# What's Gar's plan?



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

he's had 5 offseasons now and basically he inherited rose, noah and deng 

to their core they have lost gordon and gained boozer and considering the moves they went through to get the space for boozer , it has to be weighed as a negative .

the biggest need is the same as it was the 1st day he was hired which is to get rose a 2ndary star which boozer has turned out not to be .

so i ask what is Gar's plan?


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

Da Grinch said:


> so i ask what is Gar's plan?


Hope that Nikola Mirotic/Bobcats pick is that #2 option or can turn into assets to trade for that guy.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Grinch, I don't think you'll like Gar's plan because it's not based on the premise that the team must have a secondary star (beyond Deng and Noah who are actually kinda star-ish) in order to win the title. Instead, it starts with the premise that the team, if it can stay healthy, is good enough to win it all. He probably looks at this team versus the 2010-11 team and likes it better, what with Butler as a big-minutes starter at SG instead of the Bogans-Brewer-Korver SG committee, Hinrich at backup PG instead of Watson and a number of key players who are square in their prime rather than the relative pups they were in '10-'11.

Beginning in 2014-15, they go younger, replacing Boozer with Mirotic and if Teague shows promise, maybe replacing Hinrich with Teague. If Teague doesn't impress, they may re-sign Hinrich. Also, no later than 2016, they hope to either draft another impact player with the Charlotte pick or use the pick in a trade that brings that impact player. They also hope to add quality assets with their own draft picks.

I don't have a good sense what their plans are if they can't come to terms with Deng, but I'm pretty sure they'll go at least as high as $12mil per to re-sign him.

Of course, he'll continue to make/accept inquiries on potential trades. Any that he believes will make the Bulls a better team he'll vigorously pursue. It goes without saying that it takes two to tango.

With this plan, the Bulls may win a championship. Maybe more than one. Maybe none. That's kinda the nature of these things. I know you join me in wishing Gar godspeed.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> he's had 5 offseasons now and basically he inherited rose, noah and deng
> 
> to their core they have lost gordon and gained boozer and considering the moves they went through to get the space for boozer , it has to be weighed as a negative .
> 
> ...



This is the Bulls. The plan is not sexy.

First, the notion that losing Gordon and gaining Boozer is a net negative is simply untrue. It's not even close. Ben Gordon averaged 11 PPG on the lowest shooting percentage of his career last year (40.8%), coupled with the second lowest 3P% of his career. He does not defend and averages only 1.9 assists per game. He has struggled with injury since leaving the Bulls while Boozer has surprisingly been quite the ironman. Simply put, Boozer is a significant upgrade. The continued infatuation with Gordon (who had some damn impressive games in a Bulls uni) confuses me. This guy is clearly a lot less than what he once was.

In any event, I concur that the "plan" as such is hoping that either or both of the Mirotic and Bobcats picks pan out to a star level player. Absent that, the "plan" is to move either or both of those assets (and other assets) for a (likely disgruntled) existing star.

While that plan isn't terribly exciting, I don't see any particular alternative, either.

As I was commenting in the other thread, I also believe the plan for this upcoming season is likely to stand pat. If at the trade deadline the Bulls are one of the top teams in the East, I fully expect Gar to do nothing, let them pursue their championship aspirations this year, and then deal with the Deng situation this offseason.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> This is the Bulls. The plan is not sexy.
> 
> First, the notion that losing Gordon and gaining Boozer is a net negative is simply untrue. It's not even close. Ben Gordon averaged 11 PPG on the lowest shooting percentage of his career last year (40.8%), coupled with the second lowest 3P% of his career. He does not defend and averages only 1.9 assists per game. He has struggled with injury since leaving the Bulls while Boozer has surprisingly been quite the ironman. Simply put, Boozer is a significant upgrade. The continued infatuation with Gordon (who had some damn impressive games in a Bulls uni) confuses me. This guy is clearly a lot less than what he once was.
> 
> ...


in swapping boozer for gordon out of the bulls top 4 core , they didn't just go 1 for 1 , they spent 4 extra million a year for that privilege since 2010 plus they traded a 1st round pick to the bucks in that salmons deal that the bucks used to draft larry sanders, a player i find to be more valuable than either boozer or gordon.

they got the bucks pick for that , which they then dealt with kirk hinrich with cash for the immortal vladimir veeremeenko which i pretty much consider nothing. there were some good players still available such is avery bradley and eric bledsoe (who was just dealt for reddick and jared dudley 2 player the bulls could certainly use)

so yes it is a negative, the bulls would have been better of just resigning gordon and keeping their pick , ben avg. 20.7 his last season as a bull and provides the outside shooting thibs has been clamoring for ever since he left.

unfortunately for ben he is pg sized he cant play for everyone but he could play for chicago. per 36 minutes his number last season are pretty much on par with his bulls years , he is just playing less,

and there are always alternatives and if you really believe that there are none, that in itself that you believe the team has acquired players who aren't worth trading for which is an indictment right there of a poor job.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> so yes it is a negative, the bulls would have been better of just resigning gordon and keeping their pick , ben avg. 20.7 his last season as a bull and provides the outside shooting thibs has been clamoring for ever since he left.


4 seasons ago! He's not that player anymore.



> and there are always alternatives and if you really believe that there are none, that in itself that you believe the team has acquired players who aren't worth trading for which is an indictment right there of a poor job.



Not sure what you're referring to here. I mentioned what the alternatives are. Is there one you prefer? Your question of "what's the plan" seems to suggest there isn't one, but I'm not seeing you offer an alternate vision, other than reanimating a cryogenically frozen Ben Gordon from circa 2008. 

Rose 
BG
Deng
Taj
Noah 

is worse than 

Rose
Butler
Deng
Boozer
Noah

and I don't think it's particularly close. BG is basically done.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> 4 seasons ago! He's not that player anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


if you are comparing gordon's scoring he's just playing less on a per 36 min basis he avg 19.4(for comparison's sake boozer is at 18.1) , therefore scoring less but was scoring at almost the same rate , but if you really want to be technical boozer isn't the player he was on his last team either.

if you want to look at the player he was in his last season with the jazz compared to last season his efficiency has actually fallen moreso than gordon's

add to that he also scores less often.

but hey go ahead and continually miss the greater point that it was not a 1 for 1 swap the bulls lost money that could be spent elsewhere, players that are not gordon and picks too. 

and going out of your way to misread doesn't do anything, its not like i am suddenly going to forget what i meant


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> if you are comparing gordon's scoring he's just playing less on a per 36 min basis he avg 19.4(for comparison's sake boozer is at 18.1) , therefore scoring less but was scoring at almost the same rate , but if you really want to be technical boozer isn't the player he was on his last team either.
> 
> if you want to look at the player he was in his last season with the jazz compared to last season his efficiency has actually fallen moreso than gordon's
> 
> ...



I'm not going out of my way to misread things. Your post basically said Gordon to Boozer was a downgrade. Now if you're saying it's Gordon + the opportunity cost of whatever salary would have been left to sign another player, then sure, that's another discussion. Still, we have no idea who that player would been, but obviously that extra salary would not have been a star. Heck, it might have turned into no player at all, given the Bulls' current cap situation. It might have kept them in a spot of still being over the cap but under the luxury tax, but I'm not Jerry Reinsdorf, and so aside from competitive reasons to stay under the tax threshold, I don't really care.

Saying Boozer is less than he was on the Jazz and then concluding that makes him analogous to Gordon is overly simplistic. Ben Gordon is only able to get 19 minutes of floor time on a terrible team. That should tell you something. Heck, your posts starts with "If you are comparing Gordon's scoring" as though that's all I was comparing. But of course that's not the end of the discussion! Boozer (and I'm not giant fan) is a much more complete player than BG. He is a very good rebounder and excellent passer. These are skills BG doesn't bring to the table. 

Long story short, I do firmly believe that letting BG walk and signing Boozer makes this a better team than doing the opposite. Obviously the Bulls struck out on the LeBron sweepstakes, but they were right to play and they made a signing that should keep them relatively competitive with the NBA's elite when the first tier guys signed with Miami. It's all you can really ask for. 

Anyway, I am not trying to mislead here. I understand Gordon was an exciting, clutch shooter during his time with the Bulls. However, his decline has been precipitous, and it strikes me that those wishing we could undo the decision to let him walk (which was Gordon's own decision, mind you) are nostalgic for a player that doesn't exist anymore. Gordon refusing to sign the Bulls' offer was one of the better breaks of luck for the Bulls in the last five years.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I'm not going out of my way to misread things. Your post basically said Gordon to Boozer was a downgrade. Now if you're saying it's Gordon + the opportunity cost of whatever salary would have been left to sign another player, then sure, that's another discussion. Still, we have no idea who that player would been, but obviously that extra salary would not have been a star. Heck, it might have turned into no player at all, given the Bulls' current cap situation. It might have kept them in a spot of still being over the cap but under the luxury tax, but I'm not Jerry Reinsdorf, and so aside from competitive reasons to stay under the tax threshold, I don't really care.
> 
> Saying Boozer is less than he was on the Jazz and then concluding that makes him analogous to Gordon is overly simplistic. Ben Gordon is only able to get 19 minutes of floor time on a terrible team. That should tell you something. Heck, your posts starts with "If you are comparing Gordon's scoring" as though that's all I was comparing. But of course that's not the end of the discussion! Boozer (and I'm not giant fan) is a much more complete player than BG. He is a very good rebounder and excellent passer. These are skills BG doesn't bring to the table.
> 
> ...


really ?

you are going to make me quote myself on the same page to prove how silly this is .

ok here goes .

from the original post



> to their core they have lost gordon and gained boozer and *considering the moves they went through to get the space for boozer , it has to be weighed as a negative* .


that sounds like i'm talking about a 1 for 1 swap huh?

lets see what else i wrote on that topic in this thread ...in response to you 



> *in swapping boozer for gordon out of the bulls top 4 core , they didn't just go 1 for 1 , they spent 4 extra million a year for that privilege since 2010 plus they traded a 1st round pick to the bucks in that salmons deal that the bucks used to draft larry sanders, a player i find to be more valuable than either boozer or gordon.*
> 
> they got the bucks pick for that , which they then dealt with kirk hinrich with cash for the immortal vladimir veeremeenko which i pretty much consider nothing. there were some good players still available such is avery bradley and eric bledsoe (who was just dealt for reddick and jared dudley 2 player the bulls could certainly use)
> 
> so yes it is a negative, the bulls would have been better of just resigning gordon and keeping their pick , ben avg. 20.7 his last season as a bull and provides the outside shooting thibs has been clamoring for ever since he left.


so um... yeah i've been pretty clear i didn't view it as just boozer for gordon


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

I feel like the goalposts are being shifted. The point of what I'm writing isn't about whether Boozer vs. BG was or was not a one-for-one swap. That seemed largely how you initially framed it, but it's relatively incidental to the larger point.

The only thing in your original post beyond the Boozer signing was:



> considering the moves they went through to get the space for boozer


So what is that referring to? Letting go of Hinrich (who has since been re-signed)? No, I don't consider that minor move a particular tipping point that changes our conversation greatly.

With respect to things you subsequently said in the thread, those don't really move the needle, either. And debating whether it was or wasn't a one-for-one swap isn't really the point, so I'm not sure why you're focusing in on that semantic argument. 

Let me put it very simply. The Bulls are better for all the moves they made in the run-up to the LeBron pitch than if they had not tried to clear that space. Ben Gordon is not very good at basketball anymore, and was always a one-dimensional player (though, for a time, very good at that one dimension). Gordon's contract would have been an albatross. Boozer's deal is obviously bloated, but the Bulls are better for having spent the money there rather than on BG + ancillary pieces.

The only point I am trying to make is that the Bulls are a better basketball team for having the current "core" that you bemoaned in your original post instead of the "core" you seemed to be lobbying for, the only different member of that you specifically identified was Ben Gordon, who is not good.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

The Bulls' need for a secondary shot creator has become overrated. It would help of course but I think the need for everyone to remain healthy far exceeds it, as this team has been wickedly good the few times they've been healthy (and even the 2011 playoffs, the team was not 100% healthy...Boozer had turf toe I think, Noah was hobbled, Rose was still recovering from an ankle sprain, then we lost Asik midway thru the Heat series).

As much as Boozer catches flak for his imperfections, I would take him and his contract over what Ben Gordon has become 100 times out of 100. Remember how desperate we were for a big man who could score back before we signed Boozer? I think Bulls fans forget that. This is a no brainer after seeing Gordon regress like many 6'2 shooting guards tend to do as they get older.

As for Gar's plan, it is to retain the best possible core, making good value FA signings like Dunleavy and Nate last year, and getting rotation quality players late in the draft. Not sexy, but very necessary in today's CBA where you just won't see teams going too far past the luxury tax line with the much stricter penalties (well unless you're that crazy Russian guy who owns the Nets).


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> The Bulls' need for a secondary shot creator has become overrated. It would help of course but I think the need for everyone to remain healthy far exceeds it, as this team has been wickedly good the few times they've been healthy (and even the 2011 playoffs, the team was not 100% healthy...Boozer had turf toe I think, Noah was hobbled, Rose was still recovering from an ankle sprain, then we lost Asik midway thru the Heat series).
> 
> As much as Boozer catches flak for his imperfections, I would take him and his contract over what Ben Gordon has become 100 times out of 100. Remember how desperate we were for a big man who could score back before we signed Boozer? I think Bulls fans forget that. This is a no brainer after seeing Gordon regress like many 6'2 shooting guards tend to do as they get older.
> 
> As for Gar's plan, it is to retain the best possible core, making good value FA signings like Dunleavy and Nate last year, and getting rotation quality players late in the draft. Not sexy, but very necessary in today's CBA where you just won't see teams going too far past the luxury tax line with the much stricter penalties (well unless you're that crazy Russian guy who owns the Nets).



actually the cost of acquiring boozer was alot more than the money spent on him.

to get the cap space the bulls not only failed to resign gordon(which btw like the deng situation if you know you aren't wiling to sign a player at anywhere their asking price also denies the ability to trade that player for any player assets that go beyond summer 2010) so if not having gordon is one thing but you also dont have what you could get for him because you are giving away assets for nothing.

the bulls gave away draft picks and players to get other teams to take on salary.

the 1st round pick alone in 2010 was used by the bucks to draft larry sanders

kirk and the 17th pick in 2010 were traded for vladimir veremeenko and a cap exception that wasn't used .

2 2nd round picks , (isiah thomas , robert sacre ) were drafted in those slots 

all for the chance to be 1 out of 6 teams with significant cap space with only 2 players actually worth the trouble (james and wade) who both went to miami along with the 3rd best player available (bosh)

it was a bad idea , and it went poorly....and quite honestly they look like they are going to try it again in a couple of years.

the truth is the bulls need a 2nd shot creator because it puts too much strain on rose as its sole shot creator and facilitator , in the playoffs when teams scheme for him better his efficiency drops dramatically along with the rest of the team and the defense cant compensate. you can check the stats or you can simply rewatch the games , some of the advantages the bulls use during the regular season dont exist in the playoffs (coaches playing their players longer and harder than their opponents for example)


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> the truth is the bulls need a 2nd shot creator because it puts too much strain on rose as its sole shot creator and facilitator , in the playoffs when teams scheme for him better his efficiency drops dramatically along with the rest of the team and the defense cant compensate. you can check the stats or you can simply rewatch the games , some of the advantages the bulls use during the regular season dont exist in the playoffs (coaches playing their players longer and harder than their opponents for example)


I'm not sure if it is the LeBron hype train in motion or not, but it drives me nuts when the media writes one thing and most everyone jumps on that train as if it were common knowledge.

The reason Rose had trouble with the Heat three playoffs ago was that he could not take advantage when the Heat trapped him. The Heat noticed this and continued to do it over and over. This forced the ball out of Rose's hands and into guys who did not know what to do with it (think Deng and Noah on offense three years ago).

LeBron did not shut down Derrick, the aggressive perimeter trapping did. In fact, the two possessions LeBron guarded Derrick one on one, Derrick got clean looks.

Fast forward one year later and other teams tried to copy what the Heat did throughout the regular season. It was obvious the whole team had worked on how to beat the trap as everyone knew what to do and how to handle it, and actually became a a strength of ours. That's why everyone was so excited going into the playoffs that year. We were right there and no one knew what was going to happen... until Derrick went down with his injury.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

To see how many keyboards he can get Hoodey to run through.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Rhyder said:


> I'm not sure if it is the LeBron hype train in motion or not, but it drives me nuts when the media writes one thing and most everyone jumps on that train as if it were common knowledge.
> 
> The reason Rose had trouble with the Heat three playoffs ago was that he could not take advantage when the Heat trapped him. The Heat noticed this and continued to do it over and over. This forced the ball out of Rose's hands and into guys who did not know what to do with it (think Deng and Noah on offense three years ago).
> 
> ...


Shouldn't great point guards want opposing teams to trap them? I don't think I ever saw a great point guard who couldn't make you pay double for trapping them.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> I'm not sure if it is the LeBron hype train in motion or not, but it drives me nuts when the media writes one thing and most everyone jumps on that train as if it were common knowledge.
> 
> The reason Rose had trouble with the Heat three playoffs ago was that he could not take advantage when the Heat trapped him. The Heat noticed this and continued to do it over and over. This forced the ball out of Rose's hands and into guys who did not know what to do with it (think Deng and Noah on offense three years ago).
> 
> ...


a trap from the knicks or pistons is meaningless in this discussion , all that really matters is how rose fares vs. the heat and if your viewpoint is that rose and the bulls had shown they could handle the heat and their traps .

the facts say different .

they faced the heat twice after that series they won once and lost once .

in the game they lost rose shot 11-28 for 34 points 6 assists but the team on the whole shot poorly and they lost 

in the game they won rose shot 1-13 for 2 points and 8 assists ...the team shot better an efg of .494 vs .451 in the heat game they lost .

the only thing is rose had a +/- of -27 that game , the bulls were +37 with him on the bench he was horrible that game and the bulls were horrible with him.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201204120CHI.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201201290MIA.html

rose has not proven he can beat their trap or defense in general and he knows it , it was one of his reasons for not coming back, he said he wasn't explosive enough to do it last may.

can that change ?

sure , but i dont find it likely.

the easiest way to beat a trap is to pass it to someone who can quickly and consisently beat a defense 4 on 3 after the person who is trapped , passes the ball.

and outside of derrick whom the heat trap the bulls dont have one of those guys.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Diable said:


> Shouldn't great point guards want opposing teams to trap them? I don't think I ever saw a great point guard who couldn't make you pay double for trapping them.


You should have the entire league figured out at 23 facing your toughest playoff test to date and seeing something new for the first time. How long did it take LeBron?


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> a trap from the knicks or pistons is meaningless in this discussion , all that really matters is how rose fares vs. the heat and if your viewpoint is that rose and the bulls had shown they could handle the heat and their traps .
> 
> the facts say different .
> 
> ...


2 games means everything, yet 64 games mean nothing. For the record, the Bulls did beat the Heat trap in those two games. It's almost comical how high the Heat are put on a pedastle. They almost didn't win their first or make their second Finals.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> 2 games means everything, yet 64 games mean nothing. For the record, the Bulls did beat the Heat trap in those two games. It's almost comical how high the Heat are put on a pedastle. They almost didn't win their first or make their second Finals.


well if you are talking about the bulls chances vs the heat ...then yes those are the only games that do matter.

yes it matters rose shot 12-41 in 2 games vs the heat, its hard to believe any team can beat the heat when its star player is that inefficient

yes it matters that with rose on the court and the heat trapping him the bulls were a worse team than they were without him.

its not about putting the heat on a pedestal, they are the champs , therefore the team to take down if winning is the goal.


----------



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

I really hope we can make something out of Deng's expiring if the opportunity arises. Otherwise, we have some assets(some cap space this summer), Mirotic, Charlotte pick. It's a matter of what we can make of it.


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

mvP to the Wee said:


> I really hope we can make something out of Deng's expiring if the opportunity arises. Otherwise, we have some assets(some cap space this summer), Mirotic, Charlotte pick. It's a matter of what we can make of it.


This to me will be the biggest question this year...... 

Do we resign Deng? Do we trade Deng mid-season or sign and trade in off-season? Let him walk? 

Ideally we resign him, amnesty Boozer, use cap some space on FA and Mirotic. 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using VerticalSports.Com App


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Firefight said:


> Do we resign Deng? Do we trade Deng mid-season or sign and trade in off-season? Let him walk?
> 
> Ideally we resign him, amnesty Boozer, use cap some space on FA and Mirotic.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 7 using VerticalSports.Com App


If the Bulls re-sign Deng (I agree that they should, within reason) and amnesty Boozer, they'll be over the salary cap, but short of the luxury tax. This will allow them to offer the full mid-level exception (MLE) to either a free agent or to Mirotic. I expect them to offer it to Mirotic and for Mirotic to accept it. This will almost certainly be the best possible use of the full MLE.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> well if you are talking about the bulls chances vs the heat ...then yes those are the only games that do matter.
> 
> yes it matters rose shot 12-41 in 2 games vs the heat, its hard to believe any team can beat the heat when its star player is that inefficient
> 
> ...


My point is that you could call 2 games an anomaly. I find fault with the common sentiment that the Bulls can't beat the Heat. Before Rose got hurt, I had them rated at a 54% chance to win against Miami. Home court advantage did give them the edge, as I thought Miami had a small advantage if they were playing in a neutral environment.

The season before Rose was injured, I have no problem with anyone saying we got outcoached or outmatched because they discovered a weakness in his game that had not been uncovered and we could not react. Personally, I believe they corrected the problem based on the play of Rose and the team the next season.


----------



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

Yeah, I wouldn't mind signing Deng to an extension as long as we can bring in Mirotic. I don't want us to let Deng go for nothing, however. My preferred option is to seek a trade using him. I think Butler can fill in the role of a 3rd option nicely and he shares a somewhat similar game to Deng IMO. Would be nice to get somebody who can offer us a different kind of game. Aldridge would be a dream scenario.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Deng's trade value is such an enigma.

From what we've gathered in reports, teams haven't been willing to give up much for him; at most we might get an OK lottery pick, ala Harrison Barnes, or injury prone or overpaid players, ala Eric Gordon. (as an aside I like both of those players alot, but Deng is better for the title hunt we've been after)

And for this upcoming season I highly doubt Deng gets traded, b/c nobody gives up much value for a pending free agent unless he agrees to an extension before the trade is executed.

And yet, I can almost guarantee there will be a bad-to-mediocre team out there with tons of money to spend, and they will happily give Deng $14M per year over 4-5 years, Josh Smith style. 

So we're stuck between a rock and a hard place...either trade him for inferior players, or pay him more than what he's worth. The underlying problem is that Deng is just worth more to the Bulls than he is to other teams. We partly have Thibodeau to thank for that, for better or worse.


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

yodurk said:


> Deng's trade value is such an enigma.
> 
> From what we've gathered in reports, teams haven't been willing to give up much for him; at most we might get an OK lottery pick, ala Harrison Barnes, or injury prone or overpaid players, ala Eric Gordon. (as an aside I like both of those players alot, but Deng is better for the title hunt we've been after)
> 
> ...


Deng is important to the title run, so I don't want to trade him midseason... But ideally, create an optimal sign and trade scenario...


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Firefight said:


> Deng is important to the title run, so I don't want to trade him midseason... But ideally, create an optimal sign and trade scenario...


I agree, we shouldn't trade Deng, and I say that definitively because there is just no way another team gives up a player who would be more valuable to the Bulls than Deng is to us. It would have to be a Lamarcus Aldridge level player or greater and that just isn't happening. 

I only mention these points above because this could quickly turn into an Asik 2.0 situation after the season ends. Where the team doesn't trade said player b/c of the title run, but then summer rolls around and said player bolts for a payday. And out come the "we should've traded him for X" debates. 

I think we just need to accept the fact that we need Deng if we're going to win a championship this year, and need to accept the risk that he might bolt for more money elsewhere. That is just the reality of sports today, it's very hard to keep a good core together when everyone wants to get paid max or near max money. But you can't just trade them away for inferior talent b/c then you end up nowhere when it matters.


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

yodurk said:


> I agree, we shouldn't trade Deng, and I say that definitively because there is just no way another team gives up a player who would be more valuable to the Bulls than Deng is to us. It would have to be a Lamarcus Aldridge level player or greater and that just isn't happening.
> 
> I only mention these points above because this could quickly turn into an Asik 2.0 situation after the season ends. Where the team doesn't trade said player b/c of the title run, but then summer rolls around and said player bolts for a payday. And out come the "we should've traded him for X" debates.
> 
> I think we just need to accept the fact that we need Deng if we're going to win a championship this year, and need to accept the risk that he might bolt for more money elsewhere. That is just the reality of sports today, it's very hard to keep a good core together when everyone wants to get paid max or near max money. But you can't just trade them away for inferior talent b/c then you end up nowhere when it matters.


Agreed. Eventually you need to live in the now and stop working for the future.. 

I don't know of any teams looking to shed salary/looking to obtain an expiring contract that has a legit SG we can plug into the lineup, but is the only scenario I see an in-season trade happening. Maybe throw in the Charlotte pick to get something done ....

But I agree... Deng is moat likely here for the year, and, unfortunately, not here beyond this season.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Firefight said:


> Deng is most likely here for the year, and, unfortunately, not here beyond this season.


Agree that Deng stays here this season for the reason given, but believe it's better than even money that he re-signs and stays with the Bulls for next season as well.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Firefight said:


> I don't know of any teams looking to shed salary/looking to obtain an expiring contract that has a legit SG we can plug into the lineup, but is the only scenario I see an in-season trade happening. Maybe throw in the Charlotte pick to get something done ....


The only guy who comes close to making sense is Eric Gordon, and that would depend totally on Gordon's health (so far he is looking very good and healthy).

New Orleans is a very young team and stacked in the backcourt (Holiday, Gordon, Evans), so a Gordon for Deng swap would actually make alot of sense for them. They could use Deng in a big way and potentially extend his contract right away. That would be a slam dunk trade for them: Holiday, Evans, Deng, Davis, and whoever...that is a great team.

Bulls would have to acknowledge that they need Gordon's offense more than Deng's defense, and that Deng probably isn't returning. Those are alot of "ifs" so again it's very unlikely, but this one is at least in the ballpark of reality. Healthy Eric Gordon would actually be pretty compelling addition to this team: Rose, Gordon, Butler, Taj, Noah, & Kirk, Dunleavy, Booz off the bench.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Diable said:


> Shouldn't great point guards want opposing teams to trap them? I don't think I ever saw a great point guard who couldn't make you pay double for trapping them.


It's all about who you are playing next to. You don't try to trap the John Stockton's of the world if his safety valve is the great Karl Malone and Jeff Horny at the corner. You don't trap a guy like Mark Jackson when he can kick it out to Reggie. 

The bulls are a one player team. No inside presence, no consistent out side shooter and there is no one on this team that can handle the ball or create offense for themselves... It's not like Rose is turning it over every time he gets trapped. He usually passes out of it and it forces either Noah or Deng to initiate the offense, which is exactly what Miami wants.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

How many games did the Bulls win last year? Who played for that team? Who didn't?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Diable said:


> How many games did the Bulls win last year? Who played for that team? Who didn't?


Pointless argument. 

They can't beat Miami. Miami knows that the bulls can't score on them if they just take Rose out of the flow of the offense. We have seen this time and time again.

Sure the bulls are a great regular season team, but that's no longer good enough or the goal. 3 years and we are still getting our brains beat in by Miami. Other teams around us have gotten better. What have the bulls done this season that gets us closer to beating Miami in the playoffs?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> My point is that you could call 2 games an anomaly. I find fault with the common sentiment that the Bulls can't beat the Heat. Before Rose got hurt, I had them rated at a 54% chance to win against Miami. Home court advantage did give them the edge, as I thought Miami had a small advantage if they were playing in a neutral environment.
> 
> The season before Rose was injured, I have no problem with anyone saying we got outcoached or outmatched because they discovered a weakness in his game that had not been uncovered and we could not react. Personally, I believe they corrected the problem based on the play of Rose and the team the next season.



is it still an anomaly?

the simple fact is this the bulls dont have an answer to this because with their current roster there isn't one.


rose sits down in the 1st quarter ...and the game ends because there is no out there who can hurt them , 

the same problem that happens when they trap rose ...which they never had to do because the game wasn't competitive past the 1st quarter , they went on a couple of big runs in the 1st and 2nd quarter and it was essentially over after that.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> is it still an anomaly?
> 
> the simple fact is this the bulls dont have an answer to this because with their current roster there isn't one.
> 
> ...


You are pointing to the losses against the Heat and discouting the wins. We have had only one healthy series against the Heat, and that was Rose's first big playoff test. Since that series, it has been about 50/50 in the regular season against them.


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

This is one of the reasons people brought up starting Taj over Boozer...

Boozer has been great offensively so far this year. He has been hitting his jumper and finishing around the rim... The thought would be, have Taj play with the first unit, and them play Boozer with 2nd unit. Just run set plays over and over to him and let him work on the other teams backup PF.... Once they double, surround him with Dunleavy and Hinrich to hopefully hurt them with an outside shot...

Makes some sense to help that second unit score....


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Firefight said:


> This is one of the reasons people brought up starting Taj over Boozer...
> 
> Boozer has been great offensively so far this year. He has been hitting his jumper and finishing around the rim... The thought would be, have Taj play with the first unit, and them play Boozer with 2nd unit. Just run set plays over and over to him and let him work on the other teams backup PF.... Once they double, surround him with Dunleavy and Hinrich to hopefully hurt them with an outside shot...
> 
> Makes some sense to help that second unit score....


I would definitely be on board with that. MDJ can't be the primary bench scorer. He doesn't thrive getting points off the dribble. However, I could see them both having a lot of success playing off one another.

It is easier to implement this than in past season with Taj's seemingly improved offensive game and improved offensive production from the SG spot in Jimmy.

From a PR perspective, this would also help paint the way for a Boozer amnesty if that is what happens in the offseason.


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

Rhyder said:


> I would definitely be on board with that. MDJ can't be the primary bench scorer. He doesn't thrive getting points off the dribble. However, I could see them both having a lot of success playing off one another.
> 
> It is easier to implement this than in past season with Taj's seemingly improved offensive game and improved offensive production from the SG spot in Jimmy.
> 
> From a PR perspective, this would also help paint the way for a Boozer amnesty if that is what happens in the offseason.


I don't think the organization has to worry from a PR perspective with Boozer...just as long as we use that $$ on someone else.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> You are pointing to the losses against the Heat and discouting the wins. We have had only one healthy series against the Heat, and that was Rose's first big playoff test. Since that series, it has been about 50/50 in the regular season against them.


not true at all .
but i will say this , you cant have it both ways one one hand Rose is supposed to be the difference that makes them able to topple the heat .

but they only won 1 of three games vs the heat he played in and that game they won *in spite* of rose( he shoots 1-13 for 2 points and the team is -27 with him on the floor) , not because of him.

and then want to talk about how they are 50/50 in regular season games since rose and the bulls lost the playoff series vs the heat when the truth is they are 3-3 in the games rose missed but 1-2 in the games he played in 

if he is going to be the reason the bulls in your opinion have some sort of edge ....exactly when is that suppose to happen ?

the truth is the bulls being a .500 team vs the heat is fool's gold , it certainly doesn't translate to the postseason.


----------

