# Can Pax deliver a good big man?



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i mean that seriously , for all the talk about what paxson can do , the hardest thing to do in the nba is get a good starting quality to star big man ...and by my estimation its something he just hasn't done yet.

the big men of paxson by draft 2003- to present

in 2003 pax drafted mario austin(36) , tommie smith(53) and matt bonner(45) ...the one he choose to send away is the only capable 2 years later of being an nba player(bonner) while leaving a current starter zaza pachulia(42) on the board to be drafted.

pax did not sign any big men over the summer of 2003 choosing to spend papa reisdorf's money on pippen and gill.

as far as bigs 2004 he signed chapu ...who is really a good backup 3 he isn't big enough to be an everyday starter at the 4 or 5...although he did play some 4 overseas and some 4 on the bulls mostly off the bench against favorable matchups.

in 2005 he signed songalia & malik allen

in 2 trades with the knicks bigwise we sent away eddy curry, jyd and AD for mike sweetney and othella harrington, neither of which are what most call starter quality big men at the moment.

he also sent donyell(along with rose) away for AD and jyd 

the trend in trades appear to be diminishing returns in the post.

in signings (2005) he had a real shot at pauchulia if he choose to pursue him he signed a 4 year 16 mil. pact with atl. and instead choose songalia, malik allen and cap space

the end result is the team he inheited in the post is far better than he has now and in 3 offseasons he has failed to improve the team in the post in any real significant way.

there is no contender without at least one quality big man usually they have a star calibur guy in the post and another good one right next to him another good one off the bench, to get to the next level they need to get another one...at least one possibly 2 because tyson has proven he cant do it alone in there.

so my question is...Can Pax deliver a good big man, or 2?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Getting good big men is something Paxson has not yet proven. But he's also only been GM for 2 years & 9 months by my count. So it's too early to say, IMO, whether Paxson knows big man talent or not.

Frankly, I don't think he's really had a good opportunity to snag a big man. Mid-level exception dollars only get you so much. And you can't expect too much from 2nd round picks either...most of them don't even get contracts. I can't say he's done too poorly with his 3 lotto picks, and I can't think of any lotto-worthy big guys he's passed up that we should regret not taking. He's done a decent job getting serviceable vets like Davis and Harrington via trade. 

Historically, the best way to get good big men seems to be through the draft. Thanks to the Knicks, we may have our chance to draft a good one. Aldridge or Bargnani might fall right into our hands, and supposedly both have excellent potential. Gotta wait and see I guess.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

he passed up a really good big man in fry.he could have added something else in for fry(like Pike and our 1st,or took MIKE out,took thos 2nd rounders out).somehow fry should have been in that trade or pax should have told IT to piss off and waited on something better..

think about it,with the way the trade went down it left NY with atleast 5 guys that can play the C pos and about 6 guys for the PF pos.and if eddie was their "Star" C and all of those PF surely IT would have cracked in time and gave pax fry if pax would have just backed out and said give us fry or no deal.

but becuase he was taken so much heat in the media from the dna test he wanted eddie out of here asap and was willing to let the team get raped in order to get the heat off himself..


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> but becuase he was taken so much heat in the media from the dna test he wanted eddie out of here asap and was willing to let the team get raped in order to get the heat off himself..


Frye would of never been included, it just defies all logic for the Knicks, blaming Pax for this is silly in my opinion.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

step said:


> Frye would of never been included, it just defies all logic for the Knicks, blaming Pax for this is silly in my opinion.


thats one way to look at it,but when ppl start talking about Pierce or some other star this ALWAYS comes up"you have to give up something to get something" yet why doesnt other teams have to "give up something" to get our players?

im not saying eddie,rose,AD,JYD,DM were all stars or anything like that,but in the end the BEST that we'll be able to get from them is(outside of a trade) Ben Wallace,LaMarcus Aldridge,MIKE,and one more FA + not counting all of this time waiting.but thats VERY UNLIKLY to happen.a more likly outcome is Shelden Williams or Tiago Splitter,MIKE,and 2 of Wilcox,AH,NENE,Mohammed,Przybilla.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> i
> so my question is...Can Pax deliver a good big man, or 2?


Not having a uterus, the odds are against it. If he does, the science journals will be all over the story.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Not having a uterus, the odds are against it. If he does, the science journals will be all over the story.



:no: :laugh:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Malik Allen, $1.6M.

End of story.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

No, not end of story.


Darius Songaila, $2.2m.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ShamBulls said:


> No, not end of story.
> 
> 
> Darius Songaila, $2.2m.


As I said when it happened, a pretty good deal for a skilled big. 

And I can't imagine how bad we'd be right now if Darius hadn't stepped up his game after a shaky start.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> As I said when it happened, a pretty good deal for a skilled big.
> 
> And I can't imagine how bad we'd be right now if Darius hadn't stepped up his game after a shaky start.



do you consider songalia a good starting big at 8.7 points under 4 reb. a game ?

the nba is not bargainhunters.com.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Eddy curry for Michael Sweetney

end of story.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> i mean that seriously , for all the talk about what paxson can do , the hardest thing to do in the nba is get a good starting quality to star big man ...and by my estimation its something he just hasn't done yet.


That's why I would seriously laugh my freaking bleep off when Paxsonites would be like "we have everything we need, except a center, and Pax 'will just get one this offseason.'" Like getting a good center in the NBA who is 7' feet, over 250 lbs., not a complete stiff and a force down low isn't the NBA GM equivalent of me or you finding a diamond by digging in our front yard. That logic is about as stupid as, "well honey, we just mortgaged ourselves into $850,000 in debt over the next 30 years with a house, cars and all the stuff we need to keep up with the Joneses, and now *I'm just gotta go get a pot of gold to pay for it all*." Slowly but surely it's gonna sink in. For the more astute like yourself, I think it is sinking in now. But sometime around next year, even the biggest Pax-licker is gonna have a moment of clarity and be like "OMG, it never dawned on me, when you have a good center, maybe you should hold onto him until he is ripped away from your dead bloody hands because getting another one can take a franchise a decade."

You know what I always feared of when there was talk of us trading Eddy Curry. I feared of seeing MY team be the team I've seen talked about by every analyst in the NBA over the years. The Bucks a couple years back, the Sonics for a while, a lot of teams. I always feared that I'd once hear the famous line repeated about other teams that I surely knew I would never hear about the Bulls as long as they had Curry. Get ready because when I say it, I'm sure you will be like "Oh man, I have heard that a million times too."

It's usually when a team that wins like 48 games with no inside scoring presence suddenly goes dead against a team that may play inferior team basketball but is beating them in a playoff series due to being able to get high percentage buckets when the games tighten up. 

Analyst: "It pains you, because (insert team here), could contend, maybe win a championship *IF THEY ONLY HAD A CENTER/IF THEY COULD ONLY GET SOME INSIDE POINTS ON A CONSISTENT BASIS*

You're going to start to hear it when the Bulls get competitive again (and they will). You'll be watching NBA on TNT halftime and Ernie Johnson or maybe during the game Steve Kerr will say it and I'll feel a knife cutting into my back.

"You know, the Chicago Bulls could be so good, if they only had a center."



> the big men of paxson by draft 2003- to present
> 
> in 2003 pax drafted mario austin(36) , tommie smith(53) and matt bonner(45) ...the one he choose to send away is the only capable 2 years later of being an nba player(bonner) while leaving a current starter zaza pachulia(42) on the board to be drafted.
> 
> ...


I don't know for sure. I won't have final binding judgments on Pax for a couple years, BUT I can say I doubt it. I really won't ever stop being po'd at Pax for, IMO, thinking that he had a mulligan in the second round of the NBA draft in 2003. I think Pachulia was available to us then. 

Pax IMO thinks too much from a guards perspective to ever get/retain a good pound the ball down low kinda big man. So does Skiles. Many coaches could have used Curry much better. I think if you had put Curry with Phil Jackson in L.A. and they would have brought in Abdul-Jabbar (like they did for Bynum), you'd see a drastically different player than you did under Skiles, Cartwright, Floyd or that you will under Brown. Some coaches want to get punitive with a guy over his weaknesses, and some take advantage of his strengths. But to me Pax thinks that big men should be good at rebounding jumpshots and catching backdoor passes for layups and defense above all else. I think he is guilty of something you didn't see with say, Jerry West (also a guard as a player). He's guilty of picking up players who best would have fit around John Paxson the player. 

He also, IMO, writes players off way too easily. I hesitate to support any GM who virtually doesn't give you a second thought if you don't have college or international pedigree behind you. All I'd want is to get the feeling that Pax considers everybody on their merits and actual ability. EVERYBODY. But I don't think he does that. Nobody has to agree with that, as it's just my opinion, but some do agree with that.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

step said:


> Frye would of never been included, it just defies all logic for the Knicks, blaming Pax for this is silly in my opinion.


Yes, to many, blaming Pax for anything has never been acceptable. The man literally has never done anything wrong. I mean people say things like "Pax makes mistakes like everyone else." But I'll be darned if you can bring up any specific thing he ever did or didn't do without a line of people to say that that particular thing "can't be blamed on Pax." 

When Pax succeeds, circumstances have nothing to do with it. It's just because he's MF-ing John Jibberydibbery Paxson and he does it the right way.

When Pax fails, you can't blame him, I mean, look at the circumstances he was in.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Not having a uterus, the odds are against it. If he does, the science journals will be all over the story.


 :banana:  :banana: :banana: 

LOL. Major bananas for TB1


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> do you consider songalia a good starting big at 8.7 points under 4 reb. a game ?
> 
> the nba is not bargainhunters.com.


Absolutely not. He's a darn solid backup though. And there aren't many big men with his combination of shooting and passing skills. From what I've seen, he works hard defensively too (alot better than Sweetney, IMO).

Getting good players at reasonable deals makes it easier for a GM to work under his allowed budget. Unless you're the Knicks, who stink horribly, every team has its financial limits. The Pistons have been paying Ben Wallace and Chauncy Billups peanuts compared to what other inferior players earn. You don't think that has something to do with how they felt about re-upping Hamilton, Tayshaun, and Rasheed with big deals?


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

sloth said:


> Eddy curry for Michael Sweetney
> 
> end of story.



Was that the trade? I thought there was other stuff involved :whoknows:


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

ShamBulls said:


> Was that the trade? I thought there was other stuff involved :whoknows:


Yeah....like us giving up Antonio Davis for Tim Thomas.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

The Krakken said:


> Yeah....like us giving up Antonio Davis for Tim Thomas.


What are you talking about man. We all know that:

Michael Sweetney + invisible Tim Thomas + *First Round draft pick (in first draft with an age limit) + Pick Swap (that we may not even use) + 2 second round picks* > Eddy Curry and Antonio Davis

COME ON dude. Get your head on right. We all know that with Larry Brown's record with pretty much ever team he has ever coached, they usually only get WORSE as he continues to coach them. Look at Detroit and Indiana! They stooped all the way down to the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP at Kansas under Brown. I mean come on. I think that I know your reaction. After I set you straight and reminded you of all those extra assets (cough, bullbleep, cough) you're "literally drooling."


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

This didn't take long.


:banana:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Absolutely not. He's a darn solid backup though. And there aren't many big men with his combination of shooting and passing skills. From what I've seen, he works hard defensively too (alot better than Sweetney, IMO).
> 
> Getting good players at reasonable deals makes it easier for a GM to work under his allowed budget. Unless you're the Knicks, who stink horribly, every team has its financial limits. The Pistons have been paying Ben Wallace and Chauncy Billups peanuts compared to what other inferior players earn. You don't think that has something to do with how they felt about re-upping Hamilton, Tayshaun, and Rasheed with big deals?


well i thought i was clear when i asked good _starting_ bigs. but anyway , dumars has been fortunate , he signed ben when he was still improving...he took a chance on billups after only a good half a season in minny and gave him the mle, some would have called them reaches at the time , just like when he signed mcdyess after a couple of horrible seasons. dumars takes chances early in a player and has been right...pax has not done this, they aren't comparable pax has actually over the last couple of years played it extremely safe ...too safe imo, he didn't want to take a chance on eddy...or jamal. instead choose to pay tyson more than either of them got from the knicks...time has up to now shown that to be a mistake. being safe with paying players only matters if when you decide to pay a player , you make the right decisions. so to clear up the comparisons 
dumars has signed billups, rip, rasheed ben wallace and mcdyess.
pax has signed songalia, nocioni , tyson malik allen othella and duhon.

now maybe its just me but i see a clear division in the caliber of player the gm's have been spending on, 1st with the exception of chandler dumars has clearly been spending more , for much better players...in tyson's case pax just spent more for an inferior player.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> well i thought i was clear when i asked good _starting_ bigs. but anyway , dumars has been fortunate , he signed ben when he was still improving...he took a chance on billups after only a good half a season in minny and gave him the mle, some would have called them reaches at the time , just like when he signed mcdyess after a couple of horrible seasons. dumars takes chances early in a player and has been right...pax has not done this, they aren't comparable pax has actually over the last couple of years played it extremely safe ...too safe imo, he didn't want to take a chance on eddy...or jamal. instead choose to pay tyson more than either of them got from the knicks...time has up to now shown that to be a mistake. being safe with paying players only matters if when you decide to pay a player , you make the right decisions. so to clear up the comparisons
> dumars has signed billups, rip, rasheed ben wallace and mcdyess.
> pax has signed songalia, nocioni , tyson malik allen othella and duhon.
> 
> now maybe its just me but i see a clear division in the caliber of player the gm's have been spending on, 1st with the exception of chandler dumars has clearly been spending more , for much better players...in tyson's case pax just spent more for an inferior player.


Grinch you hit the nail on the head. IMO, playing it safe is the EASY part. Anyone can shoot for average seasons and draft only college-seasoned NBA ready and very coachable players. It's the risks, calculated risks, that make a GM more than average. The difference between Pax and Dumars is when Paxson hears risk, he just tunes the rest of the conversation out, whereas Dumars listens to the rest and sees if it's the kind of risk that can be hedged and perhaps pay huge dividends, a la Rasheed and probably Chauncey. I think trading for Rip was considered a risk. Crap who does play any kind of major role for the Pistons that wasn't considered a risky pickup? The only guy I can think of off the top of my head who was considered a no-brainer when Dumars picked him up was Darko Milicic. Is there another "sure thing" on the roster? We have a roster full of sure things, as in I'm pretty sure I already know how good they can be, and it aint good enough. Not to compete for Obriens, and that's what I want. Chicago has 24 pro championships and any team not actively shooting only for the goal of adding to that total above all other things (value systems, competitiveness, doing things a certain "way") is the enemy. At least the decision makers are until they are replaced. 

I am a Chicago Bulls fan. But right now I feel like a Notre Dame fan under Gerry Faust. Yeah, they still loved Notre Dame, and dreamed of a day when they'd be a Faustless program, but most of them began rooting vigorously for Faust to fail. Now I'm not going that far, but let's just say that I crave the day when I can watch the Bulls and know that names like Paxson, Skiles, Reinsdorf, Sweetney and Chandler are names of the past.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> . But right now I feel like a Notre Dame fan under Gerry Faust. Yeah, they still loved Notre Dame, and dreamed of a day when they'd be a Faustless program, but most of them began rooting vigorously for Faust to fail


I dont feel that way at all. A huge difference in the two situations. Holtz had just stepped down from a very successful coaching stint. JP stepped into a disaster. Faust caused the disaster. Faust had time there and his teams we all bad. Really bad. 

John has a lot to work with this summer. I am willing to wait. I will not root for John to fail. 

He was strapped this year with the cap and draft picks. Next summer is a different story.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> John has a lot to work with this summer. I am willing to wait. I will not root for John to fail.
> 
> He was strapped this year with the cap and draft picks. Next summer is a different story.


I'm willing to wait aswell, though I just hope he realises that he doesn't have to and probably shouldn't wait till the summer to make the necessary upgrades / changes.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

An interesting poll might be...

Do you think Malik Allen will be re-signed? Yes/No.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> That's why I would seriously laugh my freaking bleep off when Paxsonites would be like "we have everything we need, except a center, and Pax 'will just get one this offseason.'" Like getting a good center in the NBA who is 7' feet, over 250 lbs., not a complete stiff and a force down low isn't the NBA GM equivalent of me or you finding a diamond by digging in our front yard. That logic is about as stupid as, "well honey, we just mortgaged ourselves into $850,000 in debt over the next 30 years with a house, cars and all the stuff we need to keep up with the Joneses, and now *I'm just gotta go get a pot of gold to pay for it all*." Slowly but surely it's gonna sink in. For the more astute like yourself, I think it is sinking in now. But sometime around next year, even the biggest Pax-licker is gonna have a moment of clarity and be like "OMG, it never dawned on me, when you have a good center, maybe you should hold onto him until he is ripped away from your dead bloody hands because getting another one can take a franchise a decade."
> 
> You know what I always feared of when there was talk of us trading Eddy Curry. I feared of seeing MY team be the team I've seen talked about by every analyst in the NBA over the years. The Bucks a couple years back, the Sonics for a while, a lot of teams. I always feared that I'd once hear the famous line repeated about other teams that I surely knew I would never hear about the Bulls as long as they had Curry. Get ready because when I say it, I'm sure you will be like "Oh man, I have heard that a million times too."
> 
> ...


Good post, I agree and you can add me to your club as well.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

of those who have the faith in paxson, can someone tell me who they think the paxman brings in?


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

2007 is chock full of big men. If Pax can't draft one, then no he can't.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> well i thought i was clear when i asked good _starting_ bigs. but anyway , dumars has been fortunate , he signed ben when he was still improving...he took a chance on billups after only a good half a season in minny and gave him the mle, some would have called them reaches at the time , just like when he signed mcdyess after a couple of horrible seasons. dumars takes chances early in a player and has been right...pax has not done this, they aren't comparable pax has actually over the last couple of years played it extremely safe ...too safe imo, he didn't want to take a chance on eddy...or jamal. instead choose to pay tyson more than either of them got from the knicks...time has up to now shown that to be a mistake. being safe with paying players only matters if when you decide to pay a player , you make the right decisions. so to clear up the comparisons


Seems to me Pax took a pretty big gamble on a not so healthy Pippen. Of course, it didn't pan out, unfortunately.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

IMO, I'm good if Pax were to bring in Pryz and then try to draft a big project in 2007. Pryz could be a good stopgap for a while. He's not world beater, but not bad either. 

With the remaining assets this summer, I'd like to see a tall defensive 2 or another big.

This is assuming there's no big trade by next season.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

jnrjr79 said:


> IMO, I'm good if Pax were to bring in Pryz and then try to draft a big project in 2007. Pryz could be a good stopgap for a while. He's not world beater, but not bad either.
> 
> With the remaining assets this summer, I'd like to see a tall defensive 2 or another big.
> 
> This is assuming there's no big trade by next season.


To me he's redundant with Chandler here, but I'd take one of Chandler/Pryzbilla. I'd take Pryzbilla over Chandler.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

He may be redundant, but who isn't at this point? I think a rebounding, shot-blocking 5 would be a good thing. It lets Tyson play his natural 4 position. I just don't see us getting a very offensively skilled 5 this summer, at least through free agency.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

pryz seems to be where the bulls are headed, but if that happens i would be greatly dissapointed.

trading rose in part because AD's contract is shorter.

trading JC for nothing the bulls will have after this season , also for that wonderful thing known as cap space.

trading eddy and instead of getting a very good established player , getting picks and once again cap space.

all that for joel pryz

2006 was supposed to be the summer of the bulls great push and huge talent upgrade where they add a star via FA...joel pryzbilla does not fit the bill for me.

i honestly dont see that guy being available , young studs are always resigned , old studs are usually kept unless they have bad jib , in which case we all know pax will pass on them anyway.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> pryz seems to be where the bulls are headed, but if that happens i would be greatly dissapointed.
> 
> trading rose in part because AD's contract is shorter.
> 
> ...


yeah the title of this thread mentions Pax's ability to get a "good" big man...I don't think Pryz is all that good and we would probably have to overpay to get him anyway. If your going to overpay a big man you may as well overpay a big man with some real talent (see Eddy Curry).


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> (see Eddy Curry).


Why? Is Amare standing behind him or something?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Da Grinch said:


> pryz seems to be where the bulls are headed, but if that happens i would be greatly dissapointed.
> 
> trading rose in part because AD's contract is shorter.
> 
> ...


If the Bulls sign Pryz, I find it hard to believe he'd be the only signing of the offseason. Think theyire gonna give him $15 million? 

All of those moves you don't freed up a lot more capspace than just "Pryzbila" money.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> He may be redundant, but who isn't at this point? I think a rebounding, shot-blocking 5 would be a good thing. It lets Tyson play his natural 4 position. I just don't see us getting a very offensively skilled 5 this summer, at least through free agency.


And he's more broad than Chandler. He takes up more space. The one thing that I dramatically underestimated was the loss of Curry's mass in the paint. I frankly thought the theory that Curry's mere size made an impact was hogwash. I was wrong. Really, really wrong.

Thats why I think either Pryz or Nazr (preferably Nazr) would be good signings this summer (along with another, more gifted player a la Gooden or Harrington).


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> yeah the title of this thread mentions Pax's ability to get a "good" big man...I don't think Pryz is all that good and we would probably have to overpay to get him anyway. If your going to overpay a big man you may as well overpay a big man with some real talent (see Eddy Curry).



i agree with u , pryz only gets 25 min. a game on a woeful blazer team, they would love for him to play better so they could play him longer , they dont have a backup pf so theo has to fill both backup spots... but he is young and is a shotblocker and can defend other centers...but a guy like is available every year if u know where to look , (diop anyone?)


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> If the Bulls sign Pryz, I find it hard to believe he'd be the only signing of the offseason. Think theyire gonna give him $15 million?
> 
> All of those moves you don't freed up a lot more capspace than just "Pryzbila" money.


fair enough ron , who else is there?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Da Grinch said:


> fair enough ron , who else is there?


I think a combination of, for example, Harrington and Gooden are the two main guys I'd like the Bulls to look at in conjunction with Pryz or Nazr. Thats a major upgrade from what we have now, in my opinion. I think its a realistic plan, and its the type of plan I hope Paxson pursues if he can't bundle some of our other assets into a "star" instead. 

We'd go from a frontcourt with virtually no size and depth, to a very big frontcourt with considerable depth. I know it doesn't knock anyone's socks off, but I like it.

P.S. - My god that post of mine that you quoted was horribly written. I'm glad you could understand that jibberish.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I think a combination of, for example, Harrington and Gooden are the two main guys I'd like the Bulls to look at in conjunction with Pryz or Nazr. Thats a major upgrade from what we have now, in my opinion. I think its a realistic plan, and its the type of plan I hope Paxson pursues if he can't bundle some of our other assets into a "star" instead.
> 
> We'd go from a frontcourt with virtually no size and depth, to a very big frontcourt with considerable depth. I know it doesn't knock anyone's socks off, but I like it.
> 
> P.S. - My god that post of mine that you quoted was horribly written. I'm glad you could understand that jibberish.



How much money do you think we have? Harrington has already been saying he wants a max deal this offseason and Pryz isn't gonna leave Portland for anything short of 8mil a year or so. We can't even get BOTH Pryz & AL with what we have at this point so for us to get them both AND someone else is serious wishful thinking IMO.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Why? Is Amare standing behind him or something?


:laugh:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Who is closer production wise (PER) to the top player at his position? (ordinal)

Eddy Curry at C?
Kirk Hinrich at G?
Ben Gordon at G?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> How much money do you think we have? Harrington has already been saying he wants a max deal this offseason and Pryz isn't gonna leave Portland for anything short of 8mil a year or so. We can't even get BOTH Pryz & AL with what we have at this point so for us to get them both AND someone else is serious wishful thinking IMO.


We'll see. I also said Nazr and I also said Gooden. And I forgot to mention Nene who has become out of sight out of mind with me. 

We have, to my understanding, around $15 million to spend. I've seen higher estimates, but this is the one most commonly referenced (it is not my calculation). That seems as though it would be enough to get a combination of one of Gooden/Harrington/Nene and one of Nazr/Pryzbilla/Nene.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. 

As for Harrington talking about the max, is anyone really going to offer him that? That would surprise me. Worst case scenario, I look it as about $9-10 mil for Harrington or Nene (less for Gooden) and between $5-6 for Pryz or Nazr. 

I think its a realistic possibility.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I think a combination of, for example, Harrington and Gooden are the two main guys I'd like the Bulls to look at in conjunction with Pryz or Nazr. Thats a major upgrade from what we have now, in my opinion. I think its a realistic plan, and its the type of plan I hope Paxson pursues if he can't bundle some of our other assets into a "star" instead.
> 
> We'd go from a frontcourt with virtually no size and depth, to a very big frontcourt with considerable depth. I know it doesn't knock anyone's socks off, but I like it.
> 
> P.S. - My god that post of mine that you quoted was horribly written. I'm glad you could understand that jibberish.



nothing in life is free, al is a FA but he is essentially a copy of nocioni a 3/4 who isn't really big enough to be an effective fulltime 4. i have some strong doubts he would be of much help, because he is not strong in the bulls weaknesses, interior defense, rebounding.

gooden is a RFA and a legit 4 we would most likely have to aid a division rival to get him by sending them something of value ...and with the bulls lack of high salaried players to me its doubtful, unless a deal is made at the deadline, and then they would be weak in the post.

nazr is a good one he would be a great fit imo, but how much would the bulls have to overpay to pry him from the nba champs...and would pax overpay for mohammed.

the reason i believe pryz will be the guy is because the blazers only have his only early bird rights he should be an easy snatch if pax were so inclined, but i have no real proof that pax is any kind of recruiter, the only guys he has ever signed are people who were not in that high of demand, or personal friends(scottie).

i think pax once again backed himself into a corner , he has max money to spend but no max players to spend it on, this is basically the one summer when there are no such players available, what he is left to aquire are good role players and fringe starters , or hopefully to show a skill in the draft he has yet to do and find a productive starter in the post, which may be his best option , but it remains to be seen if he has that ability...or even if there will be any available in the late lottery when he will likely be making his selection.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> We'll see. I also said Nazr and I also said Gooden. And I forgot to mention Nene who has become out of sight out of mind with me.
> 
> We have, to my understanding, around $15 million to spend. I've seen higher estimates, but this is the one most commonly referenced (it is not my calculation). That seems as though it would be enough to get a combination of one of Gooden/Harrington/Nene and one of Nazr/Pryzbilla/Nene.
> 
> ...


nene is a good possibility , in fact if healthy he would be perfect...would pax take a chance on him is the question, i know i would like him to over the rest.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> We'll see. I also said Nazr and I also said Gooden. And I forgot to mention Nene who has become out of sight out of mind with me.
> 
> We have, to my understanding, around $15 million to spend. I've seen higher estimates, but this is the one most commonly referenced (it is not my calculation). That seems as though it would be enough to get a combination of one of Gooden/Harrington/Nene and one of Nazr/Pryzbilla/Nene.
> 
> ...


I have heard 14 million but even so, Pryz is gonna get more than 5-6 mil or he will remain a Blazer, his stated preference. Maybe Gooden is a possibility but I believe he is an RFA so who knows? Can we outbid for him? maybe. Is Nazr gonna leave a championship team like the Spurs? I kind of doubt it. Nene has his own concerns with his knee and he wasn't all that productive before either and will probably command a big salary. Harrington may not be a good fit on this team as someone already suggested plus he is WANTING a max deal, whether he gets it or not, he will be expensive to sign IMO. I just don't think that 14 mil gets us as far as we need to go.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> I have heard 14 million but even so, Pryz is gonna get more than 5-6 mil or he will remain a Blazer, his stated preference. Maybe Gooden is a possibility but I believe he is an RFA so who knows? Can we outbid for him? maybe. Is Nazr gonna leave a championship team like the Spurs? I kind of doubt it. Nene has his own concerns with his knee and he wasn't all that productive before either and will probably command a big salary. Harrington may not be a good fit on this team as someone already suggested plus he is WANTING a max deal, whether he gets it or not, he will be expensive to sign IMO. I just don't think that 14 mil gets us as far as we need to go.


We'll see.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

Another guy I reckon we should be looking at is Reggie Evans.

I wouldn't mind seeing us target him, Nene and Gooden.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> pryz seems to be where the bulls are headed, but if that happens i would be greatly dissapointed.
> 
> trading rose in part because AD's contract is shorter.
> 
> ...


Yep. We should be "drooling" according to SOME Pax supporters. There was actually this cat on the other board who said he drooled over Dan Gadzuric.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> If the Bulls sign Pryz, I find it hard to believe he'd be the only signing of the offseason. Think theyire gonna give him $15 million?
> 
> All of those moves you don't freed up a lot more capspace than just "Pryzbila" money.


So if they give him $11, since he doesn't even come close to making a contender, we're going to "Bridge the gap" with the other $4 million?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> And he's more broad than Chandler. He takes up more space. *The one thing that I dramatically underestimated was the loss of Curry's mass in the paint. I frankly thought the theory that Curry's mere size made an impact was hogwash. I was wrong. Really, really wrong.*
> 
> Thats why I think either Pryz or Nazr (preferably Nazr) would be good signings this summer (along with another, more gifted player a la Gooden or Harrington).


:biggrin: The hardest words to "Cey." Big kudos for Ron!

The problem with Pryzbilla is that your best offensive frontcourt player is STILL between Harrington, Songaila and Sweetney. Any bigman who allows that to be fact, is going to make me feel like "if this is what we're locking ourselves into, bye bye titles." I may be wrong for that, but it's how I feel. 

1000 :banana:s for the idea of waiting on Magloire


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Pippenatorade said:


> So if they give him $11, since he doesn't even come close to making a contender, we're going to "Bridge the gap" with the other $4 million?


The Bulls are not going to pay Joel Pryzbilla $11 million dollars per year. If that happens, I'll be upset too.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Pippenatorade said:


> :biggrin: The hardest words to "Cey." Big kudos for Ron!


Don't get me wrong. I still have no problem with the Curry trade. I'm just acknowledging that I was very, very wrong about the short term impact the trading of that Davis/Curry size would have on the team's ability to compete at a playoff caliber level. I thought the loss was insignificant. But it wasn't. It was very significant.

But I don't miss Eddy Curry. But that is for a different thread dedicated to his name in which I've stated my reasons why ad nauseum.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Pippenatorade said:


> Yep. We should be "drooling" according to SOME Pax supporters. There was actually this cat on the other board who said he drooled over Dan Gadzuric.


I don't think these types of generalizations are even accurate, for what its worth.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> nothing in life is free, al is a FA but he is essentially a copy of nocioni a 3/4 who isn't really big enough to be an effective fulltime 4. i have some strong doubts he would be of much help, *because he is not strong in the bulls weaknesses*, interior defense, rebounding.
> 
> gooden is a RFA and a legit 4 we would most likely have to aid a division rival to get him by sending them something of value ...and with the bulls lack of high salaried players to me its doubtful, unless a deal is made at the deadline, and then they would be weak in the post.
> 
> ...


Bingo.

I'd also add this. The Bulls weakness to me is interior scoring. You may say "yeah but our PPG and % is up, defense and rebounding is where we struggle," and at first glance, that appears to be the case. But look deeper. When you can slow it down, drop the ball down low to a guy who four other guys can watch turn around and make a hook shot, even if this only is successful on 7-9 possessions, that makes legs fresher and allows you to play more in your face defense for 48 minutes. It also wears down frontcourt players when it comes to rebounding. I can't even tell you how many times Eddy missed a short hook last year on a C/PF double team and Antonio just came in and jammed it on the other side because his defender got caught peaking over Eddy's shoulder. Then there is Ben Gordon and our outside shooters. Last year our initial attack of pound it into Eddy would change the mindset of the opposing defense, if only for a few possessions, and they'd get caught allowing outside shots because they'd been defending the half court inside game for so long. Ben, Kirk, Du, Noce and Deng would all get at least a couple shots where they got more space from this effect. 

I think any time you have a reliable inside scorer, it makes other, seemingly unrelated parts of the game easier to execute.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> The Bulls are not going to pay Joel Pryzbilla $11 million dollars per year. If that happens, I'll be upset too.


I understand that on his face, and in a vacuum, he is not worth that. But look at what some big men have made recently. Is it reasonable to say that we can have a competitive offer if we offer him any less than 9.5 per? And even then, now we have 5.5 to spend, or maybe 6. That isn't going to buy you anything close to a difference maker. But one thing I will say is, based on my neophyte opinion, be prepared to be very upset this summer, or maybe next fall when the hype of this summers acquisitions is gone, and their lack of effect on the court is shown. 

Pax has painted himself into a corner. The title of the corner? "Ben Wallace or Bust."


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

If I were Paxson I would volume draft and sign big men to be sure that I got a good one. I would draft, for example, Tyrus Thomas and Tiago splitter and then sign Nene and Nazr and call it a day. This would obviously increase the likelyhood of landing a good big (and Nazr would be quality insurance) and if by some stroke of fortune they all worked out, the Bulls would be well set up to make a trade for a star.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> I don't think these types of generalizations are even accurate, for what its worth.


I've stated before that we're probably talking about the inner 20% of the Pax regime. This board is MOSTLY clear of them. See other board.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> nene is a good possibility , in fact if healthy he would be perfect...would pax take a chance on him is the question, i know i would like him to over the rest.


I don't think he would


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> The Bulls are not going to pay Joel Pryzbilla $11 million dollars per year. If that happens, I'll be upset too.


I don't believe Paxson is going to sign anyone of note for any $$$ of consequence. Rookie contracts are just way cheaper.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Why sign anyone? Its so much more fun to salivate about the future.

the future, conan?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Pippenatorade said:


> I've stated before that we're probably talking about the inner 20% of the Pax regime. This board is MOSTLY clear of them. See other board.


I don't know of any fan on any board that is doing backflips to get Joel Pryzbilla. All I see are fans who think guys like Pryzbilla and Nazr can help as one piece to the several pieces it is anticipated will be added to the team this summer. 

There may be a random zealot who says that Pryz is better than Curry. But your attribution of that poster(s) to even 20% of those who think Paxson is doing a good job is a gross mischaracterization of what people anticipate or expect through free agency this summer.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> I don't believe Paxson is going to sign anyone of note for any $$$ of consequence. Rookie contracts are just way cheaper.


Do you think that the Chicago Bulls fan base would tolerate Paxson wasting his capspace by either ignoring free agency (which is different than striking out) or refusing to trade for an impact player with a big contract, after two years of being told that capspace a flexibility to make trades was the goal? 

Because its cheaper to sign rookies? 

I know I won't stand for it. But I don't think I'm going to have to worry about it.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Do you think that the Chicago Bulls fan base would tolerate Paxson wasting his capspace by either ignoring free agency (which is different than striking out) or refusing to trade for an impact player with a big contract, after two years of being told that capspace a flexibility to make trades was the goal?
> 
> Because its cheaper to sign rookies?
> 
> I know I won't stand for it. But I don't think I'm going to have to worry about it.


i think of course pax will make an attempt , but who is really there ?

as Pippenatorade has noted the names we have mentioned , no one replaces curry's inside scoring, i thought sweets would help but he hasn't really been given enough of an opportunity imo, and he may never w/o a true center on the roster, to keep relying on him when its not working and never had curry's ceiling for post play may not be realistic.

now maybe i am just hard to convince but i never thought it was a good idea to make plans for a free agent class as much as 3 years in advance ...which early projections has as not only the worst draft in recent memory , but also the worst free agent market in recent memory, at least in 2000 krause had grant hill, tmac, eddie jones and to a lesser degree tim duncan to throw $ at.

and if my memory serves me bulls fans were merciless in jk's failure that offseason , why would they decide that pax's purging of 2 lotto choices as well a couple still servicable vets are worth mediocre starting centers aquired a couple of years later. i have my doubts he'll get a center as good as brad miller, which krause settled for after the big names went to fla. for the most part along with ron mercer.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Da Grinch said:


> i think of course pax will make an attempt , but who is really there ?
> 
> as Pippenatorade has noted the names we have mentioned , no one replaces curry's inside scoring, i thought sweets would help but he hasn't really been given enough of an opportunity imo, and he may never w/o a true center on the roster, to keep relying on him when its not working and never had curry's ceiling for post play may not be realistic.


The key difference that cannot be reconciled between opinions like yours and opinions like mine is that I don't think trading Eddy Curry matters in the long term for this team. 

If, for example, you offered me, in exchange for Eddy Curry and AD, Al Harrington and Nazr Mohammed (or Gooden/Pryzbilla or Nene/Wright or any similar combination of players), plus the Knicks first round pick this season, two Knicks second round picks, and the right to pick swap with the Knicks in 2007, plus Michael Sweetney, I would have fallen all over myself trying to sign the contract before you changed your mind. 

I realize that even if we kept Curry we would have had enough capspace to sign one good free agent, so the example is not totally accurate, but you get my point. 

I know a lot of you value Eddy Curry very highly. Given your opinions of him, I don't blame you at all for feeling like you do about Paxson and the future of this team. If I thought he was good enough to lose sleep over, I'd feel the same way you guys do. 

This has nothing to do with my opinion about Paxson. It is about my opinion of Eddy Curry. I think people who use phrases like "Paxson youth" and "Paxson regime" blur the line between the two sets of opinions.

To me, something like Al Harrington and Nazr (if accomplished) alone is twice as good as having Curry. Then when you throw Sweetney and the draft picks into the mix, it just isn't even a consideration anymore to me. 

I don't really have anything else to add, and I'm sorry if I made this about Curry (I've attempted to avoid discussing his game specifically and have addressed him more in the abstract). My main point is that I think Paxson can and will get big men this offseason to shore our team up and to put it into a nice position going forward.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> The key difference that cannot be reconciled between opinions like yours and opinions like mine is that I don't think trading Eddy Curry matters in the long term for this team.
> 
> If, for example, you offered me, in exchange for Eddy Curry and AD, Al Harrington and Nazr Mohammed (or Gooden/Pryzbilla or Nene/Wright), plus the Knicks first round pick this season, two Knicks second round picks, and the right to pick swap with the Knicks in 2007, plus Michael Sweetney, I would have fallen all over myself trying to sign the contract before you changed your mind.
> 
> ...


If I could rep you twice for this post, I would.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Do you think that the Chicago Bulls fan base would tolerate Paxson wasting his capspace by either ignoring free agency (which is different than striking out) or refusing to trade for an impact player with a big contract, after two years of being told that capspace a flexibility to make trades was the goal?
> 
> Because its cheaper to sign rookies?
> 
> I know I won't stand for it. But I don't think I'm going to have to worry about it.


Do I think Paxson cares about the fan base? NO. Not as long as they root for suits and not for victories on the court.

The math is pretty simple. If the Bulls sign a FA, they go over the cap in 2007 by the amount of that FA's contract. Near luxury tax land.

The cap flexibility will be used to re-sign the players we have (Kirk, Nocioni, Deng) when their contracts are up.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Why sign anyone? Its so much more fun to salivate about the future.
> 
> the future, conan?


Given that this is from the "Year 2000 Sketch", seems Conan is living in the past like so much of this board...


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> The cap flexibility will be used to re-sign the players we have (Kirk, Nocioni, Deng) when their contracts are up.


DB, if you are right then I'll join your club. 

If Paxson refuses to put that capspace into play via trade or ignores free agency, you can expect a PM from me humbly asking that you add me to your sig.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> DB, if you are right then I'll join your club.
> 
> If Paxson refuses to put that capspace into play via trade or ignores free agency, you can expect a PM from me humbly asking that you add me to your sig.


There will be no way to prove it.

The Bulls will publicly appear to be trying to sign free agents, no matter what happens. Paxson has the perfect out by saying he does not want to overpay for mediocre talent, which I think is actually a valid stance. This team is not going to pay the tax, IMO. 

They might even fly out and talk to Kobe some more.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> There will be no way to prove it.
> 
> The Bulls will publicly appear to be trying to sign free agents, no matter what happens.
> 
> They might even fly out and talk to Kobe some more.


Oooooo! We're back to the diabolical Dr. Frankenpax and his conspiracies again! MUHUHAHAHA!

All right! This is always good comedy.

Proceed.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> There will be no way to prove it.
> 
> The Bulls will publicly appear to be trying to sign free agents, no matter what happens. Paxson has the perfect out by saying he does not want to overpay for mediocre talent, which I think is actually a valid stance. This team is not going to pay the tax, IMO.
> 
> They might even fly out and talk to Kobe some more.


If they make offers, I suspect we'll hear about that at least in general terms. 

There will be no way to know about the trades though, most likely. I agree with that. But I think free agency can be gauged. I have no doubt that Krause busted his *** to sign free agents in 2000, and he came away with nada.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Wynn said:


> Given that this is from the "Year 2000 Sketch", seems Conan is living in the past like so much of this board...


The present is shaky. Lots of empty seats Friday night at the UC when we lost to the Rockets. We're currently not a playoff team.

The future is brilliant. The custom jersey store by my place is all out of black Zs, so I have my Bulls road Przybilla jersey on back-order.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> I don't know of any fan on any board that is doing backflips to get Joel Pryzbilla. All I see are fans who think guys like Pryzbilla and Nazr can help as one piece to the several pieces it is anticipated will be added to the team this summer.
> 
> There may be a random zealot who says that Pryz is better than Curry. But your attribution of that poster(s) to even 20% of those who think Paxson is doing a good job is a gross mischaracterization of what people anticipate or expect through free agency this summer.


Ahhh I see the root of confusion. I may have highlighted "All that for Pryz" but when I said that Pax fans think we should be drooling, I meant over the summer and our "assets" as a whole, not over Joel Pryzbilla specifically. That would be a ridiculous statement on my part.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> i think of course pax will make an attempt , but who is really there ?
> 
> as Pippenatorade has noted the names we have mentioned , no one replaces curry's inside scoring, i thought sweets would help but he hasn't really been given enough of an opportunity imo, and he may never w/o a true center on the roster, to keep relying on him when its not working and never had curry's ceiling for post play may not be realistic.
> 
> ...


To me, if we drafted Shelden Williams to play AD's old role, there are 3 players who have the potential to make our frontcourt as good as the 2004-05 frontcourt in their first season here, in the foreseeable future:

2006:
Ben Wallace

2007:
Greg Oden
Jamaal Magloire

PERHAPS IF he's healthy:

2006:
Maybiner Hilario

Remember it's easy to fill the AD role. All you need there is a strong athletic guy who can hit a shot when he's left wide open and other than that plays like a strong safety. 

But both players cannot be acquired with that role in mind. One of them has to give us the battering ram effect/true center effect with SOME offense, some INDIVIDUAL offense and ability to create. 

Like I've repeated over and over:

*Any acquisition of two frontcourt players that leaves us in a state where Othella/Sweetney/Songaila is still our best offensive frontcourt threat is a bad set of acquisitions.*

One opportunity I see for Paxson, and this is what he may be banking on, is that he not only offer Ben Wallace the max SALARY, but also maximum YEARS, hoping that Dumars would consider this too risky and maybe Wallace, even with his love for the Pistons says "wait a minute, im getting 4 years here and 7 years there, and if I take 4 years, I'm almost assured not to make close to that salary on my next contract." PERHAPS that is what Pax is thinking. To me, any acquisition set from this summer not including Ben Wallace is an acquisition set that will leave me looking to the future for our chance at championship contention acquisitions.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> The present is shaky. Lots of empty seats Friday night at the UC when we lost to the Rockets. We're currently not a playoff team.
> 
> The future is brilliant. The custom jersey store by my place is all out of black Zs, so I have my Bulls road Przybilla jersey on back-order.


Do they only sell custom jerseys? 

I ask because I'm looking for a place to design me an Eddy Curry "NBA top 5 center" plaque, perhaps with enough room to store future newspaper clippings of Eddy's season and Finals MVP awards. 

Maybe they'll let me frame an "Inside/Out Dynamic Duo" Jamal Crawford picture in the upper right corner.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> The key difference that cannot be reconciled between opinions like yours and opinions like mine is that I don't think trading Eddy Curry matters in the long term for this team.
> 
> If, for example, you offered me, in exchange for Eddy Curry and AD, Al Harrington and Nazr Mohammed (or Gooden/Pryzbilla or Nene/Wright or any similar combination of players), plus the Knicks first round pick this season, two Knicks second round picks, and the right to pick swap with the Knicks in 2007, plus Michael Sweetney, I would have fallen all over myself trying to sign the contract before you changed your mind.
> 
> ...


Gooden/Pryzbilla/Sweetney/First rounder/pick swap/2 second rounders for Curry + Davis = quantity over quality. When they change the rules to allow you to play more than two frontcourt players while also still playing a swing and two guards, then that might be better. 

Here are my two guys:

Curry
Davis

Here are my guys off the bench

Chandler
Harrington

You give me any combination of your 8 frontcourt guys against those two.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Frankensteiner said:


> Do they only sell custom jerseys?
> 
> I ask because I'm looking for a place to design me an Eddy Curry "NBA top 5 center" plaque, perhaps with enough room to store future newspaper clippings of Eddy's season and Finals MVP awards.
> 
> Maybe they'll let me frame an "Inside/Out Dynamic Duo" Jamal Crawford picture in the upper right corner.


And maybe I can get a plaque for new lows of Tyson Chandler. Or I can get a plaque for every time someone of consequence outside of the Pax media conglomerate in Chicago thinks ANYONE from the Bulls frontcourt is better than Eddy Curry.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> DB, if you are right then I'll join your club.
> 
> If Paxson refuses to put that capspace into play via trade or ignores free agency, you can expect a PM from me humbly asking that you add me to your sig.


I think he's going to use MLE type dollars, split, to sign a couple of guys, but nothing approaching a quality FA or a trade for a high quality player.

SausageKing laid it all out in a recent post about why the Bulls can't defer Cap Space until 2007 - it's use it or lose it in 2006. He really is the King when it comes to the Cap Space figuring. Based on his figures, we'll be at the cap by making piddly little moves and re-signing our guys and paying the draft picks Pax has acquired.

So if you have your heart set on some big deal, I think you will be disappointed. If you want to count on those draft picks really panning out, that might be the best hope.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Pippenatorade said:


> Gooden/Pryzbilla/Sweetney/First rounder/pick swap/2 second rounders for Curry + Davis = quantity over quality. When they change the rules to allow you to play more than two frontcourt players while also still playing a swing and two guards, then that might be better.
> 
> Here are my two guys:
> 
> ...


First of all, I didn't limit the draft picks to frontcourt acquisitions. Its a five position team as you point out. 

Second of all, like I noted, the difference in opinion is linked to the opinion of the quality of Curry. You say its "quantity over quality" because you consider Curry to be of high quality. I do not share in that consideration. Hence, the difference in our respective opinions.

I see it as quantity and quality over Curry/Davis. Davis is done (this is a forward looking analysis, after all) and I don't value Eddy Curry the way you do. Not a whole lot more to discuss on that front, I don't think.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> I think he's going to use MLE type dollars, split, to sign a couple of guys, but nothing approaching a quality FA or a trade for a high quality player.
> 
> SausageKing laid it all out in a recent post about why the Bulls can't defer Cap Space until 2007 - it's use it or lose it in 2006. He really is the King when it comes to the Cap Space figuring. Based on his figures, we'll be at the cap by making piddly little moves and re-signing our guys and paying the draft picks Pax has acquired.
> 
> So if you have your heart set on some big deal, I think you will be disappointed. If you want to count on those draft picks really panning out, that might be the best hope.


Can you direct me to that post? Thanks DB :banana:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Can you direct me to that post? Thanks DB :banana:


It was in YOUR thread about delaying cap space to 2007, I do believe.

I think I may have linked it in showtyme's thread about trading for Hill, too.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> So if you have your heart set on some big deal, I think you will be disappointed. If you want to count on those draft picks really panning out, that might be the best hope.


I don't have my heart set on anything in particular right now. I'm just identifying possibilities. I'm also not counting on the draft picks panning out. I'm not even convinced we are going to use the picks. I still think a draft day trade is a significant possibility. I think there are innumerable possibilities, in fact. Thats one of the nice things about our current flexibility.

But, if Paxson just plods along and makes his picks, and then only carves out $5 million of that $15 million he has and splits between a couple role players (like you predict) and then lets the remaining $10 million rot, I'll join your club. 

That is unacceptable.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> First of all, I didn't limit the draft picks to frontcourt acquisitions. Its a five position team as you point out.
> 
> Second of all, like I noted, the difference in opinion is linked to the opinion of the quality of Curry. You say its "quantity over quality" because you consider Curry to be of high quality. I do not share in that consideration. Hence, the difference in our respective opinions.
> 
> I see it as quantity and quality over Curry/Davis. Davis is done (this is a forward looking analysis, after all) and I don't value Eddy Curry the way you do. Not a whole lot more to discuss on that front, I don't think.


Davis next year = still better than anyone on the Bulls front court. I've been telling people, he's gonna be one of these guys who keeps coming back year after year and suprising people with his ability to still bring it. It's not like the guy looks to score, he uses all his energy on defense and rebounding. 

As far as Curry, isn't the difference in quality being proven by the fact that we are far worse this year than we were last year. Now mind you, the Knicks record doesn't matter, because I've never once claimed that Marbury, NATE ROBINSON and Lee are as good as Hinrich, Deng and Duhon. Curry is not great in and of himself, but he does bring a lot of two things that are very rare in today's NBA, ability to score high percentage down low when everyone knows his team is forcefeeding him the ball, and the ability to have size and presence down low even when he doesn't get the ball on offense. I'm not calling him some great all around player. 

Fact is, our team now has all these all around players, and we suck. Michael Sweetney has a better all around game than Curry, and yet his actual effect isn't even close. 

Curry gave us balance, spaced the floor. He balanced our jib with his big time talent. 

Now some people have shifted 10 and 20 times on how they assess him. It used to be talk of his detriment, and then when some people realized they were wrong about him, and when the actual facts speak to his value it's vague references to how two parties respectively value him. 

I'll ask you this to gauge your opinion. Have you ever once argued Chandler to be better than Curry?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I don't have my heart set on anything in particular right now. I'm just identifying possibilities. I'm also not counting on the draft picks panning out. I'm not even convinced we are going to use the picks. I still think a draft day trade is a significant possibility. I think there are innumerable possibilities, in fact. Thats one of the nice things about our current flexibility.
> 
> But, if Paxson just plods along and makes his picks, and then only carves out $5 million of that $15 million he has and splits between a couple role players (like you predict) and then lets the remaining $10 million rot, I'll join your club.
> 
> That is unacceptable.


He has all the pieces right now to make a trade for a max salary vet. Take your pick of anyone in the league! When I see he's lukewarm on Pierce, then I look around the league and figure the only guys he'd be interested in are untouchable or significantly older than PP.

The pool of available FAs just looks terrible when considering paying $10M/season for any one of them, aside from one or two who it'd be shocking to see them not re-sign with their current team (Ben Wallace comes to mind).


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

So to recap, members of Bulls managment are cheap (no FA signings), racist ("the right way"), inflexible (can't deal with a superstar), uninformed (Curry-gate), afraid of risks (will only draft college players), and dislike their job (tune out over half the league's "talent").

Makes you wonder how they're able to function in their daily activities.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Davis next year = still better than anyone on the Bulls front court.


That's quite bold considering that last season, when AD was closer to his prime and Chandler further from his prime, Chandler outperformed AD.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> I ask because I'm looking for a place to design me an Eddy Curry "NBA top 5 center" plaque, perhaps with enough room to store future newspaper clippings of Eddy's season and Finals MVP awards.
> 
> Maybe they'll let me frame an "Inside/Out Dynamic Duo" Jamal Crawford picture in the upper right corner.


They replaced all thier Curry/Crawford stock with Othella, Pike and Sweetney inventory. 

They can’t keep the Pike stuff on the shelves.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> *Davis next year = still better than anyone on the Bulls front court.* I've been telling people, he's gonna be one of these guys who keeps coming back year after year and suprising people with his ability to still bring it. It's not like the guy looks to score, he uses all his energy on defense and rebounding.


I don't agree. I think this year is pretty much it for him. 



> As far as Curry, isn't the difference in quality being proven by the fact that we are far worse this year than we were last year.


No. I'm not talking about this year at all in this thread. Of the 7 or so assets I mentioned, only 1 is on the team currently - Sweetney. I'm talking about this summer and next year and the years that follow. I've already acknowledged in this thread that I underestimated the short term loss of Curry. I significantly underestimated it, in fact. 



> Now mind you, the Knicks record doesn't matter, because I've never once claimed that Marbury, NATE ROBINSON and Lee are as good as Hinrich, Deng and Duhon. Curry is not great in and of himself, but he does bring a lot of two things that are very rare in today's NBA, ability to score high percentage down low when everyone knows his team is forcefeeding him the ball, and the ability to have size and presence down low even when he doesn't get the ball on offense. I'm not calling him some great all around player.
> 
> Fact is, our team now has all these all around players, and we suck. Michael Sweetney has a better all around game than Curry, and yet his actual effect isn't even close.
> 
> ...


You might want to move all of this to the Eddy Curry thread. I'm trying to keep the Curry analysis to a minimum and focus on free agency. My only reference to Curry was to explain why I think Paxson can do well in free agency in helping this team move forward.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> He has all the pieces right now to make a trade for a max salary vet. Take your pick of anyone in the league! When I see he's lukewarm on Pierce, then I look around the league and figure the only guys he'd be interested in are untouchable or significantly older than PP.
> 
> The pool of available FAs just looks terrible when considering paying $10M/season for any one of them, aside from one or two who it'd be shocking to see them not re-sign with their current team (Ben Wallace comes to mind).



First, it takes two to tango.

Second, are you suggesting that Paxson can just trade for any max salary player he wants?

Third, and I'm frankly tired of writing this, McGraw first said he "thinks" Paxson is "lukewarm" on Pierce and he then quickly retracted and modified that statement.

Fourth, I'm convinced, as I've noted in great detail in this tread, that Paxson can, and will (unless he makes a trade), make some solid moves in free agency this summer that will improve the team.

Fifth, if he is to make a trade, the odds are that it will be right up against the trade deadline or on draft day when the picks and prospects are set.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> They replaced all thier Curry/Crawford stock with Othella, Pike and Sweetney inventory.
> 
> They can’t keep the Pike stuff on the shelves.


Good for them. I understand that the Curry and Crawford jerseys in the adult sizes never sold all that well.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> They replaced all thier Curry/Crawford stock with Othella, Pike and Sweetney inventory.
> 
> They can’t keep the Pike stuff on the shelves.


Funny they would replace memorabilia of two supposed core players in favor of guys who only provide depth and vet leadership.

Maybe they've already heard the loud boos directed at Curry in the Garden and didn't want the same "buyer's remorse" to affect their customers.

Not me though, I'm sticking by him, even through all the turnovers, fouls, and donuts.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Good for them. I understand that the Curry and Crawford jerseys in the adult sizes never sold all that well.


zing!


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> First, it takes two to tango.
> 
> Second, are you suggesting that Paxson can just trade for any max salary player he wants?


Yeah, the "take your pick of anyone in the league!" doesn't jibe with the "Pax only wants guys who are untouchable" in the next sentence...which is it?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Good for them. I understand that the Curry and Crawford jerseys in the adult sizes never sold all that well.


The OWG demographic identifies with Pike much more.

Eric Piatkowski. The choice of the refined Bulls fan.

Most of the OWG fans at the UC show up in the same outfit Pike has been wearing as of late anyway. No need to purchase clothing you would actually play basketball in.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Funny they would replace memorabilia of two supposed core players in favor of guys who only provide depth and vet leadership.
> 
> Maybe they've already heard the loud boos directed at Curry in the Garden and didn't want the same "buyer's remorse" to affect their customers.
> 
> Not me though, I'm sticking by him, even through all the turnovers, fouls, and donuts.



All that depth and vet leadership has us several games under .500 and in the lotto. 

I guess its more fun to follow a bad team than root for the leading scorer on a 47 win team.

Any more depth and vet leadership and people may start giving up on the season and looking forward to lotto picks and free agent dreams.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Frankensteiner said:


> So to recap, members of Bulls managment are cheap (no FA signings), racist ("the right way"), inflexible (can't deal with a superstar), uninformed (Curry-gate), afraid of risks (will only draft college players), and dislike their job (tune out over half the league's "talent").
> 
> Makes you wonder how they're able to function in their daily activities.


I'd say they aren't very well. (SOME) Paxson fans were very very happy to let the results speak for themselves last year. Why don't the results speak for themselves this year.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

TripleDouble said:


> That's quite bold considering that last season, when AD was closer to his prime and Chandler further from his prime, Chandler outperformed AD.


On 82games.com or in terms of what actually transpired on the floor? Please. Chandler didn't outperform Antonio Davis. Because before you even get to individual performances, Davis:

1. Made it possible for Chandler to be a bench player from which less was required
2. Made it much easier for Chandler to gobble up those stats by doing the dirty work and allowing Chandler to roam more freely from contact.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Frankensteiner said:


> Funny they would replace memorabilia of two supposed core players in favor of guys who only provide depth and vet leadership.


Sweetney (in K4E's listing) was billed as being able to provide much more. He was supposed to "give us Eddy's frontcourt presence with more all around game."

Othella, is actually our best frontcourt player, so I'd hesitate to put "only" in any sentence about what we need/are provided with in terms of Othella. 



> Maybe they've already heard the loud boos directed at Curry in the Garden and didn't want the same "buyer's remorse" to affect their customers.
> 
> Not me though, I'm sticking by him, even through all the turnovers, fouls, and donuts.


Pretty funny since Pax's boy Sweetney is about 30 more pounds overweight than Curry, Chandler and Sweetney seem to both have more trouble with fouls than Eddy, and even I cringe when Chandler and Sweetney DONT turn the ball over, because I still know there isn't much coming, except maybe Tyson bullrushing with all his strength to try to get to the middle while his defender barely gets moved and then he gets stripped when he brings the ball up from his knees, and though it isn't technically a turnover, it might as well be, since you know a brick is coming. But hey, his stats "per 48 minutes" are excellent. 

Curry > Chandler
Curry >> Sweetney


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> All that depth and vet leadership has us several games under .500 and in the lotto.
> 
> I guess it more fun to follow a bad team than root for the leading scorer on a 47 win team.
> 
> Any more depth and vet leadership and people may start giving up on the season and looking forward to lotto picks and free agent dreams.


Let's conveniently ignore the true returns (cap space + picks) for those players. To me, the two C's are nothing special, and we'd be locked into a team not anywhere close to contending (with only marginal ways of improvement available). Yes, our record this season might be better, but I can't see myself complaining incessantly about a difference of 5-10 wins in a season where we wouldn't have a chance at winning the title anyway.

I much prefer the option of cap space and draft picks. It's clearly an unknown quantity at this time, and one that requires some patience, but as far as I'm concerned, chances are good they'll turn out better than Curry and Crawford.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> I much prefer the option of cap space and draft picks. It's clearly an unknown quantity at this time, and one that requires some patience, but as far as I'm concerned, chances are good they'll turn out better than Curry and Crawford.



I prefer following a relevant NBA basketball team.

We don't have one this year. Just adds to Paxson's career losing record. Year 3 of collecting paychecks.

Maybe next season we’ll get back to where we were last season. 

Maybe.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Pippenatorade said:


> I'd say they aren't very well. (SOME) Paxson fans were very very happy to let the results speak for themselves last year. Why don't the results speak for themselves this year.


First, this season doesn't have a "result".

Second, Paxson fan or not, we all know that this summer there are a lot of pieces to put into play. Knowing that this is on the horizon, and has not yet played out, can lead to one having a little bit of patience. The reality is that of the numerous assets received in trade this summer, only one (Michael Sweetney) is in play right now. 

Third, this thread basically sucks now and is just like all the other Eddy Curry crap. And I'm afraid its my fault since I might have been the first one to utter his name. Sorry. The end result was certainly not my intent at the time of that utterance.

Edit: In looking back, I discovered that it was not I who first spoke the forbidden word, so I feel a little bit better now. But I certainly didn't help matters any. The current state of degeneration of this thread was inevitable.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> The key difference that cannot be reconciled between opinions like yours and opinions like mine is that I don't think trading Eddy Curry matters in the long term for this team.
> 
> If, for example, you offered me, in exchange for Eddy Curry and AD, Al Harrington and Nazr Mohammed (or Gooden/Pryzbilla or Nene/Wright or any similar combination of players), plus the Knicks first round pick this season, two Knicks second round picks, and the right to pick swap with the Knicks in 2007, plus Michael Sweetney, I would have fallen all over myself trying to sign the contract before you changed your mind.
> 
> ...


we obviously differ on some things , 

for one i never found the bulls to nearly as talented as their record suggested last season, i thought it was a sum is greater than their parts effort and all out hustle that got them more wins by a significant margin more than their talent said was plausible.

this season is actually more in line with my feelings on their actual talent give or take a few games(to me they had below.500 talent last season but skiles did a masterful job coaching), curry whether people want to admit or or not along with davis gave them something their style of play needed more than people thought.

they were very big in the frontcourt but very small at guard , the size at C and pf counterbalanced alot of things wrong with the team, for one they fouled alot last year ( i beleive they led the league in fouls) curry lives at the line , he was he was also a very efficient scorer despite the to's and AD best attribute was he guarded pf's and centers so well it allowed Tyson to play weakside defender ...something the trio of sweets , othella and songalia definitely do not do as well , getting the already foul prone chandler into even more trouble.

curry because he got fouled alot often set up the guards to start shooting ft's alot earlier in quarters than they have been this season, particualrly in 1st quarters. he allowed a team that was by nature pyhsical by virtue of their aggresive defense win the battle of the bulge along with tyson an AD on the inside

he also forced teams to double and triple team him , allowing easier shots for his teammates, sweets and songalia are better passers but not the same level of threat.

curry's main value is that he is an actual effective low post scorer, he can actually be a franchise center, whether or not he attains that level remains to be seen , i am personally doubtful and see a smits in his prime ceiling when all is said and done, which is just a notch below , because of team defense and rebounding deficiencies. 

right now curry is just a good player and a good starter at center but his value meant more to than that to the bulls i dont think at the current time we disagree.

sometimes a player's best attribute is that their play lets others use their strengths AD was that guy for tyson like kirk does currently for gordon , and its an intangible quality hard to see unless there is a trade or injury.

only very rare occurances happen when a team is so strong at their strengths that their weaknesses dont matter as much (last yr's suns) i dont find the bulls to be even close to that category , so even the idea of getting more consistent and possibly better players in my opinion will have a limited effect (al harrington, peja etc)because when the team loses it will lose for the same reasons that were there before, the ceiling the team has despite a few more reg. season wins remains the same because the team is incomplete.

good teams can compete with the avg. team at all 5 positions have inside and outside scoring and play both sides of the ball. now you may ultimately be right that curry might not mean much to the bulls success longterm, but the lack of the bulls to replace what he brought in the short term is important , add to that actual low post centers are rare and there are none in the free agent market or next year's draft of curry's current level and my reasoning behind starting this thread should be clear. coupled with the fact the closest he has ever been to aquiring a starter quality big man is AD and he is/was clearly past his prime.

the lack of ability for pax to see what needed to be done or to do it leaving this current team in limbo, doesn't help my confidence in him either.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I prefer following a relevant NBA basketball team.
> 
> We don't have one this year. Just adds to Paxson's career losing record. Year 3 of collecting paychecks.
> 
> ...


Your new found appreciation of simply making the playoffs is quite different than what it was at the end of last season. 

Even earlier this year, I believe you made another attempt at a signature which would tally up the number of championships won by the Bulls under Paxson's watch. I’m assuming that was your way of downplaying a playoff berth while pointing to the importance of winning a title. 

So now you're willing to ignore my point about building a future contender over merely a playoff team for the present? Strange.

Doesn’t seem like you’re very consistent.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> So now you're willing to ignore my point about building a future contender over merely a playoff team for the present?


What players do you think are available this off-season that will likely make us a "future contender?"

When you use the term “future”… how many years out are you talking about?

After Paxson chose to blow up the team this last off-season, I doubted what finishing at .500 and being the 8 seed would really accomplish vs. finishing 9th or 10th. 

That’s a big difference from having the 3rd best regular season record in the East and still plenty of upside.... which was the hand Paxson had this last off-season. 

The really sad thing is that the Bulls lost what they were building upon last season. The Bulls started to matter again last year. Now, its back to “who cares?” for the majority of Chicago folk. “The Bulls? Why do you follow them?”


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> What players do you think are available this off-season that will likely make us a "future contender?"


Here's a rundown: Harrington/Nene/Gooden/Wallace/Vanilla Gorrilla (although I'm not as excited about him as others seem to be)... then there's the rookie big men Aldridge/Shelden/Boone and the 2 European players. However, the pick and cap space also allows us to sign or draft a player where we're already pretty strong (i.e. SF: Peja, Morrison, and Gay) and then use the players we have to acquire another valuable piece. It's pretty silly to ask "who's available" because there's more than just the possibilities of free agency. 



> When you use the term “future”… how many years out are you talking about?


I'm looking at next season or the following one (also dependent on what we get with 2007 NY pick).



> The really sad thing is that the Bulls lost what they were building upon last season. The Bulls started to matter again last year. Now, its back to “who cares?” for the majority of Chicago folk. “The Bulls? Why do you follow them?”


Why do you continuously keep bringing this up as such an important issue? Why does it matter to your enjoyment of the team wheter the Bulls are currently a hot topic in Chicago? Popularity of a team is dictated by the team's performance. The White Sox weren't exactly breaking any attendance records until they were seen as an obvious contender. When the Bulls start contending, which I think they will, they'll get the city jumping on their bandwagon.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Here's a rundown: Harrington/Nene/Gooden/Wallace/Vanilla Gorrilla (although I'm not as excited about him as others seem to be)...


Honestly, do you really think any of these guys could make us a "future contender?"

A tweener sf/pg, a center with a busted knee, a pf who has been run out of town on every team he's on, a big man who is not going anywhere and some big, white stiff?

I don't. Harrington could help us score some points... but our current problems are in the paint and on defense. Paxson rolling the dice on a big deal for Nene? Nope. Jib restriction kills the Gooden idea, although I'd like him on our team.

But, none of these guys will make us a "future contender."



> then there's the rookie big men Aldridge/Shelden/Boone and the 2 European players.


Next season? 



> However, the pick and cap space also allows us to sign or draft a player where we're already pretty strong (i.e. SF: Peja, Morrison, and Gay) and then use the players we have to acquire another valuable piece. It's pretty silly to ask "who's available" because there's more than just the possibilities of free agency.


Pretty silly? I don't think so. You seem so certain of Paxson's "plan" and that it will work, I was just asking for some specifics. I guess specifics are silly though. I don't think Paxson has any either though, so I don't blame you. 





> Why do you continuously keep bringing this up as such an important issue? Why does it matter to your enjoyment of the team wheter the Bulls are currently a hot topic in Chicago? Popularity of a team is dictated by the team's performance. The White Sox weren't exactly breaking any attendance records until they were seen as an obvious contender. When the Bulls start contending, which I think they will, they'll get the city jumping on their bandwagon.


If the Bulls were exciting and winning, they would be relevant. That's important to me, I don't know about you. 

“When the Bulls start contending.” I commend you on your faith.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Honestly, do you really think any of these guys could make us a "future contender?"


Honestly? At least as much as you-know-who. At least.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

I enjoy how a thread about future free agent targets instead becomes a thread about a past trade. Ad nauseum is right.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Can Pax deliver a good big man. I think definitly.

With our cap space this summer Prybilla has to be 1rst on the list then there's Gooden, Harrington, and Nene. Then we will have 2 top 16 picks, I feel like there is 5 potential all-star big guys Aldridge, Tyrus Thomas, Al Horford, and I guess Bargnani and Splitter, but I haven't seen them play. I got of glimpse of Roy Hibbert the other day playing Duke, Sheldon Williams looked small in comparision, I think he will be a high pick someday but he's very raw and probably will wait another year, not really sure I would want to take on a longer project like Eddy or Tyson again. This is going to be a huge draft for John Paxson.

sign Pryzbilla 5y 55M
pickup Othella
extend Songaila 5y
release Allen
let Pargo walk
Pike retire
draft Aldridge/Thomas/Bargnani
draft Foye 6'3"- (Pax can't resist, he's the best player available. Brewer, Redick or Carney would be sweet here, but hopefully we outplay our chances at getting them.)
bring back Basden or Graham

Pike, pargo, and Allen are replaced by Aldridge, Pryzbilla, and Foye.

Aldridge Songaila Sweets
Deng Nocioni Basden
Pryzbilla Chandler Othella
Gordon Foye Graham
Hinrich Duhon


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Vanilla Gorilla


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> we obviously differ on some things ,
> 
> for one i never found the bulls to nearly as talented as their record suggested last season, i thought it was a sum is greater than their parts effort and all out hustle that got them more wins by a significant margin more than their talent said was plausible.
> 
> ...


I don't completely agree, but for the most part, very good post :banana:


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Frankensteiner said:


> Your new found appreciation of simply making the playoffs is quite different than what it was at the end of last season.
> 
> Even earlier this year, I believe you made another attempt at a signature which would tally up the number of championships won by the Bulls under Paxson's watch. I’m assuming that was your way of downplaying a playoff berth while pointing to the importance of winning a title.
> 
> ...


You think that without Oden or B. Wallace, this is a future contender?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> What players do you think are available this off-season that will likely make us a "future contender?"
> 
> When you use the term “future”… how many years out are you talking about?
> 
> ...


Exactly, the Tribune wrote an article "A void to avoid" which basically talked about how Chicago fans should be restless right now with the Bears done, and the White Sox still months away. Funny, aren't the Bulls playing right now? I guess if the Bulls mattered, it wouldn't be a "void." And as someone who listens to radio stations outside Chicago, getting to hear that the "Bulls last year were a fluke" and that the "real Bulls are back" is a real treat. Thanks Pax. Thanks Reinsdorf.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Honestly? At least as much as you-know-who. At least.


Al Harrington is a completley different type of basketball player than you-know-who. 

We get him on this team, we have a guy that lobs up 63% of his shots as jumpers and does not help us at all, IMO, in establishing a post presense. And that's the best FA availble.

Harrington
Jump shots: 63%
Close shots: 31%
Dunks: 5%
Tips: 1%

You-Know-Who
Jump Shots: 15%
Close Shots: 57%
Dunks: 21%
Tips: 7%

So, the type of shots Harrington provides are completley different than the ones You-Know-Who does.

What about getting to the line? One of the areas our team is sorely lacking.

You-know-who is 23rd in the league, and that's not even on a per minute basis.

6.8 FTA in 26.8 minutes

Harrington?

4.8 FTA in 37.1 minutes. Weak.

Rebounding? You-know-who is a better rebounder.
Rebound rate of 14.5 vs. Harrington's 11.2.

How about efficiency in scoring?
You-Know-Who is one of the tops in the league with an eFG of .546. Harrington? .498.


So, we blow all the $$$ on Al Harrington, who is a decent player, and I don't think we're any closer to shoring up our problems. 

We will have a 3/4 tweener. We're still doing the same thing we're doing now... hunting for a big man.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

Frankensteiner said:


> Here's a rundown: Harrington/Nene/Gooden/Wallace/Vanilla Gorrilla (although I'm not as excited about him as others seem to be)... then there's the rookie big men Aldridge/Shelden/Boone and the 2 European players. However, the pick and cap space also allows us to sign or draft a player where we're already pretty strong (i.e. SF: Peja, Morrison, and Gay) and then use the players we have to acquire another valuable piece. It's pretty silly to ask "who's available" because there's more than just the possibilities of free agency.


Out of those guys, please give me two that could bring what Curry and Davis combined to bring. Remember that Curry's weaknesses were to a large degree neutralized by Davis, so that as a frontcourt tandem, they were pretty complete, and did most things on a high level when you combined what each brought to the table. Those names make me want to vomit. Oh also, those two names need to be reasonably available for less than 15 mill. 



> I'm looking at next season or the following one (also dependent on what we get with 2007 NY pick).


Kinda assumes we'll be using the Knick swap option. Remember, their team will be in Larry Brown's second season (notorious for a turnaround in his career at various locations). Our team will be in Skiles fourth season (guess what that has meant in his past. With Jason Kidd no less, or did he only last three with the Suns?)


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> You-Know-Who
> Jump Shots: 15%
> Close Shots: 57%
> Dunks: 21%
> Tips: 7%


Pretty remarkable when everyone knew what we were going to do with "you-know-who" and what our strategy was, and where we were going to try to get him the ball (6 feet from the basket at a 45% angle on the right side facing away from the basket).


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

One of the guys I'd like the Bulls to go after is Gooden. He mixes it up inside. He crashes the boards. Still pretty weak at getting to the line though, and he's certainly not a center. 

GOODEN
Jump: 38%
Close: 41%
Dunk: 12%
Tips: 8%

Rebound Rate: 18.4 (nice!)
eFG: .542
FTA: 3.7 in 28.2 (nearly 1/2 of you-know-who)

This is where the jib restriction kills you though. 3 teams in 4 years and now the 3rd team wants to dump him for some reason. Does not seem like Paxson is going to take a risk and burn the flexibility on that.

And we still need a center, unless you consider Chandler to be one.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> One of the guys I'd like the Bulls to go after is Gooden. He mixes it up inside. He crashes the boards. Still pretty weak at getting to the line though, and he's certainly not a center.
> 
> GOODEN
> Jump: 38%
> ...


The problem with Gooden is that he gives you kinda AD's build but offense instead of defense. You can't play him with Chandler as that frontcourt will just get punched in the mouth on defense, so you almost need a 7 foot/255+ pounder who plays anchor and help defense on a high level. If you sign Gooden you probably won't have enough money for Pryzbilla, and nobody in the draft strikes me as being of those qualifications. If we had Curry and Davis and maybe had traded Chandler for spare parts and "the futahhhhh," then Gooden might be a good fit if we drafted Shelden Williams.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Honestly, do you really think any of these guys could make us a "future contender?"
> 
> A tweener sf/pg, a center with a busted knee, a pf who has been run out of town on every team he's on, a big man who is not going anywhere and some big, white stiff?
> 
> ...


Not by themselves, but all are good players and would make solid starters (Harrington and Wallace are of course above that level). I don't think we currently have starter-quality bigs on our roster (depending on Chandler's level of play), so that should provide an immediate improvement. Couple them with 2 first rounders this year, and another high pick in '07, I'd say the talent coming in will be much better than what went out. 

And I don't agree with your assessment of Pax refusing to sign either Nene or Gooden.

You know, if you took the time to scrutinize that disappointing starting Center in New York as much as you do these guys, I think your opinion of him would change.



> Next season?


Or the one after. Yeah. I think the players mentioned could step in pretty quickly.



> You seem so certain of Paxson's "plan" and that it will work, I was just asking for some specifics. I guess specifics are silly though. I don't think Paxson has any either though, so I don't blame you.


The specifics are that Eddy Curry isn't a very good player. He's the centerpiece of a dismal team. So whatever shot-in-the-dark plan Pax has, it's still likely to end up better than what we had previously. 



> If the Bulls were exciting and winning, they would be relevant. That's important to me, I don't know about you.


Yeah, winning is important. I agree. But I still don't see why I would care much if your average Chicago fan was or wasn't following the Bulls.



> “When the Bulls start contending.” I commend you on your faith.


As I do you on your pessimism.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> The specifics are that Eddy Curry isn't a very good player. He's the centerpiece of a dismal team. So whatever shot-in-the-dark plan Pax has, it's still likely to end up better than what we had previously.


Curry was the leading scorer on our best team since MJ. 

We'll be scrambling around looking for a center for the next several years. 

I agree Paxson's plan is a "shot-in-the-dark."


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Yeah, winning is important. I agree. But I still don't see why I would care much if your average Chicago fan was or wasn't following the Bulls.



That interest is a function of winning. I'm a fan of following a winner, although the Bulls are once again a loser.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Not by themselves, but all are good players and would make solid starters (Harrington and Wallace are of course above that level). I don't think we currently have starter-quality bigs on our roster (depending on Chandler's level of play), so that should provide an immediate improvement.


Wallace is not coming here.

Take a look at my post on Harrington and try and explain to me how he plays like a "big-man."


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> That interest is a function of winning. I'm a fan of following a winner, although the Bulls are once again a loser.


You seem to wax poetic about Bulls teams that won 20-30 games quite a bit if this is your philosophy.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> You seem to wax poetic about Bulls teams that won 20-30 games quite a bit if this is your philosophy.


I don't think you'll see me waxing poetic about a 20 win team.

Our 30 win team appeared to be heading in the right direction the last 1/3 of the season. The pieces appeared to be in place. Given that the towers were two of the top 3 producers on our 47 win team, I think that was the case. 

All that being said, last season’s team, with a mix of the towers and the jib players was fun to watch. Its sad to suffer through such a regression.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Curry was the leading scorer on our best team since MJ.
> 
> We'll be scrambling around looking for a center for the next several years.
> 
> I agree Paxson's plan is a "shot-in-the-dark."


If we want to play the stat game, then both last year's Bulls and this year's Knicks are better when Eddy Curry is off the court.

http://82games.com/04CHI14D.HTM
http://www.82games.com/0506/05NYK13D.HTM

Curry is a decent scorer and a great finisher, but that is cancelled out by his poor defense, turnovers, lack of rebounding, and bloated contract.

And the Bulls are a better offensive team this year. We lack in all the areas in which Eddy is deficient.

The "shot-in-the-dark" reference was my paraphrasing of your criticsm.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> That interest is a function of winning. I'm a fan of following a winner, although the Bulls are once again a loser.


Yeah, water is wet. 



> Now, its back to “who cares?” for the majority of Chicago folk. “The Bulls? Why do you follow them?”


But this implies you're looking for approval from others to validate your interest in the team.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> If we want to play the stat game, then both last year's Bulls and this year's Knicks are better when Eddy Curry is off the court.
> 
> http://82games.com/04CHI14D.HTM
> http://www.82games.com/0506/05NYK13D.HTM
> ...


Its also the truth.

How is Al Harrington a good "big-man?"

Lack of rebounding? Curry has one of the top 40 rebound rates in the league. That's just wrong.

According to our GM, one of the main areas we're deficient is in getting to the line. Curry is one of the best in the league at this. That and scoring in the paint. Curry also excels at this.

+/-? Shoot, we better dump Hinrich, Duhon and Noc ASAP. I think its pretty well accepted that looking at raw +/- does not really tell you much.

Curry's PER is an above-average 17.8, which takes into account all and more of the pluses and minuses you mentioned above. Very few centers in the league can match his production. Doubt it? Just look at our center production, if we even have a center. Then take a look at the standings. Last place in the division is where you'll find us. And out of the playoffs.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> But this implies you're looking for approval from others to validate your interest in the team.


No, to repeat myself, once again, its a function of winning.

I don't really care what the denizens of most pubs are spewing about the Bulls. 

Where I live, its mostly the typical OWG hatred of the NBA anyway. Lots of Curry/Crawfrod/AI garbage that we’ve all heard and discussed before.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its also the truth.
> 
> How is Al Harrington a good "big-man?"
> 
> ...


I must have missed the part where I said Al Harrington was solely responsible for replacing Eddy Curry.

They're different players. If we sign Harrington, he's likely one of the 3 or 4 big men we bring in this year.

As far as PER, do you know where I could find the formula to see what goes into calculating that statistic? Also, where can I look at PER stats of other players?


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> No, to repeat myself, once again, its a function of winning.


Right. Then why don't we just talk about winning and losing, and not bring up things like nobody wanting to talk about the Bulls around the water cooler.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> I must have missed the part where I said Al Harrington was solely responsible for replacing Eddy Curry.


Not solely responsible, but we're operating in a cap constrined environment. Harrington will do little to replace Curry. They are different players. And he'll eat up a large portion of the Cap Space.



> They're different players. If we sign Harrington, he's likely one of the 3 or 4 big men we bring in this year.


Harrington does not play like a big man. 

Cross him off the list, IMO.




> As far as PER, do you know where I could find the formula to see what goes into calculating that statistic? Also, where can I look at PER stats of other players?


http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html

http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2006/


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html
> 
> http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2006/


Thanks.

It appears that PER puts weight on offensive statistics, doing very little to measure a player's defensive ability. Such a stat would no doubt inflate Eddy's value to a team.

For example, Curry has a higher PER this season than Ben Wallace each of the last 4 years.

But I did notice that Harrington's PER (17.1) is basically identical to Curry's.

Again, I stand by my earlier assessment. Curry is an above average offensive player who's faults cancel out his positives. I think he'll be effectively replaced in the off-season.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Thanks.
> 
> It appears that PER puts weight on offensive statistics, doing very little to measure a player's defensive ability. Such a stat would no doubt inflate Eddy's value to a team.


OK, we'll stick to rebound rate. Curry is better than Harrington.

Points in the paint? Curry is better than Harrington.

Getting to the line? Curry is WAY better than Harrington.

If our offense is doing so well, why is Paxson focusing on getting foul calls so much. Mistake on Paxson's part? 

Yah, overall, Harrington is a nice player. Just not what we need. He's a tweener 3/4. Its like saying we should get Brevin Knight. Nice player, but we don't need a PG. We need a big man.






> I think he'll be effectively replaced in the off-season.


By who? Not Harrington. Not Gooden. Who? 

Seems pretty "shot in the dark" to me.

Chris Wilcox?


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Just for fun. 

PER:

Drew Gooden - 20.3

Al Harrington - 17.1

Nene - 15.6 (from last season)

Joel Przybilla - 15.4

Nazr Mohammed - 17.0 (this is from last season with Mohammed as NYK's starter. So Isaiah basically replaced Nazr with Curry for the same production and gave him $60 M on a long-term contract?)

Sweetney - 14.9
Sweetney - 16.4 (04-05)

Curry - 16.3 (04-05)
Curry - 17.8

So Sweetney had a higher PER last season than Curry. Why wasn't that more talked about? I guess this PER really is a great stat.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> So Sweetney had a higher PER last season than Curry. Why wasn't that more talked about? I guess this PER really is a great stat.


Yah, I knew this is what you would have to resort to. :dead: 

Sweets was effective for the Knicks last season. But, he's a different player with a different skillset than Curry.

We need a center. Sweetney is not a center. And, Sweets is not playing very well for us this season, as you have been seeing.

Can we at least agree that Al Harrington is not going to help us much in replacing Curry?

Nazr was a good player. The Knicks trading him for what, Mo Taylor?, was a bad move.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Again, I stand by my earlier assessment. Curry is an above average offensive player who's faults cancel out his positives.


You mean like how when he can get open, that low post talent kills opponents, in burts, and when they tighten down the Yinka-esque .2/game assist average and foul trouble put him on the bench for quarters at a time?


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> OK, we'll stick to rebound rate. Curry is better than Harrington.


Harrington isn't a 6-11 center, so I hope for Curry's sake that he would be better at this than Harrington.



> Points in the paint? Curry is better than Harrington.
> 
> Getting to the line? Curry is WAY better than Harrington.


What about defense? That's half the game, you know. And as it stands right now, the Bulls are struggling in that aspect.



> By who? Not Harrington. Not Gooden. Who?
> 
> Seems pretty "shot in the dark" to me.
> 
> Chris Wilcox?


Let's add Przybilla, Nene, Nazr, Aldridge, Shelden Williams, and Adam Boone. 

You're taking each player I've suggested and comparing them to Curry based on his limited set of strengths. 

Maybe we can compare Przybilla and Curry on their rebounding or shot blocking. Wonder who would win that comparison. I'm schocked you haven't done it up to this point.

None of these guys are great players. Neither was Curry. But signing a combination of Harrington/Gooden and Przybilla/Nazr/Nene/Wallace, and coupling them with our high draft pick from the Knicks will give us a good front court.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> What about defense? That's half the game, you know. And as it stands right now, the Bulls are struggling in that aspect.


Yah. And we were not last season. We were one of the best in the league last season. You would think ridding the team of a guy that plays "no defense" would have helped matters. I guess that its that 40 year old man that we're missing. What an impact player!




> Maybe we can compare Przybilla and Curry on their rebounding or shot blocking. Wonder who would win that comparison. I'm schocked you haven't done it up to this point.


Przybilla would be a better guy to look at, I agree. At least he's a center. But, you said you didn't care for him much. Have you changed your mind in the last 2 hours?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> What about defense? That's half the game, you know. And as it stands right now, the Bulls are struggling in that aspect.


Do you think Harrington would do a better job defending centers than Curry?

That would be an interesting experiment. Seeing Harrington matched up against the starting centers of the NBA.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> You mean like how when he can get open, that low post talent kills opponents, in burts, and when they tighten down the Yinka-esque .2/game assist average and foul trouble put him on the bench for quarters at a time?


He can use his freakish athleticism to get comfrotable on the bench.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> He can use his freakish athleticism to get comfrotable on the bench.


Our team was better with Curry on it.

This year our team is bad.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yah. And we were not last season. We were one of the best in the league last season. You would think ridding the team of a guy that plays "no defense" would have helped matters. I guess that its that 40 year old man that we're missing. What an impact player!


Yeah, let's have an argument that Eddy Curry is a good defensive player. I'll buy it. 

Our problems with defense start with the complete dissappearance of Tyson Chandler. Losing AD in the trade is significant, too. I think both meant more to our defense than Curry.



> Przybilla would be a better guy to look at, I agree. At least he's a center. But, you said you didn't care for him much. Have you changed your mind in the last 2 hours?


As I mentioned earlier, we need to acquire two players who can compliment each other. One with some offensive capability (Harrington/Gooden) and one who could provide a defensive presence (Nene/Nazr/Przybilla/Wallace). Of the latter group, Przybilla would be my last choice, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't help our team.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Our team was better with Curry on it.
> 
> This year our *team* is bad.


I agree. Our team is not playing as well as it did last year, for a variety of reasons. 

I also agree that we are lacking size in the front court. Eddy had size, and that has not been replaced.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Yeah, let's have an argument that Eddy Curry is a good defensive player. I'll buy it.


I think we miss his size. I don't think Z is a great defensive player either, but he affects what we can do when we play the Cavs. Size matters.......




> Our problems with defense start with the complete dissappearance of Tyson Chandler. Losing AD in the trade is significant, too. I think both meant more to our defense than Curry.


You might be right. We should not have traded away AD and Curry, IMO.



> As I mentioned earlier, we need to acquire two players who can compliment each other. One with some offensive capability (Harrington/Gooden) and one who could provide a defensive presence (Nene/Nazr/Przybilla/Wallace). Of the latter group, Przybilla would be my last choice, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't help our team.



I'm not sure how much of a defensive force in the paint Nene is. He always seemed like a speed guy to me, but I've only seen him 2-3 times. And his knee is ?able. Wallace is a non-factor, since he's not going anywhere. Nazr and Pryz appear to be the best fits for this role. 

I would not mind Gooden and Pryz. I don't think its worth 3 years of cap building and a season of regression and I'd rather have AD and Curry, but its better than nothing. Let's hope Paxson can get it done.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

I like the idea of bringing in Nazr Mohammed. He's a solid starting quality center, I'd think he might prefer not to be playing 13 minutes a game as Popovich keeps force feeding Nestorovich into the starting lineup. Plus he's from the Chi so that might be advantageus. He'd bring size, passable D and rebounding, and though he's no Eddy in terms of scoring, he can still get you double digits.

I like Gooden's talents, but I'd prefer that his D was better. He's probably the best option though. Them plus Chandler, Sweetney, Songaila, and a big guy from the draft, plus hopefully a good pick swap, plus 2 second rounders(hopefully at least one of which would pan out), is to me, a pretty good haul.


----------

