a little better too.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> I understand where your coming from and agree to a point. Still, if you could trade Gordon straight up for say..Paul Pierce, you would STILL have a dynamic scoring guard just one that is 6'6" which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Not that that will or could happen, just making a point that there ARE other dynamic scorers other than BG that might "fit" a little better too.


But you can't make that trade. Not on talent from Boston's perspective and not under the CBA and the salary-matching requirements. 

I hate to be literal, but this is a literal discussion. Yes, I'd do that trade. And awhile back I would have traded Gordon for Maggette.

But I've changed my mind. I honestly believe I'm seeing the start of something special here these last 5-6 weeks. 

I would still trade a Gordon or a Hinrich - but not to get another guard. Not anymore. Those days are over.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> But you can't make that trade. Not on talent from Boston's perspective and not under the CBA and the salary-matching requirements.


In the offseason you could.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

step said:


> In the offseason you could.


Head up? I'm no, cap guru and I know the Bulls can eat some salary because of their capspace situation, but is it to such an extent that the Bulls can trade a rookie contract for a max contract?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> But you can't make that trade. Not on talent from Boston's perspective and not under the CBA and the salary-matching requirements.
> 
> I hate to be literal, but this is a literal discussion. Yes, I'd do that trade. And awhile back I would have traded Gordon for Maggette.
> 
> ...


Actually we could theoretically do that trade I believe since we are under the cap far enough to accept that much salary back. Not that Boston would do it, they wouldn't unless they got something more than just Gordon (like a pick or two). But the point is that if we could replace Ben Gordon with someone who is taller and still the dynamic scorer he is then it would probably be a net gain. I am inclined to agree with you though, the last few regular season games and the playoffs have convinced me that this team should, for the most part, stay together and that includes Gordon. I do think we need a big guard to have on the roster for matchups and I would like us to sign Salmons in the offseason for that unless a good guard drops to us at 16 in the draft.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Depends on how you define "getting it done."
> 
> 41 wins, perhaps a 1st round exit? That's not getting it done.
> 
> ...


The league's second youngest team and legitimately challenging Miami in the first round? I'd say that's getting it done.

The Bulls signed Kukoc, but they didn't sign Kukoc the way they signed Nocioni. He was a draft pick, so the Bulls had exclusive right to sign Kukoc. Dennis didn't exactly replace Horace since Grant was on the Magic and Rodman on the Spurs in 1995.

Every team has a weakness. Why try to force your own team to adapt to an opponent's strength? The Bulls currently lack that size, but why complain when you can't really do anything about it now? They'll have a chance to improve their talent in the frontcourt this offseason.

What's funny is that when we thought the Bulls have already shown their playoff style of basketball in the regular season, they just turn it up another notch we just thought wasn't possible.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Head up? I'm no, cap guru and I know the Bulls can eat some salary because of their capspace situation, but is it to such an extent that the Bulls can trade a rookie contract for a max contract?


Yeah it is. we can offer a max contract outright. Theoretically we could trade our #1 pick for Pierce and not send ANY salary back.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> But the point is that if we could replace Ben Gordon with someone who is taller and still the dynamic scorer he is then it would probably be a net gain.


Well, for the right player I would agree with you. Pierce would qualify (whereas overrated scorers like Michael Redd would not). The thing is, I don't think *just* Kirk Hinrich or *just* Ben Gordon gets you a player that would "qualify" to my mind. 

Not to be a smartass, but its like saying "wouldn't you trade Shareef Abdur-Rahim for Kevin Garnett"? Sure you would - but it would never happen.



> I am inclined to agree with you though, the last few regular season games and the playoffs have convinced me that this team should, for the most part, stay together and that includes Gordon. I do think we need a big guard to have on the roster for matchups and I would like us to *sign Salmons in the offseason * for that unless a good guard drops to us at 16 in the draft.


Brother, you are reading my mind.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> Yeah it is. we can offer a max contract outright. Theoretically we could trade our #1 pick for Pierce and not send ANY salary back.


Wow. I didn't know that. Forgive my ingorance. As with most ignorance, it is accompanied by baseless arrogance.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Wow. I didn't know that. Forgive my ingorance. As with most ignorance, it is accompanied by baseless arrogance.



:biggrin: 

Yes those are symptoms I sometimes suffer from myself! lol

Your right though, Boston won't do a Gordon for Pierce deal straight up so my point really is moot.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

Our cap space ranged from $15-22M depending on the circumstances.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Michael and Scottie didn't "get it done" for 4 straight years, but that didn't render either core piece expendable. In short, I'm tired of the moaning about a possible first round playoff exit by the youngest team in the playoffs - at the hands of a team with 2 of the top 10 players in the entire league.
> 
> Crawl. Walk. Run.
> 
> ...


Amazing how hindsight is 20-20.

At the time, keeping Pip and (less certain) Jordan might not have led to any championships. For all they knew, letting Grant go could have blown the whole thing.

There's no way of knowing what the future will bring, but I think you always want to upgrade at any position possible - and big guard is a real need. Not a role player.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Amazing how hindsight is 20-20.


I think we can learn from the past. I think the fact that it took two of the greatest players in the history of the game 4 years to get out of the first round of the playoffs renders all the of "2 years in playoffs, 2 first round exits" poo-pooing of what is happening here to be impatient at best and provably short-sighted at worst.



> There's no way of knowing what the future will bring, but I think you always want to upgrade at any position possible - and big guard is a real need. Not a role player.


A big guard is a need. I don't disagree. I disagree with the cost of filling the need.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> Well, for the right player I would agree with you. Pierce would qualify (whereas overrated scorers like Michael Redd would not). The thing is, I don't think *just* Kirk Hinrich or *just* Ben Gordon gets you a player that would "qualify" to my mind.


Not to get off topic but...

You really think Redd is overrated? The guy can't miss against the Pistons (28.3 ppg, 53.5 FG%). I think he'd be a better fit for our team than a ball stopper like Pierce.


----------



## dogra (Nov 12, 2003)

But Redd always looks to me like he isn't playing a lick of defense. Aren't we looking for a big guard to DEFEND other big guards, first and foremost? I think that's the main gripe against Redd.

I am with Ace and Ron Cey in wanting us to take a close look at Salmons in the offseason.

SausageKing had a lot of good things to say about Jiri Welsch. Anyone else see Welsch play enough to weigh-in on his defensive and deep shooting abilities? Is he unrestricted? How tall is he?

And isn't Salmons restricted? Would Philly let him walk? Just what the hell is Philly's offseason plan? :whoknows:


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Frankensteiner said:


> Not to get off topic but...
> 
> You really think Redd is overrated? The guy can't miss against the Pistons (28.3 ppg, 53.5 FG%). I think he'd be a better fit for our team than a ball stopper like Pierce.


I think Redd is a little overrated. He's a good player, but he's dreadful on defense and IMO he wouldn't score as much as he does if he wasn't on a team bereft of another plus offensive player, Bobby Simmons is the Bucks' number two scorer. I'd be surprised if Gordon wasn't the better in a year or two.

All of this is not to say I don't think Michael Redd is a good player who has value. I'm just not sure he's an All-Star type talent, and I certainly don't think he's a max guy. The closest comp I can think of is probably Allan Houston in his prime...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I think we can learn from the past. I think the fact that it took two of the greatest players in the history of the game 4 years to get out of the first round of the playoffs renders all the of "2 years in playoffs, 2 first round exits" poo-pooing of what is happening here to be impatient at best and provably short-sighted at worst.
> 
> 
> 
> A big guard is a need. I don't disagree. I disagree with the cost of filling the need.


Problem is nobody on this team looks anywhere near as good as Pippen or Jordan (at year 4, or even earlier). Not top 50 in the league, let alone top 50 of all time.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

dogra said:


> But Redd always looks to me like he isn't playing a lick of defense. Aren't we looking for a big guard to DEFEND other big guards, first and foremost? I think that's the main gripe against Redd.
> 
> I am with Ace and Ron Cey in wanting us to take a close look at Salmons in the offseason.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure I'm sold on Salmons. He's interesting in that he's a 6'7'' guy with point guard skills. But he's shown minimal improvement over the past few seasons. Is he a plus defender? I'm not sure, perhaps somebody who's seen him more can answer this?

Whenever I've seen Salmons he's struck me as a guy who kind of floats and doesn't have a ton of impact on what's going on out there. This year he went for 7.5 PTS, 2.7 REBS and 2.7 ASTS in 25 MPG. These are not numbers that jump out at me and scream "difference maker", or even "guy who plays 25 MPG on a decent team" unless he's a Bruce Bowen type man defender.

A healthy Pietrus intrigues me a lot more. And Jiri Welsch doesn't do it for me either.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

jbulls said:


> I'm not sure I'm sold on Salmons. He's interesting in that he's a 6'7'' guy with point guard skills. But he's shown minimal improvement over the past few seasons. Is he a plus defender? I'm not sure, perhaps somebody who's seen him more can answer this?
> 
> Whenever I've seen Salmons he's struck me as a guy who kind of floats and doesn't have a ton of impact on what's going on out there. This year he went for 7.5 PTS, 2.7 REBS and 2.7 ASTS in 25 MPG. These are not numbers that jump out at me and scream "difference maker", or even "guy who plays 25 MPG on a decent team" unless he's a Bruce Bowen type man defender.
> 
> A healthy Pietrus intrigues me a lot more. And Jiri Welsch doesn't do it for me either.



Salmons is definitley a very solid defender, especially on the ball. His stats don't jump out at you because he is playing in Philly with AI & Chris Webber and doesn't get to do a ton of things. He has the ability to run the offense and make some nice passes if he is running the point and he can finish around the rim, has a solid jumper, even out to 3pt land. You may like Pietrus better, the problem is Pietrus isn't a FA this offseason while Salmons is.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jbulls said:


> I think Redd is a little overrated. He's a good player, but he's dreadful on defense and IMO he wouldn't score as much as he does if he wasn't on a team bereft of another plus offensive player, Bobby Simmons is the Bucks' number two scorer. I'd be surprised if Gordon wasn't the better in a year or two.
> 
> All of this is not to say I don't think Michael Redd is a good player who has value. I'm just not sure he's an All-Star type talent, and I certainly don't think he's a max guy. The closest comp I can think of is probably Allan Houston in his prime...


I don't know about this.

The last three seasons, the 2nd leading scorer on the Bucks has outscored the Bulls' leading scorer, or come real close.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> I don't know about this.
> 
> The last three seasons, the 2nd leading scorer on the Bucks has outscored the Bulls' leading scorer, or come real close.


I'm not totally sure how this is relevant - the Bulls are something of an NBA anomaly in terms of sharing the offensive load. Not many team has a guy scoring 17, a guy scoring 15, a guy scoring 14, and another 13 on a nightly basis. If Redd came to Chicago I don't think he'd score 25 per game, I don't think he'd get on the floor for 40 MPG like he does now the way he plays defense.

I don't dislike Redd, but do you think he's any better than Allan Houston during his good years? Surely he's not an ideal max contract guy, he's not the best player on an elite team...


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Wait a year and give Pietrus the full MLE, or trade the #16 pick for him, assuming your confident that his body is right. His career has been full of injuries. But when healthy he is certainly far better then anything you could get at the #16 spot. In fact, a healthy Pietrus would be a top 5-7 pick in this draft. But GS will want to shake that team up. And with their contract situations, I doubt MP2 sticks there.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jbulls said:


> I'm not totally sure how this is relevant - the Bulls are something of an NBA anomaly in terms of sharing the offensive load. Not many team has a guy scoring 17, a guy scoring 15, a guy scoring 14, and another 13 on a nightly basis. If Redd came to Chicago I don't think he'd score 25 per game, I don't think he'd get on the floor for 40 MPG like he does now the way he plays defense.
> 
> I don't dislike Redd, but do you think he's any better than Allan Houston during his good years? Surely he's not an ideal max contract guy, he's not the best player on an elite team...


Redd is truly one of the special players. Can't deny it.

3 other bucks averaged 12+ PPG this season
5 other bucks averaged 10+ PPG last season
Bucks 2nd,3rd,4th scorers the year before 15+,14+,14+

*shrug*


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Redd is truly one of the special players. Can't deny it.
> 
> 3 other bucks averaged 12+ PPG this season
> 5 other bucks averaged 10+ PPG last season
> ...


If you consider Allan Houston's peak production "truly special" than yes Michael Redd is truly special. Personally, I don't.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Amazing how hindsight is 20-20.
> 
> At the time, keeping Pip and (less certain) Jordan might not have led to any championships. For all they knew, letting Grant go could have blown the whole thing.
> 
> There's no way of knowing what the future will bring, but I think you always want to upgrade at any position possible - and big guard is a real need. Not a role player.


You know DB I was a Doubting Tim Thomas about the Kirk and Ben backcourt and have in my time got on to my pals at U Haul to see whether they can give Kirk or Ben a good deal for the move 

You may recall I have previously said that Kirk and Ben are a modern version of Horace and Oak and that one would be moved for a better piece as what happened with Oak when he was swapped for Bill Cartwright - a move , amongst others , that contributed to the first 3 peat 

I'm down with Ron Cey however and believe we can afford to be patient to see how it pans out and if it really effects our ability to progress 

This team is getting it done and whilst we are not competing for a championship right now these guys are getting valuable lessons and experience in playoff basketball that they will cash their chips in on later

If Kirk and Ben can continue to grow , develop and get it done - and they have been in the run home and in the playoffs , and , if we can continue to lead the league in lowest opponent fg% then I think a big guy backing Ben down in the post is neither here nor there to us being a contending team 

Perhaps in the Oak / Horace analogy as it applied to Kirk / Ben - I think the issue down the track - and what I am think you are alluding to , is how to go from a contending team to a team that then wins it all

I just don't see that as something we have to tinker with now and perhaps not for awhile if at all


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

For the record Michael Redd just might have the quickest release on his shot in the league . That quickness and accuracy is unique

Couldn't defend a ham sandwich however


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Couldn't defend a ham sandwich however


None of our guys can defend a ham sandwich either.













But that actually has more to do with Mike Sweetney being around.


----------

