# K.C. : Pax Applauds Young Talent / Wary Of Gasol Hurting Chemistry



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

> By K.C. Johnson
> Tribune staff reporter
> 
> February 13, 2007, 10:45 PM CST
> ...


more at the link

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...lsbits,1,2582658.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Hey John :

Thomas, Nocioni, NY's pick, Brown (expiring) & Sweetney (expiring) for Gasol & Cardinal.

We know you read these damn boards man.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

Yes Pax, you are truly doing the right thing (don't get GASOL)!! :yay: 

CHEMISTRY IS IMPORTANT IN THE NBA!!!


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

Pax is pretty much saying what I've been saying!!:yay: 

_"I worry about chemistry. I worry about if I'm taking out a player or players that have helped get us to this point, am I messing too much with just the little intangible things that are very important to a team? I'm not saying we're in position [to win a championship] yet. But I have a long-term view in mind as well."_

_"It might create a hole we'll be trying to fill for three or four years after this," Paxson said. "So you have to weigh how much better you can be. That's what makes it difficult."_


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

bullybullz said:


> Pax is pretty much saying what I've been saying!!:yay:
> 
> _"I worry about chemistry. I worry about if I'm taking out a player or players that have helped get us to this point, am I messing too much with just the little intangible things that are very important to a team? I'm not saying we're in position [to win a championship] yet. But I have a long-term view in mind as well."_
> 
> _"It might create a hole we'll be trying to fill for three or four years after this," Paxson said. "So you have to weigh how much better you can be. That's what makes it difficult."_


If Pax was saying what you've been saying, he'd be preaching to the masses about our need for Ronny Turiaf and Kevin Garnett.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

bullybullz said:


> Pax is pretty much saying what I've been saying!!:yay:


Whoa, your thoughts are synonymous with Pax's bluff!

As with many GM comments (not that Pax isnt more forthcoming than most), this newest set cover his tracks, regardless of what happens. He doesnt leave himself hanging out promising Gasol to his public, giving West leverage. He also doesnt rule anything out, by acknowledging that they're not championship level yet.

Having lost some games recently, I'm not surprised that he's going to the media. If Chicago fans pine for Gasol more openly this week and next, it can embolden West.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

King Joseus said:


> If Pax was saying what you've been saying, he'd be preaching to the masses about our need for Ronny Turiaf and Kevin Garnett.


LOL @ Turiaf

Not only that, but he's litterally in favor of gutting the team for K.G.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

It also said that Andres Nocioni is going fishing, and has Tim Duncan disease.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

The ROY said:


> LOL @ Turiaf
> 
> Not only that, but he's litterally in favor of gutting the team for K.G.


No, I never said that. I said KG to Chicago for Chris Duhon, Malik Allen, Michael Sweetney, P.J. Brown, Viktor Khryapa and a 2009 1st round pick or 2 2008 second round picks (Bulls don't give up any of the core).

Toronto gives Minnesota Joey Graham (since he is a slasher like Deng) while in return gets Craig Smith, and a 1st round pick from Minnesota or the Bulls' 2008 2nd round picks.

Works well for all sides and the trade works.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Pssssst. Pax!

Chemistry beat the Raptors tonight.
:lol:


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

bullybullz said:



> No, I never said that. I said KG to Chicago for Chris Duhon, Malik Allen, Michael Sweetney, P.J. Brown, Viktor Khryapa and a 2009 1st round pick or 2 2008 second round picks (Bulls don't give up any of the core).
> 
> Toronto gives Minnesota Joey Graham (since he is a slasher like Deng) while in return gets Craig Smith, and a 1st round pick from Minnesota or the Bulls' 2008 2nd round picks.
> 
> Works well for all sides and the trade works.


That KG deal has no chance of happening now, next year, or any time in between.


----------



## RagingBulls316 (Feb 15, 2004)

I agree with Paxson. If we rush into a trade and give up the wrong pieces for Gasol. It's going to leave us with another hole in the team, that is going to be hard to fill.

It's just as easy to make the wrong trade and become the 30 win team we were 3 years ago, as it is to make the right trade and become a 55 win team and title contender.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

King Joseus said:


> That KG deal has no chance of happening now, next year, or any time in between.


Why not?? It's better than the VC or the AI trade and once KG demands a trade, his value will go down just like gasol. If it doesn't happen then trade Deng, Du, P.J. Sweets, Malik and Viktor as well as the rest of the stuff I have said before.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

My favorite part about Pax's quotes were _"I know that whole [Gasol] scenario is out there and it's popular for people to talk about." _

Gotta Love It!!!


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

bullybullz said:


> Why not?? It's better than the VC or the AI trade and once KG demands a trade, his value will go down just like gasol. If it doesn't happen then trade Deng, Du, P.J. Sweets, Malik and Viktor as well as the rest of the stuff I have said before.


Speculation is not the best way to go about business. Just because some stars are had for cheap does not mean that all will be. P.J. will be gone next year (which is when any alleged KG deal would have any slim chance of going down), and salary-matching as well as roster gutting would be issues. I don't believe that KG can be reasonably acquired by us.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

King Joseus said:


> Speculation is not the best way to go about business. Just because some stars are had for cheap does not mean that all will be. P.J. will be gone next year (which is when any alleged KG deal would have any slim chance of going down), and salary-matching as well as roster gutting would be issues. I don't believe that KG can be reasonably acquired by us.


Fine, you have your own opinion and I have mine.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

bullybullz said:


> Fine, you have your own opinion and I have mine.


Indeed. We both want the Bulls to win, we just have different opinions on how it's going to come about. I believe in Pax...


----------



## BeZerker2008 (Jun 29, 2006)

I know pax in a way feels close to the core guys since he brought them all here & have contributed to the success the last two seasons. I wonder though if he wants to truly win now or just wants the team to continue to be successful for the next couple of years.

There isn't really a lot of big quality men that are currently available on the market. 

Kevin Garnett: not going anywhere for the time being. 
_The Bulls might wait for his contract to be up or something but that's a little over a year or so & wallace will be ever declining & who knows how much money we'll be in cap-wise with extensions to Deng, Gordon & keeping Noch._

Pau Gasol: Most logical choice but might be too costly.
_Here is where it's difficult for pax. He does want to make a deal but I can understand not wanting to give up one of the core guys or a big package. 
_
Imo pax doesn't want to pull a Jerry krause and set us back like that Jalen Rose deal where we were basically raped of players for Jalen & a rental player in Travis Best, it's best not to even mention Norm Richardson since he was garbage.

Zach Randolph: would fill the void but would he be available?
I've only seen him play when the bulls play the blazers but I like what he can do. If Pax can somehow pry him of their hands for something decent it would be great.

I know others have mentioned Jermaine O'neal but I'm kind of iffy when it comes to dealing with Indiana (again Jalen Rose deal). Other than that I'm sure there are bench type players that would help albeit not as greatly as the players mentioned but I don't know. It's basically up to Pax whether he can get Memphis to bite on his offer or not make a deal & then comes the inevitable 1st round exit (if that from the way we've been playing as of late).


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Are you guys that think he's bluffing gonna bepissed hen theres no trade? If Pax has been consistent about anything its his tendency to say exactly whathe's really thinking.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

MikeDC said:


> Are you guys that think he's bluffing gonna bepissed hen theres no trade? If Pax has been consistent about anything its his tendency to say exactly whathe's really thinking.


Are you drunk??!!!


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

bullybullz said:


> Are you drunk??!!!


Not until noon. 

I do have to agree with you though. Pax showed a little guile during this past draft. Let's hope that he has somthing up his sleeve.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

What guile did he show? The consensus here seemed to be that he went out and got exactly the guys we thought he wanted.

Trading the #2 pick and a second rounder for Viktor Khyrapa and the #4 pick? I wouldn't call that guile. In the first place it's a pretty minor move. Beyond that, how much separation is there between the #2 pick and the #4 pick in a draft usually? Perhaps this draft wasn't great, but typically, I'd think, moving up from #4 to #2 should cost you something. Instead Portland also required a second rounder and gave us a player who's done very little for us.

I don't think that shows some huge amount of guile. Pax was locked in on what he wanted. He wanted Thomas, and he figured he would be there at #4, so he didn't ask for much. Guile would be keeping in mind what you want, yes, but also getting good value even when you'd be willing to settle for less.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

I seem to remember that Portland had Thomas as their number one and were going to trade for the number 1 pick to get him on the eve of the draft. Pax let it be known that he would consider Bargnani, whom I don't think he was actually interested in. Bulls get Thomas. But you're right; he's not exactly Sherlock Holmes.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I'm not trying to continue an argument I think we mostly agree on, but just thinking it through it occurred to me. Does it make any sense that the Blazers would want Thomas? With Randolph? Think about how that would work out.

They wanted a long guy who could shoot and defend the middle. Trading up to #2 assured them of getting Aldridge or Bargnani, wheras at #4 they could well miss them both. Either of those guys would have worked for us, but Tyrus was an awful fit. Portland was looking for an attitude adjustment, immediate contributors, and players that fit clear needs. Tyrus was none of those.

In short, I think they really needed to deal up. And yet, from their position of need, they ended up giving up only a player that doesn't play and making us give them a second round pick.


----------



## bre9 (Jan 8, 2006)

Pax is smart


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

!=


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

If I had to place my bets this morning, I'd say the Bulls aren't going to make a major deal prior to the deadline.

That's a shame, because I think the right acquisition puts us in the Finals this year. 

It also would cement the Chandler for P.J. Brown trade as one of the worst of the post-salary-cap era.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> If I had to place my bets this morning, I'd say the Bulls aren't going to make a major deal prior to the deadline.
> 
> That's a shame, because I think the right acquisition puts us in the Finals this year.


Meaning, you think there's a trade for Gasol that West will accept that gets us into the Finals this year?

Who's in that trade?


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

MikeDC said:


> Meaning, you think there's a trade for Gasol that West will accept that gets us into the Finals this year?
> 
> Who's in that trade?


Quite simply, NO ONE.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

I think the trade isn't happening because West wants too much - like Both Deng and Gordon and the draft pick. He doesn't have to trade Gasol now, he can leave it to whomever replaces him.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Meaning, you think there's a trade for Gasol that West will accept that gets us into the Finals this year?
> 
> Who's in that trade?


Deng, P.J., 2007 Knicks' pick swap option (unprotected). Add "Sweets" and Cardinal to the mix if West wants more financial relief.

I'd also trade Gordon and PJ and TT (but not Gordon + the Knicks pick)

West would almost have to take either of those, wouldn't you think?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Agree that West probably does those trades.

Disagree that
1- Hinrich, Duhon
2- Gordon, Griffin
3- Nocioni, Khyrapa, Thabo
4- Gasol, Thomas, Cardinal
5- Wallace, Allen

gets out of the Eastern Conference unless there's a significant injury to Detroit or Miami. And it's a one-shot deal, because you know damn good and well we aren't re-signing Noc if we have to bring in Cardinal. Meaning that we're on a steady decline from here on out.

If we don't have to take Cardinal, then we can probably re-sign Noc and I can see improvement down the road. Not sure enough to get us over the hump, but I can go for it.

I'd go for Gordon swapped with Deng too. Might as well trade the pick, not TT, because I don't see any SGs that we can draft to provide quick replacements for Gordon. TT is going to be just fine though, and provides a long-run replacement for Wallace. TT stays in either case.

If that happens, we ought to look to do a quick trade for one (Maggette), or just hope Hinrich/Duhon can manage to be more scary with a post threat.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Agree that West probably does those trades.
> 
> Disagree that
> 1- Hinrich, Duhon
> ...


How is it a one-shot deal? Detroit and Miami are going to decline, too. We have a high draft pick, Thomas, who should hopefully take Wallace's place. Miami has no one waiting in the wings to take over for Shaq. Webber and Rasheed Wallace are pretty old, and I'm not too high on Jason Maxiell or Amir Johnson.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

By the numbers, I've come around on Deng and Gordon by the way. Even when he was really lights out, Deng still rated out better. I trust my numbers and I trust that we could, if not this season, find a shooter to put in place. I'm looking at this trade from a long-run perspective, and in the long run Deng is the better player I think. In the short run, losing him is a bit easier to take, but we should be looking at this as a long run deal anyway.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> How is it a one-shot deal? Detroit and Miami are going to decline, too. We have a high draft pick, Thomas, who should hopefully take Wallace's place. Miami has no one waiting in the wings to take over for Shaq. Webber and Rasheed Wallace are pretty old, and I'm not too high on Jason Maxiell or Amir Johnson.


Yeah, Detroit and Miami might decline, but Cleveland, Toronto, Washington and Orlando are clearly going to improve. If we're declining (which you seem to agree with) and they are improving, us = screwed.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

By the way, I shouldn't say there's "no way" we get out of the east without an injury to Detroit or Miami. It's closer than that.

I'd rate it out as:
No trade, we won't beat a healthy Miami or Detroit. Toss up with Cleveland.
Trade Deng and we get closer to Miami or Detroit. I'd still pick them, but we're close.
Trade Gordon and the edge for them becomes very slight numericaly.

Non-statistically, I think we're hurt by losing Gordon in the short-run... the team will still be incomplete, but we still have very good players. I'd live with that.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> By the numbers, I've come around on Deng and Gordon by the way. Even when he was really lights out, Deng still rated out better. I trust my numbers and I trust that we could, if not this season, find a shooter to put in place. I'm looking at this trade from a long-run perspective, and in the long run Deng is the better player I think. In the short run, losing him is a bit easier to take, but we should be looking at this as a long run deal anyway.


I agree that Deng looks like he'll be the better long-term producer, but I think Gordon's game is much better suited to the playoff style.

Put another way, I know that teams fear Ben Gordon and game-plan him. I don't imagine they do that as much for Deng, and while I'm not saying that Deng has topped out, I just don't see a capacity for growth where he'll be the sort of guy you run an offense through. 

He's not expanding his shooting range. He's not developing a back-to-the-basket post game. His passing instincts are mediocre. He hurts you most on quick-hitting jumpers and transition/semi-transition drives that won't be there in the playoffs. 

I just basically feel that even if Gordon does as little as stay the way he is, nevermind the good chance he'll improve, he's a more dangerous clutch/postseason player than Deng.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> I agree that Deng looks like he'll be the better long-term producer, but I think Gordon's game is much better suited to the playoff style.
> 
> Put another way, I know that teams fear Ben Gordon and game-plan him. I don't imagine they do that as much for Deng, and while I'm not saying that Deng has topped out, I just don't see a capacity for growth where he'll be the sort of guy you run an offense through.
> 
> ...


Last year was Deng's first visit to the playoffs, and he was invisible... deer caught in headlights?
I believe Gordon had a similar departure in his first visit to the playoffs as well.

It'll be interesting to see if they both show up this year. The Bulls will be a better contender if they do. We know Nocioni and Hinrich will bring their best. Probably Wallace too. The Bulls are tough when all of those guys are playing well.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

There are a number of concerns I have about moving one of the big three but chemistry is pretty low on that list, if it appears at all. That said, I think you have to take any statement made to the press by a GM with a grain of salt, even if Pax does have a reputation of being forthcoming. 

I think the Grizzlies decide whether or not a trade goes down. Most indications seem to be that we've offered the best package and we've been involved in negotiations more than any other team. It's all a question of how motivated West is to make a deal.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

i'm inclined to believe the chemistry of the team will be less of an issue while trying to incorporate a big; however, in and of itself, (if you've ever participated in team sports) chemistry is huge. 

i'm ambivalent about the trade, but i don't want to see any of the trio be moved. i think pax WON'T do a deal with any of those 3. still holding on to the premise of pj, pick, and his choice of rooks (possibly) along with filler. regardless of how the season plays out playoff wise, the team has a good future moving forward and a draft day move isn't beyond the realm of possiblity.

other than gasol, the grizz can keep cardinal, miller and whomever else.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> Deng, P.J., 2007 Knicks' pick swap option (unprotected). Add "Sweets" and Cardinal to the mix if West wants more financial relief.
> 
> I'd also trade Gordon and PJ and TT (but not Gordon + the Knicks pick)
> 
> West would almost have to take either of those, wouldn't you think?


There are multiple reasons I would do either of those deals but what constantly amazes me is that people would even consider trading the NY pick without protection. No team in the league would trade a top two pick for Gasol straight up and we'd be including an extremely valuable player in Gordon or Deng. Basically, it's Russian roulette. You're leaving yourself with a 10% chance of making the worst deal of the decade.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> There are multiple reasons I would do either of those deals but what constantly amazes me is that people would even consider trading the NY pick without protection. No team in the league would trade a top two pick for Gasol straight up and we'd be including an extremely valuable player in Gordon or Deng. Basically, it's Russian roulette. You're leaving yourself with a 10% chance of making the worst deal of the decade.


I actually created a new thread about this -- I'm simply not convinced that Oden and Durant are that good. 

http://www.basketballforum.com/showthread.php?t=340221


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> By the numbers, I've come around on Deng and Gordon by the way. Even when he was really lights out, Deng still rated out better. I trust my numbers and I trust that we could, if not this season, find a shooter to put in place. I'm looking at this trade from a long-run perspective, and in the long run Deng is the better player I think. In the short run, losing him is a bit easier to take, but we should be looking at this as a long run deal anyway.


How do your numbers take position into consideration?

And by your numbers, is the disparity between Nocioni and Deng greater or smaller than the disparity between PJ Brown and Paul Gasol?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> How do your numbers take position into consideration?
> 
> And by you numbers, is the disparity between Nocioni and Deng greater or smaller than the disparity between PJ Brown and Paul Gasol?


The latter, obviously. 

The statistical difference between Duhon and Gordon is less than that between Deng and Noc.

The numbers don't consider position per se, but I do break them rolebased components; defense, offensive scoring and offensive help stats, along with a team adjustment (which doesn't really fit into this sort of analysis)

The relevant question in trading Gordon isn't position, so much, because he and Duhon are about the same physical size, but what they bring to the team. 

Essentially, Gordon is a very good scorer, everything else, not so much. The exact opposite of Duhon.

Which is why you have to look at that in addition to the numbers and try to figure it out. Position hurts, but the closest proxy with the numbers is losing scoring.

<table x:str="" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 178pt;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="237"><col style="width: 38pt;" width="51"> <col style="width: 33pt;" span="2" width="44"> <col style="width: 37pt;" span="2" width="49"> <tbody><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt; width: 38pt;" height="17" width="51">
</td> <td class="xl23" style="width: 33pt;" align="right" width="44">*TPG*</td> <td class="xl23" style="border-left: medium none; width: 33pt;" align="right" width="44">*DPG*</td> <td class="xl23" style="border-left: medium none; width: 37pt;" align="right" width="49">*OSPG*</td> <td class="xl23" style="border-left: medium none; width: 37pt;" align="right" width="49">*OTPG*</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl24" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 38pt;" height="17" width="51">*Deng v Noc*</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="5.2577537105048346" align="right">5.26</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="1.7176964054716395" align="right">1.72</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="1.2840630114566274" align="right">1.28</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="2.2559942935765669" align="right">2.26</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">*Gordon v Duhon*</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="4.4319711679067364" align="right">4.43</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="-5.1842935956441405E-2" align="right">-0.05</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="8.0869391025641022" align="right">8.09</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="-3.6031249987009244" align="right">-3.60</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">*
*</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">*Gasol v Brown
*</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="14.971826119015581" align="right">14.97</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="4.5246866110910808" align="right">4.52</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="9.2999608150470223" align="right">9.30</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="1.1471786928774794" align="right">1.15</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">*
*</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">*Total Deng*</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="-2.0752894361607863" align="right">-2.08</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="-1.0089673634419998" align="right">-1.01</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="-0.82984687726067019" align="right">-0.83</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="-0.23647519545811529" align="right">-0.24</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">*Total Gordon*</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="1.0929798954778436" align="right">1.09</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="2.7525711650370632" align="right">2.75</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="-2.8442699541837486" align="right">-2.84</td> <td class="xl25" x:num="1.1846786846245285" align="right">1.18</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
The first line is the difference between Deng and Noc. Positive numbers are the advantage Deng brings over Noc. The second is Gordon vs. Duhon. Negative numbers are where Duhon is better. Same deal for Brown.

Total Deng is the net of adding Gasol and subtracting Brown and Deng. Total Gordon is the net of Gasol - Brown and Gordon.

Obviously I don't think that's a definitive estimate of how things turn out It's a back of the envelope means of getting an idea of what happens to those "roles" on the team. Obviously minutes played and whatnot change in addition to chemistry and strategic issues (such as not having Gordon's shot-creating ability).

Qualifications given, I think on the whole it's pretty accurate. We trade Gordon for Gasol, and we've got a junkyard dog defensive team. Our defense and playmaking will be better because we've given up a relatively weak defender (Gordon) and replaced him in the lineup with a strong one. Moving beyond the stats, we can also assume the defense will also improve because we get a better defensive fit next to Wallace, even though Gasol himself is not a strong defender. But we'll undeniably have less firepower and Kirk and Chris will have to work hard to distribute the ball to our scorers.

We trade Deng and we "lose" in all of the roles,but by very small amounts. Small enough to get easily lost in the positive effects of getting matching Gordon and Gasol as scoring threats and getting a good defensive pairing with Wallace.

So to me the stats are a starting place, and I think they're useful. Why? Because without them we tend to focus on the scoring loss that losing Gordon brings about (which the numbers do substantiate). However, looking at my numbers, I think they also substantiate the idea we'd get better defensively by trading Gordon.

Philosophically, which fits the Bulls better? Trade Gordon and you get a significant defensive improvement at the expense of scoring. Trade Deng and you get a slight defensive improvement and significant offensive improvement.

I think either would work and I guess, thinking it through again, I'm still not totally sold on which is the right guy to trade. Or even that either totally is.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

nice data/analysis mike.

way i see it deng+gasol gives us two big men (albeit not strong) that can operate inside and outside. that's the kind of mismatches that gives teams headaches. it's a bit harder to double gasol if one of the best cutters in the game is a threat to get open. we should still have enough shooters in kirk/duhon/noc to spread the floor too.

if it's gordan+gasol then i can see teams doubling gasol much easier (intentionally). take out the high percentage option and make the bulls beat you with jumpshots. the biggest positive then becomes having jumpshooters that are more open due to teams zoning or doubling/tripling gasol. noc is a nice player, but he's still a jumpshooter first. so is gordan, and kirk, and duhon. does this scenario sound familiar? we'll need to find another big man who can make teams pay for focusing on gasol. of course maybe being more open is all gordan/kirk/duhon/noc need to be more consistent jumpshooters.


----------



## eymang (Dec 15, 2006)

gotta love citing jib as the reason for making or not making moves


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

The ROY said:


> more at the link
> 
> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...lsbits,1,2582658.story?coll=cs-home-headlines



translation , skiles cant coach bigs and might screw it up if i were to actually give him a balanced team because he doesn't know how to get the most out of a big with any kind of real talent....so it might be better to stay with what we have and hope for luck.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> translation , skiles cant coach bigs and might screw it up if i were to actually give him a balanced team because he doesn't know how to get the most out of a big with any kind of real talent....so it might be better to stay with what we have and hope for luck.


if that's the translation, then i can't read.......:lol:


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

> Obviously I don't think that's a definitive estimate of how things turn out It's a back of the envelope means of getting an idea of what happens to those "roles" on the team. Obviously minutes played and whatnot change in addition to chemistry and strategic issues (such as not having Gordon's shot-creating ability).





> Philosophically, which fits the Bulls better? Trade Gordon and you get a significant defensive improvement at the expense of scoring. Trade Deng and you get a slight defensive improvement and significant offensive improvement.
> 
> I think either would work and I guess, thinking it through again, I'm still not totally sold on which is the right guy to trade. Or even that either totally is.


I enjoyed reading your statistical analysis. But comparing Duhon/Gordon and Deng/Nocioni doesn't seem thorough enough to me. Who replaces Duhon and who replaces Nocioni? Isn't that important as well? Maybe that's too many variables. 

Assume Gordon + pick is traded. Nocioni, Deng, Gasol, and Wallace get all of the frontcourt minutes (~32 each). Hinrich plays 36 minutes a game. Duhon plays 36 minutes. That leaves ~24 minutes for Griffin + Thabo + possibly Dahntay Jones at guard. Tyrus gets very little playing time... 

Assume Deng + pick is traded. Gordon, Hinrich, and Duhon get all of the backcourt minutes. Nocioni plays 36 minutes a game (8 more). Wallace plays 36 minutes a game. Gasol plays 36. That leaves ~36 minutes for Khryapa, Thabo, and Tyrus at forward.

I'm much more comfortable with Khyrapa and Tyrus playing 30 minutes at SF/PF than I am with Griffin and Thabo playing 20 minutes at G. I'm also worried that Tyrus won't develop with 4 guys in front of him.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> translation , skiles cant coach bigs and might screw it up if i were to actually give him a balanced team because he doesn't know how to get the most out of a big with any kind of real talent....so it might be better to stay with what we have and hope for luck.


I have yet to read a lot of threads or news articles lately b/c I just got done with 3 weeks of Hell at school. But, I do not think we would maximize the abilities of any big man. Skiles does well with what we have, but I don't know how good he would be in implementing Gasol.

I really wish we could keep Deng, but I posted this before. We have to make this move. We just have to. How else would we get a big man in the near future? It just won't be possible unless we trade someone else later. By that time, the best big men in the game will be Bosh, Howard, and Oden. No one will give them up. Gasol is the one guy we can grab. Fiancially, team depth, and him wanting out, works in our favor.

I think the halt on the trade is due to Pax offering anything but the big 3, and West wanting at least one of them.

If its 15 min before the deadline is up, I offer Deng. I think Pax has become too attached to the players on this team. We are not winning anytime soon with this current team unless we hit the jackpot with the NYK pick. I love the core, but I don't see Luol DOMINATING a game like a true franchise player. He may be a top 10 small forward, but the level of disparity between him and Lebron, Melo, TMac, etc is huge. You realize the impact they have on W/L. Luol helps us, but I think if we replace him with another SF who can average 16/8 down the line (present: Noce, future: NYK pick), then we are fine, b/c adding Gasol in comparision to PJ, Malik, and Sweets is going out on a date with Jennifer Aniston or taking the cafeteria lady.

Trust me, Luol's recent play has made me think twice about this. But, the longer I think, the more limited chances we have in the future of making a trade. 

Ideally, I'd love to keep all 3 players and still get Gasol. *But let me ask you guys this, do you think Deng on the Grizzlies would lead them to more wins than Gasol on the Grizzlies?*


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> I have yet to read a lot of threads or news articles lately b/c I just got done with 3 weeks of Hell at school. But, I do not think we would maximize the abilities of any big man. Skiles does well with what we have, but I don't know how good he would be in implementing Gasol.
> 
> I really wish we could keep Deng, but I posted this before. We have to make this move. We just have to. How else would we get a big man in the near future? It just won't be possible unless we trade someone else later. By that time, the best big men in the game will be Bosh, Howard, and Oden. No one will give them up. Gasol is the one guy we can grab. Fiancially, team depth, and him wanting out, works in our favor.
> 
> ...



Very good post.

I think your criticism of Paxson for being too attached to his players is premature at this point...it would be a better point if no trade is made and it's somehow discovered that, say, Deng + PJ would have gotten it done and Paxson balked. At this point, there's no evidence that indicates that Paxson has passed up a reasonable trade for one of his "core players.

You're right about needing a big man. The more I watch the Bulls, the more I liken them to a NFL team that has an offense completely dependent on the passing game. Sometimes you've gotta be able to pound the ball inside.

As to your question about how Deng would do on the Grizz, my guess is that it wouldn't be pretty, at least not right away. Deng's offense relies on the up-tempo game and Skiles "move the ball" offense. He's not a player who you give the ball and say, "go create." However, if the Grizz get the 21 year old Deng, do well with their draft pick (and perhaps the Knicks' pick) and are well coached, that could be a tough team in a few years.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

transplant said:


> As to your question about how Deng would do on the Grizz, my guess is that it wouldn't be pretty, at least not right away. Deng's offense relies on the up-tempo game and Skiles "move the ball" offense. He's not a player who you give the ball and say, "go create." However, if the Grizz get the 21 year old Deng, do well with their draft pick (and perhaps the Knicks' pick) and are well coached, that could be a tough team in a few years.


Thinking it out that way, does that make it a very attractive deal for the Grizzlies?


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

MikeDC said:


> Thinking it out that way, does that make it a very attractive deal for the Grizzlies?


NO, OF COURSE NOT!! THAT'S WHY THE TRADE WILL NOT HAPPEN!! People keep talking about how this benefits the Bulls and this and that but the fact is, is it a good deal for Memphis??? You've got to look at two sides of the coin, not one...


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Flame me if you want, but I'm seriously confused and NOT seeing the reason why people want to hold onto Deng. I don't care if he is 21. Like I said earlier in my long post, I like him, but do you really think he puts us over the top? I don't see Gasol handing us a ring like Duncan or Shaq would, but by all means he fixes a critical problem of this team. Not every team has that post-scorer, and since Deng and Gordon are not the second coming of MJ and PIP, these two are not going anywhere. Now I can understand if people have issues deciding between Gordon or Deng, but to think one of them should not be given up for Gasol, then I'm sorry. I can't wait till people realize that Howard, Bosh, maybe Oden, Lebron, and Wade destroy us for the next decade. Wade may not have the best team around him then, but you can bet the refs will make sure he wins.

Paxson, if you don't make this move, I might consider joining the Fire Pax Club. This is all assuming that a deal can get done with PJ, Deng (if needed, 2008 pick) for Gasol. You complain about the lack of scorer, I'm sorry, you are not gonna find him at a flea market. If you want a scorer for cheap, go get Kmart or ZBo. There are reasons why some guys are had real cheap (attitude, salary, etc).

If we don't make a move and don't luck into a Oden/Durant, I'm gonna be a discontent Bulls fan for the next few years. I don't see these pieces being able to mature and win you a ring. Screw chemistry. Screw jib. Talent wins games. No talent = No ring. The Pistons had more talent that we did. All of those players were peaking at the right time and had the experience and ABILITY to win. We don't have the big men to compete with any team. 

Sorry for the ranting, I just don't see us doing anything in the near future without making a move. I'm not saying to overpay, but to at least consider giving a fair offer at the last second to land a guy that is STILL young and has several good years left.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

theanimal23 said:


> Flame me if you want, but I'm seriously confused and NOT seeing the reason why people want to hold onto Deng. I don't care if he is 21. Like I said earlier in my long post, I like him, but do you really think he puts us over the top? I don't see Gasol handing us a ring like Duncan or Shaq would, but by all means he fixes a critical problem of this team. Not every team has that post-scorer, and since Deng and Gordon are not the second coming of MJ and PIP, these two are not going anywhere.


Saying you don't care that Deng is 21 is pretty worthless. If you were to explain why you think it's irrelevant that he's 21 that might be different. I certainly don't think he will turn into a Pippen or Jordan but the point is that he has 4-6 years of development left in him. No one thought Arenas would be a star when he was 21. Bosh, Oden, Durant, Lebron et al are phenomenal players but you can't win without a supporting cast. KG, Karl Malone, and an entire list of HOF players never won a title.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Saying you don't care that Deng is 21 is pretty worthless. If you were to explain why you think it's irrelevant that he's 21 that might be different. I certainly don't think he will turn into a Pippen or Jordan but the point is that he has 4-6 years of development left in him. No one thought Arenas would be a star when he was 21. Bosh, Oden, Durant, Lebron et al are phenomenal players but you can't win without a supporting cast. KG, Karl Malone, and an entire list of HOF players never won a title.


Very well said.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

theanimal23 said:


> Flame me if you want, but I'm seriously confused and NOT seeing the reason why people want to hold onto Deng. I don't care if he is 21. Like I said earlier in my long post, I like him, but do you really think he puts us over the top? I don't see Gasol handing us a ring like Duncan or Shaq would, but by all means he fixes a critical problem of this team. Not every team has that post-scorer, and since Deng and Gordon are not the second coming of MJ and PIP, these two are not going anywhere.


um, wow...

I'll bet $500 right now that if you traded Luol for Gasol, in less than two years you'll be SERIOUSLY considering why we did it in the first place.

He's only 21 years old and his growth from last season to this season is tremendous. I always saw him as a 20 & 9 type of player but he clearly has the ability to be more than that.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Maybe I will regret it. But I don't see Luol being a superstar. Not that Gasol is, but he brings something to the table that very few players in the league do. I'm assuming that if Deng is the one piece we need to offer for them to give up Gasol, I'm doing the deal. So what if Deng is 21. Do you think when he is 25, he is going to average 30ppg? He doesn't have the athletic ability to dominate a game. He doesn't have that killer instinct or plays very well in 4th quarters. People here are making him out to be a top 5 SF, which he is not. He's a solid SF, but far away from the top notch ones that CONTROL and DOMINATE a game. 

I wouldn't give Deng for free, but if it's the one way we can upgrade our woeful lack of post scoring, I'm doing it.

You don't get anywhere without taking risks. People make it out to be that Gasol is an old man, and when Gasol is 30, Luol will be an MVP candidate. They put up differnet numbers, but the way this team is assembled, it will be easier to find a Deng replacement than to find a way to add a player with Gasol's skillset.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Saying you don't care that Deng is 21 is pretty worthless. If you were to explain why you think it's irrelevant that he's 21 that might be different. I certainly don't think he will turn into a Pippen or Jordan but the point is that he has 4-6 years of development left in him. No one thought Arenas would be a star when he was 21. Bosh, Oden, Durant, Lebron et al are phenomenal players but you can't win without a supporting cast. KG, Karl Malone, and an entire list of HOF players never won a title.


So do you think Luol Deng can DOMINATE a game a la Arenas? 

I do not care too much about Luol's age, b/c I don't see his ceiling being extremely high. He may reach a Jamison-ish stats. 

Seriously, how much easier would it be to replace Deng, than to find a real PF/C. For those of you who are against this trade, I don't think anyone should complain about our lack of big men and us trying to land a big name. People should be happy about giving up Duhon for Ely (ok, that won't happen, but you get my point), as long as we keep the PRIZE of the Chicago Bulls, Luol Deng. He's the franchise savior. He will lead us to the promise land b/c he puts up 20 + 8 at the age of 21. He's due to be a top 3 scorer in a few years. If TMac couldn't do it, I sure as hell don't see Deng doing it. There are several stars who just flat out dominate. Our team is not designed that way b/c the lack of a star. So, we have a team concept. The thing we lack, we are out looking for, but we think we can get this piece by giving up junk. 

I just don't know what to say. I guess I won't be able to agree with a lot of you. Then so be it. Come trade deadline, a lot of us may be happy or sad. Lets just hope it's the right decision, whatever it is.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

He's definintely more than 'solid'.

Carmelo, Lebron, Marion & Howard are the only SF's in the entire NBA clearly better than Luol.

Luol's in the 'Artest, Odom, Kirilenko, Igoudala, Prince' class and is possibly on his way to surpassing a few of those guys too (namely, Prince & Kirilenko)

He may not be top 5 now, but he may be there VERY shortly.

Does he have killer instinct? Not yet

Is he clutch? Not yet

But he's only 21, and not everybody comes into the league with EVERY SINGLE aspect of their game in-tact. 3 year's into the league & he's putting up 18.6 PG, 7.1 RPG, 2.2 APG, 1.2 SPG shooting 52% from the field? If he continues to rebound how he has the last 10 games or so, he could be on his way to averaging a double-double next season (or close to it).

I was all for moving Deng for Gasol until he started playing like a MADMAN. Is our current roster gonna get us there? No, we obvously need to make a trade but Deng is about as untouchable as your gonna get, and John Paxson REALIZES this.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Put this team in the West, we won't have a fighting chance to win a series with our love of the jumpshot. I'd love to see the crap we call a frontline compete out there. Hell, we'll struggle to win the East, and it's one of the worst conferences in all-time history.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

The ROY said:


> He's definintely more than 'solid'.
> 
> Carmelo, Lebron, Marion & Howard are the only SF's in the entire NBA clearly better than Luol.
> 
> ...



So what is your solution?

I agree with your post. But I ask you this, if Luol Deng is the FRANCHISE player, then how far do you think he can lead us? If Lebron Freakin James has yet to win it, do you think we can? Especially with our team having so many other key issues, post scoring and a crappy bench outside of Duhon and Noce.

Have you changed your mind, and would be willing to throw in Gordon instead? Just wondering.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Trust me, I'd love to keep Luol Deng. But if it came down to this, No Gasol unless PJ + Deng, I'm doing it. Thats all I'm saying.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Thinking it out that way, does that make it a very attractive deal for the Grizzlies?


Don't know...depends on how patient the Grizz is I guess.

Deng's just a real good young player. He doesn't happen to be a "go-to guy." If Deng was to be traded to the Grizz, for the rest of this season, if they expect to have Deng take over Gasol's "go-to" role, I suspect they'll be disappointed. Deng has never been "game-planned" as an offensive threat, and I suspect that it wouldn'y be that hard to game plan him.

As I said in another thread, if the Grizz had Deng and Gay, and then added 2 lottery picks (one of whom could very well be Oden or Durant), they could have a pretty exciting and highly-marketable team.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

The ROY said:


> He's definintely more than 'solid'.
> 
> Carmelo, Lebron, Marion & Howard are the only SF's in the entire NBA clearly better than Luol.
> 
> ...


i like the way deng gets his numbers. he doesn't pound the ball, try to cross people up etc. it's all in the flow of the offense. and he works hard without the ball to get open. once he touches the ball there's a quick decision. shoot, rotate teh ball, and most recently he's added drive to his options. the curl and cut is one of our most effective plays, he either gets a nice high percentage shot or to the free throw line. if we have guys like kirk and gordan (both guys that need the ball and time to be productive) we really need someone like deng to work away from the ball.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

theanimal23 said:


> So what is your solution?
> 
> I agree with your post. But I ask you this, if Luol Deng is the FRANCHISE player, then how far do you think he can lead us? If Lebron Freakin James has yet to win it, do you think we can? Especially with our team having so many other key issues, post scoring and a crappy bench outside of Duhon and Noce.
> 
> Have you changed your mind, and would be willing to throw in Gordon instead? Just wondering.


Oh, I never ment he was a 'franchise' player, but he has the ability to be a great 2nd option in the future.

My PERSONAL solution is to trade anyone not named Deng, Gordon & Hinrich.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

The ROY said:


> Oh, I never ment he was a 'franchise' player, but he has the ability to be a great 2nd option in the future.
> 
> My PERSONAL solution is to trade anyone not named Deng, Gordon & Hinrich.


I have no problem with your personal solution. I think all of us as Bulls fans feel that way. I do too, although I may not come across with those feelings. I just ask all of you other posters, then IS there a solution to land a quality big man without giving up the Big 3?


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

RoRo said:


> i like the way deng gets his numbers. he doesn't pound the ball, try to cross people up etc. it's all in the flow of the offense. and he works hard without the ball to get open. once he touches the ball there's a quick decision. shoot, rotate teh ball, and most recently he's added drive to his options. the curl and cut is one of our most effective plays, he either gets a nice high percentage shot or to the free throw line. if we have guys like kirk and gordan (both guys that need the ball and time to be productive) we really need someone like deng to work away from the ball.


Great Post. I agree on all points.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

theanimal23 said:


> I have no problem with your personal solution. I think all of us as Bulls fans feel that way. I do too, although I may not come across with those feelings. I just ask all of you other posters, then IS there a solution to land a quality big man without giving up the Big 3?


Yeah, I'm sure you can land Randolph without adding one of the Big 3, but most posters on the boards aren't very fond of him.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

theanimal23 said:


> So do you think Luol Deng can DOMINATE a game a la Arenas?


Hard to say. Probably not. I don't really see why that's relevant though. My point was to referennce Arenas' development over the course of his career, not his game.



theanimal23 said:


> I do not care too much about Luol's age, b/c I don't see his ceiling being extremely high. He may reach a Jamison-ish stats.


Uhh. Jamison's career averages are 19.4 and 7.6 and he doesn't play defense. Deng is at 18.6 and 7.2 this season so I think that's pretty much been accomplished.



theanimal23 said:


> Seriously, how much easier would it be to replace Deng, than to find a real PF/C.


I count around 5 or 8 SFs in the league with a higher PER than Deng (depending on who you classify as a SF) so I'll go with pretty hard. Furthermore, if you want to talk about actually replacing him you need someone who's roughly his age. Someone like Noc has six fewer years left in his NBA life than Deng and doesn't have the same ceiling because he's already in his prime. Players like Deng are rarely if ever traded so unless we were to keep the NY pick and get lucky, he doesn't get replaced.

If Gasol can be had for cheap because of his trade demand that's a rare situation you have to capitalize on. We don't know what the asking price is though. If West is willing to keep him and is demanding full market value (something like Deng or Gordon plus another major asset) then there are plenty of options to find a real PF/C. The Bulls have a lottery pick in a draft with plenty of big men and Chris Mihm is servicable and can likely be had for the MLE. The fact that Gasol is available seems to belie the claim that it's impossible to land a high calliber PF/C. Furthermore, we have absolutely no post scoring right now. No one's ever really made a great argument why we need great post offense as opposed to adequate post offense to win.




theanimal23 said:


> For those of you who are against this trade, I don't think anyone should complain about our lack of big men and us trying to land a big name. People should be happy about giving up Duhon for Ely (ok, that won't happen, but you get my point), as long as we keep the PRIZE of the Chicago Bulls, Luol Deng.


I have no idea what type of package you're referring to when you say "this trade." I'd hate doing it but I'm on record as saying that I'd give up Gordon or Deng, P.J. and a future 1st rounder.




theanimal23 said:


> He's the franchise savior. He will lead us to the promise land b/c he puts up 20 + 8 at the age of 21. He's due to be a top 3 scorer in a few years. If TMac couldn't do it, I sure as hell don't see Deng doing it. There are several stars who just flat out dominate. Our team is not designed that way b/c the lack of a star. So, we have a team concept. The thing we lack, we are out looking for, but we think we can get this piece by giving up junk.


I don't see why Deng needs to be a top 3 scorer for a Deng-Gasol trade to look foolish in the future. Part of the danger in trading Deng is that when Gasol is 34 and possibly on the very of retirement, Lu will be 29 and at the tail end of his prime. Even if Gasol is a bit better than Deng, if Lu plays twice as many games in a Bulls uniform it's hard to argue that Gasol has been more valuable unless he brings the Bulls a championship or two that Deng wouldn't.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

transplant said:


> Don't know...depends on how patient the Grizz is I guess.
> 
> Deng's just a real good young player. He doesn't happen to be a "go-to guy." If Deng was to be traded to the Grizz, for the rest of this season, if they expect to have Deng take over Gasol's "go-to" role, I suspect they'll be disappointed. Deng has never been "game-planned" as an offensive threat, and I suspect that it wouldn'y be that hard to game plan him.
> 
> As I said in another thread, if the Grizz had Deng and Gay, and then added 2 lottery picks (one of whom could very well be Oden or Durant), they could have a pretty exciting and highly-marketable team.



That is where I see the difference of having Gasol or Deng on our team. I agree with you. Switch Gasol and Deng, and the Grizzlies will at least notice the difference. Hopefully we would too.

The benefits of Deng have been pointed out by RoRo, I believe. Deng would be a great pairing next to Gasol. I think Gordon would be as good or better. I don't see the Grizzlies wanting Kirk, or Kirk being offered.

I don't think a deal will get done. Pax is uncertain about if this trade will backfire, as we all are. I pick Deng out of the 3, b/c SFs are dime a dozen. Easier to find than any other position. That is my reasoning. I don't see another viable and solid solution present other than Gasol. KG and JO's contracts and age are a factor. Who else is left? The younguns are not on the block anytime soon.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

If we "can't" trade Deng and we "can't" trade Gordon then how the hell are we going to build a team that wins anything of note?

Where are the big men coming from?

Wallace is on the decline. 
TT is a crap shoot, and an undersized PF at best.
The Knicks pick likely is not going to high enough to nab one of the big men players that everyone is pining for, and even then, we're talking about lead time for rookie development.

I'll fully agree that Deng is turning into a great SF. I love the guy. Gordon is a really good NBA guard that has the ability to close out games, which is essential in the playoffs. 

But Gasol is a better at his position than Gordon/Deng PF/C, IMO, and only 26. And we're desperate for a PF/C, and that will be the case even more as Wallace becomes even worse than he is now.

Unless it comes from the Knicks pick (which, while there is a chance at a high pick, seems too remote to make decisions based on it), or TT/Deng becomes a great NBA PF, we're going to be really starved for big guys, even more so than we are now. How is Paxson going to remedy this, if a consolidation trade for a guy as good as Gasol is unacceptable?

Or, do you think we can win the NBA Title in a year or two with Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Nocioni, TT, Knicks pick, aging Wallace and average FA types?

Its pretty clear at this point that our current group is not a real contender to win the NBA Title this season, yes?


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Hard to say. Probably not. I don't really see why that's relevant though. My point was to referennce Arenas' development over the course of his career, not his game.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok. I don't know how to do the quotation segments like you, but I'll list my points.

1. I meant a Jamison-ish impact. The numbers are there. But where is Deng in the 4th? How do you fade out after 3 quarters? I'm not downgrading his first 3 quarters, you just can't fade out at the end when the game is on the line. Thats what separates the top notch players and the next tier. Sure Luol might one day be a top 5 SF, but there will be a world's difference between the top 4 and number 5.

2. I don't give a $hit about PER. I don't follow those stats, b/c honestly, I judge players by watching them. If PER does it for you, then so be it. I just hate some of the over-analysis by John Hollinger and 82games. It's not hard to watch the impact of player if you follow the game.

3. If you are content with the NYK pick filling our significant void and being the final chip, then I salute you. I don't. I don't want to wait and HOPE Tyrus and that pick develop into steady big men. After the C&C era, I don't want to wait on production and hope. I want a proven player if he is available. Same goes for your Chris Mihm. If you think that is a guy that puts you over the top, and is your final piece, then more power to you. I just have no comment regarding that, other than it's Chris Mihm. 

You make a good point about adequate post-offense. But who is that player? Is a Sweetney-clone (skillset) your type of guy?

4. I don't see a reason for not trading for Gasol if he would put up a productive 7 years. B/c if by then we don't win it all with the current makeup of this team, even if it was Deng, Gordon, and Kirk, we sure as hell won't likely be winning one later on. By then, we might as well rebuild. I don't want to spend the next 7 years in the first two rounds of the EC.

I hope we can get Gasol for cheap. I don't think its realistic. If it happens, Paxson is the man. Like I said, I just don't see this team drastically improving unless we luck out with Tyrus and the NYK pick and their development. And with Skiles and the traning we gave Eddy and Tyson, I do not have much faith.

Look, I'll go back to this. I like Luol. Don't think I hate him guys. I want him here. But, I am willing to give up any player if it helps improve this team and bring us closer to a championship. I think it would be easier to replace Luol than the other players. If I had my choice, I'd pick Kirk to go. With Luol gone, Noce is adequate and the MLE or pick can be used to add another solid SF. 

I look at it this way: Gasol and Noce/MLE or pick > Noce/Sweetney/Malik/maybe PJ and Luol/Noce.

It'll be a dream, and I'm sure EVERYONE on this board would be HAPPY if we kept the entire core and got Gasol for pennies. I just think Luol is the easiest to replace

K4E - Repped.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

I cant believe I read someone is worried about how the trade will look 8 years from now. WTF?


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> If we "can't" trade Deng and we "can't" trade Gordon then how the hell are we going to build a team that wins anything of note?
> 
> Where are the big men coming from?
> 
> ...



Right now we get an F in post scoring and Gasol is an A. I'm not opposed to a Gasol deal but I think the idea of what this team would look like with a C in post scoring is intruiging and worth exploring if Gasol doesn't work out. I mean Chris Mihm, Chris Wilcox, SAR, Brendan Haywood, or even McRoberts does substantially improve our post scoring and provide spacing, right? If that's a few wins and the core improves moderately we're a 50 win team team next year who has hardly hit its ceiling with a 22 and a 25 year old as it's two best players and two lottery picks in the fold. There are two assumptions I disagree with: 1) Gasol immediately puts us into championship contention - if this is a 45 win team replacing a borerline All-Star with a better player who fits a need improves us several wins and a 50 win team coming out of the East is not a serious title contender 2) it's not possible to be a championship contender without a star calliber post scorer.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

theanimal23 said:


> Ok. I don't know how to do the quotation segments like you, but I'll list my points.
> 
> 1. I meant a Jamison-ish impact. The numbers are there. But where is Deng in the 4th? How do you fade out after 3 quarters? I'm not downgrading his first 3 quarters, you just can't fade out at the end when the game is on the line. Thats what separates the top notch players and the next tier. Sure Luol might one day be a top 5 SF, but there will be a world's difference between the top 4 and number 5.


I think that's pretty overblown. He can't shoot the ball when Gordon is shooting. And again, he's 21.



theanimal23 said:


> 2. I don't give a $hit about PER. I don't follow those stats, b/c honestly, I judge players by watching them. If PER does it for you, then so be it. I just hate some of the over-analysis by John Hollinger and 82games. It's not hard to watch the impact of player if you follow the game.


Ok. Feel free to substitute other stats then, it doesn't really alter the analysis at all.



theanimal23 said:


> 3. If you are content with the NYK pick filling our significant void and being the final chip, then I salute you. I don't. I don't want to wait and HOPE Tyrus and that pick develop into steady big men. After the C&C era, I don't want to wait on production and hope. I want a proven player if he is available. Same goes for your Chris Mihm. If you think that is a guy that puts you over the top, and is your final piece, then more power to you. I just have no comment regarding that, other than it's Chris Mihm.


Well with Chris Mihm we keep one of the best young players in the NBA. I don't think Mihm is in the same stratosphere as Gasol but I think the same goes for Deng and Griff, Thabo, or whoever inherits Lu's minutes. In the Chandler/Curry era we were a 25-30 win team, right now we have a 45-50 team. There's a world of difference. Apparently you think Gasol puts us over the top and I think _that's_ naive. We're a 45 win team right now and he can improve our win total by more than about five games.



theanimal23 said:


> You make a good point about adequate post-offense. But who is that player? Is a Sweetney-clone (skillset) your type of guy?


Yeah, basically a Sweetney with conditioning. I'd play Sweentey more now if I were Skiles.



theanimal23 said:


> 4. I don't see a reason for not trading for Gasol if he would put up a productive 7 years. B/c if by then we don't win it all with the current makeup of this team, even if it was Deng, Gordon, and Kirk, we sure as hell won't likely be winning one later on. By then, we might as well rebuild. I don't want to spend the next 7 years in the first two rounds of the EC.


I don't disagree with you. I advocate trading for Gasol, I just want to pay the right price. I think the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of us reaching the second round this season. All the comments about another first round exit sometimes makes me think peoples' frustration with this team is getting the better of them.



theanimal23 said:


> I hope we can get Gasol for cheap. I don't think its realistic. If it happens, Paxson is the man. Like I said, I just don't see this team drastically improving unless we luck out with Tyrus and the NYK pick and their development. And with Skiles and the traning we gave Eddy and Tyson, I do not have much faith.


Usually it's not considered luck to get production from lottery picks.



theanimal23 said:


> I look at it this way: Gasol and Noce/MLE or pick > Noce/Sweetney/Malik/maybe PJ and Luol/Noce.


I'm not sure I follow. We have the MLE whether or not we trade for Gasol. The person who replaces Deng is whoever takes Noc's minutes. I guess that's who you're referring to with the MLE in which case we're discussing next season? In that case we're looking at either Noc (6th man)/ Lu (SF) / MLE (C/PF) or MLE (6th man)/Noc (SF)/Gasol (PF). Regardless, we're only looking at next year whereas the reason to hang onto Deng is not for "win now" purposes. 



theanimal23 said:


> It'll be a dream, and I'm sure EVERYONE on this board would be HAPPY if we kept the entire core and got Gasol for pennies. I just think Luol is the easiest to replace


I still disagree about replacing him for all the reasons I've outlined. You're not replacing him you're adding a player at a different position. Noc doesn't replace Deng because he's not as good and he's six years older. I'm not sure we're giving up pennies if we keep Lu or even the entire big three. We have high draft picks, cap relief, three lottery picks (NY pick, Thabo, Tyrus), and Noc.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> 1) Gasol immediately puts us into championship contention - if this is a 45 win team replacing a borerline All-Star with a better player who fits a need improves us several wins and a 50 win team coming out of the East is not a serious title contender
> 
> 2) it's not possible to be a championship contender without a star calliber post scorer.


I don't think anyone is saying its impossible. Pau does not even do most of his damage in the post. (55% outside / 45% inside)

The Wallace Pistons didn't have a great post scorer.
The MJ/Pip Bulls didn't (luc, rodman).

But, we sure as hell don't have MJ/Pip and the Pistons had a really good player at every position.

That's how I see the Bulls lineup post Deng trade.

Hinrich
Gordon
Nocioni
Gasol
Wallace

BENCH
Duhon
Thabo / TT (or both if it’s the knicks pick)
THE HAWK
Sweets
Allen
Khryapa
Whoever we get back from Memphis


Worst case, above average players at every position. Wallace is overpaid, but not a stiff like many of the centers out there. Gasol is an all-star level player and CAN score inside AND outside. Nocioni, Hinrich and Gordon are all above-average players. That's pretty much as close to the "pistons model" as we're gonna get. I think that team can reach the NBA Finals and has a legit shot to beat a Mavs/Suns type team, although they won't be the favs. Its our best shot to win the NBA Title though, IMO.

And, if we only have to give up one other asset (TT, Knicks pick, Thabo) then we're sitting pretty for the future as well. Gasol can slide to the C spot if needed and we're still young enough to play at a high level for 4 more years... the big issue then will be replacing Wallace. 

If we don't make the trade though, the big issues will be finding a 4 (until / if TT is ready) and a 5... or be content to play small-ball. I don't like either of those options. I don’t want to hitch my wagon to having a Chris Mihm type as my best 4/5 either. And banking on the Knicks pick does not seem wise to me, from a odds to land a top pick perspective or timeframe to develop a young big perspective.


Put me in the camp of Paxson *MUST* make the Pau Gasol trade.


Deng 
and 
TT or the Knicks pick or Thabo (i don't value all of these equally)
and 
PJ Brown


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Put me in the camp of Paxson MUST make the Pau Gasol trade.
> 
> 
> Deng
> ...


What if that is not enough, would you be willing to give up more? Because I don't see it being enough anymore, which is quite sad.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

step said:


> What if that is not enough, would you be willing to give up more? Because I don't see it being enough anymore, which is quite sad.


If Deng + TT/Knicks pick isn't enough, they are not really interested in trading Gasol, IMO. I think I could be persuaded to add Thabo to (TT or the Knicks pick) to get the deal done. We very well may be getting a decent player like Warrick in return as well. If we're getting a guy like Warrick back, I would have to think long and hard about Deng+Knicks Pick+TT for Gasol/Warrick. That's as far as I'm willing to go though, unless a guy like Mike Miller is involved.

If I were the Griz, I'd just keep Gasol, tank this season and build around Gasol + high lotto pick + Gay + Miller. 

I'm not convinced that there really is a fire sale to dump Gasol. I think Gasol is wanting to play for a winner and has been a good soldier for the Griz, so they are exploring options. From Gasol's standpoint though, I would not mind being 28 and playing alongside Oden, Gay and Miller in 2 years.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I think that's pretty overblown. He can't shoot the ball when Gordon is shooting. And again, he's 21.


Or if he made his presence felt like Gordon, both of them would be shooting. 




JeremyB0001 said:


> Ok. Feel free to substitute other stats then, it doesn't really alter the analysis at all.


Yeah, I don't care too much about stats like PER. It's like looking at a box-score. It may be right, but it may not also be. I am sure if Luol's PER matches anything near LBJ's or Wade's this very day, he'd be untouchable b/c obviously he has the same impact.




JeremyB0001 said:


> Well with Chris Mihm we keep one of the best young players in the NBA. I don't think Mihm is in the same stratosphere as Gasol but I think the same goes for Deng and Griff, Thabo, or whoever inherits Lu's minutes. In the Chandler/Curry era we were a 25-30 win team, right now we have a 45-50 team. There's a world of difference. Apparently you think Gasol puts us over the top and I think _that's_ naive. We're a 45 win team right now and he can improve our win total by more than about five games.


I'm sure Mihm can help us as he would be an upgrade over Trash. But, if you think he is a piece that drastically improves this team, then I don't even know how to respond to that. 



JeremyB0001 said:


> Yeah, basically a Sweetney with conditioning. I'd play Sweentey more now if I were Skiles.


Othella Harrington?



JeremyB0001 said:


> I don't disagree with you. I advocate trading for Gasol, I just want to pay the right price. I think the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of us reaching the second round this season. All the comments about another first round exit sometimes makes me think peoples' frustration with this team is getting the better of them.


I agree with you. But I don't see this core winning it. We would be the GSW equivalent out West.




JeremyB0001 said:


> Usually it's not considered luck to get production from lottery picks.


Curry, Chandler, Fizer, Crawford, Jay Williams (ok, last one might not count, but I hold it against him that he hurt this franchise).

These are the Bulls lotto picks. Want me to list some from the rest of the league?



JeremyB0001 said:


> I'm not sure I follow. We have the MLE whether or not we trade for Gasol. The person who replaces Deng is whoever takes Noc's minutes. I guess that's who you're referring to with the MLE in which case we're discussing next season? In that case we're looking at either Noc (6th man)/ Lu (SF) / MLE (C/PF) or MLE (6th man)/Noc (SF)/Gasol (PF). Regardless, we're only looking at next year whereas the reason to hang onto Deng is not for "win now" purposes.


I agree. Pax and some posters may not looking at it as a 'win now' point of view. I am. We are not rebuilding. We spent the money to get Ben Wallace. Will make the playoffs for 3 years in a row. I want to win now, and have a team in place to win in the future. That is why I don't advocate a KG trade. I think you are going back to your reasoning of having Gasol @ 34 vs Luol @ 29. I guess it's an issue for you that Gasol would be in his prime here, with the best team he's ever had. 




JeremyB0001 said:


> I still disagree about replacing him for all the reasons I've outlined. You're not replacing him you're adding a player at a different position. Noc doesn't replace Deng because he's not as good and he's six years older. I'm not sure we're giving up pennies if we keep Lu or even the entire big three. We have high draft picks, cap relief, three lottery picks (NY pick, Thabo, Tyrus), and Noc.


I think we have a different outlook. You want to set up for winning later, and I want to win now. 

I call winning later as Rebuilding. We may have different views on this.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I agree with the statements by step and K4E if it's not enough, I'd stay put.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

I think that's a very good team that wins 50 games and might reach the Finals once or twice but doesn't win. However, I don't see a legit shot at a championship. Basically you're asking a 45 win team to turn into a 60 win team because you replaced a 18 and 7 SF with a 22 and 9 PF. I agree it's better just not 15 wins better and in two or three years it won't be as good as a team with Tyrus.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> you replaced a 18 and 7 SF


Nocioni can give us this. My big concern is his health, not his ability to give us 18 and 7. We're increasing Nocioni's minutes and not making him play the 4 anymore ( a plus, imo). 




> with a 22 and 9 PF.


This is the real value add. Replacing the pile of crap we have at 4 with an all-star level player. 


I think the Hinrich/Gordon/Nocioni/Gasol/Wallace lineup matches up very well with every other team in the NBA and certainly leaves the door open for strong "win later" possibilities as well.


I don't think "win later" for this group looks very bright without a GREAT big guy. If we don't trade for Gasol, I don't see how we can land one, given that TT will likely be a 3/4 and the Knicks pick will likely be around the 10 spot.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> If we "can't" trade Deng and we "can't" trade Gordon then how the hell are we going to build a team that wins anything of note?


We've got to get lucky on getting bigs. If we trade Deng or Gordon, then we're asking the same question about plugging the hole left by those guys (and the other assets we have to give up to get Gasol



> Where are the big men coming from?
> 
> Wallace is on the decline.
> TT is a crap shoot, and an undersized PF at best.
> The Knicks pick likely is not going to high enough to nab one of the big men players that everyone is pining for, and even then, we're talking about lead time for rookie development.


I completely agree. But that's the breaks. We have to get lucky. I disagree on Thomas, I still think he's gonna be good. 

We will desperately need to hit on the Knick's pick. That's an challenge, but it's a challenge making the right trade. And I feel more comfortable with Pax deciding our future with a draft pick than I do with him making a trade or free agent signing.

Wallace... I think my opinion is known. He's not good enough now, and if we win later he's going to be the third best big we've got. The smart move is to cut bait. With some luck, we might turn him into a young big, or at least a better fit.

And that is how we stand pat and hope for the best.

It's not exciting, and we ain't gonna win now, but we've got a fighting chance IMO if we don't get too impatient.



> we're desperate for a PF/C, and that will be the case even more as Wallace becomes even worse than he is now.


... because rarely does good come from desperation. And as you say, Wallace will only get worse. So while his value may be low now, it will only go lower. And consider what you just wrote. Getting Gasol now won't solve _that _problem.



> Or, do you think we can win the NBA Title in a year or two with Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Nocioni, TT, Knicks pick, aging Wallace and average FA types?


Probably not, but I don't think we win subtracting Deng or Gordon and TT or Knick's pick and adding Gasol.



rwj333 said:


> I enjoyed reading your statistical analysis. But comparing Duhon/Gordon and Deng/Nocioni doesn't seem thorough enough to me. Who replaces Duhon and who replaces Nocioni? Isn't that important as well? Maybe that's too many variables.


Thanks. You're right, but I don't think going into the fine details would make much difference. To do that, I'd just end up extrapolating out based on per minute stats, and the backups are more or less the same in that area, the numbers are small, and we can expect they'll change anyway.

It might seem more precise, but in reality it'd be like adding 2 or 3 more decimal places on a number you know is an estimate that's likely to be off by 10% anyway. IE, does 3.141 look more precise than 3.1? Yes, it does. But if the underlying number is an estimate that could be 3.2 or 3.0 just as easily, going to 3.141 isn't adding much value 

That, and I'm lazy.

I guess one thing my analysis tells me is that either way we get a little better, but it's hard to say we really get a lot better. Especially when you add in the lottery pick I'm assuming we give up that doesn't even factor in to the productivity ratings yet.

Pax has repeatedly mentioned the Rasheed Wallace deal as the sort of thing he's shooting for. Maybe he's bluffing (though it'd be a first for him), but I can't really fault him for that. I mean, if he thinks he'll get Wallace for complete zilch, I think he's nuts, but he's smart enough to recognize that his current team isn't good enough that a marginal improvement will get him over the top.

Instead, he recognizes he needs to get production without giving much up if we're going to improve by a whole lot.

So to me, the only way we significantly improve our chances at a ring with Gasol is to

1. Somehow get Gasol giving up Wallace as the main ingrediant. We give up production for production in that case, but we're trading old for young and we've got time and future assets (TT, Knick's pick, etc) to come online.

2. Get him with a deal that doesn't give up any of our really productive pieces (eg TT+Knick's Pick+Thabo if necessary to get Gasol).

In either of those deals, we not only improve from a non-statistical perspective (youth, position, offensive balance, etc), we also get concrete improvements from a statistical perspective. That's the sort of deal we need, and I think Pax is probably wise to hold out for it and not make a major trade for a marginal improvement.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Nocioni can give us this. My big concern is his health, not his ability to give us 18 and 7. We're increasing Nocioni's minutes and not making him play the 4 anymore ( a plus, imo).


Any way you cut it you're taking a huge hit when you lose Deng. Sure, increasing Noc's minutes from 27 to 35 per game helps some and moving him to the three maybe improves his production slightly but the bottom line is that you're still losing 30 MPG of All-Star calliber production.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> ... because rarely does good come from desperation. And as you say, Wallace will only get worse. So while his value may be low now, it will only go lower. And consider what you just wrote. Getting Gasol now won't solve _that _problem.


It won't, but I think nabbing Gasol for Deng gives us more options. I think TT will still be good as well. 

Let's say we can get Gasol for Deng/Knicks pick. 

For now, I'm more than comfortable with Gasol/Wallace and Nocioni at the 3. I don't see a gaping hole in the Hinrich/Gordon/Nocioni/Gasol/Wallace lineup. We can quibble about the size of Gordon and the athleticism of Noc, but that looks like a good enough to get to the Finals and give the Mavs/Suns a run lineup to me. Perhaps I'm way off. It seems to me based on reading your posts that you don’t think that lineup improves the team that much “win now” wise. OK.

As for "win later," I'd rather take luck out of the equation in terms of having a stud big. We'd have Gasol. We can play him at the 4 or the 5. If we don’t make the deal we have TT, who, while I think he’ll end up being an effecitive player, its not a certainity. Gasol is. And, TT is a 4 at best.

I think 3 years from now that Hinrich/Gordon/Nocioni/TT/Gasol would still be a real solid lineup. Perhaps we luck into a burly power forward type (easier to come by, IMO, then a guy that can effectively play the 5) at some point. Perhaps we get Warrick back from the Griz.

Hinrich/Duhon
Gordon/Thabo
Nocioni/???
TT/Warrick
Gasol/???

3 years from now looks like a more than tolerable "win later" contingency if we can't "win now."

The Knicks pick will likely be around #10 so getting a stud big there this year looks ?able. I'd rather take the bird in the hand in Gasol. Its going to be tough to get lucky on a true center type with that pick. There looks like there will be some real good SF types in the draft at that spot that if we deal Deng and TT. Then the issue shifts to a hole at the 4, but I’d rather have Gasol and have to fill the 4 position than banking on TT and getting lucky with a guy that can play 5.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I think Paxson's final offer has to be Luol Deng, Thabo Sefolosha, PJ Brown, and a 2008 pick. Nothing more than that. As pointed out, we have a good starting lineup throughout (with the exception of Wallace) post trade. But by keeping Tyrus and the pick, we have some future players to look forward to in the future that could possibly be stars as well.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I think 3 years from now that Hinrich/Gordon/Nocioni/TT/Gasol would still be a real solid lineup. Perhaps we luck into a burly power forward type (easier to come by, IMO, then a guy that can effectively play the 5) at some point. Perhaps we get Warrick back from the Griz.


I think you said it right there: a "solid" lineup. A lot of this disagreement probably comes down to a difference in philosophy. Me, I'm pretty greedy. My goal is to set up a team that is dominant on paper. I think that lineup is a 50 win team that goes deep into the playoffs every year but I have a hard time seeing the 60-65 win, dominant team that it usually takes to win a title. The only way I see that happening is if a young player blows up. 

If we can keep the big three and get Gasol or trade only one of the big three without involving another major asset I think there's still that potential for greatness. Otherwise, I like the idea that between the NY pick, Tyrus, and Thabo two of the three turn into above average players within two years. That would give us a team with eight very good players. If that doesn't work out then at least you can make a consolidation trade where you're not losing useful depth and knowing what you have in your players. I know some are impatient but personally I find 45-50 wins a year and moderate playoff success to be a pretty good consolation prize. I'm still not completely convinced that this team can't reach the finals this season.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I think you said it right there: a "solid" lineup. A lot of this disagreement probably comes down to a difference in philosophy. Me, I'm pretty greedy. My goal is to set up a team that is dominant on paper. I think that lineup is a 50 win team that goes deep into the playoffs every year but I have a hard time seeing the 60-65 win, dominant team that it usually takes to win a title. The only way I see that happening is if a young player blows up.
> 
> Otherwise, I like the idea that between the NY pick, Tyrus, and Thabo two of the three turn into above average players within two years. That would give us a team with eight very good players.
> 
> ...




I'm greedy as well. Greedier than most. 41-41 was unacceptable. 1 and done is unacceptable. I think the Pau for Deng move gives the Bulls the best chance to win the NBA Title.

Its not "impatience"... I feel its the best chance for the Bulls to win a title. 

The idea of "win later" just does not make sense to me without Gasol or another stud big guy, GIVEN OUR CURRENT ROSTER (its not impossible to win without a stud big if you have a SUPERSTAR at another position, which we don’t, or we can try a Pistons model approach, which the Gasol trade gives us). 

If we don't make the trade, we're putting our eggs in Tyrus' basket and the #10 pick in the upcoming draft, where it looks like most of the expected franchise altering big guys are going to be gone. 

Then we're just going to have to make a consolidation trade likely involving two of our assets, just like now. And what PF/C out there is going to be available and better than Gasol? I don't see it.


3 years from now
Hinrich
Gordon/Thabo
Deng (knicks pick?)
Nocioni/TT
????

Sure, maybe we get lucky with a FA or Knicks pick. I don’t see that as a “dominant” lineup on paper by any stretch.

I'll take Gasol. 

(assuming deng plus knicks pick plus brown gets it done and we can get warrick back)

Hinrich
Gordon / Thabo
Nocioni
TT / Warrick
Gasol

I like the latter lineup better. And we can still get lucky with a FA or TT becoming a stud. 

I don't see how your way gives us a "dominant on paper" lineup. 

We very well may be resigned to the fate of a superstar less existence, unless we tank, come across another high lotto pick someway, the #10 pick in the draft becomes one (unlikely), or a consolidation trade better than Gasol comes about (unlikely).


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Nice posts K4E. I'd probably still do Deng and the Knick's pick, but I still don't think that team is the favorite to make the finals. No bench and a fading Wallace. If TT and Thabo make a remarkable step up, then yeah. Otherwise we hope they step up next year and beyond, and hope Wallace doesn't become a complete detriment.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

MikeDC said:


> Nice posts K4E. I'd probably still do Deng and the Knick's pick, but I still don't think that team is the favorite to make the finals. No bench and a fading Wallace. If TT and Thabo make a remarkable step up, then yeah. Otherwise we hope they step up next year and beyond, and hope Wallace doesn't become a complete detriment.


How do we know that Wallace is actually FADING?? I think everyone here forgot that he was injured and he still probably is not 100% from the injury he suffered against the Heat game. Watching him play, I think he is trying to play it safe out on the court (thus his 2 black knee pads and those UGLY-LOOKING high socks) and right now isn't playing the Big Ben we all hoped he would be coming to Chicago.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

K4E, I think we share the same view point on the Gasol Situation.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> The idea of "win later" just does not make sense to me without Gasol or another stud big guy, GIVEN OUR CURRENT ROSTER (its not impossible to win without a stud big if you have a SUPERSTAR at another position, which we don’t, or we can try a Pistons model approach, which the Gasol trade gives us).
> 
> If we don't make the trade, we're putting our eggs in Tyrus' basket and the #10 pick in the upcoming draft, where it looks like most of the expected franchise altering big guys are going to be gone.
> 
> ...


I think there are some contradictions in your stance. In the non-Gasol lineup you claim we're putting all of our eggs in the Tyrus/NY pick. However, the second lineup relies on Tyrus and Noc - who many have agreed is a bit of a risk going forward since he'll be 30 in three years ad takes a beating - rather heavily. I also feel that all this emphasis on Tyrus and the pick obscure the fact that the main issue here is that we're giving up a player who might be averaging 23 and 8 in three years.




kukoc4ever said:


> 3 years from now
> Hinrich
> Gordon/Thabo
> Deng (knicks pick?)
> ...


Hahaha. Well it's hard to look dominant when you have question marks as your starting center. What I meant was more that I want a lineup that if you're looking at it on paper four years from now, it will look dominant. Obviously now if you discuss unknown draft picks, unknown MLEs, and Deng who is not very sexy for some people, it looks far from dominant. Also, depth never looks good on paper, it looks duplicative. In reality though, the last couple weeks demonstrate how vulnerable the team is without Noc on the bench.

I think the Gasol team is a 50 win team without legit title aspirations right now so we need some way of improving on that. It seems to me that it will be difficult to make substantial improvements if we trade both our most promising young player and a likely very good player that can be infused in the lineup in either Tyrus or the pick.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

theanimal23 said:


> K4E, I think we share the same view point on the Gasol Situation.


Me too.


----------

