# Windhorst: Deng traded for Bynum and draft picks



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

https://twitter.com/intent/user?ori...tESPN&tw_i=420432183472308224&tw_p=tweetembed



> Brian Windhorst ‏@WindhorstESPN 12m
> 
> The Cavs turned 24 games of Andrew Bynum into an All-Star small forward in Deng. The Bulls will save $15M+, get below tax, get future 1st.


----------



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

*Re: Windhorst: Deng traded for Bynum and a draft pick*

Good move. Good bye Luol. You were great here and it's unfortunate we could never win it all.


----------



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

*Re: Windhorst: Deng traded for Bynum and a draft pick*

Cavs send Blazers 2015 & 2016 2nd rounder, Sacramento 1st rounder, and right to swap 2015 1st rounder but lottery protected.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Windhorst: Deng traded for Bynum and a draft pick*

A future move for sure. Glad to finally see the bulls make a trade that is a long term move. Commit to the tank and no point in paying the salary tax for a bad team.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Windhorst: Deng traded for Bynum and a draft pick*

hearing that the Kings pick is top 10 protected - anyone else know the specifics on that?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Windhorst: Deng traded for Bynum and a draft pick*

You know what's kind of sad. The bulls will own the right's to a top 5 center for less than 24 hours.


----------



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

*Re: Windhorst: Deng traded for Bynum and a draft pick*



Dornado said:


> hearing that the Kings pick is top 10 protected - anyone else know the specifics on that?


2014 first round draft pick from Sacramento
Sacramento's 1st round pick to Cleveland protected for selections 1-12 in 2014, 1-10 in 2015, 1-10 in 2016 or 1-10 in 2017; if Sacramento has not conveyed a 1st round pick to Cleveland by 2017, then Sacramento will instead convey its 2017 2nd round pick to Cleveland protected for selections 56-60 (if this pick falls within its protected range and is therefore not conveyed, then Sacramento's obligation to Cleveland will be extinguished) [Cleveland-Sacramento, 6/30/2011]


----------



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

*Re: Windhorst: Deng traded for Bynum and a draft pick*



thebizkit69u said:


> You know what's kind of sad. The bulls will own the right's to a top 5 center for less than 24 hours.


He is not a top 5 center or even close to it. He's done.


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

*Re: Windhorst: Deng traded for Bynum and a draft pick*



thebizkit69u said:


> You know what's kind of sad. The bulls will own the right's to a top 5 center for less than 24 hours.


They have had a top center for several seasons already on the team. 

Now, they have a broken down wreck getting 8pts/5rebs. I hope that's not who you were talking about.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Windhorst: Deng traded for Bynum and a draft pick*



> The draft pick is lottery-protected next year, top-13 protected in 2013, top-12 protected in 2014 and top-10 protected from 2015-17. If the Cavs don't receive the pick by 2017, they will receive a second-round pick.
> 
> Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/sam_amick/06/30/kings.trade/index.html#ixzz2pgvovzNf



From when the trade went down in 2011 between Cleveland/Sac - I think that's what MVPtotheWee already posted, but I'm posting it anyway.


----------



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

*Re: Windhorst: Deng traded for Bynum and a draft pick*

Adrian Wojnarowski
Luol Deng rejected a 3 year, $30 million extension with Bulls last week, league source tells Yahoo. Turned out to be prelude to trade.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Windhorst: Deng traded for Bynum and a draft pick*

Will we still amnesty Boozer?


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

*Re: Windhorst: Deng traded for Bynum and a draft pick*

Great move Bulls !!

They had the balls to do what other teams won't do. Give away salary and bring back none in return. Deng, Booz and possibly Rose have run their cycle with this team. Time to look to the future. If you can't challenge for the title, best to get cheap and regroup.

This is why the Cavs will never win. They have nothing for the present and start to give away the future too. Deng will walk and where will they be ??


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Windhorst: Deng traded for Bynum and a draft pick*

Deng was smart to turn it down, Bulls were probably smart not to offer more.


----------



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

*Re: Windhorst: Deng traded for Bynum and a draft pick*

Sam Amico

Not to overwhelm you, but source assures this is not likely #Cavs' nor #Bulls' final trade of yr. But let's just focus on Luol Deng for now.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Windhorst: Deng traded for Bynum and a draft pick*



mvP to the Wee said:


> He is not a top 5 center or even close to it. He's done.


Meant to add when healthy... but yeah he's done. Great trade for the Cavs though...They kept waiters and gained a player that can help get them to the playoffs.... while not giving up a valuable draft pick (lottery protected).


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Windhorst: Deng traded for Bynum and a draft pick*

Those picks being so heavily protected may turn this into a straight salary dump


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Windhorst: Deng traded for Bynum and a draft pick*



Dornado said:


> Deng was smart to turn it down, Bulls were probably smart not to offer more.


I don't know.. I honestly don't see any team paying deng more than 10 mil a year. I think 10 is right on the money, its in line with the recent trend of contracts.

Unless Dallas thinks Deng is a 13+ million player.... I just don't see it.


----------



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

*Re: Windhorst: Deng traded for Bynum and a draft pick*



Dornado said:


> Those picks being so heavily protected may turn this into a straight salary dump


I don't know. I think Cleveland makes the playoffs next season assuming they keep Deng, and I easily see us out playing them next year. The Kings can't be in the top 10 again for 4 more years right? Eventually they'll luck into a top 11 spot or something.


----------



## Fergus (Oct 2, 2002)

I read that the Bulls are expected to move Bynum as well, to give themselves significant salary cap room.

Any thoughts on how easy that will be?


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

*Re: Windhorst: Deng traded for Bynum and a draft pick*



Dornado said:


> Will we still amnesty Boozer?


Give him to Charlotte for Ben Gordon's expiring. If you can anything else out of them (best case would probably be Portland's first rounder this year) it's gravy, and it has the added bonus of making it more likely you get their first this year as well.



Fergus said:


> I read that the Bulls are expected to move Bynum as well, to give themselves significant salary cap room.
> 
> Any thoughts on how easy that will be?


Very easy - they waive him and he comes off the books.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Fergus said:


> I read that the Bulls are expected to move Bynum as well, to give themselves significant salary cap room.
> 
> Any thoughts on how easy that will be?


Is it too late for him to be waived? I figured they'd just release him and take advantage of his partially guaranteed contract.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Sad to see Luol Deng leave the Bulls...

BUT, I think this is a very smart trade for the Bulls moving forward. 

My only concern is (as I said in many threads), how do Thibs and Rose feel about losing Deng for essentially draft picks and salary dump? I am sure they aren't happy about it. So we'll see the magnitude of the fall out here. 

Still, it's the right move to make...
(a) there was NO point in paying luxury tax this year with the repeater penalty looming in the future, 
(b) we make the Bulls worse (higher draft pick) while making Cleveland better (they should finish above us, again helping our draft position)
(c) we get some decent assets in return for a guy we'd likely lose anyways,
(d) we avoid overpaying Deng into his 30's when he will likely decline

IMO, the Bulls are loading up for a potential mega-trade down the line. They have a ton of draft picks now along w/ young talent like Mirotic, Snell, and Butler, and vets on reasonable contracts (Taj, Noah). I think they are targeting Kevin Love, personally.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

I thought the Bulls could get more for Deng then a late 1st and a cash dump.

I do agree though that I wouldn't want to lock Deng in at any more than 10 mil a year, but its clear some team will pay more than that this offseason.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

R-Star said:


> I thought the Bulls could get more for Deng then a late 1st and a cash dump.
> 
> I do agree though that I wouldn't want to lock Deng in at any more than 10 mil a year, but *its clear some team will pay more than that this offseason*.


Cleveland will try and pay him more than that to extend with them before the offseason.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

RollWithEm said:


> Cleveland will try and pay him more than that to extend with them before the offseason.


Depends. Lebron is supposedly opting out of his last year. If that's the case I can see Cleveland doing everything in their power to make cap room available even though its a pipe dream. 

Then they'll panic and max out someone like Gasol once Lebron spurns them.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Depends. Lebron is supposedly opting out of his last year. If that's the case I can see Cleveland doing everything in their power to make cap room available even though its a pipe dream.
> 
> Then they'll panic and max out someone like Gasol once Lebron spurns them.


They're not getting Lebron. This is their best chance to get a veteran locked up on a somewhat reasonable deal. They should try to extend Deng.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

RollWithEm said:


> They're not getting Lebron. This is their best chance to get a veteran locked up on a somewhat reasonable deal. They should try to extend Deng.


I'm not speaking for what the best common sense move will be. I'm speaking for what someone like Dan Gilbert will do.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

R-Star said:


> I'm not speaking for what the best common sense move will be. I'm speaking for what someone like Dan Gilbert will do.


You're probably right.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

yodurk said:


> Sad to see Luol Deng leave the Bulls...
> 
> BUT, I think this is a very smart trade for the Bulls moving forward.
> 
> ...



This basically sums up all my thoughts on the matter.

Good move. Is it as much as I was hoping? No. But, they managed to improve tank potential this year and got some marginal and contingent draft picks along with it. 

Thibs is going to be furious, which, frankly, is silly.

Dunleavy has to be next. He has played well and is on a reasonable deal. Multiple teams would want him.

Hinrich has to be the priority after that, even though that will be more difficult. What about OKC? Wouldn't you rather have Hinrich, even with all his lumps, than the corpse of Derrick Fisher?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

R-Star said:


> I thought the Bulls could get more for Deng then a late 1st and a cash dump.


I'm not really surprised by the Bulls' return on this trade. It's a half-season rental of Deng + first dibs at extending/re-signing him at $14M+ per season. Not many teams would be lining up for that. That's why when the season started I predicted Deng would not be traded, because Deng was more valuable to the Bulls than to any other team (however that all changed when Rose went down as all title hopes evaporated).

That being said, it's a good move for Cleveland. Luol Deng is exactly the type of player they need. That's a team with some good young talent, but no veteran "glue guy" to help them convert talent into wins. They also aren't about to lure any big name free agents, so they are one of the few teams able to overpay Deng without killing them down the line.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I'm not really surprised by the Bulls' return on this trade. It's a half-season rental of Deng + first dibs at extending/re-signing him at $14M+ per season. Not many teams would be lining up for that. That's why when the season started I predicted Deng would not be traded, because Deng was more valuable to the Bulls than to any other team (however that all changed when Rose went down as all title hopes evaporated).
> 
> That being said, it's a good move for Cleveland. Luol Deng is exactly the type of player they need. That's a team with some good young talent, but no veteran "glue guy" to help them convert talent into wins. They also aren't about to lure any big name free agents, so they are one of the few teams able to overpay Deng without killing them down the line.


If Deng cons someone into paying him 14+ a year he deserves an award.

Hes a good player, but his injury history would scare me away from any kind of money like that.


----------



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

R-Star said:


> If Deng cons someone into paying him 14+ a year he deserves an award.
> 
> Hes a good player, but his injury history would scare me away from any kind of money like that.


Josh Smith got a team to pay him 14 million annually. Deng can definitely find someone to at least match that.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

I'd guess Luol gets at least 12, but probably on a short term deal


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Just in case you are interested, here's the email I just received from GarPax to season ticket holders:



> A Message from Gar Forman and John Paxson
> 
> Last night the Chicago Bulls announced that Luol Deng was traded to the Cleveland Cavaliers. It is always tough to lose someone like Luol. We have great respect for him as a player and a person. He has been an incredible contributor to our team on the court, while also doing great things in the community. On behalf of the entire organization, we want to thank Luol for his years in Chicago and wish him the best going forward.
> 
> ...


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

^^^ That was actually really, really cool.

Ive never been a season ticket holder, so I dont know if thats common...but it seems pretty awesome of them


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

I don't get it. I thought we were moving Deng for a star. Where is the poster/are the posters who said the Bulls were preparing for a mythical "consolidation" trade? 

Luol Deng and Joakim Noah are closer to a Terry Porter or Charles Oakley in terms of impact/talent than they are to a Scottie Pippen. I knew that years ago.

The Bulls and their chooch GM and VP had a chance to get something decent for Jerome Kersey Deng two years ago. But they didn't want to trade Luol McDaniel errr Xavier Deng because .. well, let's take a break. 

Paxson's explanation for offers to Deng and Gordon that they both ironically turned down? "I wanted to reward them for making the Bulls relevant again." Gordon turned down their money and so they gave Deng even MORE. That's not how you run a championship operation. If you have a player like Derrick Rose in the fold, you think about how you can get a championship caliber #2.. you don't think about REWARDS for players you like. You don't sit there and reward your guy because after all, he is YOUR guy, isn't he?

So you refused to trade your precious love child when he was going to bring back a return and EVEN THIS WEEK these idiots thought that the rest of the league loves their boy as much as they do to the point that they thought they were getting a player AND a 1st! LOL ok. F-ing dumbbleep morons who think you could put 1979 Notre Dame on the floor and contend for a championship in the NBA...

So, now you have Joakim Noah. Guess the F what.. his ass isn't Scottie Pippen either or Kevin McHale.. he's much closer ALSO to a Buck Williams than he is to a championship caliber #2.

He's a gifted defensive center with almost no individual offense.. the ONE trait that has made centers valuable over the years other than shot blocking. As a defender, he's not David Robinson. He's not some paint patrolling force. He's a nice, decent player who is probably the THIRD best player on a championship team on a good day. On a good day...

SO.. are you going to get to the point where you have to give Noah away too? Or are you going to get something for him while his value is decent. Cause you're off your freaking rocker if you don't think that they could have gotten DeMarcus Cousins for Noah two summers ago... at least as the principle player.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

*Re: Windhorst: Deng traded for Bynum and a draft pick*



mvP to the Wee said:


> Good move. Good bye Luol. You were great here and it's unfortunate we could never win it all.


He was "great" here? Who else do you consider great? Would you say that Larry Nance and Brad Daugherty were "great" players?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

*Re: Windhorst: Deng traded for Bynum and a draft pick*



LA68 said:


> Great move Bulls !!
> 
> They had the balls to do what other teams won't do. Give away salary and bring back none in return. Deng, Booz and possibly Rose have run their cycle with this team. Time to look to the future. If you can't challenge for the title, best to get cheap and regroup.
> 
> This is why the Cavs will never win. They have nothing for the present and start to give away the future too. Deng will walk and where will they be ??


I don't get it. Rose's injury isn't the kind of injury that is part of being injury prone. A torn ACL or torn meniscus can happen if you've had one or 12 tears or NO tears. 

So, you want to move on from Rose but NOT Noah? So, have you seen a lot of teams that rebuild by tanking but tanking WITH a player like Noah on their roster?

Why do you guys love Joakim Noah so much? I understand liking his style.. but why this idea that he's any better than Larry Nance. Would you guys say, "yes! We will rebuild and start with a new core built around Larry Nance"???


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Diable said:


> I'd guess Luol gets at least 12, but probably on a short term deal


He should have gotten 4 years, 36 million from us the year Rose was drafted max.


----------



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

*Re: Windhorst: Deng traded for Bynum and a draft pick*



Hoodey said:


> He was "great" here? Who else do you consider great? Would you say that Larry Nance and Brad Daugherty were "great" players?


Oh great our favorite donkey is back.


----------



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

We should have listened to Hoodey earlier and traded for Bynum the year the 76ers did. Deng for Bynum what were you thinking GarPax?!?! The trade was a lot better in 2012, not so much 2014.


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

*Re: Windhorst: Deng traded for Bynum and a draft pick*



Hoodey said:


> I don't get it. Rose's injury isn't the kind of injury that is part of being injury prone. A torn ACL or torn meniscus can happen if you've had one or 12 tears or NO tears.
> 
> So, you want to move on from Rose but NOT Noah? So, have you seen a lot of teams that rebuild by tanking but tanking WITH a player like Noah on their roster?
> 
> Why do you guys love Joakim Noah so much? I understand liking his style.. but why this idea that he's any better than Larry Nance. Would you guys say, "yes! We will rebuild and start with a new core built around Larry Nance"???


Not necessarily move from Rose but, move from wasting season after season waiting for one guy to get healthy. Check the 2000 - 2004 Magic to see where that gets you. Thibodeau is a fine coach. No reason why Noah, Gibson, Butler and Snell plus some more pieces can't turn into a team at least as good as the Pacers who will be their competition for the next few years.

Larry Nance helped the Cavs win 57 games in a conference with Jordan's Bulls and Detroit's bad boys. That's pretty impressive. Noah runs the floor, protects the paint, does the dirty work most won't do. He's a very valuable player. 

Don't get caught up in numbers. They only tell part of the story.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

mvP to the Wee said:


> We should have listened to Hoodey earlier and traded for Bynum the year the 76ers did. Deng for Bynum what were you thinking GarPax?!?! The trade was a lot better in 2012, not so much 2014.


Bujumbura is injury riddled. Healthy? He was much more relevant to a title than Deng or Noah ever will be. Twice. Wouldn't paxson want to REWARD him for that?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

*Re: Windhorst: Deng traded for Bynum and a draft pick*



LA68 said:


> Not necessarily move from Rose but, move from wasting season after season waiting for one guy to get healthy. Check the 2000 - 2004 Magic to see where that gets you. Thibodeau is a fine coach. No reason why Noah, Gibson, Butler and Snell plus some more pieces can't turn into a team at least as good as the Pacers who will be their competition for the next few years.
> 
> Larry Nance helped the Cavs win 57 games in a conference with Jordan's Bulls and Detroit's bad boys. That's pretty impressive. Noah runs the floor, protects the paint, does the dirty work most won't do. He's a very valuable player.
> 
> Don't get caught up in numbers. They only tell part of the story.


Wow... you just turned Nance into the primary force of those cavs and a legend. Bulls fans..


----------



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

Hoodey said:


> Bujumbura is injury riddled. Healthy? He was much more relevant to a title than Deng or Noah ever will be. Twice. Wouldn't paxson want to REWARD him for that?


Ever since you suggested we trade for Bynum he has gotten hurt, missed an entire season with the 76ers, signed a deal with the Cavaliers, played like absolute shit, been suspended from the team, had his desire to play the game questioned by not only his team, but hall of famer Kareem Abdul Jabaar, and has talked about retiring.

But see, your the type of fan that always loves these players, especially the big men, with huge attitude problems and use the excuse of potential when things aren't panning out perfectly. In your fantasy world, these players will magically turn it all around. "Oh, but look at his coach, he would do so much better with a guy like Thibodeau because he teaches discipline" is what all of you people love to say. Newsflash, their own teams go through coaches and coaches because they have the same idiotic thinking as you, that these players will eventually figure it out.

If you were the general manager, your team would be filled with the Bynum's, Cousins', Ricky Davis', JR Smith's, Amar'e Stoudemire's, Darius Miles', because you think you can fix stupid. There's a reason that the people that think like you end up drafting them and there's a reason that those same people end up never winning anything with their teams. "Oh but they're so talented" you say. So tell me what has their talent ever gotten them other than a bunch of losing seasons with no playoff appearances. You would rather go with a group of lazy, ungrateful losers than a group of players that actually care about their jobs and don't call it a career as soon as that first paycheck comes. But these players have talent, so wouldn't you people want to REWARD him for that? You idiot lovers will never get a team anywhere, but you're too blind to see what their teams really lead to.


Who sees what I just did there? Reps to the first one.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

mvP to the Wee said:


> Ever since you suggested we trade for Bynum he has gotten hurt, missed an entire season with the 76ers, signed a deal with the Cavaliers, played like absolute shit, been suspended from the team, had his desire to play the game questioned by not only his team, but hall of famer Kareem Abdul Jabaar, and has talked about retiring.
> 
> But see, your the type of fan that always loves these players, especially the big men, with huge attitude problems and use the excuse of potential when things aren't panning out perfectly. In your fantasy world, these players will magically turn it all around. "Oh, but look at his coach, he would do so much better with a guy like Thibodeau because he teaches discipline" is what all of you people love to say. Newsflash, their own teams go through coaches and coaches because they have the same idiotic thinking as you, that these players will eventually figure it out.
> 
> ...


Oh wow, you think you know me but you don't brother...

First, yes, I do think you take a lot of risks for the raw talent you need to have an edge on other teams deep in the playoffs. So, whether it's a big man.. a true center.. a position that has produced players who have had more impact on titles than any other position OR a potential superstar, yes, you take risks. I'm not alone on this. Paxson took a risk on Tyrus Thomas. Didn't work out, right? Just like Bynum, right? Well, you're not going to be right 100% of the time. In fact, I'd say that GMs who are right 75% of the time and who are proven wrong as much as I was on Bynum over the past two years 25% of the time are putting championship level teams together. If you can be right even 60% of the time consistently, you can make a lot of money in Vegas or on Wall Street. Paxson's only blame on Thomas in my book is that he got burned once and stopped. So, don't sell me this idea that EVEN HE never thought risk was a good idea. 

Here's where we differ. Do you know where championship teams separate themselves from Finals and Conference Finals runners up? At the TOP of the roster. You guys just like this clown Evan who called the Score yesterday.. all think you can win like this...

"Well, we Rose is at the top of the roster with Lebron. Lebron has a player in Bosh who isn't a laughing stock as a championship caliber #2. Do we need to get one? No. We'll roll with imitators like Noah, because we'll just try to get 5 or 6 guys who are as good as Miami's 3rd and 4th best players. If we can just have our 5th and 6th best player consistently beating Miami's 5th and 6th best player we'll overwhelm them."

Do you know how many times Jordan's Bulls trounced teams who had better players in the middle of the roster than Bill Cartwright, John Paxson, Scott Williams/Stacey King/Will Perdue and BJ Armstrong. What, you don't think the Cleveland Cavaliers or New York Knicks were far better than the Bulls when you got past Jordan and Pippen v. Price and Daugherty or Ewing and Starks or Oakley? 

So, yes, I am willing to ship a Luol Deng for Andrew Bynum in 2012. A couple things...

1) You do realize that 2009 and 2010 did actually happen right? I think you should go back and watch the Finals from both of those years because unlike all of the other idiots you tried to pigeon hole Bynum with, he was actually very relevant to a couple of Finals victories. Funny that with Bynum hurt in 08 the Finals went one way and then with him more active and playing a larger role, it was much different v. Boston. 

Because that series shows you what a big center who can score and sometimes who is a paint patroller (NOT NOAH) can do... especially v. Miami. My god they've been held up and even BEATEN by far inferior teams who have taken advantage of the fact that Miami can't guard the low post.

2) Luol Deng and Joakim Noah aren't very good. Paxson was right! What is their value? After Krause made the 99-04 Bulls freaking UNWATCHABLE, these intangible filled players made them watchable. And that's great. But that doesn't mean they are championship players at the top of the roster! Do you f-ing understand that?!? By the time they were drafted I had seen enough NBA basketball to have a pretty good sniff test when separating players like Luol Deng, Joakim Noah and OTHERS LIKE THEM like Buck Williams, Terry Porter, Xavier McDaniel, Jerome Kersey, Larry Nance, John Starks, Charles Oakley, Dale Davis, Dikembe Motumbo (just as offensively challenged as Noah v. someone with actual size, a MUCH more dominant defender), Vlade Divac, Steve Smith (Blazers), etc. from players like Scottie Pippen, Kevin McHale, Pau Gasol, Tony Parker, Kobe Bryant (first 3 rings), etc. etc.

I think with a player like Rose you go the OKC rout and don't mind sucking rather than commit to players like Deng and Noah. Because I've seen the 90s Blazers, Cavs, Knicks and so many other teams like them on and on headed into the present moment. Once you commit to guys that players like Wade (2012), Bryant, Parker, Pippen, McHale, Pierce, etc. abuse, you're done! You're not making up for it by being as much better than the Blazers were when you got down to Cartwright v. Jerome Kersey.

Finally, you sort of threw a lot of guys I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole into the mix. Where did you get this idea that I like the same players as hypesters? Other than really young players who have a lot of talent and haven't proven to be total idiots (DeRozan) or true centers, I'm not huge on the type you've listed. I've been involved in big threads here on why Carmelo Anthony ALWAYS has been and always will be shitty. I hated McGrady his whole career. In fact, I'm a big proponent of the idea that there are probably less than 5-6 superstars in a league at any given time and VERY discriminant on who you slap that label on.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

R-Star said:


> If Deng cons someone into paying him 14+ a year he deserves an award.
> 
> Hes a good player, but his injury history would scare me away from any kind of money like that.


I agree completely, that is why I am perfectly OK with this trade and not making a concerted effort to re-sign him in the off-season to a bloated deal. I would've been cool with the 3-yr, $30M extension the Bulls offered as that's fair for his production, but anything much more is something the Bulls would come to regret down the line.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> Bujumbura is injury riddled. Healthy? He was much more relevant to a title than Deng or Noah ever will be. Twice. Wouldn't paxson want to REWARD him for that?


Bynum is a headcase with some talent. He won titles riding the coattails of 2 talented players. Deng could've done the same if their roles were switched. Both are 3rd options and solid defenders on any decent title team, the difference being Deng isn't a head case and has some good years ahead of him still.

It's OK to admit you were wrong about Bynum. But on the plus side you should be happy, finally got your long desired Deng for Bynum trade.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Windhorst: Deng traded for Bynum and a draft pick*



LA68 said:


> Not necessarily move from Rose but, move from wasting season after season waiting for one guy to get healthy. Check the 2000 - 2004 Magic to see where that gets you. Thibodeau is a fine coach. No reason why *Noah, Gibson, Butler and Snell plus some more pieces can't turn into a team at least as good as the Pacers *who will be their competition for the next few years.
> 
> Larry Nance helped the Cavs win 57 games in a conference with Jordan's Bulls and Detroit's bad boys. That's pretty impressive. Noah runs the floor, protects the paint, does the dirty work most won't do. He's a very valuable player.
> 
> Don't get caught up in numbers. They only tell part of the story.


Really? Why aren't the even close to competing with them now with those exact pieces? Why are they 13 games behind without even half of the season being played yet?

I mean I could understand if you were saying they should make some changes, but no. You're saying basically stay the course and add a couple more complimentary guys and there's no reason they can't _at least_ be as good as the league leading Pacers.

Makes sense.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

That email from Paxson to the season ticket holders was amazing to read. Good stuff Bulls!


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I agree completely, that is why I am perfectly OK with this trade and not making a concerted effort to re-sign him in the off-season to a bloated deal. I would've been cool with the 3-yr, $30M extension the Bulls offered as that's fair for his production, but anything much more is something the Bulls would come to regret down the line.


Yep. Some people seem to think whatever open market value is is a fair deal. Sure some bad GM will offer Deng 14-16 mil a year on a 4 year deal somewhere. There is no time during that deal that it will look like a good deal though.

If Deng plays the way hes playing now, even with a bit of drop off as he ages, you'd think you got a pretty good deal at 10mil. Those are the types of deals you want to see for anything outside of a star player.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

To me there's also a big difference in what you pay a guy like Luol Deng if you are a serious contender and what you pay him when you're in the position the Bulls are in... if we were still a 60+ win team with a realistic shot you might suck it up with a guy like Deng on a three year deal and figure out a way to deal with the major luxury tax implications... not saying you should, but you could at least justify it.

For us, the math just doesn't add up. I think we offered him 10 million knowing full well he wouldn't take it... his options were to either 1. take the hometown discount or 2. hit the road because we are NOT in the championship window at this point and even the act of amnestying Boozer (i.e. losing a major asset for nothing) would have left us just enough breathing room to bring over Mirotic, and not much else. 

Deng seems to be a polarizing player... I tend to think he brings a solid game on both ends and fits the definition of "borderline all-star". I was a little surprised to read that he is the 4th leading scorer in Bulls history. The real test of this will be what we do with the space we've created by letting him go (and what we do with the Sac pick).


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Hoodey said:


> He should have gotten 4 years, 36 million from us the year Rose was drafted max.



That would be great if you could have gotten Deng to give you a one third discount. Why don't you go demand that your boss to pay you a third more than you're worth and see how that works for you.

You really do not seem to understand how this works. Players aren't getting these contracts for no reason. Deng is getting paid what a player like Deng gets in the NBA. The Bulls paid him a market driven contract, not one driven by delusions.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Diable said:


> That would be great if you could have gotten Deng to give you a one third discount. Why don't you go demand that your boss to pay you a third more than you're worth and see how that works for you.
> 
> You really do not seem to understand how this works. Players aren't getting these contracts for no reason. Deng is getting paid what a player like Deng gets in the NBA. The Bulls paid him a market driven contract, not one driven by delusions.


True. But you can't fault a team for not overpaying. 

If this off season someone offers Lance Stephenson 12 mil a year, I'd hope the Pacers let him walk. I'd love to keep the guy, but teams really need to quit overpaying for players.


----------



## BobStackhouse42 (Oct 7, 2010)

Someone will give him a big offer. Stephenson will be gone if the Pacers think like you.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

BobStackhouse42 said:


> Someone will give him a big offer. Stephenson will be gone if the Pacers think like you.


If the Pacers can get a serviceable replacement for him at an affordable price though, it won't be a disaster. Guys like Gerald Henderson or Arron Afflalo are fully capable of stepping into the starting role for a more palatable price (something like $6m/year for Henderson or $7.5m/year for Afflalo). If the alternative is salary-dumping George Hill, you may be better off going the sign and trade route, depending on what the market pays him.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

BobStackhouse42 said:


> Someone will give him a big offer. Stephenson will be gone if the Pacers think like you.


I'm perfectly fine letting Lance walk if the price is 12 mil a year. 

You think that's a mistake?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

so deng was traded for a mid 1st rounder hopefully sometime in the next 3 years along with 2 likely late 2nd rounders ....if not its Sacramento 2nd rounder in 2018 and 2 likely late 2nd rounders.

it was a bad organizational move even having on the roster this long if they knew they weren't going to sign him(and they had to have known), it backed them into a corner and the league knew it, they are lucky to have gotten as much as they did.

deng's value is pretty easily determined by by players of his age and talent level/production level(guys like iggy and josh smith)...and its pretty clear that's in the 12-14 mil a year category ....that the bulls aren't willing to pay it isn't a problem for me, teams have different needs,agendas etc ...but that they lack the foresight and management ability to cash out before it was common knowledge is a huge problem.

this is a mediocre front office at best.


----------



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

Hoodey said:


> *Oh wow, you think you know me but you don't brother...
> *
> First, yes, I do think you take a lot of risks for the raw talent you need to have an edge on other teams deep in the playoffs. So, whether it's a big man.. a true center.. a position that has produced players who have had more impact on titles than any other position OR a potential superstar, yes, you take risks. I'm not alone on this. Paxson took a risk on Tyrus Thomas. Didn't work out, right? Just like Bynum, right? Well, you're not going to be right 100% of the time. In fact, I'd say that GMs who are right 75% of the time and who are proven wrong as much as I was on Bynum over the past two years 25% of the time are putting championship level teams together. If you can be right even 60% of the time consistently, you can make a lot of money in Vegas or on Wall Street. Paxson's only blame on Thomas in my book is that he got burned once and stopped. So, don't sell me this idea that EVEN HE never thought risk was a good idea.
> 
> ...


I'm not going to talk about the other things, since it's been proven that it will go on for pages and pages with no conclusion, but you're notorious for putting words in other posters mouths and making up their opinion for them. I just used your same tactic and turned it around on you.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

yodurk said:


> Bynum is a headcase with some talent. He won titles riding the coattails of 2 talented players. Deng could've done the same if their roles were switched. Both are 3rd options and solid defenders on any decent title team, the difference being Deng isn't a head case and has some good years ahead of him still.
> 
> It's OK to admit you were wrong about Bynum. But on the plus side you should be happy, finally got your long desired Deng for Bynum trade.


What Bynum IS is not at issue. I proposed the trade in 2012. What he was THEN was a guy who was just two years removed from being a consistent offensive threat in the Finals on the way to consecutive victories. 

I still don't see how me being wrong, when we'll ALL BE WRONG, makes Luol Deng or Joakim Noah players who are or EVER HAVE BEEN championship caliber players in the roles Paxson has cast them in. 

I think I made a mistake in that I set the standard low on what Deng could do. Deng should have been doing more than Bynum for the money he was paid and the role he was cast in. And if someone's point is, "well, for what you're expecting, you should really get 18 mill a year, not 14." Okay, great. Instead of paying 3 guys what you paid Noah, Deng and Boozer, I would have been elated if they only were willing to give big money to ONE guy if he was better than all three of them and DID pay THAT guy 18...


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Diable said:


> That would be great if you could have gotten Deng to give you a one third discount. Why don't you go demand that your boss to pay you a third more than you're worth and see how that works for you.
> 
> You really do not seem to understand how this works. Players aren't getting these contracts for no reason. Deng is getting paid what a player like Deng gets in the NBA. The Bulls paid him a market driven contract, not one driven by delusions.


Oh I understand, you don't. 

You seem to think we needed Deng. As if you're not accounting for the option that he walks. 

Me: Offer him 4 years 36 mill in 2008.
You: But he'd walk cause he could get more
Me: (Response you're not anticipating) GREAT! I would have loved it if he did.

You get a player like Rose and honestly, you can't tell me the ODDS are that he'd get hurt in two straight years or that you'd ever know that in 2008. Why do you need a player like Luol Deng? 

Someone here once asked me, "so, you're basically saying you'd either pay a player 15+ if he was worth that as a superstar or nothing.. either 15 or 7 or LESS?" They thought they were making this great point... response they did not anticipate...

YES!! THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE F I'M saying. 

Not getting that championship #2 stings. The only thing worse that striking out on Lebron (which would have made Rose the #2) or Wade or whoever is deciding, motivated by fear that you'll become Jerry Krause's Bulls (the central motivation of EVERYTHING this raging dumbf*ck does and the fear he can sell to the chooch followers of his "right way" doctrine), that you have to settle for a guy who is NOT a championship #2 and committing to that guy for 80% of the price. 80% of the player for 80% of the price on a locked in deal does something very bad to you...

It robs you of all of the opportunities to see the right guy in the future.. the guy you will never get or even know you could have gotten because you're no longer picking high enough and your free agent dollars are gone.

I fall back on what OKC did when they got Durant. They didn't pay anyone more than like 6 or 7 million Durant's first two years, they tanked and got Westbrook, Ibaka and Harden. Now, they royally f'd up when they traded Harden, but that doesn't make getting Harden in the first place a bad thing. 

And what will I get back from you.. arguments for some other idiot that Paxson HAD TO sign Deng and Noah. You LIKE Deng and Noah, but at the same time you'll run out this disingenuous argument that these two guys are the only guys we COULD HAVE signed.. the circumstantial approach. 

My counter is this. It's all about the players you want. If you want to have a try hard bunch of guys whose best attributes are their intangibles, you will. If you want to risk a lot and know that you might end up with a head case or two, you'll do that too. Rosters don't happen by accident. Now, if you think Deng and Noah are just that good, say so. I mean, I'll literally skullpound that argument (as would anyone else), but don't feed me the anticipated response that they had no choice at ALL but to do what they did with those two.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

mvP to the Wee said:


> I'm not going to talk about the other things, since it's been proven that it will go on for pages and pages with no conclusion, but you're notorious for putting words in other posters mouths and making up their opinion for them. I just used your same tactic and turned it around on you.


Do you think they're good? Do you think they belong with the Terry Porters and Larry Nances of the world or with players like Scottie Pippen?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

It's kinda sad. The same people who love Noah and Deng. 

Ok, let me stop. I happen to like them both in a vacuum too. It's not that they suck or belong in the D-league. I like the energy Noah brings and I like the roles that Deng can fill. The problem is when people, including Paxson in the past and currently with Noah.. can't look past the fact that they LIKE something and see it for what it is. 

I LIKE Noah and Deng as 3rd best players on very bargain deals. In fact, Noah's deal IF you got Deng and Boozer out of here and didn't pay anyone would be fine, except that he makes the draft pick too high. But Noah and Deng are the kind of players you stop and say, "hey, you're pretty good. But you're never going to be the guy or even the second guy who defines this organization as a champion. So, I have to lowball you. And if someone else wants to pay you because they're afraid of not being merely competitive, so they're willing to sell out for good regular seasons and first and second rounds, then as much as I like you, you gotta go." 

I wouldn't take Joakim Noah over Horace Grant, or Luol Deng over Horace Grant, but if we hadn't gotten Grant and had still had Oakley, I'd probably take NOAH over Oakley. So, it's not like I'm saying he sucks. 

But what's going to happen here will be sad. If this organization DOES get a Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen type duo or someone like Shaq and another secondary star or even Bird and McHale type players, there will be people who LIKE Deng and Noah, who try to make them out to be WAY more than they were because as fans they think it's cool to like someone and lose perspective.

It's the same crap that I watched during the Jordan years and the pushy constant need to overglorify Sloan, Boerwinkle, Love and Van Lier. AGAIN, all good players.. players that justify the need to constantly plug them into Bulls playoff broadcasts with REAL superstars and stars like Michael f-ing Jordan, Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant? No. They should have been a little mentioned footnote.

I ask Paxson fans this all the time.. they think Deng is good and they'll all be looking back to the good ole days of Luol Deng even if we have a player like Pippen in the future who isn't drafted by their patriarch of right way.. Paxson. I ask this. If John Paxson drafted a player like Scottie Pippen.. a player who had Pippen's skillset and raw talent, do you people know exactly how much you'd lose your mind. And, I happen to think that Scottie Pippen was better than Derrick Rose. 

The point of mentioning Pippen and MJ so much in this post? Once again, we will have players that good at some point.. it's likely in a market like Chicago. Not as good as MJ, but we'll get a Pippen at some point. And I'll have to watch highlights of Crusty the Noah making his clown faces while some jerkoff who acts as the new age Neil Funk (sp) reminisces over Noah or Deng like they're freaking Wilt Chamberlain.

Had either of them signed for Taj Gibson money and had Paxson gone out and gotten a Paul Pierce or Scottie Pippen or Pau Gasol, I'd be the biggest fan of either of these guys cast in THAT role for THAT money. But in the roles they've been cast in, can anyone be man enough to admit it's too much damn money and too big of a role if you want a title and it's time to move on from ALL OF THEM, maybe EVEN Rose?


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Well glad to see Deng finally gone. Sucks another season is a wash though. Best case scenario for the Bulls? Missing the playoffs and lucking into Zach LaVine. LaVine would give a dynamic SG next to Rose, plus great defense, and an insurance policy in case Rose gets hurt again. Butler at SF, Taj at PF and Noah at C. Sounds pretty good to me. Throw Mirotic in, and maybe a shooter like Doug McDermott to replace the 3rd Dookie shown the door this offseason (he gets comparisons to Korver, so he's gotta provide something) and maybe they can make a really quick turnaround here.


----------



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

Hoodey said:


> Do you think they're good? Do you think they belong with the Terry Porters and Larry Nances of the world or with players like Scottie Pippen?


They are both good 3rd options in this league.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

mvP to the Wee said:


> They are both good 3rd options in this league.


Okay, so, getting back to the premise of my entire posting shelf life...

a) If you know that now, and I was telling you that THEN, why build around these guys as if they are #2 options? Why forego other opportunities by locking Deng into that ridiculous contract (Noah's deal isn't bad actually, it's more so that he ruins your draft position by making you just good enough to lack high picks, but never being the kind of player who will make you good enough to be a favorite or close to it to win a ring)?

And you can say, "well, it's market value." Yes, market value can be set by another STUPID team overpaying for Josh Smith or whoever was the poster child for overpayment in 08. That doesn't make it a good idea for you to follow suit if you're Paxson. Championship teams don't pay Luol Deng that kind of scratch. 

You can also say, as I anticipate (and no, not putting words in your mouth, I am framing a plausible response), "well, a REAL, legit #2 option.. say if Paul Pierce were young and in his prime today, would make 18 million! So surely Deng is worth 75% of that." 

That's where you miss the boat (again if you ARE saying that; and quite a few have made that argument). A guy is either worth 18 million or he's worth 8 or less. Championship teams are not built with top roster players who are "$14 million dollar players because they're 75% of the player Kobe was in LA in 2001." You don't win by saying, "well, sure, we'll suffer a talent gap in terms of our second and third best player, but we'll go get a fourth and fifth best player who are even BETTER than Miami's 4th and 5th options."

Wee, if you want to see how that looks, go watch the series between the Cavs and Bulls in 1989 or 1992, 1993, whatever. 

b) If Noah is a good 3rd option, why would you want to keep him now? And feel free, so I'm not putting words in your mouth, to say, "I don't." You need a lot more talent at the top of this roster, because even if Rose does come back, I am a proponent that while he may be a plausible championship #1 option, it's a stretch and his peak value is likely a sliver south of Scottie Pippen's peak value (and in 1994, it wasn't a laughing stock that the Bulls could have been champions in a bad league). 

You need to be BETTER than Miami in terms of your 2nd and 3rd best player. Significantly better. Because Lebron is significantly better than Rose. 

Trade Noah for a draft pick, tank, and put together an arsenal of top picks and huge free agent dollars. Get strong two places.. by getting Rose back and then by having the best supporting non-#2/#3 role players you can get for less than $10 mill like Gibson, Butler, etc. Go into this summer with either DeMarcus Cousins for Noah or a lotto pick, a player and future picks... whichever you prefer, and await Rose's return. 

What does Noah provide? A remedy for fear. "Hey, remember those Krause days. If we make one season worth of moves that are risks, we could end up right back there tomorrow! Because that is the destiny we must always run from, right!" It reminds me of Jerry Rice, who has admitted to strange behavior seeking perfection because he has constant nightmares that he'll become a bum and lose it all. Paxson's dogmatic insistence that you must always compete for everything you can today ignores the war for the battle. I am not saying I endorse years or decades of tanking, but it has it's place. The Spurs could have done more to compete the year Robinson got hurt, but they wanted Tim Duncan. So they let it ride.. 

Players like Noah have their place. After you trade him for DeMarcus Cousins, luck out in the lottery and get a #2 pick and add that player to the roster.. then you try to find money to put players like Noah in behind whoever your future #2 star will be. Players like Noah and Deng don't come first. On a championship team...

THEY NEVER HAVE


----------



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

Hoodey said:


> Okay, so, getting back to the premise of my entire posting shelf life...
> 
> a) If you know that now, and I was telling you that THEN, why build around these guys as if they are #2 options? Why forego other opportunities by locking Deng into that ridiculous contract (Noah's deal isn't bad actually, it's more so that he ruins your draft position by making you just good enough to lack high picks, but never being the kind of player who will make you good enough to be a favorite or close to it to win a ring)?
> 
> ...


I fully understand your line of thinking, but I still believe had Rose not got hurt we'd have a championship under our belt. From a talent standpoint, no we never had enough, but you need to factor in Thibodeau's coaching and how Noah and Deng fit what he wanted defensively perfectly. Would I have traded Deng for a star if ever available? Yes. Noah? It depends who it is and the contract. Right now Noah is on a good deal, knowing the going rate for centers now, and there are still far too many question marks surrounding Cousins' attitude and if he'd ever fit in with Thibodeau. Didn't Cousins have trouble with Calipari who was considered a 'players coach'? Now he's going to just get along with Thibs? I rather just draft Embiid and develop him than go through the trouble of Cousins.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

mvP to the Wee said:


> I fully understand your line of thinking, but I still believe had Rose not got hurt we'd have a championship under our belt. From a talent standpoint, no we never had enough, but you need to factor in Thibodeau's coaching and how Noah and Deng fit what he wanted defensively perfectly. Would I have traded Deng for a star if ever available? Yes. Noah? It depends who it is and the contract. Right now Noah is on a good deal, knowing the going rate for centers now, and there are still far too many question marks surrounding Cousins' attitude and if he'd ever fit in with Thibodeau. Didn't Cousins have trouble with Calipari who was considered a 'players coach'? Now he's going to just get along with Thibs? *I rather just draft Embiid and develop him* than go through the trouble of Cousins.


Isn't Embiid going to go in the top 6-7 picks?


----------



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

Dornado said:


> Isn't Embiid going to go in the top 6-7 picks?


Don't you think it's entirely possible we end up drafting around there?


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Embiid at #1 wouldn't surprise me any. I saw his first collegiate game, and he sure oozes potential.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

mvP to the Wee said:


> Don't you think it's entirely possible we end up drafting around there?


Would we pick like 15th if the season ended now? I know we'll regress without Deng, but we'd basically have to win less than 30 games total to finish in the bottom 6. Seems like a difficult task.


----------



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

Dornado said:


> Would we pick like 15th if the season ended now? I know we'll regress without Deng, but we'd basically have to win less than 30 games total to finish in the bottom 6. Seems like a difficult task.


I think we have 2 or 3 more wins than the team picking 4th. February and March are brutal for us.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

I think Lance Stephenson would actually make an ideal Deng replacement for this squad - I wonder what his going rate will be


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Marcus13 said:


> I think Lance Stephenson would actually make an ideal Deng replacement for this squad - I wonder what his going rate will be


Stephenson is going to get paid this off-season, IMO. It's not unreasonable to think he gets $10M per season for 4-5 years given his production, youth, and trajectory to get better. When Josh Smith gets what he got, this would look like a bargain.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> so deng was traded for a mid 1st rounder hopefully sometime in the next 3 years along with 2 likely late 2nd rounders ....if not its Sacramento 2nd rounder in 2018 and 2 likely late 2nd rounders.
> 
> it was a bad organizational move even having on the roster this long *if they knew they weren't going to sign him(and they had to have known)*, it backed them into a corner and the league knew it, they are lucky to have gotten as much as they did.


I don't agree with this at all, especially the bolded part.

Hindsight is always 20-20; yeah at this point we can say it would've been better to trade him 2-3 years ago. But how do they begin to justify that type of trade 2-3 years ago when we're trying to win a title and don't have a suitable alternative at SF in his place. 

Things changed drastically when Rose tore his ACL, and especially when he has the meniscus injury this year. That, combined with the emergence of Jimmy Butler and signing Dunleavy to a value contract. We didn't know any of those things were going to happen, and if they didn't happen we would very likely need Luol Deng on this roster.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I don't agree with this at all, especially the bolded part.
> 
> Hindsight is always 20-20; yeah at this point we can say it would've been better to trade him 2-3 years ago. But how do they begin to justify that type of trade 2-3 years ago when we're trying to win a title and don't have a suitable alternative at SF in his place.
> 
> Things changed drastically when Rose tore his ACL, and especially when he has the meniscus injury this year. That, combined with the emergence of Jimmy Butler and signing Dunleavy to a value contract. We didn't know any of those things were going to happen, and if they didn't happen we would very likely need Luol Deng on this roster.


deng's value as a player hasn't changed much if at all since they signed him as far as his per year salary , so his demands should not have caught the bulls front office by surprise.

also...this is an extension meaning it takes effect next season rose's injury *this season* has little to do with deng's salary in *future seasons* , deng's value is based on him as a player ....if anything rose being hurt means they need him more (he was avg. a career high in points this season)

this is butler's 3rd season , the front office drafted him and supposedly watched him play...its hard to believe they didn't know what they had until they started negotiated with deng , in fact its more likely they drafted butler to supplant deng which is what they are apparently doing ...so once again why hold onto to deng until his value evaporates because the whole league knows they aren't going to sign him.

hindsight is 20/20 but foresight is actually what they are paid to have.


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

*Re: Windhorst: Deng traded for Bynum and a draft pick*



R-Star said:


> Really? Why aren't the even close to competing with them now with those exact pieces? Why are they 13 games behind without even half of the season being played yet?
> 
> I mean I could understand if you were saying they should make some changes, but no. You're saying basically stay the course and add a couple more complimentary guys and there's no reason they can't _at least_ be as good as the league leading Pacers.
> 
> Makes sense.


Maybe because the trade happened a couple of days ago ? Or maybe your best player is out for the year. And there is no one to replace him at that position.

Look, all around the league PG's are going down. Jrue today. The Bulls back up PG isn't what is needs to be. Boozer will be following Deng out of the door soon. Another trade at least is coming. You have to learn to be patient.Snell and Butler have to develop. More pieces will be added. 

What I am saying is, they are going in the right direction. Deng wanted too much for what he does. He's not a money player in the fourth and he doesn't sell tickets. He doesn't deserve more than $10 Million. 

I remember when some said the Pacers needed a SG but, they stuck with Stephenson. And he has developed where he can get triple doubles about twice a month. You have to give young players time. I think Snell and Butler can be better than Deng and much cheaper. Then add Rose and others and there is your squad !


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: Windhorst: Deng traded for Bynum and a draft pick*



LA68 said:


> Maybe because the trade happened a couple of days ago ? Or maybe your best player is out for the year. And there is no one to replace him at that position.
> 
> Look, all around the league PG's are going down. Jrue today. The Bulls back up PG isn't what is needs to be. Boozer will be following Deng out of the door soon. Another trade at least is coming. You have to learn to be patient.Snell and Butler have to develop. More pieces will be added.
> 
> ...


If Snell and Butler become better than Deng, they'll demand more money when contract's roll around. 

That being said, you had mentioned that the Bulls _this year_ could go to the conference finals. So I'll ask again, who are they beating to get there? And explain exactly how they're going to be _as good or better_ than the league leading Pacers.


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

*Re: Windhorst: Deng traded for Bynum and a draft pick*



R-Star said:


> If Snell and Butler become better than Deng, they'll demand more money when contract's roll around.
> 
> That being said, you had mentioned that the Bulls _this year_ could go to the conference finals. So I'll ask again, who are they beating to get there? And explain exactly how they're going to be _as good or better_ than the league leading Pacers.


That's a bridge you cross when you come to it. At least three seasons away.

You have to make your mind up. First you talk about the future, then you talk about this season. Where did I say they could win this season ? I can't find that quote, maybe you could link to it. 

I did say "in a few seasons" which is quite realistic.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

LA68 said:


> Deng doesn't really move the needle either way. He's a good hard working smart player but, he's not a difference maker. And he doesn't sell tickets.
> 
> The Bulls are basically the same with or without Deng. I think Snell will be good. With Dunleavy and Butler at the wings, they are about the same. A second round team with a chance at the conference finals.
> 
> That's not really giving up on the season. That's realizing the facts and making a logical decision. Deng was going to walk to let him walk now.


From the NBA main board Deng trade thread.

You say they aren't giving up on the season, and that without Deng you say they are the same team, with a chance at the conference Finals.


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

R-Star said:


> From the NBA main board Deng trade thread.
> 
> You say they aren't giving up on the season, and that without Deng you say they are the same team, with a chance at the conference Finals.


They certainly aren't any worse. 

Compare the improvement of the young players vs. the distraction of failed Deng negotiations if they kept him. Its about the same.


----------



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

LA68 said:


> They certainly aren't any worse.
> 
> Compare the improvement of the young players vs. the distraction of failed Deng negotiations if they kept him. Its about the same.


We'd be a better team right this second with Deng on the team than if he wasn't.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

mvP to the Wee said:


> I fully understand your line of thinking, but I still believe had Rose not got hurt we'd have a championship under our belt. From a talent standpoint, no we never had enough, but you need to factor in Thibodeau's coaching and how Noah and Deng fit what he wanted defensively perfectly. Would I have traded Deng for a star if ever available? Yes. Noah? It depends who it is and the contract. Right now Noah is on a good deal, knowing the going rate for centers now, and there are still far too many question marks surrounding Cousins' attitude and if he'd ever fit in with Thibodeau. Didn't Cousins have trouble with Calipari who was considered a 'players coach'? Now he's going to just get along with Thibs? I rather just draft Embiid and develop him than go through the trouble of Cousins.


The Bulls were not a championship team if Rose didn't get hurt. What they were was a team that excelled in the regular season, often times against those same teams like the Pacers, Heat, etc. to the point that if you completely ignored that things change in the playoffs, you could start to convince yourself that they were a "championship team." The argument that they were one is the same argument that you would make for the 92 Blazers. And that argument basically goes, "well, they're not, but.. if there's a year like 04 where nobody viable has their crap together with a couple of top tier talents, then yes, by default they could back into a ring." The Bulls, the 92 Blazers, the 93 Knicks and many other teams could have been a threat to win a ring in 1999. The last two years with a top ten player all time at the top of his game with good support on Miami? No way. 

I'm not convinced I've ever heard one argument on Thibs that says he's a championship coach. If you like Paxson and his way of doing things and therefore you want to LIKE Thibs, then I'm sure you can talk yourself into it, but I see the guy the same way a lot of people might see Lenny Wilkens on the Cavs or Mike Fratello on the 94 Hawks. He's a really good regular season coach. I want players who fit what Phil Jackson would want to do or Greg Popovich or Pat Riley (80s). 

What about Deng for a lotto pick 2-3 years ago when you could have shopped him and come back with Cousins? Deng for a star is a little ambitious isn't it? He wasn't a star. Why should you get a star for him lol. 

My problem with Noah, Deng and Boozer isn't with any one of them.. well, Boozer was kind of a delusional fantasy the entire time, but I really am bored with the "well, they HAD to" conversation, so let's agree to disagree. My problem was having all three of them. Noah, on his current deal, I could have dealt with. If we had managed to offer Deng such an insulting deal in 08 that he walked then (which we ended up doing anyway), Noah and Rose probably would have suffered a lottery or two without looking terrible and then there's your chance to land a legit #2 AND more money to sign one IF a real one came along. So, Noah would have been my preference of the three.. partially because he's the best player and the best championship #3 of the three, but mostly because he has a very nice contract in comparison. 

Noah and centers... this is one of those Chicago laughers.. like "good Rex bad Rex" (when the only thing that changed wasn't Rex, but the quality of competition which forced Rex to make more hurried decisions, and he couldn't and sucked) or "Jay is the best QB in Chicago history" (tallest midget).

To say, "hey, he's an awesome center" sort of misses the point. It implies that all players who play the five bring the same value. What Noah is, much like Bill Laimbeer, is a really good forward playing center. A front to the basket type of player who sacrifices back to the basket offense for running and moving without the ball and who isn't a paint patrolling presence. The value of a good center is a guy who can put his back to the basket, back down, turn around and score. OR a center can show great value as a paint patrolling shot blocker a la David Robinson. Noah doesn't have very good individual offense when creating his own shot and his good defense is more reminiscent of a forward style of defense, not someone who is just going to wipe the glass clean. 

Comparing Noah and Cousins would be like if a poor man's Ewing had attitude and you said, "well Bill Laimbeer is a sure thing, why trade him for poor man's Ewing?" Try to remember, by the way, that the center position is so deteriorated from 1985 that the actual Patrick Ewing would be ripping the league a new ass hole. I wanted to trade for Cousins after his rookie year when we could have had him for NOTHING relative to today and what is he now.. a guy who is 6'11" 280 or so and averages 23.5 PPG and 11.5 RPG. 

Say you moved Noah for Cousins right now. Say you then ended up with the 11th pick in the draft.. just conservative. 

Cousins
Gibson
Robinson III
Butler
Rose

Wow. First, when you anchor the post with a big player like Cousins, you can afford to be more mobile at the 4. A big player like Cousins can demand attention at the front of the rim on both ends, and then it becomes actually more desireable to have mobility at the 4. Because you're scoring with Cousins, you also don't need offense individually from Gibson. Butler and Robinson III would be interchangeable at the 2/3 and this team from a talent standpoint is less reliant on Rose, who will never be able to just play a "put the team on my back" style and have his talent outduel Lebron James. You fill a team like this in and now you're working. Robinson III is known for his ability to glue a team together already. Cousins and Rose have top flight offensive talent. Gibson and Butler are very good defensive style players. 

Most importantly, this team would be ready to try to be younger, faster and more talented than Miami. You'd have Gibson at 29, Rose at 26 and the other three guys younger than that.

As for the questions on Cousin's attitude and if he'd work with Thibs, a) you think Thibs is great, I don't and b) I can know that there is SOME chance I can get Cousins to fit in much the way the Bulls worked with Rodman or the Pistons with Rasheed. I can never teach Noah to have Cousins' talent. 

These things are risks. How do you get a legit #2 on a title team? Luck out in the draft? Find a very unknown player like Scottie Pippen who blows up? Have just the right signing fall into your lap (like when LA signed Shaq and that allowed Kobe to become the #2 after time)? So, any attempt at a true #2 championship talent involves risk. 

I'll tell you where there is no chance or odds. There is zero chance that Nikola freaking Mirotic is going to come here and become that player.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

yodurk said:


> I don't agree with this at all, especially the bolded part.
> 
> Hindsight is always 20-20; yeah at this point we can say it would've been better to trade him 2-3 years ago. But how do they begin to justify that type of trade 2-3 years ago when we're trying to win a title and don't have a suitable alternative at SF in his place.
> 
> Things changed drastically when Rose tore his ACL, and especially when he has the meniscus injury this year. That, combined with the emergence of Jimmy Butler and signing Dunleavy to a value contract. We didn't know any of those things were going to happen, and if they didn't happen we would very likely need Luol Deng on this roster.


Well, by acknowledging the fact that we weren't good enough to win a title 2-3 years ago, unless the title was awarded to the team with the best record at the end of the regular season. 

If you want to play the retrospective prospective game, I'll tell you when I looked forward and smashed my hand on the dashboard... in 08 when they gave him this contract. I saw this ending THEN and thought about the higher picks and potential alternatives we'd be missing out on by giving him that stupid contract.. that stupid contract that Paxson admitted was a reward for making the Bulls relevant again. 

Reward contracts and championships don't go together.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Da Grinch said:


> deng's value as a player hasn't changed much if at all since they signed him as far as his per year salary , so his demands should not have caught the bulls front office by surprise.
> 
> also...this is an extension meaning it takes effect next season rose's injury *this season* has little to do with deng's salary in *future seasons* , deng's value is based on him as a player ....if anything rose being hurt means they need him more (he was avg. a career high in points this season)
> 
> ...


That's one of the biggest cards Chicago fans love to play. "Well, anyone could say that now."

Okay, how about this one yodurk. If the Bulls don't trade Noah and he remains their best player other than Rose, they'll win 0 titles in the time he's here and end up shipping him off for nothing just like they did with Deng. 

If you disagree, fine. But when this happens, don't lean back and say, "suuuure, anyone could say that now.." Remember that I was telling you THEN.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Hoodey said:


> Well, by acknowledging the fact that we weren't good enough to win a title 2-3 years ago, unless the title was awarded to the team with the best record at the end of the regular season.
> 
> If you want to play the retrospective prospective game, I'll tell you when I looked forward and smashed my hand on the dashboard... in 08 when they gave him this contract. I saw this ending THEN and thought about the higher picks and potential alternatives we'd be missing out on by giving him that stupid contract.. that stupid contract that Paxson admitted was a reward for making the Bulls relevant again.
> 
> Reward contracts and championships don't go together.


You're awfully verbose for a guy who's getting what he wanted.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

*Re: Windhorst: Deng traded for Bynum and a draft pick*



LA68 said:


> Maybe because the trade happened a couple of days ago ? *Or maybe your best player is out for the year.* And there is no one to replace him at that position.
> 
> Look, all around the league PG's are going down. Jrue today. The Bulls back up PG isn't what is needs to be. Boozer will be following Deng out of the door soon. Another trade at least is coming. You have to learn to be patient.Snell and Butler have to develop. More pieces will be added.
> 
> ...


I remember when I thought the Bulls 2nd and 3rd best players were very good. Some guy named Jordan retired and they won 55 games and took the eventual finalist Knicks 7 games in a series that they would have won if Hugh Hollins wasn't a freaking Knicks fan.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Bogg said:


> You're awfully verbose for a guy who's getting what he wanted.


I haven't gotten the beginnings of what I wanted yet. 

See, if you want to know what I wanted, it was for the 08 season to end and Paxson's "way" to be mocked on it's way out of town. Because I don't know if you remember, but before we lucked into Rose, it was getting a bit chippy in this city. The tone was becoming mockery of this idea that you could build a contender around a beloved core of Hinrich, Gordon, Deng and Noah. 

Then we luck into Rose, and what I WANTED was...

The end of the try hard Bulls. Why do you need them!? Anyone who had a brain knew Derrick would be a star. So, why the reliance on Paxson's main selling point...

I'm thinking.. cool, we'll get Rose and maybe the first year or two will be a little rough. And maybe that's good because great players have had to go through that their first few years. See.. Michael Jordan, for one. We'll build through the draft and get our #2.. our Pippen and Grant. And we'll have money to spend over the next few years.

Then the Deng deal of 08 and the reliance on he and Noah. Wee said Noah and Deng are #3 options in the league. I knew that THEN! 

It was what I said it was... Paxson using Rose to try to live the lie of the Try Hard Bulls a little longer so that maybe, just maybe, he could justify the players he had that he loved so much before he got Rose. 

The day we lucked into Rose in the lottery was the last day I got what I wanted.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Hoodey said:


> I haven't gotten the beginnings of what I wanted yet.
> 
> See, if you want to know what I wanted, it was for the 08 season to end and Paxson's "way" to be mocked on it's way out of town. Because I don't know if you remember, but before we lucked into Rose, it was getting a bit chippy in this city. The tone was becoming mockery of this idea that you could build a contender around a beloved core of Hinrich, Gordon, Deng and Noah.
> 
> ...


You said that if Chicago couldn't go out and get a big, bruising center like you wanted (and it appears they can't) you'd rather have them tear it down and spend a year or two picking in the lottery to go get better players, no?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

We got a LONG way to go before I get my way bro. Although I do like Butler and I do think the Gibson deal was not terrible IF you plan on getting ride of Deng, Noah and Boozer.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Bogg said:


> You said that if Chicago couldn't go out and get a big, bruising center like you wanted (and it appears they can't) you'd rather have them tear it down and spend a year or two picking in the lottery to go get better players, no?


They can't go get Cousins? They could have had Cousins, and don't tell me they couldn't get him now if they WANTED to.

Paxson doesn't WANT that kind of player. And because he doesn't, we won't get that player. He wants a center who is a glorified forward like his college buddy Bill Laimbeer. 

Tearing it down would include trading Noah.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Hoodey said:


> They can't go get Cousins? They could have had Cousins, and don't tell me they couldn't get him now if they WANTED to.
> 
> Paxson doesn't WANT that kind of player. And because he doesn't, we won't get that player. He wants a center who is a glorified forward like his college buddy Bill Laimbeer.
> 
> Tearing it down would include trading Noah.


All reports are that Sacramento's serious about making it work with him. I haven't heard anything along the lines of "such-and-such team was near a deal, but only wanted to include X while Sacramento wanted Y". 

Deng's gone for picks and cap space. Boozer already has one foot out the door. Just relax, let them rebuild, and then in a couple months you can tell us all about how the guys you _would_ have drafted/signed/traded for are way different than the ones those bozos in the front office acquired.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Bogg said:


> All reports are that Sacramento's serious about making it work with him. I haven't heard anything along the lines of "such-and-such team was near a deal, but only wanted to include X while Sacramento wanted Y".
> 
> Deng's gone for picks and cap space. Boozer already has one foot out the door. Just relax, let them rebuild, and then in a couple months you can tell us all about how the guys you _would_ have drafted/signed/traded for are way different than the ones those bozos in the front office acquired.


Bogg, as far as the last part, please. Again, the guys they have signed over the years are guys who everyone here maintained it would work with and I said it wouldn't. If they get Paul Pierce part 2 in here, you really think I'm going to say he sucks just to say it?

And don't be disingenuous. I wanted to trade for Cousins in the draft, trade for him his rookie season and trade for him ever since. If Deng and Noah were as good as 80% of people here maintained they were, we could have easily had Cousins 2 years ago or last year straight up.

Nobody here wanted Cousins because he had this dirty thing called talent and potential. He might turn into Eddy Curry! Oh no! FEAR lol. Most of the people here weren't saying two years ago, "we can't get him." They were saying, "we don't want him. This team is going to win a ring and he won't be that good because he's 'just talented.'"


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Hoodey said:


> Bogg, as far as the last part, please. Again, the guys they have signed over the years are guys who everyone here maintained it would work with and I said it wouldn't. If they get Paul Pierce part 2 in here, you really think I'm going to say he sucks just to say it?


No, I just think it's far more likely the front office does something to infuriate you in new and interesting ways than it is they actually get someone you like. 



Hoodey said:


> And don't be disingenuous. I wanted to trade for Cousins in the draft, trade for him his rookie season and trade for him ever since. If Deng and Noah were as good as 80% of people here maintained they were, we could have easily had Cousins 2 years ago or last year straight up.
> 
> Nobody here wanted Cousins because he had this dirty thing called talent and potential. He might turn into Eddy Curry! Oh no! FEAR lol. Most of the people here weren't saying two years ago, "we can't get him." They were saying, "we don't want him. This team is going to win a ring and he won't be that good because he's 'just talented.'"


Lots of people want Cousins. However, just about every report that's ever come out of Sacramento has been along the lines of "Yea, he's an enormous asshole, but we just can't bring ourselves to part with him". If someone won't trade a guy, it's hard to trade for him.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I see very little evidence that Cousins was ever available in a trade. If anything, the Kings have made every single move in order to build around him, including letting Tyreke walk for nothing in order to pay Cousins big time money, and then trading for Gay to be his #2 man. 

I think people *speculated *he was available b/c of his attitude problems, but I sure haven't sure seen any indication from the Kings. IMO, they know what a big time talent he is and aren't giving that up easily.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> Well, by acknowledging the fact that we weren't good enough to win a title 2-3 years ago, unless the title was awarded to the team with the best record at the end of the regular season.


The front office would've been RAILED if they had traded Deng for anything less than a highway robbery upgrade 2-3 years ago. By fans, by Thibodeau, by the Bulls players including Rose (re: Rose, can you be sure Rose even wants to sign an extension at that point?). I would've been first in line. How the hell do you justify trading your 2nd leading scorer and arguably the lynchpin of your defense, when you have the best record in the league? 

That would be like the Pacers trading Lance Stephenson right now b/c they are afraid of losing him in the off-season and b/c he isn't proving to be Kobe Bryant. Just idiotic reasoning. The Pacers would really hurt their title chances if they traded Stephenson, just like the Bulls would've if trading Deng 2-3 yrs ago.

No way they can justify that type of trade when you have the league's best record. Once in a blue moon you might see a can't miss opportunity (e.g., Lakers getting Pau Gasol) but 99% of the time that type of steal is not available, and no reason to think the Bulls passed up an opportunity of that caliber over the past few years. 

A few fans' belief that the Bulls have "no chance" just b/c they don't appear to stack up with historical dynasty teams, in spite of being a 60+ win team, is not justification enough. 

You know how the Bulls ownership writes a letter to season ticket holders after a big trade? What would your idea look like 2-3 years ago?

"Dear fans: we are very proud of our Bulls team for leading the league in wins. It's been a great team effort. But after looking at past historical teams who win championships, we just don't feel comfortable relying on Luol Deng as our 2nd best scorer. And since we are going to lose him in 3 years via free agency anyways, we decided to trade him for (inferior player X) and a future 1st rounder. While sadly this will make the team worse in the short term, we are confident in saying we wouldn't have won the championship this year anyways due to the infallible Miami Heat. So we decided it best to just throw in the towel and build for a future 5 years from now, as that is when the Heat dynasty just might open up our new title window. Best regards, GarPaxDorf."


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

LA68 said:


> They certainly aren't any worse.
> 
> Compare the improvement of the young players vs. the distraction of failed Deng negotiations if they kept him. Its about the same.


They certainly are worse without Deng.

Better in the future with the cap space they'll save? Remains to be seen. But you don't remove Deng from that team and say they're as good or better because of it. That's something you'd say taking JR Smith off a team, not Deng, who is the epitome of a team player.

That being said, I'm not sure how anything said explains how you described the Bulls ceiling as the ECF this season.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> The Bulls were not a championship team if Rose didn't get hurt. What they were was a team that excelled in the regular season, often times against those same teams like the Pacers, Heat, etc. to the point that if you completely ignored that things change in the playoffs, you could start to convince yourself that they were a "championship team." The argument that they were one is the same argument that you would make for the 92 Blazers. And that argument basically goes, "well, they're not, but.. if there's a year like 04 where nobody viable has their crap together with a couple of top tier talents, then yes, by default they could back into a ring." The Bulls, the 92 Blazers, the 93 Knicks and many other teams could have been a threat to win a ring in 1999. The last two years with a top ten player all time at the top of his game with good support on Miami? No way.
> 
> I'm not convinced I've ever heard one argument on Thibs that says he's a championship coach. If you like Paxson and his way of doing things and therefore you want to LIKE Thibs, then I'm sure you can talk yourself into it, but I see the guy the same way a lot of people might see Lenny Wilkens on the Cavs or Mike Fratello on the 94 Hawks. He's a really good regular season coach. I want players who fit what Phil Jackson would want to do or Greg Popovich or Pat Riley (80s).
> 
> ...


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

GNG said:


>


Not useful. Please join the discussion or save yourself the time and posting energy.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Dornado said:


> Not useful. Please join the discussion or save yourself the time and posting energy.


Now this is an acceptable post length.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

GNG said:


> Now this is an acceptable post length.


I was going to delete this for being off-topic, but I'll leave it at this and we can get back to the merits of the Deng trade - outside of the fact that this is the Bulls forum and nobody cares whether or not a Grizzlies fan is bored by Bulls discussion, this isn't twitter or reddit... it is a message board where discussion is appreciated.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

yodurk said:


> The front office would've been RAILED if they had traded Deng for anything less than a highway robbery upgrade 2-3 years ago. By fans, by Thibodeau, by the Bulls players including Rose (re: Rose, can you be sure Rose even wants to sign an extension at that point?). I would've been first in line. How the hell do you justify trading your 2nd leading scorer and arguably the lynchpin of your defense, when you have the best record in the league?
> 
> That would be like the Pacers trading Lance Stephenson right now b/c they are afraid of losing him in the off-season and b/c he isn't proving to be Kobe Bryant. Just idiotic reasoning. The Pacers would really hurt their title chances if they traded Stephenson, just like the Bulls would've if trading Deng 2-3 yrs ago.
> 
> ...


Wow! This is a terrific post.

Completely agree that trading Deng prior to this season would have been completely counter to the FO's stated goal of winning a championship(s) and I also would have howled like a stuck pig. Hell, I'm pissed that they traded him this season because I think it hurts the team's chances for next season, but if the FO wasn't going to buck-up for Deng this summer, then I get it...don't like it, but get it.

Anyway, touch 'em all, Yodurk. Nice job.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> The front office would've been RAILED if they had traded Deng for anything less than a highway robbery upgrade 2-3 years ago. By fans, by Thibodeau, by the Bulls players including Rose (re: Rose, can you be sure Rose even wants to sign an extension at that point?). I would've been first in line. How the hell do you justify trading your 2nd leading scorer and arguably the lynchpin of your defense, when you have the best record in the league?
> 
> That would be like the Pacers trading Lance Stephenson right now b/c they are afraid of losing him in the off-season and b/c he isn't proving to be Kobe Bryant. Just idiotic reasoning. The Pacers would really hurt their title chances if they traded Stephenson, just like the Bulls would've if trading Deng 2-3 yrs ago.
> 
> ...


except for the small fact that teams when faced with being really good but not quite good enough to win a title make deals to add to their core on a regular basis .

sometimes it works out , and sometimes it doesn't.

the heat won a title in 2006 got blitzed the next year by the bulls in the 1st round realized they weren't good enough and destroyed their roster to build the current 2 time champs we have to deal with now.

the champs before them the mavericks were a 50+ win team for a decade before finding the right mix that got them a title in 2011 with 3 different starters from 2 years earlier

the lakers before them pulled off the steal that got them Pau.

the bulls keep their core guys from the summer of 2010 against teams that added :

pau gasol
tyson chandler and shawn marion
chris bosh and lebron james

while you are making excuses for management its important to realize its their job to gauge and analyze their team vs the league .

other teams are changing their teams from also rans with deals like the pistons did with their acquisition of rasheed wallace to beat the lakers in the title in 2004 who in turn realize they had to change their team if they wanted to win which they did in 09 and 10.

GarPaxdorf or whoever are supposed to make their team a winner , they just aren't , they aren't making the moves needed to elevate them, instead they are trading luol for maybe a 1st rounder before 2018 instead something of definite value that will help them reach their alleged goal of a title.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> That's one of the biggest cards Chicago fans love to play. "Well, anyone could say that now."
> 
> Okay, how about this one yodurk. If the Bulls don't trade Noah and he remains their best player other than Rose, they'll win 0 titles in the time he's here and end up shipping him off for nothing just like they did with Deng.
> 
> If you disagree, fine. But when this happens, don't lean back and say, "suuuure, anyone could say that now.." Remember that I was telling you THEN.


as was I.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Bogg said:


> No, I just think it's far more likely the front office does something to infuriate you in new and interesting ways than it is they actually get someone you like.
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of people want Cousins. However, just about every report that's ever come out of Sacramento has been along the lines of "Yea, he's an enormous asshole, but we just can't bring ourselves to part with him". If someone won't trade a guy, it's hard to trade for him.


Expand on the first part please.

Secondly, yes, reliance on forcing me to prove something I can't prove. It goes like this..

"Hi. I'm John Paxson the disingenuous ass hole who wants to build the 1979 Fighting Irish and then try to prove they can contend in the NBA. You see.. I don't LIKE true centers.. I like big, front to the basket forwards who have the height of a center but aren't really a good down low combination of size and explosiveness, or even just massive size with little explosiveness. You see, I don't WANT DeMarcus Cousins, and.. time will always prove you won't get the player you don't want no matter what he's available for. You see, I've never called Sacramento, I could care less. Because guess what. I'm the moron who thinks Joakim Noah IS good enough to be a second star on a title team. 

But, Cousins is kinda good. I mean. He's not good to me because I don't like that style of player. But... 23.5 and 11.5? This could be a problem. There could be fans who fall off of the right way jib train long enough to look at ME and ask what my accountability is in all of this.. and I don't want that. That's what tough talking coaches and GMs like me, Tibs, Lovie, etc. thrive on.. nazi-like accountability for everyone.. except for us! This Cousins thing could become a problem. Terry Boers is even on the score telling everyone it would be a good idea, and he used to buy the company line like everyone else in the Chicago media who is convinced that only I can keep them delivered from 1999-04 Krausedom. 

I got it! He's not AVAILABLE... that's it. I mean, (and this is for you by the way), what MORON at an organization like Sacramento tells a reporter "hell yeah he's available.. that's our 'report' .. not the typical corporate bs, but yeah, get him the f out of here NOW." So, unless Hoodey and others who actually want a team that can win more than a team that Norman Dale could be proud of can tap phones in Sacramento or have some email hacking skills.. how would they ever prove that!?" 

Spare me.. you and I both know Paxson hasn't tried to trade for DeMarcus Cousins. A little ironic that Joakim Noah has about as much one on one, back to the basket offense as Bill Cartwright and Bill Laimbeer (Paxson's teammate at Notre Dame)? A little ironic that like both, he's a very good defender who makes his living more with lateral movement and positioning than by being a glass cleaner?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

yodurk said:


> I see very little evidence that Cousins was ever available in a trade. If anything, the Kings have made every single move in order to build around him, including letting Tyreke walk for nothing in order to pay Cousins big time money, and then trading for Gay to be his #2 man.
> 
> I think people *speculated *he was available b/c of his attitude problems, but I sure haven't sure seen any indication from the Kings. IMO, they know what a big time talent he is and aren't giving that up easily.


But Joakim Noah is so good. You telling me after Cousins' rookie year, or even in the draft, had you offered Noah, they would have shot you down? No listening even? Cousins is good for a center TODAY, because centers suck so bad nowadays. In 1993, he would have been the 5th or 6th best center in the league with there being 4 guys who he wouldn't even be CLOSE TO. So let's not turn it into "Cousins, the legend of David Robinson's talent reborn."


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

yodurk said:


> The front office would've been RAILED if they had traded Deng for anything less than a highway robbery upgrade 2-3 years ago. By fans, by Thibodeau, by the Bulls players including Rose (re: Rose, can you be sure Rose even wants to sign an extension at that point?). I would've been first in line. How the hell do you justify trading your 2nd leading scorer and arguably the lynchpin of your defense, when you have the best record in the league?
> 
> That would be like the Pacers trading Lance Stephenson right now b/c they are afraid of losing him in the off-season and b/c he isn't proving to be Kobe Bryant. Just idiotic reasoning. The Pacers would really hurt their title chances if they traded Stephenson, just like the Bulls would've if trading Deng 2-3 yrs ago.


So, what you're saying is.. Thibs, the players and the fans are as shortsighted and frankly off about what wins NBA championships as Paxson is?

You can't make a trade during the playoffs, and once the playoffs were over in 2011, you saw that they did have the best record, and had just lost 4-1 to the team that turned around and lost in the Finals.

So, can you then see that best record doesn't always mean much? Different things matter in the regular season. You can catch a good team on the second game of a back to back. You can catch them sitting a player because they feel good about what record they're on pace for and don't want to blow their load like the Bulls. You can rack up an extra 15 wins or so just by caring more than everyone else and playing better defense than most teams. You play a lot of teams that are just bad.

In a seven game series with Miami, how much of the previous paragraph is true? Do you get to take a break during game 2 and say, "stop, this Miami thing is tough. You see, we have the best record in the league. So, we'd like Milwaukee to come out and play for the next quarter?" Do you get to rest for a couple days during the Eastern Conference Finals and catch Miami coming in on the second night of a back to back? In the playoffs, late in the playoffs, everyone cares, everyone tries hard, everyone plays defense. 

If the fans or Rose could see that, they'd realize that players like Luol Deng don't really help you in a primary or secondary role in a late playoff series. If they can't and are outraged then they are raging dumb ***** and they deserve whatever they get. 

Late in the playoffs, teams laugh at teams like the Bulls. Unless you have Karl Malone blowing out his knee and Kobe and Shaq literally having shouting matches with each other.. it basically turns into, "yeah, we try hard too and we play defense too and we're just better than you. We're going to get one on one isolation scoring opportunities and we're going to hit at a high clip. You're going to have to send extra defenders and then it's open shots for everyone. 

This is why I've never understood Bulls fans and their obsession with pretty good players who don't offer anything special scoring or scoring with high efficiency. You almost have to stop when you get to the top two players on your roster and change your evaluation. Sure, you can't play defense like Fatty Walker (Antoine), but the thing that is really important is efficient individual offense. 

Yes, the Bulls may have to "hurt" their chances. They may have to get worse to get better. The reality is, if you aren't good enough you aren't good enough and time and destiny will do it for you.

I knew a family from Cleveland in the 90s. In 1992, they were really insistent that Daugherty, Nance, Price, Hot Rod Williams, etc. could beat the Bulls. Didn't happen? Must be something that is just our DESTINY in 1993. Still didn't happen? "We're good enough, we'll never tear this thing down." They rode Price, Nance and Daugherty as long as they could "living the lie".. making moves to keep the dream going as long as possible and "fixing" a helpless situation. 

One day in 1996 I walk in their living room and the dad says, I thought I was having a good dream and I woke up to a nightmare. "What do you mean?" I really thought we had a chance in 1992 and I'm watching the screen.. our three leading scorers are Chris Mills, Danny Ferry and Terrell Brandon.

And don't kid yourself... for any positive argument you could make about chaining championship hopes to Deng or Noah I could have made just as convincing of an argument in 1992 about Nance and Daugherty if I lived in Cleveland.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

transplant said:


> Wow! This is a terrific post.
> 
> Completely agree that trading Deng prior to this season would have been completely counter to the FO's stated goal of winning a championship(s) and I also would have howled like a stuck pig. Hell, I'm pissed that they traded him this season because I think it hurts the team's chances for next season, but if the FO wasn't going to buck-up for Deng this summer, then I get it...don't like it, but get it.
> 
> Anyway, touch 'em all, Yodurk. Nice job.


Umm all he stated was that it would be unpopular and that it might take us, for now, farther away from having the best regular season record. 

Does the best regular season record mean a championship?

The Bulls traded for Scottie Pippen in 1987. In 1987-88 they were 50-32. Hardly the best record. But 3 years later they were NBA champions.

So, what you guys' point? That the move that may be the best championship move we can make might make us worse for now? I can live with that.

Because say what you want, Deng was traded. It DID end with no championships. And you can come back about Rose. The Bulls lost Jordan and won 55 games and took the Knicks to the brink, so if Deng and Noah were that good, they could have shown us what Pippen and Grant did in 94. 

It ended how I knew it would end. Zero titles and moves made out of last resort. The same way teams like the Blazers in the 90s and the Cavs met their demise when the F.O. realized, "hey, it hasn't happened, and we're frankly out of time." 

But somehow, even as it's ending, you guys are finding a way to go back in time and look forward as if what just happened didn't just happen and have that same Paxson arrogance that a championship is coming our way and that same ignorant overvaluing of regular season records.

Guys, I'll save you all the time.. NBA titles take risks. Risks have degrees of uncertainty. Yes, it's true. You might make a trade for talent and it might turn into Tyrus Thomas. But, you have to take those risks. Those teams that say, "oh god, we could lose some more regular season games, and maybe we'll turn into the 2001 Bulls!? Oh no. No risks! We're good enough the way we are".. they don't win championships. 

Look at Shaq and Jordan.. easily the most devastating retired players of my lifetime (born in 77). Who were their second best players? A high school swingman who was the first high school swingman drafted in forever.. (by the way, acquired for a player that some mediocrity loving ... person.. could make the same stupid arguments overvaluing him that you could make for Noah or Deng.. Vlade Divac) and a guy who was really the last superstar to be relatively unknown even during the pre draft period, acquired for a player who would have been a GOOD solid addition to the Bulls, in Olden Polynice. Better than if Pippen had turned out to be Eddie Robinson.. 

So, you have to take risks even when you have Jordan and Shaq, but you don't have to with Derrick Rose?? Really?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Da Grinch said:


> except for the small fact that teams when faced with being really good but not quite good enough to win a title make deals to add to their core on a regular basis .
> 
> sometimes it works out , and sometimes it doesn't.
> 
> ...


You have to understand what you're dealing with here.

My theory is that if Paxson was hired in 1998, it would have been applauded with memories of his 3 v. Phoenix and his whole career, but a fan base by whom Jordan was very vividly remembered would have shrugged and said, "cool, we'll see what happens. What's up with the Cubs? Who will the Bears draft?" 

Krause tore down the Jordan memory with years of frankly being TOO reckless. For example, if a player like Eddy Curry was coming around now and all I knew was what they knew they, I'd still probably draft him in the position they were in. Drafting him AND trading Brand for Chandler and the Robinson signing and the Rose trade.. all too reckless in tandem. 

Anger built amongst the fan base. A fan base who was not very "hey, these guys are getting paid, they should be accountable, I want to see diving on the floor and rug burns! AH!" during the Jordan years saw most fans become apathetic and leave. Ticket prices drove the middle class out and so who was left? Rich people who want to be there just to be there and fans who are the guy who didn't get picked for the A team in Jr. high but tried really really hard and can't wait to tell you how good he would be if he was 7' tall. The Jordan fans were gone. Most of the city hasn't really given a crap as much as they do about the Blackhawks, who on one hand are champs, but on the other hand play in a sport that got bounced off of ESPN2. 

So, what was Paxson's main selling point? I can deliver you from this unwatchable game! I can reverse all of the risky behavior of Krause and bring accountability to this team. And that's what he did. He gave up potential for the kind of players he knew could make us competitive now. 

And for many of these fans he still carries that badge. "Hey, listen to me, or the 2001 Bulls could be what you're watching next year." 

And so they do. And then, you have to remember that a lot of Bulls fans are Cubs fans. The Cubs haven't won a ring in what 106 years because of "not that bad guy." You know, when someone is saying Deng and Noah are definitely NOT second stars on a title team and someone can't wait to be the fashionable guy who stands up and says, "hey, they're not that bad?!" Do you remember how many guys who were "not that bad" guy couldn't wait to tell you that Dave Wannstedt's Bears weren't that bad? Or Jim Miller? Or the Cubs since about the invention of the automobile? It's worth stopping and thinking about one thing anytime you're listening to a Cubs fan by the way (and no, I'm the farthest thing from a Sox fan.. I'm a former Cubs fan who has decided to have no team)... the President the last time the Cubs won the world series? TEDDY Roosevelt in his last year in office. 

The 1996 Cavaliers are what happens when you or the front office is hijacked by "not that bad" guy."

*Going backwards to go forwards like all the examples you gave? No way.. to most of these fans that idea is just too much to cope with. Because, even if we have a plan, if we go backwards to go forwards, before you know it Khalid El Amin will be turning the ball over because Eddy Curry isn't paying attention below the basket*.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Hoodey said:


> Expand on the first part please.


I mean......aside from Joel Embiid (if he pans out) or maybe Julius Randle, do _you_ see a top-notch back to the basket guy for Chicago to draft? You guys are gonna draft...<checking the rankings>....Rodney Hood, or Gary Harris. And then we'll all excitedly wait for you to write a thesis on Paxon's ineptitude. It'll be fun. 



Hoodey said:


> Secondly, yes, reliance on forcing me to prove something I can't prove. It goes like this..
> 
> ...
> 
> Spare me.. you and I both know Paxson hasn't tried to trade for DeMarcus Cousins.


This isn't me saying Cousins has been unavailable because he hasn't come up in trade rumors. He _has_ been brought up in the rumor mill a couple times during his time in Sacramento, and the reports are always the same. "The Kings had internal discussions regarding center Demarcus Cousins, but appear committed to building around him". Kings management (the last group and especially this one) sees the same thing you do. Other teams have tried to trade for him. No dice.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Bogg said:


> I mean......aside from Joel Embiid (if he pans out) or maybe Julius Randle, do _you_ see a top-notch back to the basket guy for Chicago to draft? You guys are gonna draft...<checking the rankings>....Rodney Hood, or Gary Harris. And then we'll all excitedly wait for you to write a thesis on Paxon's ineptitude. It'll be fun.
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't me saying Cousins has been unavailable because he hasn't come up in trade rumors. He _has_ been brought up in the rumor mill a couple times during his time in Sacramento, and the reports are always the same. "The Kings had internal discussions regarding center Demarcus Cousins, but appear committed to building around him". Kings management (the last group and especially this one) sees the same thing you do. Other teams have tried to trade for him. No dice.


Yeah, but in hoodeys world John Paxson is supposed to _make _Demarcus Cousins available, because that's what good GMs do.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Bogg said:


> I mean......aside from Joel Embiid (if he pans out) or maybe Julius Randle, do _you_ see a top-notch back to the basket guy for Chicago to draft? You guys are gonna draft...<checking the rankings>....Rodney Hood, or Gary Harris. And then we'll all excitedly wait for you to write a thesis on Paxon's ineptitude. It'll be fun.


I mean, I think a lot of you guys like to mock my approach to basketball, but I probably know more than you think and I'm not exactly coming from where you think I'm coming from.

I don't think we need only a center. But, history has shown, a center need be less skilled at basketball if they can score efficiently close to the bucket than a non-center. You can affect the game as a center if you're really good as well as a borderline great non center. And by center, I also mean any "power forward" with center skill sets or attributes like Gasol, Duncan, etc. If we can get a player like DeMarcus Cousins for example, you might get the kind of contribution, if he really pans out, that would make you say, "man, to get a non center who can control the game like this, we'd need to go out and get Paul Pierce." 

Jordan and Pippen show it to you. Jordan was so good that you could have put him with Patrick Ewing and he would have won 6 rings. Pippen was a far better BASKETBALL PLAYER in terms of skills, fundamentals, running, jumping than Ewing. But, Ewing's game controlled the areas right by the basket, and that makes all the difference.

Rule 1 - To affect the game as much a center, a non-center must not be equal, he must be better.

So, if we can't get Embiid, do I think there is no hope? No. There's hope. But when you talk about the fact that Rose, at his BEST, is probably a Scottie Pippen/Reggie Miller like talent.. and nowhere near a Lebron James, a non-center would have to be a superstar! An absolute Scottie Pippen or young Kobe Bryant. 

Then, you look at the center position, and you've seen some teams with very little current 1-2 punch star power in their prime give Miami trouble with big players who could score down low. Is this not the case? 

As for Gary Harris, why would I be mad we DRAFTED Harris? I wasn't mad that we DRAFTED Noah, and though I wanted Iguodala and Josh Smith more than Deng, I wasn't irate about that either. I wouldn't be mad about drafting Gary Harris. I'd be mad about paying him more than 8 million per year if he wasn't a legit #2 option. Why is this so hard to understand?

Noah and Deng don't make me mad. It makes me mad that they were cast in the roles they were cast in.



> This isn't me saying Cousins has been unavailable because he hasn't come up in trade rumors. He _has_ been brought up in the rumor mill a couple times during his time in Sacramento, and the reports are always the same. "The Kings had internal discussions regarding center Demarcus Cousins, but appear committed to building around him". Kings management (the last group and especially this one) sees the same thing you do. Other teams have tried to trade for him. No dice.


Dude don't be naïve. Joakim Noah could have brought Cousins in return when I first began proposing we trade for Cousins before the draft and after his rookie season. And, if it happened, you'd likely have heard little of it beforehand.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Dornado said:


> Yeah, but in hoodeys world John Paxson is supposed to _make _Demarcus Cousins available, because that's what good GMs do.


Well yeah, he could "make" him available if he offered enough. Remember Dornado, I'm talking to you guys.. you guys say Joakim Noah is so good lol. 

Cousins is the exact kind of player you should always go with if you have a #1 option like Rose and the other team has a #1 AND good #2 and #3 options. You go find another fringe #1 option who is being miscast and is probably a very good #2 and you trade for him. 

I wanted to trade for Demar Derozan. If we were to get him and he were to become the #2 focal point of the offense, I think you still see 20 PPG-ish and you see a FG% closer to his first two years. 

I'd like to make a move for Andre Drummond. 12 PPG and moving up on 60% FG?! Yes, a player like that will eventually give Miami the same problems Dirk, Duncan and Hibbert have close to the basket.

And I can hear you now, "he's not available, we can't make them trade for him."

First, don't be ridiculous. You know damn well Paxson wants a front to the basket "big forward" at center, and not a back to the basket traditional center. Second, if you want me to believe that if Paxson started with Noah and was willing to sweeten the deal with some combination of Bulls draft picks, Mirotic, the Charlotte pick etc. Sacramento or Detroit would not even consider it, you can kiss my rear end cause you know you're a lie. 

Finding numbers of "good player" gets way easier when you have a PG like Rose (whom I'm still not convinced is like some Grant Hill case... yet) and a center who can just own the area in front of the basket (even if NOBODY does it today like they did in the time period between Wilt and Shaq), you'll find enough good players to give Miami problems, trust me. 

If Deng not being traded in 2011 was because we have to WIN NOW... and if we can't tank for picks, then we need to examine trades this drastic. Say we got Drummond for Noah, Mirotic and the Bulls first rounder in 2015 (it might take more, might take less

Drummond
Gibson
Butler 
Harris
Rose

Miami isn't just going to pistol whip that team the way they would have bent the 2014 Bulls over if Rose WAS healthy.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Hoodey said:


> I mean, I think a lot of you guys like to mock my approach to basketball, but I probably know more than you think and I'm not exactly coming from where you think I'm coming from.


I'm not mocking anything. I'm just saying, if it wasn't possible to go out and trade for that center, you wanted to tear the roster down and rebuild because the Bulls weren't going anywhere as-is. They're now doing that. At least wait until they screw up doing what you wanted before going off.




Hoodey said:


> Dude don't be naïve. Joakim Noah could have brought Cousins in return when I first began proposing we trade for Cousins before the draft and after his rookie season. And, if it happened, you'd likely have heard little of it beforehand.


Based on...........? I remember Sacramento being pretty excited that he fell to them, and I remember plenty of "Cousins is available" rumors being shot down, but I don't remember any "Sacramento and Team X had advanced discussions but couldn't agree on final terms". Just saying that Paxson should have traded for Cousins over and over doesn't mean Cousins was actually on the table for a borderline all-star. Noah's a nice enough player, but he's far from a Godfather offer.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Bogg said:


> I'm not mocking anything. I'm just saying, if it wasn't possible to go out and trade for that center, you wanted to tear the roster down and rebuild because the Bulls weren't going anywhere as-is. They're now doing that. At least wait until they screw up doing what you wanted before going off.


You were saying I'd cry over Gary Harris and I want to clarify, I'd cry if we got Gary Harris and then gave him a ridiculous contract as we were drafting a player like Rose if Harris was never going to be a #2 option on a title team. If Harris turned into Dwyane Wade part 2, then pay him. Won't hear any crying from me. 

They're not doing enough of it. Trading Noah would be really tearing it down. Who fails to be a championship piece in their role? Gibson and Butler can be role players on a title team. Rose can lead a title team if they have a lot of ammo. So, Noah... he's what's left. 



> Based on...........? I remember Sacramento being pretty excited that he fell to them, and I remember plenty of "Cousins is available" rumors being shot down, but I don't remember any "Sacramento and Team X had advanced discussions but couldn't agree on final terms". Just saying that Paxson should have traded for Cousins over and over doesn't mean Cousins was actually on the table for a borderline all-star. Noah's a nice enough player, but he's far from a Godfather offer.


Okay, so, you couldn't have traded to get into the draft in a spot BEFORE Sacramento picked?

And you're really telling me between Noah, the Charlotte pick, Mirotic and Bulls picks, there is no combination that could turn Sacramento's head? 

The fact remains that we both know if there was, Paxson wouldn't know, because he wasn't a glorified forward with a front to the basket game at center. He WANTS Joakim Laimbeer. You're not telling me otherwise are you?


----------



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

Hoodey said:


> You were saying I'd cry over Gary Harris and I want to clarify, I'd cry if we got Gary Harris and then gave him a ridiculous contract as we were drafting a player like Rose if Harris was never going to be a #2 option on a title team. If Harris turned into Dwyane Wade part 2, then pay him. Won't hear any crying from me.
> 
> They're not doing enough of it. Trading Noah would be really tearing it down. Who fails to be a championship piece in their role? Gibson and Butler can be role players on a title team. Rose can lead a title team if they have a lot of ammo. So, Noah... he's what's left.
> 
> ...


Trading for the 3rd pick in a well respected draft? Yeah, unless we're offering Rose we were never moving up that high.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Hoodey said:


> You were saying I'd cry over Gary Harris and I want to clarify, I'd cry if we got Gary Harris and then gave him a ridiculous contract as we were drafting a player like Rose if Harris was never going to be a #2 option on a title team. If Harris turned into Dwyane Wade part 2, then pay him. Won't hear any crying from me.


What I said was you're probably not going to like whatever it is that Paxson winds up doing with that pick. Since you apparently take exception with that, I'll be bumping this over the summer. 





Hoodey said:


> Okay, so, you couldn't have traded to get into the draft in a spot BEFORE Sacramento picked?
> 
> And you're really telling me between Noah, the Charlotte pick, Mirotic and Bulls picks, there is no combination that could turn Sacramento's head?


If Paxson called up and said "you can have ANY combination of picks and players not named Derrick Rose, plus dump ANY contracts you want"? Maybe at some point in the last few years. But like I said, all reports have been that Sacramento isn't even taking offers on him - all the rumors have been that they're stonewalling any executives that call about him. 

There is ONE situation where Chicago probably could have gotten him, though. Cousins wasn't really supposed to fall to #5 in the draft - he was mentioned as in the mix for the top overall pick and considered to be heavily in play for every pick thereafter. I don't think Washington, Philly, or New Jersey trade their picks in that draft - John Wall was The Next Great Point Guard, Evan Turner was supposed to walk into the league as a borderline all-star, and the Nets were happy to pick between two bigs (Cousins and Favors) considered to have massive upsides. Minny, though.............they had _too many_ scoring bigs who can't defend, but were so starved for perimeter players they reached for Wes Johnson in a pick that looked bad even when he was considered a pretty sure bet to be an average starter. IF Minnesota's front office was competent enough to pull off a time-sensitive trade (HUGE if), IF you could have made the numbers work, and IF the Wolves weren't scared off by his contract, you probably could have swapped Deng for the fourth pick. 

That being said, there's no way Cousins now, nevermind when he was even younger, could handle playing in the culture the Bulls have established, and I still think he's a few years away from being able to anchor a championship defense. The guy you really want is probably Cousins two or three years from now. 



Hoodey said:


> The fact remains that we both know if there was, Paxson wouldn't know, because he wasn't a glorified forward with a front to the basket game at center. He WANTS Joakim Laimbeer. You're not telling me otherwise are you?


I don't think it's so much he wants a point-center as it is he values good defenders with professional attitudes, but I've never said that he tried to get Cousins. Just that once Sacramento drafted him, they've held onto him pretty tightly.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

mvP to the Wee said:


> Trading for the 3rd pick in a well respected draft? Yeah, unless we're offering Rose we were never moving up that high.


You're saying we could not have traded for the pick to get Cousins?


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> Well yeah, he could "make" him available if he offered enough. Remember Dornado, I'm talking to you guys.. *you guys say Joakim Noah is so good lol*.


Citation? And who are "you guys"? Everyone but you?



> Cousins is the exact kind of player you should always go with if you have a #1 option like Rose and the other team has a #1 AND good #2 and #3 options. You go find another fringe #1 option who is being miscast and is probably a very good #2 and you trade for him.
> 
> I wanted to trade for Demar Derozan. If we were to get him and he were to become the #2 focal point of the offense, I think you still see 20 PPG-ish and you see a FG% closer to his first two years.


I like Cousins generally, despite his knuckleheadedness... his efficiency is improving and he's always had a great feel for the game offensively (he's an excellent passer, etc...). I would trade for him... I just haven't seen any indication that he's available. Franchise bigs, or even top tier big men don't typically arrive by trade, especially when they're young. I remember Miami trading for an aging Shaq... outside of that I'm having a hard time recalling a major big man acquired by trade, and an even harder time remembering the last time a young big got traded and really panned out elsewhere (draft day trades aside). The best I can come up with are Robert Parish and Chris Webber... (not counting pre-free agency situations like Kareem). 

I like Derozan... I don't think he's necessarily a #2 guy on a good team, since he can't shoot for shit. If you play him next to a shooter I think it works, and he's obviously one hell of an athlete. I know his steal numbers are up, but I also wonder what kind of defender he is. 



> I'd like to make a move for Andre Drummond. 12 PPG and moving up on 60% FG?! Yes, a player like that will eventually give Miami the same problems Dirk, Duncan and Hibbert have close to the basket.
> 
> And I can hear you now, "he's not available, we can't make them trade for him."


Why in the ****ing world would the Detroit Pistons trade Andre Drummond right now?



> First, don't be ridiculous. You know damn well Paxson wants a front to the basket "big forward" at center, and not a back to the basket traditional center.


I do? Based on what? Which back to the basket guys has he passed up to get "big forwards" at center? There was nobody fitting that description on the board when we took Noah... I believe Taj Gibson was near the top of his draft class in terms of % of points coming from the post (he's just not a great offensive player in general). Does your certainty just stem from the fact that we haven't traded for Demarcus Cousins?



> Second, if you want me to believe that if Paxson started with Noah and was willing to sweeten the deal with some combination of Bulls draft picks, Mirotic, the Charlotte pick etc. Sacramento or Detroit would not even consider it, you can kiss my rear end cause you know you're a lie.


I'm a lie! I'm a lie! I have no idea if Detroit would take Noah/Mirotic/multiple 1sts for Drummond... that's a hell of a lot of stuff to give up, so I guess it depends on the combination. If I'm Detroit I don't think I'd move him unless I was getting a franchise guy back... 12 and 12 on 59% with over a steal and nearly two blocks per game at age 20 with his package of size/strength/athleticism... I wouldn't be in a hurry, and I don't think Detroit is either. 



> Finding numbers of "good player" gets way easier when you have a PG like Rose (whom I'm still not convinced is like some Grant Hill case... yet) and a center who can just own the area in front of the basket (even if NOBODY does it today like they did in the time period between Wilt and Shaq), you'll find enough good players to give Miami problems, trust me.
> 
> If Deng not being traded in 2011 was because we have to WIN NOW... and if we can't tank for picks, then we need to examine trades this drastic. Say we got Drummond for Noah, Mirotic and the Bulls first rounder in 2015 (it might take more, might take less
> 
> ...


I don't know if Detroit would accept that or not, and I don't know if we'd be coming out on top of that deal (only because Mirotic and the ultimate landing spot of that draft pick are huge unknowns), but I'd love to get Drummond. Again, if I'm Detroit, does that deal really help me long term? Only if Mirotic is the real deal. I also think that despite Drummond's dramatic improvement from age 19 to 20 he may need a bit more polish before he's helping us (as you've imagined us) take out King James... Drummond already does some things really well, but that lineup you listed has exactly one known offensive creator (Rose) and isn't really ready for primetime. Maybe Harris fixes that (I note that he's projected to be off the board by the time we pick) since he seems like he can create for himself, but I also see that he's shooting 40% from the field right now in college and jacking up lots of college-range threes (and not hitting enough of them). I think if you do that move you're looking to compete realistically for titles sometime after King James' Miami reign, or closer to its end.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Bogg said:


> What I said was you're probably not going to like whatever it is that Paxson winds up doing with that pick. Since you apparently take exception with that, I'll be bumping this over the summer.


But why do you say that? I'd have no problem with Gary Harris. I'd have a problem if we overpaid Harris a few years later. If there is no center there, and no player with more superstar potential than Harris, why would I be mad? I want a good center, but know this.. I also don't believe in taking a player who can't do the things that will hurt Miami just because he's a true center. 



> If Paxson called up and said "you can have ANY combination of picks and players not named Derrick Rose, plus dump ANY contracts you want"? Maybe at some point in the last few years. But like I said, all reports have been that Sacramento isn't even taking offers on him - all the rumors have been that they're stonewalling any executives that call about him.
> 
> There is ONE situation where Chicago probably could have gotten him, though. Cousins wasn't really supposed to fall to #5 in the draft - he was mentioned as in the mix for the top overall pick and considered to be heavily in play. I don't think Washington, Philly, or New Jersey trade their picks in that draft - John Wall was The Next Great Point Guard, Evan Turner was supposed to walk into the league as a borderline all-star, and the Nets were happy to pick between two bigs (Cousins and Favors) considered to have massive upsides. Minny, though.............they had _too many_ scoring bigs who can't defend, but were so starved for perimeter players they reached for Wes Johnson in a pick that looked bad even when he was considered a pretty sure bet to be an average starter. IF Minnesota's front office was competent enough to pull off a time-sensitive trade (HUGE if), IF you could have made the numbers work, and IF the Wolves weren't scared off by his contract, you probably could have swapped Deng for the fourth pick.
> 
> That being said, there's no way Cousins now, nevermind when he was even younger, could handle playing in the culture the Bulls have established, and I still think he's a few years away from being able to anchor a championship defense. The guy you really want is probably Cousins two or three years from now.


Don't tell me that some combination of those assets couldn't turn Sacramento or Detroit's head. But you know like I do that those assets aren't on the table and never were.

AS for the culture... is that a problem with Cousins or a problem with the culture? The culture seems a little more Utah weird like the Jazz were in the 90s than something you need for a championship if you have superior talent. Did Pat Riley's showtime Lakers have this "right way" culture.. or were they just better than the rest? Jordan's Bulls and Phil Jackson had a culture that Dennis freaking Rodman fit into.

See, this is where I get really pissed. You can't be someone who has never DONE anything and then act as if you have the high ground and only you know the way to the "Right Way" of basketball. Paxson and Thibs have zero championships in their current role. If Cousins "couldn't fit" here.. maybe that says more about the Bulls than Cousins. Maybe there are a lot of guys who Jordan talks to who "know something" about the Bulls, their culture, and why frankly you don't want to come here.



> I don't think it's so much he wants a point-center as it is he values good defenders with professional attitudes, but I've never said that he tried to get Cousins. Just that once Sacramento drafted him, they've held onto him pretty tightly.


He overvalues defense. It's almost as if when the Bulls evaluate players, "scoring doesn't count." "Hey I'm 90% of the defender this guy is, but he has no back to the basket game and I can back people down and score all night, even against Miami."

Paxson: "Scoring? That's just.. scoring. It's... dirty." 

The Blazers, Cavaliers, Knicks.. they all were either as fundamentally sound and as in tune with the things Paxson wanted or BETTER than Jordan's Bulls in those things. Jordan's Bulls could just break your back scoring the basketball...


----------



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

Hoodey said:


> You're saying we could not have traded for the pick to get Cousins?


Yep. We didn't even have our own 1st in that draft and at the time, Deng was actually considered a negative asset. It wasn't until Thibodeau got here where Deng started to play well again.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

mvP to the Wee said:


> Yep. We didn't even have our own 1st in that draft and at the time, Deng was actually considered a negative asset. It wasn't until Thibodeau got here where Deng started to play well again.


Like I said, I'd have done Noah then.. they could have got Sacramento's attention.

Like I've always told you.. hard to get what you don't WANT..


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

By the way, it's funny how arguments change.. This time a year ago the argument wasn't "we couldn't get Cousins, he wasn't available." That was the backdrop. The argument was much more than Noah was just better. Not only better but going to be better even as Cousins reached his prime. 

So, just wanted to note a little goal post moving from the crew that thought this team would win championships.

"But Rose is gone." 1994 Bulls baby.. if the rest of the players were that good it would look a lot like that.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Hoodey said:


> But why do you say that? I'd have no problem with Gary Harris. I'd have a problem if we overpaid Harris a few years later. If there is no center there, and no player with more superstar potential than Harris, why would I be mad? I want a good center, but know this.. I also don't believe in taking a player who can't do the things that will hurt Miami just because he's a true center.


Alright then. It's safe to assume you'll be happy with the results of this mini-rebuild, then? 





Hoodey said:


> Don't tell me that some combination of those assets couldn't turn Sacramento or Detroit's head. But you know like I do that those assets aren't on the table and never were.


One of the picks that could have taken Drummond could have been had, if you were willing to pay enough. Sacramento, though? No matter how many paragraphs you write, there was no offer that Sacramento would have absolutely accepted other than Rose before the knee problems. 



Hoodey said:


> AS for the culture... is that a problem with Cousins or a problem with the culture?


It's a problem with Cousins. He's lazy, and selfish, and immature. Sacramento's had to coddle him every step of the way just to _minimize_ the amount of fights he gets into with teammates. He may be a championship center in the future, but he isn't now and he hasn't been before. Like I said, you want him in a few years, once he starts maturing (admittedly, he may be starting now, but that may also be projecting things that aren't there simply because he's producing more). If you try to mix him with a group of intense professionals right now, like Chicago's currently stocked with, he's just going to get in various altercations, pout, no-show, and otherwise poison his relationship with his coaches and teammates. 

All that being said, there's nothing Chicago could offer to trade for him now, Rose included. It's looking too much like he's putting it together for Sacramento to cut ties with him now. Time to start looking for the next guy.


----------



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

Hoodey said:


> Like I said, I'd have done Noah then.. they could have got Sacramento's attention.
> 
> Like I've always told you.. hard to get what you don't WANT..


Noah for the 3rd or 4th pick wasn't getting it done either. You place such little value in these guys and then you expect other teams to pay a kings ransom for them. That's not how it works.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Bogg said:


> Alright then. It's safe to assume you'll be happy with the results of this mini-rebuild, then?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, I'd be fine with that particular result. As far as the rebuild.. it will have to include the trade of Noah NOW while his value is high for me to be happy. 

Okay, like I said, I'd be fine with Drummond. But my bet is Paxson never knew because he never wanted Drummond. He wants Joakim Laimbeer.

Okay, like I said, Drummond would be fine. As for Cousins and what he'd do here, let me tell you this now.. if he was a choir boy with his talent you'd never sniff him for Rose and assets or maybe even for a better player.

Bulls fans (and I realize you may not be one, but this is true of them too) want it to be easy... "well, we'll just wait for the guy with Kobe's talent and Luol Deng's character." It never is that easy. You have to take risks because the guy who isn't a risk is much, much harder to get. 

If Rasheed Wallace was a great guy in 04, the Pistons get him without having to part with Rip, Billups, Prince or Wallace or a combination of those players? 

Rodman?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

mvP to the Wee said:


> Noah for the 3rd or 4th pick wasn't getting it done either. You place such little value in these guys and then you expect other teams to pay a kings ransom for them. That's not how it works.


LOL I see you're reading Bullsville and pimping his crap.

Look, YOU DO place a high value on them.. so, if they're as good as YOU say they are, no problem. Or, they aren't that good, right? It can't be both. They can't be as good as you think they are when you're wishing they were Scottie Pippen like talents AND also be worthless.

Noah is a good player especially on his contract. Don't tell me you couldn't have moved him for Andre Drummond or Noah and a combination of assets wouldn't have caused teams to listen. 

It's a fan base that I've been listening to talk about "oozing with oodles of assets" (a phrase super lubed up Bulls fans were actually saying with pride after the Curry trade)... since the Curry trade. Even after Deng getting traded for crap fans were on here talking about how the Bulls were prepping for a mega deal. But, when you want to trade the Dalai Noah, then suddenly he sucks. 

Oooook.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Hoodey said:


> If Rasheed Wallace was a great guy in 04, the Pistons get him without having to part with Rip, Billups, Prince or Wallace or a combination of those players?
> 
> Rodman?


Those guy were at different points in their career. Zach Randolph put up great stats for years before getting to Memphis, but he never impacted his teams in positive ways until he was 28 and had been given away for free by three different franchises. Wallace didn't make his way to Detroit until he was 29. Cousins might fulfill his potential, but if he was ready to swing championships at this point his team wouldn't be tied for the fewest wins in the conference right now. If the Bulls had picked up Cousins on draft night they still wouldn't have won a title post-Jordan, they'd just have a better chance over the next ten years.

EDIT: I brought up Randolph because I'm watching the Memphis game and only after posting this realized you never brought him up.


----------



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

Hoodey said:


> LOL I see you're reading Bullsville and pimping his crap.
> 
> Look, YOU DO place a high value on them.. so, if they're as good as YOU say they are, no problem. Or, they aren't that good, right? It can't be both. They can't be as good as you think they are when you're wishing they were Scottie Pippen like talents AND also be worthless.
> 
> ...


I don't know who or what Bullsville is, sorry.

I've always stated Deng and Noah are 3rd option, so you're better off not talking out of your ass like you always do and stop making up statements I've never made. It's as ridiculous as your love for JR Smith and Michael Beasley.

Could we have had Andre Drummond? I think we could, if the Warriors trade talks are to be believed, but I'm not sure who pulled the plug on that move, but I would have certainly done it. Now if you think we can trade Noah for Drummond right now or his rookie season, then you're out of your mind.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

mvP to the Wee said:


> I don't know who or what Bullsville is, sorry.
> 
> I've always stated Deng and Noah are 3rd option, so you're better off not talking out of your ass like you always do and stop making up statements I've never made. It's as ridiculous as your love for JR Smith and Michael Beasley.
> 
> Could we have had Andre Drummond? I think we could, if the Warriors trade talks are to be believed, but I'm not sure who pulled the plug on that move, but I would have certainly done it. Now if you think we can trade Noah for Drummond right now or his rookie season, then you're out of your mind.


When did I say Jr Smith would be a star or that I like Beasley???

So Noah, the Charlotte pick and mirotic and/or additional picks would make Detroit laugh?


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Hoodey said:


> So Noah, the Charlotte pick and mirotic and/or additional picks would make Detroit laugh?


Probably. There's little chance Drummond gets moved for anything short of a league MVP candidate at this point.


----------



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

Hoodey said:


> When did I say Jr Smith would be a star or that I like Beasley???
> 
> So Noah, the Charlotte pick and mirotic and/or additional picks would make Detroit laugh?


You want to put words in my mouth, I'll go ahead and do the same to you.


Yeah, I don't think Detroit accepts that. Why would they? They're better off trying to further develop Drummond and hope they can get that right.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Bogg said:


> Probably. There's little chance Drummond gets moved for anything short of a league MVP candidate at this point.



Okay maybe they would now, but the point is this... don't tell me there's nobody out there with a player like Drummond or Cousins whose head we couldn't have turned at some point if that's what we actually EVER wanted to do.

Because you and I both know he never WANTED a player like that. He wants gloriforward.. Joakim Laimbeer.

You're not a Bulls fan right? Because it's so funny with guys like Wee, I've been hearing this "nobody would trade for Deng/Noah" crap for years. 

They like players like that, and then tell you that no trade would ever work for them because secretly, they don't WANT them to be traded. It's a disingenuous ruse. 

If you're sitting here now saying, "yeah, before Drummond's rookie year, the Bulls could have traded for Drummond in the draft" or whatever time you pinpoint, I guarantee had you proposed that THEN.. you'd get all this stuff about how Noah and Deng are way too good from guys who are sitting here NOW saying that BACK THEN we just couldn't trade these #3 options because nobody has ever wanted them.


----------



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

Hoodey said:


> Okay maybe they would now, but the point is this... don't tell me there's nobody out there with a player like Drummond or Cousins whose head we couldn't have turned at some point if that's what we actually EVER wanted to do.
> 
> Because you and I both know he never WANTED a player like that. He wants gloriforward.. Joakim Laimbeer.
> *
> ...


haha (no personal attacks) 

http://www.basketballforum.com/6868519-post17.html


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

mvP to the Wee said:


> haha (no personal attacks)
> 
> http://www.basketballforum.com/6868519-post17.html


A) so you're saying you have maintained the desire to trade those two the whole time?

If so, you're saying we couldn't have traded for drummond pre draft?

B) and everyone on this board feels the way you do?


----------



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

Hoodey said:


> A) so you're saying you have maintained the desire to trade those two the whole time?
> 
> If so, you're saying we couldn't have traded for drummond pre draft?
> 
> B) and everyone on this board feels the way you do?


I was always open to trading Deng for the number 7 pick, but apparently the Warriors rejected it. If we were bringing in any kind of 2nd option, I would also gladly deal Deng.

Not everyone feels the way I do, but some do. What you fail to realize is we're all Bulls fans and we all have different opinions. If you actually take the time to learn what each and every one of our opinions are, you would see we're not all in this same Paxson loving group of yours and have different ideas. But for the last year, you've chosen to ignore that and simply group us all together.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

mvP to the Wee said:


> I was always open to trading Deng for the number 7 pick, but apparently the Warriors rejected it. If we were bringing in any kind of 2nd option, I would also gladly deal Deng.
> 
> Not everyone feels the way I do, but some do. What you fail to realize is we're all Bulls fans and we all have different opinions. If you actually take the time to learn what each and every one of our opinions are, you would see we're not all in this same Paxson loving group of yours and have different ideas. But for the last year, you've chosen to ignore that and simply group us all together.


If that's how you feel, fine, I will not group you with the rest, but let's not have delusions.

Most Bulls fans think Paxson is doing either a great or very good job. When I see the truth about the man...

31-36

You won't see that number on any marketing fluff and you won't hear Les Grobstein talking about that number. That's his PLAYOFF record as GM.

Most Bulls fans either only warmed up to trading Deng a year ago or sooner or never wanted him traded. Very few people, even now, can claim that they were okay or even desired trading Noah and/or Deng 3 and 4 years ago. 

So, I can safely group you all into the group of being far more charitable about Paxson and far less likely to have wanted Deng and Noah gone as long ago as I wanted them gone (I never wanted Deng re-signed in 2008!)...

But if you're changing your tune now, sure, I'll listen. This place is 1000 times better than realgm.


----------



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

Hoodey said:


> If that's how you feel, fine, I will not group you with the rest, but let's not have delusions.
> 
> Most Bulls fans think Paxson is doing either a great or very good job. When I see the truth about the man...
> 
> ...


I'm not changing my tune, I've always maintained this stance. 

As for the playoff record, I'd think most teams have a record around 500. That record includes the series we lost against the 76ers(if Rose is healthy we win the series in 4 or 5 and we win round 2 in 4 or 5, massively boosting that record), as well as last season's non Rose playoff run. Point is if Rose doesn't get hurt, we would have made 2 of the last 3 ECF's, maybe 3 of the last 3. If we make the finals in the other two series, I don't know, but I still maintain my belief that we would have won the game in 2012.

Despite the fact that I think this regime has done a solid job thus far, for me, this is their last strike to make something happen. First strike was their attempt to re-create the 2004 Pistons. Didn't work and even if built successfully, it wasn't winning in today's NBA. Second strike was this little 2010-2013 run they had. Could have worked, but we'll never really know because of injuries. We had assets to make a big trade, but the big trade was just never really there for us. Carmelo Anthony wanted the Brooklyn Nets or Knicks, with us considered the 3rd option, Dwight Howard was never wanting to come here, Lebron, Wade, Bosh decided to team up. We tried to trade for Sacramento's pick in this years draft, it didn't work, we tried to trade for GS's pick the year before, it didn't work, but realistically those were the only moves to be made by us. As for Aldridge, I still wouldn't do it.

Anyways, in my opinion, this is their final strike. The assets are there, is there a trade to be made somewhere? I don't know, but if we let the assets just sit there and not bunch them up for something big, then maybe it's time for a new voice leading the way. We'll see how this round goes.

Also if the Thibs thing gets out of hand and he's ready to leave because of the FO, then they need to go, because Thibs' voice should be just as powerful as Rose's, in my opinion.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

mvP to the Wee said:


> I'm not changing my tune, I've always maintained this stance.
> 
> As for the playoff record, I'd think most teams have a record around 500. That record includes the series we lost against the 76ers(if Rose is healthy we win the series in 4 or 5 and we win round 2 in 4 or 5, massively boosting that record), as well as last season's non Rose playoff run. Point is if Rose doesn't get hurt, we would have made 2 of the last 3 ECF's, maybe 3 of the last 3. If we make the finals in the other two series, I don't know, but I still maintain my belief that we would have won the game in 2012.
> 
> ...


I don't understand. "Could have won" without the rose injury. The 1993 bulls lost Michael Jordan that summer! They lose him late enough in the game that Pete Myers is the replacement. They win 55 games and if not for Hugh Hopkins phantom call they'd have beaten the finals bound Knicks. Why? Because pippen and grant really WERE as good as the f.o. thought they were. 

Those 3 strikes will take 20 years and produce nothing.


----------



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

Hoodey said:


> I don't understand. "Could have won" without the rose injury. The 1993 bulls lost Michael Jordan that summer! They lose him late enough in the game that Pete Myers is the replacement. They win 55 games and if not for Hugh Hopkins phantom call they'd have beaten the finals bound Knicks. Why? Because pippen and grant really WERE as good as the f.o. thought they were.
> 
> Those 3 strikes will take 20 years and produce nothing.


You never got the memo did you? We're in year 2013, not 1993. The game has evolved, as well as how a front office has to function. You think this new wave of heavy importance on the 3 point shot existed in 1993? They would eat you up inside with these small lineups. But the game has evolved since then.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Tell me Kevin love isn't your big answer lol. I'm so glad Carmelo isn't here.


----------



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

Hoodey said:


> Tell me Kevin love isn't your big answer lol. I'm so glad Carmelo isn't here.


If we get Kevin Love, we'll win an NBA title.

I'm eh on Carmelo. I feel like you still need a big that can score along with a backcourt player that can put it in the basket.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

I'm looking to have been pretty wrong about the Bulls falling apart and dropping into the lotto after trading Deng. Fairly surprised.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

R-Star said:


> I'm looking to have been pretty wrong about the Bulls falling apart and dropping into the lotto after trading Deng. Fairly surprised.


Give it some time, I think they still have another trade or two in store.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Bogg said:


> Give it some time, I think they still have another trade or two in store.


I guess they're still only 3 games ahead of 9th place Detroit. But still. They made a blatant tank move, semi denied it, and they're still sitting around the same spot, comfortably in the playoffs race. 

If they make any more tank moves, how will the fan base react?


----------



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

R-Star said:


> I guess they're still only 3 games ahead of 9th place Detroit. But still. They made a blatant tank move, semi denied it, and they're still sitting around the same spot, comfortably in the playoffs race.
> 
> If they make any more tank moves, how will the fan base react?


I really wouldn't care, since that tank move is probably just dumping Mike Dunleavy's contract and if we're not getting Love or Melo, I rather have $13-14 million to spend in free agency than just $10-11 million.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

mvP to the Wee said:


> I really wouldn't care, since that tank move is probably just dumping Mike Dunleavy's contract and if we're not getting Love or Melo, I rather have $13-14 million to spend in free agency than just $10-11 million.


Is trading Dunleavy really going to make you drop out of the playoffs though?


----------



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

R-Star said:


> Is trading Dunleavy really going to make you drop out of the playoffs though?


Probably not, although this February/March stretch is rough, but we've been lucky with injuries(minus Rose) this year and we've been grinding out wins. We'll probably finish with a 6-8 seed. I don't think a full tank is the goal either, we just wanted something for Deng rather than lose him for nothing.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

R-Star said:


> I'm looking to have been pretty wrong about the Bulls falling apart and dropping into the lotto after trading Deng. Fairly surprised.


As am I...but then again, look who they are beating. Even though their scoring is non-existent, they still have maintained an identity which is more than what 50% of teams in this league can claim. Their defense is just too good and their offense (while terrible) is too disciplined to lose to teams running out NBDL talent and hack job systems. The "credit" goes to Thibodeau for that. (btw, Thibodeau continues to run his top 6-7 players into the ground with minutes...why Thibs?)

IMO, they will finish with a .500 record and the #6 seed, basically treading water where they stand now. I've lost hope in the tank, unfortunately. 

Instead I have shifted attention to the Bobcats' pick...hopefully Detroit or NY takes the #8 seed from them, so the Bulls can either get the 11th pick this year or a future lotto pick.


----------

