# Just curious: If we signed Amare instead of Boozer during free agency?



## JonH818 (Aug 31, 2006)

We could've easily signed Amare in Chicago instead of Carlos Boozer. No one even expressed interest in this guy because of the fear of his eye or knee coming back. New York signed Amare out of fear of losing out in free agency.

Let's just say Bulls signed Amare instead of Boozer, do you think the Bulls would be sitting at 24-12?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

In the very short term, we'd be better because Amare is having an MVP-type season, as is Rose. 

But (and a very big but), we can't ignore the reasons why we presumably prioritized Boozer over Amare:

- Boozer is $4M per season cheaper ($20M overall)
- Boozer's attitude is better; seems to mesh very well with the other Bulls
- Boozer never had micro-fracture surgery, and has more potential for playing into his 30's
- Boozer really wanted to be a Bull; I don't think Amare did


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Better, obviously. Amare > Boozer. Always has been, always will be.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

yodurk said:


> In the very short term, we'd be better because Amare is having an MVP-type season, as is Rose.
> 
> But (and a very big but), we can't ignore the reasons why we presumably prioritized Boozer over Amare:
> 
> ...


The first 2 points are valid but the last 2 aren't. Boozer never had micro-fracture surgery but he's far from a durable player. Amare actually wanted to remain in Phoenix but the Suns didn't want to pay him. If the Bulls were willing to pay then he would play for Chicago the same way he plays for New York, which is pretty damn good.

Amare and Noah is also a better duo in my opinion. The one knock on Amare is his lack of rebounding and Noah fixes that. Also imagine the type of shot blocking presence the duo would be. Of course, Amare is better on offense so not much needs to be said there.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

Would this be assuming that Amare would not have played the first 15 games of the season?

Other reasons why the Bulls prioritized Boozer over Amare (and Bosh, too, if it weren't for him being LeBron bait): 

- he has a true low post game that often commands double teams, while Amare's primarily a high post player and likely would've clashed with Noah's playing style
- Boozer's a better passer (as evidenced by their assist percentages)
- Stoudemire would've been a good fit for Vinny's system (which was why I supported trading for him last February), except Vinny was already a lame duck before he became available for trade, so PaxGar didn't want to risk the possibility of Vinny looking good having a new weapon on offense, in which after firing him would've made them look bad


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Eh, Boozer is a much better defender and rebounder. For what the Bulls needed Boozer was the better choice. It's not always about the better player. With Amare you'd be more high profile and explosive, but I don't think you'd be better.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

TwinkieTowers said:


> Would this be assuming that Amare would not have played the first 15 games of the season?
> 
> Other reasons why the Bulls prioritized Boozer over Amare (and Bosh, too, if it weren't for him being LeBron bait):
> 
> ...


These first two are definitely good points. Amare is kind of a turnover machine, whereas Boozer usually has a plus assist/TO ratio. Even just watching them play, you can tell Boozer has a deeper understanding of the game. Amare's dominance is more on the physical side.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> The first 2 points are valid but the last 2 aren't. Boozer never had micro-fracture surgery but he's far from a durable player. Amare actually wanted to remain in Phoenix but the Suns didn't want to pay him. If the Bulls were willing to pay then he would play for Chicago the same way he plays for New York, which is pretty damn good.
> 
> Amare and Noah is also a better duo in my opinion. The one knock on Amare is his lack of rebounding and Noah fixes that. Also imaging the type of shot blocking presence the duo would be. Of course, Amare is better on offense so not much needs to be said there.


The health argument is well in Boozer's favor when talking long-term playing potential.

Boozer has been fragile of course, but they aren't the type of injuries that wear on you over time. 

Amare's knee was repaired by microfracture. That's a huge deal.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

yodurk said:


> The health argument is well in Boozer's favor when talking long-term playing potential.
> 
> Boozer has been fragile of course, but they aren't the type of injuries that wear on you over time.
> 
> Amare's knee was repaired by microfracture. That's a huge deal.


So are the issues with his eyes. You tear something in the eye like he did, and it just may tear again.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Dre™ said:


> Eh, Boozer is a much better defender and rebounder. For what the Bulls needed Boozer was the better choice. It's not always about the better player. With Amare you'd be more high profile and explosive, but I don't think you'd be better.



Boozer is a better rebounder, but I'm not sure there's a huge difference between the two defensively.

Boozer's offensive game is a better fit, but Amare is the better overall offensive player at this stage in his career.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I think Boozer is a little more vigilant on the defensive end. It doesn't have to be a huge difference, especially when you're talking about winning titles and key mistakes being the difference in close playoff games. I could see Amare making more defensive lapses than Boozer when it counts.

And no doubt Amare is the better offensive player, but like you said the difference isn't so much so that you ignore Boozer as a better fit.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

I underrated Amare's offensive game before and he is better then I gave him credit for.

That being said I still think the guy is a cancer. His effort on everything but offense is atrocious. The number of Turnovers he gets are ridiculous. And he benefits a ton from D'antonni's offense. I'm not sure how he and Thibs could possibly coexist. I'm also not sold that his offense is any better than Boozer's anyways. 

Boozer has been excellent since he got healthy and seems to be a perfect fit. And the fact that he cost like 75% of Amare is icing on the cake.


----------



## JonH818 (Aug 31, 2006)

Did anyone watch the highlights for Bulls vs. Boston on NBA.com. Look at 1:01 on the clip. No wonder Thibs benches Boozer from time to time. They even highlight his lack of hustle on this clip. Hilarious.

http://www.nba.com/video/games/bull..._bos_chi_recap.nba/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt2


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Boozer is a better rebounder, but I'm not sure there's a huge difference between the two defensively.
> 
> Boozer's offensive game is a better fit, but Amare is the better overall offensive player at this stage in his career.


Overall defensively it's a wash. Amare is better at help defense, while Boozer is better one-on-one and in communication. 

However, Amare has been playing center the past two seasons, and his defense suffered the most when he was playing power forward alongside Shaq (111 defensive rating in 08-09).


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

JonH818 said:


> Did anyone watch the highlights for Bulls vs. Boston on NBA.com. Look at 1:01 on the clip. No wonder Thibs benches Boozer from time to time. They even highlight his lack of hustle on this clip. Hilarious.
> 
> http://www.nba.com/video/games/bull..._bos_chi_recap.nba/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt2


No context.

1. By the time Boozer regained his balance Davis was already 2-3 strides ahead.
2. Boozer already had two personal fouls at that time. He wasn't going to risk picking up a cheap third foul and possible and-1.


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

I prefer the Boozer signing rather than Amare because you can go to him in the post, and he's a much better rebounder. Amare's best position seems to be C as well, and there's no way he'd play that here. Add the 20 mil saving and I don't think it's close.

But to answer the question I think it'd be a little bit better only because Amare wouldn't have missed the first 15 games of the season. I still think we're a better team with Boozer in the long run.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

obviously the bulls would be much better with amare , he's played every game while boozer has missed 15 .

and of course he simply is a significantly better player than boozer.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> obviously the bulls would be much better with amare , he's played every game while boozer has missed 15 .


I don't think the spirit of discussion is about who has played more games this year, and the resulting record b/c of it. Let's assume both guys are 100% health wise and you swapped one for the other.



> and of course he simply is a significantly better player than boozer.


I'd say more like marginally better. Boozer is having a great season in his own right. 

And I come back to the earlier points in the thread. Boozer's fit and attitude for this team are better. Amare's talent would outweigh that in the short-term, but once the honeymoon period runs out w/ Amare, he will fail to keep up this pace of production. There is also the question of what happens to that knee of his over these next couple years. While I'm sure Boozer will have his share of injuries (as usual), they aren't the recurring kind that can end a career prematurely. (knock on wood)


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Amare is also playing on the team with the second fastest pace in the NBA which suits his game perfectly. He is the unquestioned number one on his team.

Boozer's averaging 21 and 10 on 56% shooting in 6 less mpg as a second option on a team with a middle of the pack pace of play or 5 less possessions per game.

For what we need Boozer has proven to be a perfect fit and the salary differences are huge. How long will it be before Amare's contract is one of the worst in the NBA? (2 years?) Now if I were a team like the Timberwolves I would prefer Amare.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Btw, since Boozer's injury history came up, I did a quick bout of research to see if anything was recurring. The answer appears to be no. The quick summary I found (and hopefully not containing errors...):

- Injured foot 
- Strained hamstring
- Strained oblique
- Arthroscopic (minimally invasive) knee surgery
- Broken pinky

I didn't see any of these happening during the same year.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I don't think the spirit of discussion is about who has played more games this year, and the resulting record b/c of it. Let's assume both guys are 100% health wise and you swapped one for the other.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



this is what the thread starter wrote:



> We could've easily signed Amare in Chicago instead of Carlos Boozer. No one even expressed interest in this guy because of the fear of his eye or knee coming back. New York signed Amare out of fear of losing out in free agency.
> 
> Let's just say Bulls signed Amare instead of Boozer, do you think the Bulls would be sitting at 24-12?



it was about whether the bulls would better off if the bulls had signed amare instead of boozer ...I would say since boozer has missed over 40% of the games thus far it certainly matters .

thats me simply going off what john posted .

now if you want to revise it to act as if both were 100% healthy , Amare is just a much better player .

its a comparison of 2 players at the same position, 1 is a top 10 player in the nba(occasionally like this season sneaking into top 5) year in and year out and the other is a fringe all star(usually in the 15-40 range), which is very good but not really in the same class of player.

there really isn't much difference in how they are used except amare is better at it on offense and on defense both have their strengths and weaknesses and neither is nearly as intense on the defensive end as they should be , boozer is better on his man and amare is better on help defense.

i would say amare would fit the ethic of the team better , he is an alpha personality and the bulls can clearly use more of that , also his work ethic seems to be better he's always in top shape , boozer has his red flags too from screwing over gordon gund to larry miller claiming he was dogging it to the pulled hammy that cost him almost 50 games one season . From what i've seen amare is a good guy and d'antoni credited him and felton for saving the season after a 3-8 start by being leaders and rallying the team around them.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

If going off what jonH818 posted – clearly it is Amare.

As a matter of fact, Amare is better in every category, with exception of cost and amount of muscles (Boozer has 26 lbs more and he is ugly - good "scaring" factor). So, considering that we already have one of the best NBA player - Rose, luck of muscles, greedy owner – I will go with Boozer, he somehow reminds me Oakley – one of my favorite players, a true NBA SoB .


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

> i would say amare would fit the ethic of the team better , he is an alpha personality and the bulls can clearly use more of that , also his work ethic seems to be better he's always in top shape


Boozer was drafted in the second round as an undersized, overweight (280 lbs) center who was not athletic enough to play power forward. Ever since he entered training camp for the Cavs as a rookie, he's been listed at 258 and claims to be at five percent body fat.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

TwinkieTowers said:


> Boozer was drafted in the second round as an undersized, overweight (280 lbs) center who was not athletic enough to play power forward. Ever since he entered training camp for the Cavs as a rookie, he's been listed at 258 and claims to be at five percent body fat.


yeah I agree. Boozer's Work ethic seems to be excellent. The dude is in phenomenal shape.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

TwinkieTowers said:


> Boozer was drafted in the second round as an undersized, overweight (280 lbs) center who was not athletic enough to play power forward. Ever since he entered training camp for the Cavs as a rookie, he's been listed at 258 and claims to be at five percent body fat.



he was drafted to play the 4....and his weight then(at draft time) was 258. http://www.nbadraft.net/nba_draft_history/2002.html.

he played the 5 in college because duke plays smallball mike dunleavy jr played the 4

he was fat in college , and he gets alot of muscle and tissue injuries early in the season, usually a sign of too much activity too soon because of a lack of conditioning. so its very fair to question his work ethic ...despite playing just 3 games in 05-06 amare avg. more games per season than boozer due to boozer missing significant time in more seasons . in fact stoudemire has missed 32(29 in 08-09) games since then...over the same period carlos has missed 73


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Yeah I don't understand this notion that Boozer is a better fit than Amare because of his health. We're not comparing Amare with AC Green, you're comparing him to a guy that has missed major amount of games multiple times in his career. They both had their issues in the past and while Amare's injuries were more severe he has proven to be more durable since he came back from those injuries.

Assuming they are both healthy it's really no comparison in my opinion. The only real angle that you can work in Boozer's favor is that he is paid about 4 mil less. Depending on what the Bulls do with that 4 mil a year it's hard to say if they would be better off by just giving all that money to the superior player.


----------



## BullsBaller (Oct 6, 2002)

I was thinking the same thing along with what if we signed Gay instead of Brewer, Korver, and Bogans? I came to the conclusion that we would have too many young players and egos with Amare and Gay. Boozer seems to mesh better compared to Amare. Although, Amare's leadership and maturity level have surprised me.

I like Korver and Brewer, but my philosophy of being under the cap is to sign the best player(s) available regardless of need in that position. Brewer and Korver are role players and final small pieces to building a championsip caliber team. You get those players with the MLE each year and/or thru the draft. We really need a legit pure scorer for a 3rd option to go against the Heat, Magic, Lakers, etc... Deng is a 3rd option but he is a guy that can be ignored by a defense during parts of the game. That wouldn't be the case with Gay. 

Also, if we had gotten Gay, we could of later traded Deng for role players similar to Brewer/Korver. He would be much easier to trade for those type of players than he is for a player like Melo.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

seifer0406 said:


> *Yeah I don't understand this notion that Boozer is a better fit than Amare because of his health.* We're not comparing Amare with AC Green, you're comparing him to a guy that has missed major amount of games multiple times in his career. They both had their issues in the past and while Amare's injuries were more severe he has proven to be more durable since he came back from those injuries.
> 
> Assuming they are both healthy it's really no comparison in my opinion. The only real angle that you can work in Boozer's favor is that he is paid about 4 mil less. Depending on what the Bulls do with that 4 mil a year it's hard to say if they would be better off by just giving all that money to the superior player.


who said this?


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

BullsBaller said:


> I was thinking the same thing along with what if we signed Gay instead of Brewer, Korver, and Bogans? I came to the conclusion that we would have too many young players and egos with Amare and Gay. Boozer seems to mesh better compared to Amare. Although, Amare's leadership and maturity level have surprised me.
> 
> I like Korver and Brewer, but my philosophy of being under the cap is to sign the best player(s) available regardless of need in that position. Brewer and Korver are role players and final small pieces to building a championsip caliber team. You get those players with the MLE each year and/or thru the draft. We really need a legit pure scorer for a 3rd option to go against the Heat, Magic, Lakers, etc... Deng is a 3rd option but he is a guy that can be ignored by a defense during parts of the game. That wouldn't be the case with Gay.
> 
> Also, if we had gotten Gay, we could of later traded Deng for role players similar to Brewer/Korver. He would be much easier to trade for those type of players than he is for a player like Melo.


Haha don't even get me started on Gay vs Dung. I wanted Gay and Amare all along, and not trading Kirk. 

Rose
Hinrich
Gay
Amare
Noah

That gives you 3 #1 scoring options in Rose, Gay and Amare, and 2 defenders in Kirk & Noah. Fill in the depth with players acquired from Dung.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

caseyrh said:


> who said this?


Yodurk did.

Flip the page.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Haha don't even get me started on Gay vs Dung. I wanted Gay and Amare all along, and not trading Kirk.
> 
> Rose
> Hinrich
> ...


Gay got a huge deal from memphis. Get over it, it was never a feasible option anyways. 

Our team has played through a key major injury all season long, and we have had a great start to the season. Deng has been a great fit as has Boozer. 

Face it, this offseason was a great success for our franchise.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> Yodurk did.
> 
> Flip the page.


I did say it, but let's not twist my point.

I am referring to *longevity*, not likelihood of playing 82 games this season.

Amare relies on his athleticism considerably more than Boozer, and Boozer is not the one with a reconstructed knee. Despite Boozer's reputation as injury prone, his injuries tend to be on the minor side with no re-occurrences and high prospects of recovery.

Boozer is precisely 1 year older than Amare. By the time these guys are in Year 5 of their contracts, Boozer will be 33 yrs old and Amare will be 32.

My money is on 33-yr old Boozer being more useful and productive than a 32-yr old Amare.

Keep in mind this is only 1 out of 5 reasons cited in this thread why I prefer Boozer over Amare. The others can be found in my previous posts.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

yodurk said:


> I did say it, but let's not twist my point.
> 
> I am referring to *longevity*, not likelihood of playing 82 games this season.
> 
> ...


Very valid points, I agree.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

I always thought Amar'e was the best available big, but we signed Boozer for much less allowing us to add to our bench.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

caseyrh said:


> ... Deng has been a great fit as has Boozer.
> Face it, this offseason was a great success for our franchise.


Stop your hopeless propaganda...it is not laughable anymore ! 

Team’s success predominantly based on Rose and Noah improvement.

Signing a 30 years old Boozer for tons of money and loosing two serviceable pieces during that process ( Kirk and Miller) – is nothing to do with the expression a “ this offseason was a great success for our franchise “.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

yodurk said:


> I did say it, but let's not twist my point.
> 
> I am referring to *longevity*, not likelihood of playing 82 games this season.
> 
> ...


I'm not twisting your point, I was referring to longevity. Boozer has had a history of injuries which leads me to believe that he is just as likely to wear down as Amare, who has been perfectly healthy since he came back from his injuries 2 years ago. We're not comparing Amare to Dwight Howard or Lebron or other players with the iron man status. We're comparing 2 guys where one of them is injury prone and the other has had microfracture surgery. It's either the same risk or slight advantage to either player, not something to offset what they bring to the court.

As for their effectiveness as they age, I disagree about Amare's game not aging as well. Boozer is well undersized to play the power forward position and his game will shift to the midrange/perimeter as he loses his athleticism. Just watch Elton Brand and you'll see what Boozer will be like in a few years. Amare on the other hand is a lot more polished offensively than people give him credit for. You don't become the 2nd leading scorer in the league by solely relying on your athleticism. He is consistent up to 18 feet and is excellent at getting to the line.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

Bulls96 said:


> Stop your hopeless propaganda...it is not laughable anymore !
> 
> Team’s success predominantly based on Rose and Noah improvement.
> 
> Signing a 30 years old Boozer for tons of money and loosing two serviceable pieces during that process ( Kirk and Miller) – is nothing to do with the expression a “ this offseason was a great success for our franchise “.


We could have signed Boozer without giving up Kirk, so no we did not give up Kirk for Boozer. We gave up Kirk for Brewer, Watson, Korver, Asik. 

So you're telling me you'd rather have a 34 year old Brad Miller for the next 3 years rather than a 29 year old low post scorer that is putting up 21 and 10? Okay then...


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

P to the Wee said:


> We could have signed Boozer without giving up Kirk, so no we did not give up Kirk for Boozer. We gave up Kirk for Brewer, Watson, Korver, Asik.
> 
> So you're telling me you'd rather have a 34 year old Brad Miller for the next 3 years rather than a 29 year old low post scorer that is putting up 21 and 10? Okay then...


No...I am telling that signing a 30 years old Boozer for tons of money is nothing to do with the expression a “ this offseason was a great success for our franchise “. 

Pls try again and focus on Casey Dengisimo words:

"great success for our franchise this offseason " = signing 30 years old Boozer for tons of money and losing Kirk and Miller for nothing.

*Do you agree with his propoganda ? ... Yes or NO*

Signing Boozer or Amare (for tons of money) could be classified as a good move, but not as a great success.

Success means achievement or triumph or sensation. None of those words are applicable to the fact of signing either of above mentioned free agents, specifically when we lost a two serviceable players during that process.

Miami for example has a great sensational success this off season…we don’t . 

Casey like a clown, is repeating the same propaganda again and again and again...hoping that eventually it will stick.

*WE ARE GOOD PREDOMINATELY BECAUSE OF ROSE IMPROVEMENT- only idiot can deny that.*


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I did say it, but let's not twist my point.
> 
> I am referring to *longevity*, not likelihood of playing 82 games this season.
> 
> ...


i dunno there really isn't much proof amare will get knee trouble again...


> Although microfracture has been associated with the rapid decline of star players like Penny Hardaway, Chris Webber, Allan Houston and Tracy McGrady, Stoudemire’s prognosis was excellent. He was 22 at the time, and the damage was minimal and in a non-weight-bearing area.
> 
> Indeed, Stoudemire has thrived since the operation and has played in at least 79 games in three of the last four seasons. (His 2008-9 season was cut short by a detached retina.) By all appearances, he is in the clear.





> Dr. Richard Steadman, who pioneered the microfracture procedure in the 1980s, said his follow-up studies — with patients who were, on average, 11 years removed from surgery — had shown no decline in function.
> 
> “In general, if the procedure’s successful, the tissue remains resilient indefinitely,” he said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/07/sports/basketball/07knicks.html


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Bulls96 said:


> No...I am telling that signing a 30 years old Boozer for tons of money is nothing to do with the expression a “ this offseason was a great success for our franchise “.
> 
> Pls try again and focus on Casey Dengisimo words:
> 
> ...


Wait didn't you say we would win 45 games this year and finish as the 7th seed in the east???

I believe that was your prediction (and I am guessing you factored in the improvement of Rose and Noah). 

Meanwhile I predicted 55 wins, because I believed that we made some very good offseason moves _and_ because I was confident that Rose and Noah would improve.

So far All my propaganda and idiocracy is looking correct. And all your negativity and doomsday predictions haven't been working out.

How did that Boston bet work out for you?


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> i dunno there really isn't much proof amare will get knee trouble again...
> 
> 
> _
> ...


I am curious if these follow up studies were done on NBA athletes (who obviously put vastly more stress on their knees) or if they were done on normal patients. I didn't read the link but, if the study is on the average joe, then surely these follow up studies have almost no bearing on this discussion.

I think anyone without bias would tell you that long-term Amare's health is more worrisome then Boozer's.

I'm not even sure how this is being argued.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

caseyrh said:


> I am curious if these follow up studies were done on NBA athletes (who obviously put vastly more stress on their knees) or if they were done on normal patients. I didn't read the link but, if the study is on the average joe, then surely these follow up studies have almost no bearing on this discussion.
> 
> I think anyone without bias would tell you that long-term Amare's health is more worrisome then Boozer's.
> 
> I'm not even sure how this is being argued.



really?

let me ask you this how much of a problem is kidd's microfracture giving him?

or zach randolph?

or even john stockton?

it seems clear the guys who's career were doomed never got as good as they were again but the guys who did never had another issue with it, 

its been 6 years at this point since amar'es knee injury this doesn't appear to be a situation that affects a guy over the long haul...like 5-10 years down the line but were clearly never recovered at all, penny, webber t-mac allan houston, they never looked close to the same kind of player again.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

caseyrh said:


> Wait didn't you say we would win 45 games this year and finish as the 7th seed in the east???
> 
> I believe that was your prediction (and I am guessing you factored in the improvement of Rose and Noah).
> 
> ...



Classical Casey distortion of facts, fabrication and twisting the subject of discussion.


Right now we are talking about your comical statement: “…this off-season was a great success for our franchise “

If you have something to say on that subject go ahead, if not…there is nothing to discuss at this point, let’s watch the game.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> really?
> 
> let me ask you this how much of a problem is kidd's microfracture giving him?
> 
> ...


Kidd, Randolph, and Stockton's games never relied on superior athleticism, but Kidd's All-NBA defense has suffered after microfracture surgery (just look at his defensive ratings after the 03-04 season).

Aside from Houston, the examples you included were players who relied on their athleticism to dominate games. You can include Antonio McDyess, Steve Francis, and Jermaine O'Neal to the list (O'Neal and Francis just had bad knees -- never had microfracture surgery).

Boozer's refined post game does not rely primarily on being a superior athlete -- it's a combination of knowing angles, using fakes, etc. Zach Randolph, Luis Scola, and Tim Duncan are cut from the same cloth in terms of offensive style. If you wondered why Elton Brand is no longer the somewhat dominant PF as he was pre-Philly, it's because he never had a refined low post game because he never had to rely on it as a Bull/Clipper since his athleticism and long arms were his advantages against most PFs.

Amare Stoudemire, meet Brandon Roy.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Bulls96 said:


> Classical Casey distortion of facts, fabrication and twisting the subject of discussion.
> 
> 
> Right now we are talking about your comical statement: “…this off-season was a great success for our franchise “
> ...


The Bulls being a good team now is directly related to the Bulls having a great offseason.

You can't connect the dots?


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> really?
> 
> let me ask you this how much of a problem is kidd's microfracture giving him?
> 
> ...


LOL... Okay, your right. There is no reason to worry about Amare's Knee Long-term. 

There has been about 10 guys mentioned here and half of them have basically had their careers derailed by knees that required the surgery.

That's kind of a high percentage... no?

Anyways, no point in going in further detail with this. Hopefully your right and the guy stays healthy, certainly there is a reasonable chance that knee slows him down at some point. I'm guessing neither of us are doctors but common sense suggests that one should worry about the long term health of a player with a knee that has received a surgery that has basically ended the careers of about half of the guys who have received it.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

TwinkieTowers said:


> Kidd, Randolph, and Stockton's games never relied on superior athleticism, but Kidd's All-NBA defense has suffered after microfracture surgery (just look at his defensive ratings after the 03-04 season).
> 
> Aside from Houston, the examples you included were players who relied on their athleticism to dominate games. You can include Antonio McDyess, Steve Francis, and Jermaine O'Neal to the list (O'Neal and Francis just had bad knees -- never had microfracture surgery).
> 
> ...


most star players use athletic based games so any list involving them is going to have mostly that, as they get older they add stuff to their games or they lose their effectiveness as their athleticism fades ...also most decent players whether they are stars or not generally end their careers while dealing with injuries ...that sadly is a part of the game.

boozer is not kevin mchale in the post , he has a good game down there but he has never been a guy you could consistently expect him to pound a team into submission down there like a a prime tim duncan...the simple truth is guys with his physical abilities tend to fade at about 30 (he's strong, skilled undersized 6'7.75 in bare feet not explosive and somewhat injury prone) he's a 2nd option type down there.

i never wondered about elton , he got hurt and now he isn't as good it that simple

kidd's defensive rating ...you think maybe that as a guard now in his 30's he was just losing the quickness to be an elite defender?

also note all those 'athletic' guys got hurt late in their career and never got back their athletic ability ...amare was 22 and he got it all back...they really aren't comparable at all. he fully healed , they didn't.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

caseyrh said:


> LOL... Okay, your right. There is no reason to worry about Amare's Knee Long-term.
> 
> There has been about 10 guys mentioned here and half of them have basically had their careers derailed by knees that required the surgery.
> 
> ...


failing to acknowledge my points(or leading physicians in the field) dont make your more valid.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

caseyrh said:


> Gay got a huge deal from memphis. Get over it, it was never a feasible option anyways.
> 
> Our team has played through a key major injury all season long, and we have had a great start to the season. Deng has been a great fit as has Boozer.
> 
> Face it, this offseason was a great success for our franchise.


You don't think that if the Bulls had tried to get him they could've? Lets look at this long term, and in the whole broad spectrum instead of through your tunnel-vision for Dung.

#1. The centerpiece of this team is 22 years old. How does adding a 29 year old player that misses 1/3 of the games going to help build this team to be a contender?

#2. The 2nd best player on the team is 25. The 3rd best now, by default (Dung) is 25, and overpaid and misses a lot of time. They got rid of Kirk, the only player who fits with Boozer age-wise. 

#3. Injuries. Boozer already missed how much of this season? How much has he missed of past seasons? It's a "great success" to burn up the cap space on a guy that you can't rely on to actually be healthy and play? Same goes for Dung. Last year he was relatively healthy by his standard, and still missed 15% of the season. Such a success to have 1/2 your cap space tied up in 2 fragile dookie forwards that you can't depend on.

#4. Gay. He is better in every category than Dung. More points, steals, blocks, higher shooting percentages across the board, more dynamic, more durable, and younger. If you are going to build a perennial contender around a superstar like Rose, you build it with guys that compliment him and that can grow with him. You don't do it by blowing your wad on a busted up old wanna be like Boozer and someone as fragile as he and Dung. 

#5. Hinrich. He's a better player than that hack Bogans by a long ways. Gives us a viable backup at the 1, plus a starting-caliber 2. We don't have that now by any means. 

#6. Amare. He's always been the better player, and always will be. He also fits in more with Rose on offense. More points, steals, blocks, a bit less rebounds but with Noah in there that's no biggie. Blocks are what's needed. He's also a year younger. 

So no, getting the boobie prize in Boozer was hardly a great success. The team is better, but mainly due to Rose taking it to the next level....notice Boozer missed 1/3 of the season already and the team won without him, so obviously he wasn't the cause.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> failing to acknowledge my points(or leading physicians in the field) dont make your more valid.


Even ignoring Amare's knee for a minute...I have always considered Boozer to be a more skilled player than Amare. Amare is better due to his far superior athletic gifts. And that's fine, but we've seen what happens to players who rely heavily on athleticism to get by. Boozer is crafy, a skilled passer and mid-range shooter, and strong as an ox. These are things that won't degrade at age 33 for him. Amare at 32 probably won't be able to out run opponents in the open floor like he can now, or make those quick explosive moves to the basket. 

Then throw a microfracture-repaired knee into the picture...it increases the likelihood that he won't be particularly effective into his 30's. You can't just dismiss a major operation like that and claim that because it's 100% right now that it won't impact a few years from now. From what I understand of microfracture, it depends on how well the cartilage holds up. What if that cartilage starts to wear down? Not uncommon for NBA athletes given how hard they press themselves. Nothing is for certain and I'm not making a hard prediction either way, but I am playing the probabilities. 

Boozer has not undergone any major operations (his arthroscopic knee surgery was not major); his accusations are more than he nurses minor injuries and over milks them. Several of his bigger injuries were merely strains, not tears. His only fracture I could find was his 5th metatarsal. The probability of that having any impact whatsoever on his NBA future is so miniscule, it's barely worth mentioning.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Just one more thing that I'm curious about. Why are you guys so fascinated about what Amare will be like when he's 32? You're not getting him at 32, you're getting him at 28. So let's say at 33 Boozer will be better than Amare at 32, so what? Even if he breaks down completely at that age, he would be an expiring contract that the Bulls could use, it's not a problem. Amare's athleticism isn't deteriorating this year and chances are not next year either. Meanwhile, his jumpshot is getting better each year and he even started playing defense this year. You're getting a MVP candidate for at least 2 years and likely 3 or 4, that's more than enough when you have other pieces in place to win now. 

What I do know is if Amare is on the Bulls right now the Bulls would be a contender especially with the way Rose is playing this year. Sometimes it's about what the maximum potential is rather than whether or not the team will be good down the road.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> Just one more thing that I'm curious about. Why are you guys so fascinated about what Amare will be like when he's 32? You're not getting him at 32, you're getting him at 28.


Because the Bulls future rides on Derrick Rose's shoulders, and Rose's biggest window for 'ship are over these next 5-7 years as he's hitting his prime. 

I have no doubt the Bulls would be better this season w/ Amare, but Rose has still not peaked yet, and I don't think we're winning a title this year whether we have Rose-Amare or Rose-Boozer.

The "choice" between Boozer & Amare was not a 1-year decision, it was a 5-year decision. Why should year 5 mean any less than year 1? So absolutely we consider how productive each guy will be by the end of their contracts.



> So let's say at 33 Boozer will be better than Amare at 32, so what? Even if he breaks down completely at that age, he would be an expiring contract that the Bulls could use, it's not a problem. Amare's athleticism isn't deteriorating this year and chances are not next year either. Meanwhile, his jumpshot is getting better each year and he even started playing defense this year. You're getting a MVP candidate for at least 2 years and likely 3 or 4, that's more than enough when you have other pieces in place to win now.


I think part of this is a honeymoon period. Amare's history suggests he will start to get bored and/or lazy on defense over time. I think he's thriving on the excitement of playing in New York and being in a new situation. That's great for the NBA, and I applaud him for it; I just don't think it'll last for a full 2, 3, 4 years. 

Let me be clear, I know Amare has skill; his jumpshot has improved. I am merely comparing him to Boozer, who is more skilled in virtually all fundamentals of the game (but of course far less dominant athletically).



> What I do know is if Amare is on the Bulls right now the Bulls would be a contender especially with the way Rose is playing this year. Sometimes it's about what the maximum potential rather than whether or not we'll be good down the road.


They'd be marginally better, IMO. Boozer is having a great year in his own right. It's hard to even say how good this team is when they haven't put all the pieces together yet. The minute Boozer got back into playing shape, Noah went down w/ injury and the team has really missed Noah. 

Also can't discount the other reasons, such as Boozer costing $20M less than Amare for 90-95% of the production.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Let's get the facts straight because these revisionists' historical accounts of the Bulls offseason is pretty ridiculous. The Bulls were making overtures to LeBron, Wade and Bosh. The Knicks went after Amare day 1 (July 1st) and signed him. After they lost out on LeDecision (July 7), they signed Boozer the next day. He was clearly their alternate option. 

As for their talents, Amare is the most efficient offensive big man in the NBA. He has a jump shot that extends all the way to the 3pt line, will get the opposing team's bigs into foul trouble. To say that Boozer is better is simply not true. However, he is elite so it's not like they're missing much. Boozer is a better rebounder and defender though. So it really depends on what your team needs. Amare will score when you need him to, but won't stop when you need a stop.

EDIT: The longevity issue is ridiculous because Tim Duncan has had multiple knee surgeries and is still elite.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

First off this notion that Amare is for sure the better player is ridiculous. The guy has been fortunate to play in an extremely uptempo offense his entire career. it's a run and gun, wide open offense and it suits his game. His Defense and Rebounding are a joke. For those who say he is a better help defender that is also silly. He has become interested in getting blocks so he pretty much floats around the key ignoring his man and gambling for blocks on every play. It is a horrible way to play d, but hey it's a stat and after all that is his nickname. The guy is probably the worst passer in the NBA. 

Amare is basically an extremely selfish player who is interested in personal accolades and putting up stats. Best decision he ever made was following Dantonni.

Boozer is a better player IMO. And a much better fit here.

Also Duncan has fallen off significantly this year. He is still a very solid big, but for only being 34 he has declined quite rapidly 13.7 ppg and 9.3 rebounds. He has already had 13 games where he hasn't scored double digits. Pretty much unheard of for him.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

yodurk said:


> I think part of this is a honeymoon period. Amare's history suggests he will start to get bored and/or lazy on defense over time. I think he's thriving on the excitement of playing in New York and being in a new situation. That's great for the NBA, and I applaud him for it; I just don't think it'll last for a full 2, 3, 4 years.


What are you basing this on? Why do people say stuff like this?


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> You don't think that if the Bulls had tried to get him they could've? Lets look at this long term, and in the whole broad spectrum instead of through your tunnel-vision for Dung.
> 
> #1. The centerpiece of this team is 22 years old. How does adding a 29 year old player that misses 1/3 of the games going to help build this team to be a contender?
> 
> ...


First off I'm pretty sure Gay got a max deal from Memphis. Which means we could not have offered him the same amount of money as them. (a team can pay their own players more). So Gay would have had to take a discount to play here. There is zero indication that he was willing to do that. And like it or not Deng is on the roster, so even if we could have signed gay (which we couldn't have) it wouldnt have made sense as we already had a good starting sf.

So let's come back to reality and realize you still bitching about Gay is ridiculous.

Second all of your nonsense has been proven wrong. You keep bitching about how many bad moves we have made, and yet so far we have been one of the best teams in the NBA this year. So how can you be right and at the same time our team is playing excellent?

This team will be scary good once we get Noah back and even better next year once we spend the MLE.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Hyperion said:


> To say that Boozer is better is simply not true.


I don't recall anyone saying this. When talking about the here and now, I've repeatedly said the opposite.



> The longevity issue is ridiculous because Tim Duncan has had multiple knee surgeries and is still elite.


Duncan underscores my point about Boozer even further; that skill supercedes athleticism when players get into their 30's.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

caseyrh said:


> First off I'm pretty sure Gay got a max deal from Memphis. Which means we could not have offered him the same amount of money as them. (a team can pay their own players more). So Gay would have had to take a discount to play here. There is zero indication that he was willing to do that. And like it or not Deng is on the roster, so even if we could have signed gay (which we couldn't have) it wouldnt have made sense as we already had a good starting sf.
> 
> So let's come back to reality and realize you still bitching about Gay is ridiculous.


Some people care about winning. Some people would look at the bigger picture and see that being on a winning team in Chicago, instead of a crap team in freaking Memphis, would bolster endorsement income and make up the difference. A flashy, explosive player like Gay who has a good image could make a killing in endorsements if he was on the Bulls instead. You always look at things so narrow-mindedly it's disgusting. 



> Second all of your nonsense has been proven wrong. You keep bitching about how many bad moves we have made, and yet so far we have been one of the best teams in the NBA this year. So how can you be right and at the same time our team is playing excellent?


It's called one of the few things the team didn't change. ROSE. That and Dung actually being able to shoot a 3 for the first time in his career and staying healthy (crosses fingers, he'll probably fall down in the shower and break his hip now and miss the rest of the season now that I said that). 



> This team will be scary good once we get Noah back and even better next year once we spend the MLE.


Only if Rose beasts it up. I have zero faith in this team in the playoffs. Most likely the Dookie Bros will be dinged up if not hurt and not even dressing by then, and Rose can't do it all himself.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Dre™ said:


> What are you basing this on?


Mainly referring to his defensive intensity. We've heard this story before on Amare in Phoenix.

The honeymoon phenomena is also very common; I don't state things in absolutes, just throwing it out as a possibility. The fact that he's putting up career numbers at the same time he's on a new team (and in New York). Maybe just a coincidence, maybe not.



> Why do people say stuff like this?


Because it seems unreasonable to expect a guy who has never really been in the MVP discussion to maintain MVP-level production for several more years starting at his current age.

I'm not putting the guy down or anything, but the discussion thread is asking us to compare Amare vs. Boozer from the Bulls standpoint. I am stating some of the reasons why the Bulls preferred Boozer.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Anyone who's putting him in the MVP discussion is an idiot anyway. His scoring numbers are back where they were on the high end with D'Antoni, but that's it. I don't think it's a stretch that he could sustain this level of production, because offensively he's not doing anything differently. Defensively possibly, but he also would have Noah behind him, who's probably the best defender he's ever been next to.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Dre™ said:


> Anyone who's putting him in the MVP discussion is an idiot anyway. His scoring numbers are back where they were on the high end with D'Antoni, but that's it. I don't think it's a stretch that he could sustain this level of production, because offensively he's not doing anything differently. Defensively possibly, but he also would have Noah behind him, who's probably the best defender he's ever been next to.


The MVP thing is interesting b/c there isn't really a standout candidate this year. Hate to say it, but Lebron or Wade may have to fight over it given their record and big stats. Beyond that, it's a mish-mash of guys having great, but not legendary, seasons. That crop includes Kobe, Durant, Deron, Rose, Paul, Amare, Dirk. Stacked up against MVP winners from most seasons, that is a pretty weak list given their production.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

yodurk said:


> Because the Bulls future rides on Derrick Rose's shoulders, and Rose's biggest window for 'ship are over these next 5-7 years as he's hitting his prime.
> 
> I have no doubt the Bulls would be better this season w/ Amare, but Rose has still not peaked yet, and I don't think we're winning a title this year whether we have Rose-Amare or Rose-Boozer.
> 
> The "choice" between Boozer & Amare was not a 1-year decision, it was a 5-year decision. Why should year 5 mean any less than year 1? So absolutely we consider how productive each guy will be by the end of their contracts.


I honestly don't think the Bulls GM is thinking about year 5 when they signed Boozer. And like I said, even if Amare sucks in year 5 the Bulls can still use him as an expiring contract and reload just as easily. Meanwhile, you are getting a better player in at least 3 of those 5 years, which is more than enough for the Bulls to win a championship.

Moreover, like I said before, in Boozer you're not getting an iron man instead of a glass man. The 2 of them carry similar risks in terms of injury and longevity.



> I think part of this is a honeymoon period. Amare's history suggests he will start to get bored and/or lazy on defense over time. I think he's thriving on the excitement of playing in New York and being in a new situation. That's great for the NBA, and I applaud him for it; I just don't think it'll last for a full 2, 3, 4 years.
> 
> Let me be clear, I know Amare has skill; his jumpshot has improved. I am merely comparing him to Boozer, who is more skilled in virtually all fundamentals of the game (but of course far less dominant athletically).


This is what Amare averaged the past 4 years. 20.4, 25.2, 21.4, 23.1 PPG. Which of those years did he "get bored" and not do what he was brought in to do, which is to be a dynamic inside scorer. Also what are you basing your claims on? 



> They'd be marginally better, IMO. Boozer is having a great year in his own right. It's hard to even say how good this team is when they haven't put all the pieces together yet. The minute Boozer got back into playing shape, Noah went down w/ injury and the team has really missed Noah.
> 
> Also can't discount the other reasons, such as Boozer costing $20M less than Amare for 90-95% of the production.


Of course it would be "marginally" better. The difference between a conference final team and a championship team isn't all that much. When you are close you're not going to add something and suddenly boost your win total by 10 or 20. The fact is with Amare the team is better at least for the next 2-3 years.

We'll see if the Bulls can beat the Celtics/Magic/Heat with Noah back. But not many people would disagree that the Bulls would be evenly matched with any team in the NBA if they have Amare right now. As for that extra 20M the Bulls spent that on Kyle Korver who while is effective is not crucial to the Bulls' success. I would figure the benefit of having Amare outweighs what Korver might add to the team.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Even ignoring Amare's knee for a minute...I have always considered Boozer to be a more skilled player than Amare. Amare is better due to his far superior athletic gifts. And that's fine, but we've seen what happens to players who rely heavily on athleticism to get by. Boozer is crafy, a skilled passer and mid-range shooter, and strong as an ox. These are things that won't degrade at age 33 for him. Amare at 32 probably won't be able to out run opponents in the open floor like he can now, or make those quick explosive moves to the basket.
> 
> Then throw a microfracture-repaired knee into the picture...it increases the likelihood that he won't be particularly effective into his 30's. You can't just dismiss a major operation like that and claim that because it's 100% right now that it won't impact a few years from now. From what I understand of microfracture, it depends on how well the cartilage holds up. What if that cartilage starts to wear down? Not uncommon for NBA athletes given how hard they press themselves. Nothing is for certain and I'm not making a hard prediction either way, but I am playing the probabilities.
> 
> Boozer has not undergone any major operations (his arthroscopic knee surgery was not major); his accusations are more than he nurses minor injuries and over milks them. Several of his bigger injuries were merely strains, not tears. His only fracture I could find was his 5th metatarsal. The probability of that having any impact whatsoever on his NBA future is so miniscule, it's barely worth mentioning.


the funny thing is you are making a fairly ludicrous assumption that because boozer's game is more skilled based than amare's he makes for a more effective player over the long haul. seeing as they play in virtually the same fashion(pick and rolls , offensive boards, outside jumpers mixed in with some postups)

the reality shows that unless injury takes their effectiveness...long , followed by guys who are physically gifted last the longest as far effectiveness on the offensive side of the ball....all players lose their run/jump/quickness ability over time , the less you have to lose , the less time you have to be a viable nba player as an offensive threat in most cases...unless you have some other skills to make that void...guys like oakley and kurt thomas could play decently into their mid and late 30's because they were defenders who knew the game .

boozer fits more into the brand category , he gets by on his scoring and rebounding, not defense ...boozer as his game is now needs quickness and leaping ability as much as anyone , just because he gets by on less of it doesn't mean he doesn't need it at all, he's not taking flat footed shots out there.

once again stoudemire's surgery was on a non weight bearing part of the knee, his style of play wasn't affected , and he shows no signs of a relapse of any kind(at some point you really should feel the need to prove these statements you are making,) boozer's injury history is more substantial than amare's simply because he's missed more games.


the truth is amare has proven durable since his knee injury ...boozer hasn't...CB gets hurt almost every year and misses serious time...


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

seifer0406 said:


> This is what Amare averaged the past 4 years. 20.4, 25.2, 21.4, 23.1 PPG. Which of those years did he "get bored" and not do what he was brought in to do, which is to be a dynamic inside scorer.



I think you need to read yodurk's post more carefully. He said Amare would get bored _on defense_ eventually. So, quoting his scoring averages doesn't have anything to do with the argument.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

> the truth is amare has proven durable since his knee injury


I'd like to know about those 29 games he has magically played in 2009.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

TwinkieTowers said:


> I'd like to know about those 29 games he has magically played in 2009.




last 5 seasons amar'e has missed 32 games(29 he missed due to a detached retina )


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> last 5 seasons amar'e has missed 32 games(29 he missed due to a detached retina )


You post this as if I didn't know.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> I think you need to read yodurk's post more carefully. He said Amare would get bored _on defense_ eventually. So, quoting his scoring averages doesn't have anything to do with the argument.


I did misread, so I stand corrected. But then again, in Phoenix they didn't play any defense so I don't know where this notion that Amare got lazy on defense is coming from. How do you get lazy doing something that you're don't do at all? Amare was asked to score in Phoenix and he scored. Moreover, are you telling me that getting Boozer is considered a defensive upgrade?


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> I did misread, so I stand corrected. But then again, in Phoenix they didn't play any defense so I don't know where this notion that Amare got lazy on defense is coming from. How do you get lazy doing something that you're don't do at all? Amare was asked to score in Phoenix and he scored. Moreover, are you telling me that getting Boozer is considered a defensive upgrade?


Boozer's defensive efficiency rating is 98, while Stoudemire's is 107. In offensive:defensive efficiency ratio, Boozer is +12 and Stoudemire is +2.

To the naked eye, Boozer's a below average help defender and high post defender because his below average footspeed does not allow him to recover. One-on-one in the low post, rarely will you ever see Boozer outmaneuvered or pushed back because of his enormous strength and because he rarely bites on pump fakes (mostly because he's not a high leaper to begin with). The only low post players he has trouble defending are those taller than him with jumpers with high release points and/or with excellent hook shots. Boozer's rebounding is a huge factor in his defensive efficiency because he essentially shuts out his opponents in the garbage points department. Finally, like Joakim and Sam Smith have stated, Boozer is a big-time talker (as in teamwork commmunication) on defense.

In NBA 2K11, I believe Boozer was given a higher defensive awareness rating than Stoudemire was. I check later to see if that's true.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

TwinkieTowers said:


> Boozer's defensive efficiency rating is 98, while Stoudemire's is 107. In offensive:defensive efficiency ratio, Boozer is +12 and Stoudemire is +2.
> 
> To the naked eye, Boozer's a below average help defender and high post defender because his below average footspeed does not allow him to recover. One-on-one in the low post, rarely will you ever see Boozer outmaneuvered or pushed back because of his enormous strength and because he rarely bites on pump fakes (mostly because he's not a high leaper to begin with). The only low post players he has trouble defending are those taller than him with jumpers with high release points and/or with excellent hook shots. Boozer's rebounding is a huge factor in his defensive efficiency because he essentially shuts out his opponents in the garbage points department. Finally, like Joakim and Sam Smith have stated, Boozer is a big-time talker (as in teamwork commmunication) on defense.
> 
> In NBA 2K11, I believe Boozer was given a higher defensive awareness rating than Stoudemire was. I check later to see if that's true.


Boozer's career defensive rating 103 while Amare's career defensive rating is 105. They are pretty even in terms of defender. Boozer is a better man defender while Amare is a better help defender. Both aren't that good defensively when compared to the typical "Good defender" types in the league.

Again, you're getting Amare for his ability to score. He has shown this year that he can block shots when asked upon but that's not the reason why teams were after him this off season. The Bulls have good defenders like Noah/Deng/Brewer around Boozer. The reason why they got Boozer was for him to provide them with scoring at the 4 position. Amare is better suited for that purpose.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

seifer0406 said:


> The reason why they got Boozer was for him to provide them with scoring at the 4 position. Amare is better suited for that purpose.



The Bulls did not acquire Boozer (or any one player) to do only one thing. Yes, his scoring is probably his most important attribute. What you're missing, though, is the Bulls have for a long time desperately wanted a _low post_ scorer for spacing and inside/outside game purposes. Boozer provides this in spades. Amare is more of a high post scorer and has less of a back to the basket game. So, while Amare certainly is the better pure scorer, he provides scoring in a way that's less helpful to the Bulls' overall needs. I'm not sure "fit" means I'd rather have Boozer than Amare, but the combination of "fit" plus the lower salary which should give the Bulls added flexibility in the future probably means that I'd at least call it even in terms of whom I would rather have.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> The Bulls did not acquire Boozer (or any one player) to do only one thing. Yes, his scoring is probably his most important attribute. What you're missing, though, is the Bulls have for a long time desperately wanted a _low post_ scorer for spacing and inside/outside game purposes. Boozer provides this in spades. Amare is more of a high post scorer and has less of a back to the basket game. So, while Amare certainly is the better pure scorer, he provides scoring in a way that's less helpful to the Bulls' overall needs. I'm not sure "fit" means I'd rather have Boozer than Amare, but the combination of "fit" plus the lower salary which should give the Bulls added flexibility in the future probably means that I'd at least call it even in terms of whom I would rather have.


If low post scoring was such a need that the Bulls wanted to fill, why did they go after Chris Bosh as one of their primary FA targets this offseason? It's no secret that the Bulls wanted Bosh with or without Wade or Lebron. It is only when they missed out on Bosh that they went after Boozer.

What the Bulls really needed was a big man that can score so that opposing bigs aren't just roaming the lanes not paying attention to whoever they're defending. You don't think that the Bulls offense would be harder to plan against if they had Amare instead of Boozer? I suggest you watch the Knicks for a week and you will appreciate the type of trouble that Amare provides for opposing teams on a nightly basis. Add Rose to that and they are impossible to defend against.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

> why did they go after Chris Bosh as one of their primary FA targets this offseason?


They only went after Bosh first because they wanted LeBron first and foremost. Of course, the Bulls didn't publicly say that, but KC Johnson and Sam Smith have stated that the Bulls had Boozer highest on their list of free agent PF/C players.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

And I flipped through some old threads on this forum and this is what Yodurk said back in June.



Yodurk said:


> Folks in general (not you) are really downplaying David Lee's contract, and they shouldn't be.
> 
> Amare and Boozer are seeking contracts starting at close to $16 million. This is for two guys are might only have 3 good years left given injury histories and NBA milage.
> 
> No such concern with Lee. I really think we should pursue him regardless of whether Lebron signs here or not. He fits great on this team no matter how you spin it. Him and Noah and Gibson are just so complementary. This would be like signing a younger, more athletic version of Brad Miller (also negating the need to retain Brad, as much as it pains me to say that).





Yodurk said:


> Boozer's concern is mainly his injury history. I'm not even too concerned about age b/c he's 29 and doesn't rely on athleticism the way, say, Ben Wallace did.


Sounds a tad contradicting when you're arguing about Boozer's health vs. Amare's health right now. Not to mention didn't a lot of you guys wanted David Lee over both Boozer and Amare? How is defense and low post scoring a priority if you wanted David Lee?


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

> What the Bulls really needed was a big man that can score so that opposing bigs aren't just roaming the lanes not paying attention to whoever they're defending. You don't think that the Bulls offense would be harder to plan against if they had Amare instead of Boozer?


It's all a matter of spacing and geometry. Stoudemire commands double teams, but most of them come from the high post. What this means is that the double-teamer most likely has a shorter distance to travel in order to recover back to his assignment.

Boozer, on the other hand is an exceptionally efficient scorer in the low post, and the vast majority of his double teams are in that position on the court. Plus, he's shown to be a very good passer. If the double team comes from the wing, then that guy has at least 10 more feet to travel to recover back to his assignment around the wing as opposed to double-teaming the high post player. If you can, watch the home game against the Lakers, and you'll hear some excellent commentary from Jeff Van Gundy about Boozer's value on offense.

Efficient low-post scorers with excellent court vision have proven to be extremely valuable contributors to successful teams. Recent examples include Olajuwon, Barkley, Shaq, Webber in Sacramento, Gasol, and Duncan. Among backcourt players: MJ, Magic, Kobe, Gary Payton, and Mark Jackson.

If and when Rose starts to slow down he could transform himself into an excellent post player if he wants to.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> Sounds a tad contradicting when you're arguing about Boozer's health vs. Amare's health right now. Not to mention didn't a lot of you guys wanted David Lee over both Boozer and Amare? How is defense and low post scoring a priority if you wanted David Lee?


Lee is an excellent passer and rebounder and was an even cheaper option than Boozer. His game is a combination of Brad Miller and Kevin Love and, to a lesser extent, Antawn Jamison.

The basis of pursuing Lee was the assumption that the Bulls would've been able to sign Joe Johnson, who actually is a good low post scorer, so the need of having low post scoring from the frontcourt would not have been as high.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

TwinkieTowers said:


> It's all a matter of spacing and geometry. Stoudemire commands double teams, but most of them come from the high post. What this means is that the double-teamer most likely has a shorter distance to travel in order to recover back to his assignment.
> 
> Boozer, on the other hand is an exceptionally efficient scorer in the low post, and the vast majority of his double teams are in that position on the court. Plus, he's shown to be a very good passer. If the double team comes from the wing, then that guy has at least 10 more feet to travel to recover back to his assignment around the wing as opposed to double-teaming the high post player. If you can, watch the home game against the Lakers, and you'll hear some excellent commentary from Jeff Van Gundy about Boozer's value on offense.
> 
> ...


I'm not arguing against the effectiveness of having a low post scorer. What I saying is that the Bulls's priority this summer didn't not lead me to believe that getting a low post scorer was at the top of their list. In my opinion they just needed a big man who can score and that's why they went after guys like Amare/Bosh/Boozer.

I also disagree with grouping guys together as if they came in a package. If Lebron chose to stay in Cleveland and Bosh was willing to sign with the Bulls Chicago would still jump on that over signing Boozer. They weren't targeting Bosh simply to attract Lebron. 

It's the same deal with David Lee. With Lee you have 6 mil more to spend and that would've been the main advantage of getting him. It's not because he provides the Bulls with low post scoring and defense. It's because he provides an adequate solution at the 4 while providing financial flexibility. This is the angle that I said that could be used for Carlos Boozer. He might be a better fit because of his contract but to argue that he is better health-wise or performance wise is shakey at best because he's not better than Amare in both aspects.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

seifer0406 said:


> If low post scoring was such a need that the Bulls wanted to fill, why did they go after Chris Bosh as one of their primary FA targets this offseason? It's no secret that the Bulls wanted Bosh with or without Wade or Lebron. It is only when they missed out on Bosh that they went after Boozer.



My understanding was they went after Bosh b/c he was viewed as a guy who would lure LeBron, moreso than Boozer.



> What the Bulls really needed was a big man that can score so that opposing bigs aren't just roaming the lanes not paying attention to whoever they're defending. You don't think that the Bulls offense would be harder to plan against if they had Amare instead of Boozer? I suggest you watch the Knicks for a week and you will appreciate the type of trouble that Amare provides for opposing teams on a nightly basis. Add Rose to that and they are impossible to defend against



I don't dispute Amare is going to be a better pure scorer. I don't think the Bulls offense would be "harder to plan against" with Amare rather than Boozer. I've watched plenty of Amare this year and through his career. He'd be a good scorer wherever he plays, but it makes a huge difference that he plays in that upbeat D'Antoni system.


If both Amare and Boozer had been healthy all year, and if the Bulls had had the services of either, I don't think the Bulls would have a materially different record.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

seifer0406 said:


> And I flipped through some old threads on this forum and this is what Yodurk said back in June.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think you again need to read yodurk's (old) posts more closely. The first part you quoted was predicated upon Boozer making $16 million/year and Lee making considerably less. In fact, Lee got paid a surprisingly high amount that meant that he and Boozer have fairly similar contracts (and Boozer is signed for one fewer year). 

Also, yodurk did discount the mileage factor a bit when he noted Boozer's game isn't predicated as much on athleticism.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

seifer0406 said:


> I'm not arguing against the effectiveness of having a low post scorer. What I saying is that the Bulls's priority this summer didn't not lead me to believe that getting a low post scorer was at the top of their list. In my opinion they just needed a big man who can score and that's why they went after guys like Amare/Bosh/Boozer.



They did _not_ go after Amare. Not at all. It's been widely reported the Bulls, for whatever reason, do not have interest in Amare. This started when there were talks of Amare being traded by Phoenix and the reporting was basically that the Bulls had no interest.



> I also disagree with grouping guys together as if they came in a package. If Lebron chose to stay in Cleveland and Bosh was willing to sign with the Bulls Chicago would still jump on that over signing Boozer. They weren't targeting Bosh simply to attract Lebron.


What basis do you have to support this position?


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> I think you again need to read yodurk's (old) posts more closely. The first part you quoted was predicated upon Boozer making $16 million/year and Lee making considerably less. In fact, Lee got paid a surprisingly high amount that meant that he and Boozer have fairly similar contracts (and Boozer is signed for one fewer year).
> 
> Also, yodurk did discount the mileage factor a bit when he noted Boozer's game isn't predicated as much on athleticism.


I don't know what part of Yodurk's post did I not understand fully. Again, I can go through more threads but there were general concerns about Boozer's health as well as Amare's health. To turn around and say that Boozer is better because of longevity doesn't make much sense when they both are risky investments.



> What basis do you have to support this position?


Because of reports that were circulating that the Bulls courted Bosh heavily when the off season began.

Again, when you question me about my evidence when talking about speculations in the same breath I can question you why the Bulls wouldn't be interested in Bosh if Lebron chose to sign elsewhere. We are all basing these claims on speculations and it just so happen that the rumor mill happen to say that the Bulls were more interested in Bosh than Boozer.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

seifer0406 said:


> I don't know what part of Yodurk's post did I not understand fully. Again, I can go through more threads but there were general concerns about Boozer's health as well as Amare's health. To turn around and say that Boozer is better because of longevity doesn't make much sense when they both are risky investments.


The part that you aren't appreciating is that the discussion of Boozer vs. Lee was predicated on the idea Lee would come at a significantly lower price tag than Boozer. That proved untrue. Lee signed for more than anticipated, while Boozer signed for less. At a nearly equal salary, I think the arguments in favor of Lee are diminished.



> Because of reports that were circulating that the Bulls courted Bosh heavily when the off season began.


I can't know the Bulls' thinking definitively, but my impression is the Bulls interest in Bosh when the offseason began was more as a tool to lure LeBron. It may be posturing, but I seem to recall the Bulls indicating that they actually preferred Boozer in isolation. Incidentally, I think that's the right position, as I think Boozer is the better player.



> Again, when you question me about my evidence when talking about speculations in the same breath I can question you why the Bulls wouldn't be interested in Bosh if Lebron chose to sign elsewhere. We are all basing these claims on speculations and it just so happen that the rumor mill happen to say that the Bulls were more interested in Bosh than Boozer.



I think they would have been interested in Bosh. I just don't think they'd be interested in a max deal for Bosh vs. the deal they actually gave Boozer.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

We are 26 and 13, good for 3rd in the conference. And have been without an all-star (Boozer or Noah) virtually all season long. I like what we did this off-season.

Boozer is a great fit here. He seems like a team player. He is an excellent low post scorer. And he is equally good in the pick and roll game. 

Amare has a ton of question marks and I think the dude is a cancer. His effort in anything not stat related is abysmal. He is currently at the most over-hyped period of his career. But he will come back down to earth.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

seifer0406 said:


> I did misread, so I stand corrected. But then again, in Phoenix they didn't play any defense so I don't know where this notion that Amare got lazy on defense is coming from. How do you get lazy doing something that you're don't do at all? Amare was asked to score in Phoenix and he scored.


Then the question is why is he playing D for D'Antoni now?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> I don't know what part of Yodurk's post did I not understand fully. Again, I can go through more threads but there were general concerns about Boozer's health as well as Amare's health. To turn around and say that Boozer is better because of longevity doesn't make much sense when they both are risky investments.


I've consistently argued, even as far back as June (where you quoted me), that Boozer will most likely be a pretty effective player well into his 30's due to his skill and style of play. That is the longevity issue. 

But, I also agree Boozer is an injury risk waiting to happen. I never denied that in this thread, and you can see I even pointed that out back before we signed him. I will always have doubts about Boozer's ability to play a full season. 

These 2 issues are not strongly related though. While Boozer may not play a full 82 game season very often, his injuries are all on the minor side and he gets crap from people b/c he nurses small injuries and takes a ton of time off. However, that has little to no impact on his longevity. This is no different from how Tim Duncan or Karl Malone are/were able to play well into their 30's at a high level (extreme examples), they are so skilled that they could walk through games and still be effective. As long as they can shoot, pass, and set screens, they will be valuable in some way. As long as Boozer can suit up for the playoffs each year, and we have a suitable backup PF like Taj Gibson to keep his minutes reasonable and fill in for missed games, I will consider him a valuable asset to this team, and will expect as much through the entire duration of his contract (age 33).

Bulls fans are sensitive about the longevity issue because the Ben Wallace failure is still fresh in our heads. Wallace became pretty worthless the minute he lost his explosiveness. Granted, Amare has plenty of skill but not on the level of Boozer where if he could still effect games just by setting picks, shooting mid-range jumpers, over powering guys in the low post, and passing the ball well.

You are muddling 2 separate issues as one and the same. There is no contradiction here.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Well, I don't know why you would say something like "They both have 3 good years left" and then say that he will be effective when he's into his 30s. Am I missing something here?

I'll wait and see if Amare does tail off eventually. Right now he is playing like a MVP candidate and have resurrected a franchise that haven't had any excitement in almost a decade.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

seifer0406 said:


> Not to mention didn't a lot of you guys wanted David Lee over both Boozer and Amare? How is defense and low post scoring a priority if you wanted David Lee?


I haven't used defensive abilities at all in this argument. I'm of the belief that Amare, Boozer, and David Lee all suck at it, and frankly it wasn't a big concern since Noah & Gibson were already here, with Asik on the way. I do have a bias toward good rebounders though, so if you consider that defense...

My #1 off-season target was David Lee because I thought he'd be the cheapest by far (I was wrong); he was the youngest and had best health history (I was wrong there too, as he immediately got injured); I thought Lee was a tremendous high-post player who could pass & shoot, and that would be only marginally less than Boozer & Amare (I was wrong yet again). In all, I severely overrated David Lee (Dan Tony strikes again) and underrated was he'd get paid. Thank goodness we didn't sign him.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

TwinkieTowers said:


> It's all a matter of spacing and geometry. Stoudemire commands double teams, but most of them come from the high post. What this means is that the double-teamer most likely has a shorter distance to travel in order to recover back to his assignment.
> 
> Boozer, on the other hand is an exceptionally efficient scorer in the low post, and the vast majority of his double teams are in that position on the court. Plus, he's shown to be a very good passer. If the double team comes from the wing, then that guy has at least 10 more feet to travel to recover back to his assignment around the wing as opposed to double-teaming the high post player. If you can, watch the home game against the Lakers, and you'll hear some excellent commentary from Jeff Van Gundy about Boozer's value on offense.
> 
> ...


high post vs. low post huh?

if its really a matter of spacing and geometry than why do the knicks get so many open looks from deep with amar'e? 

why did the bulls get so many open looks back in the triangle when usually MJ and scottie posted from the high post?

the lakers get a ton of them currently in that offense ...where they primarily post kobe in the high post

it seems to me you are trying to make something out of nothing especially considering boozer gets a significant portion of his offense out of the high post himself(either in p'n'r's iso's or just plain feeding him in the high post). he's real strength outside of his strength is his versatility he can get highly efficient baskets in alot of ways , but he's not really dominant at any particular aspect .

in truth you are putting boozer in a class of player he doesn't belong . he's not a duncan, olajuwon or a shaq down there they are 1st options low post guys who have won multiple chapionships guys as 1st options who are considered top 10 ever at their position, webber was mostly a high post player, and in truth closer to the player boozer is both in style and substance.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

> if its really a matter of spacing and geometry than why do the knicks get so many open looks from deep with amar'e?


If they're so open, they'd be near the top of the league in 3FG% (They're 10th). Regardless, only two coaches in the NBA run this type of offense, and Thibodeau isn't one of them. In the one full and two partial seasons in which Stoudemire was not in a D'Antoni/Gentry offensive system his teams were just around or below of the league average in three pointers made.

Season -- Three pointers made -- League Average -- League Leader Made
02-03 (Johnson) -- 394 -- 421 -- 719
03-04 (Johnson 21/D'Antoni 61) -- 415 -- 425 -- 723
08-09 (Porter 51/Gentry 31) -- 553 -- 545 -- 823 *Note: Suns were 5th in percentage this season.



> why did the bulls get so many open looks back in the triangle when usually MJ and scottie posted from the high post?


List of the championship seasons below
Season -- Rank in made three pointers/Number of teams in the league
90-91 - 16/27
91-92 - 21/27
92-93 - 15/27
95-96 - 10/29 (Shorter three point line)
96-97 - 12/29 (Shorter three point line)
97-98 - 24/29



> the lakers get a ton of them currently in that offense ...where they primarily post kobe in the high post


And who were their primary low post scorers on those championship teams? Shaq and Pau Gasol. Granted in the two seasons of Phil Jackson Triangle offense without Shaq or Gasol the Lakers were near the top in three pointers made but were below average in three point percentage.



> in truth you are putting boozer in a class of player he doesn't belong


In truth, you assumed that I was putting Boozer in that class of players when I never did. I gave elite examples, but those examples were also commonly their team's number one options. The Larry Bird Pacers teams during the 90s were near the bottom in Pace but in the top ten in three pointers made and offensive efficiency, because they relied on two low post players who weren't first options to run their inside/outside offense (Mark Jackson and Rik Smits). On a side note, Mark Jackson himself was one of the main reasons why the NBA implemented the five second rule.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

TwinkieTowers said:


> If they're so open, they'd be near the top of the league in 3FG% (They're 10th). Regardless, only two coaches in the NBA run this type of offense, and Thibodeau isn't one of them. In the one full and two partial seasons in which Stoudemire was not in a D'Antoni/Gentry offensive system his teams were just around or below of the league average in three pointers made.
> 
> Season -- Three pointers made -- League Average -- League Leader Made
> 02-03 (Johnson) -- 394 -- 421 -- 719
> ...



your reasoning seems weak to me.

because in 2003 when marbury ran the suns they weren't among the league leaders in 3pt % and amare avg 13 points a game low post offense generates better looks ?

really ?

the simple truth is the knicks who are 8th in team 3 point % aren't higher due to basically raymond felton leading them in 3 point attempts, he's shooting .345 from there , if he shot less of them or shot them better the team % would reflect that.

the league leader is golden state who have no low post threat at all(david lee is a high post player when utilized and it doesn't seem like they are going to him much)...which would seem to blow a rather sizable hole in your % theory.

your the one who started this low post players generate better looks than high post players , and it really is not true.


----------



## theokuang (Jan 18, 2011)

our problem is that only derrick did a progress! not carlos or amare.


----------

