# My assessment of the Bulls, 4 games into the Skiles era



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

First game, with new players acquired in the Rose trade, we played a wonderful brand of basketball and won. We broke a 7 game losing streak.

Next game, the play continued for the first quarter. Since then, it's not shown up in any of our games.

JYD looked terrific in his first game. He's looked rather mediocre since. In fact, tonight he had just 19 minutes, shot 0-4, and grabbed just 3 rebounds and had 1 steal. Whatever defense he's brought to the team is probably offset by his lack of offensive production.

Antonio Davis is showing why he's now the best center on this team. 13 rebounds tonight. 15 rebounds against New Orleans last game. 13 rebounds against Philly two games ago.

Eddy Curry was supposed to break out this season and be our #1 option on offense. I don't think he's playing well enough to beat out AD for the starting C job, if Chandler were healthy. 

The Bulls are obviously weak at guard and at SF. Crawford has been good at scoring, but the offense hasn't been consistent for any other player with him as the only scorer. Hinrich looked like he was progressing, then took steps backwards, and then we find out he's got muscle spasms in his back that really affected his game tonight. Gill has gone from (arguably) our best player to a terrible player, and we have to play him because there's nobody else to play - hinrich and crawford can't play 48 minutes per game at the two guard positions.

Consider Gill is shooting 31% in his last 5 games: 2-9, 4-10, 4-15, 0-4, 3-8 (13-42 = .310%).

ERob? He's missed 2 of the last 5 games, and when he has played, he's shot infrequently but well enough. But hey, great teams love to have their SF never score 10+ points in a game and average 3 rebounds per game. In other words, he's a SCRUB, and a giant step down from either Rose or Marshall (both could play SF).

Linton Johnson has started the last 4 games for us at SF. 2 points, 6 points, 3 points, and 0 points are his contributions. His almost 3 rebounds per game are a real plus (NOT!).

Pippen has played in just 1 of the last 5 games. 11 minutes against Milwaukee. I don't think we can count on him to ever suit up and play again, even though we're wasting a roster spot on him (and it isn't even IR where he belongs!).

Skiles is supposed to be the savior as coach. He has just one victory as a Bulls coach, which is about 50 less than Cartwright had. While it's likely the bulls will win a game here and there, it's unlikely that Skiles' record will be as good as Cartwright's, as bad as BC's was.

Skiles' team played good only one game. That was the game when the three new players we traded for had ZERO practices and he couldn't install any kind of offense/defense schemes. As time has gone by, the Bulls are running a defense that gave up 65 second half points tonight, 60 last game (38 in Q4) against NO, and a modest 47 two games ago. What defense?

On offense, we look miserable. One of our PGs holds the ball so long we don't get into our sets until the shot clock is a real issue of running out (way too many :24 clock violations the last 3 games and way too many forced shots to beat the clock). Our new best player (by default) had to be benched for stretches of last game because he didn't move without the ball, nor did the rest of the team for that matter.

Some people may think there's a light at the end of the tunnel. Well the tunnel's been 6 years long, and it's been very dark. Unfortunately, the light is a train coming head on. Trainwreck in progress, folks.

At some point, the losing will destroy any energy/enthusiasm/hope that the players may currently have. They'll start going through the motions. We'll be screaming for Skiles' head early next season. Whoever our best player is at the time (Crawford, probably) will be the scapegoat of the fans, and we'll be happy to see him traded for crap. Or we'll just let him walk, rather than pay him. And when it happens, people will go to the "predict our record" thread next season and claim we'll win 47 games and make the 4th seed in the east.

Even funnier will be the threads that say "what if we didn't make these trades" and Rose and Marshall will be among the players we'll regret giving away. The guy we have with the big contract, AD, will be harassed in the press and by folks on message boards like this, saying he's a waste of cap space (and roster space, for that matter).

I'd mention that the trade we made was utterly bad, but then I'd be rambling a bit too much.

But hey, Ira Newble is the answer for this team. He'll put us over the top!


----------



## ill subliminal (Apr 3, 2003)

> JYD looked terrific in his first game. He's looked rather mediocre since. In fact, tonight he had just 19 minutes, shot 0-4, and grabbed just 3 rebounds and had 1 steal. Whatever defense he's brought to the team is probably offset by his lack of offensive production.



That's why Toronto made you take him, don't expect much else. As far as point guards go, after Hinrich and Crawford, everyone is garbage on the Kevin Ollie/Anthony Carter level. It sounds to me from your thing that the real problem is injuries, although the complete lack of depth and inept small forwards don't help.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Any ideas of what to do? You paint a pretty dire picture. Perhaps justifiably so. But what's the answer? We're pretty much stuck hoping that Curry turns into a beast. And that Crawford can maintain a 26-28ppg average AND run the offense, making sure Curry can get his touches so he can blow layup after layup.

Watching Bulls games online the phrase I see the most is:
Eddy Curry missed layup.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Any ideas of what to do? You paint a pretty dire picture. Perhaps justifiably so. But what's the answer? We're pretty much stuck hoping that Curry turns into a beast. And that Crawford can maintain a 26-28ppg average AND run the offense, making sure Curry can get his touches so he can blow layup after layup.
> 
> Watching Bulls games online the phrase I see the most is:
> Eddy Curry missed layup.


We can't undo the trade we just made. I think things were desparate before the trade and even moreso since the trade.

If I were Paxson, I would absolutely be shopping Curry, Chandler, and Antonio Davis to teams that are heavy in SF and G type players. If we can get a G and a SF to replace any one of those guys (or a 2-for-2 or whatever it takes), then we'd certainly be better off.

One strategy that appeared to work was for teams to look at guys at the end of other teams' benches for guys who could breakout and be a major player. Guys like Desmond Mason come to mind. 

I know it is unpoluar to think of trading Curry or Chandler, but they are about all we have to offer at this point, in trade. Or Hinrich or Crawford, but we're already so thin at G we can't afford to do a 1-for-1 swap at that position.

On the other hand, it is clear we are no longer develping Curry. if we are, it is into something a lot less than he ultimately could be. Before he's ruined completely, we may as well give some other team a chance.

We won't miss him as much as it might first appear. AD and Blount can truly man the C position better than Curry has, and we can really use a consistent scorer at any other position to complement Crawford.

In case it isn't clear, I'm sold on making Crawford the star of this team. but he needs a pippen-like sidekick to take some pressure off him and to give the team a lift. Curry ain't it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

One more thing. I'm truly an optimist. It's just that my optimism is directly proportional to our wins and chance of winning.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

I honestly think we can point to one thing, along with all these roster changes and coaching changes and all that, which we should allow for some stability:

the offseason.

We need our guys to be playing their hardest, working out like crazy, and getting it done for real in the offseasons. We need them to be working on their games conscientiously, not taking summers like summer vacation from high school (gasp, where would our mature and aged players get such silly ideas of summer vacation? oh right... starting to make sense).

Because we DON'T pickup where we left off, and summers are NOT being spent as professionals. They aren't working on their games all summer long. And honestly, I don't think we had any veterans here working very hard in the summer. I hope a summer with Gill will change things.

It's a foreseeable pattern: we put ourselves out of the playoffs with, initially a bunch of blowouts, and then, with a bunch of close games. Then, after the new year begins, once the playoffs are sufficiently out of reach, the team starts getting into the rhythm of playing actual basketball. By the time the season ends, the Bulls are beating playoff bound teams left and right in games that actually matter, and guys like Eddy Curry look completely unstoppable.

But then the offseason of rest and relaxation, the "summer vacation" of no conditioning and no basketball focus, and it's over. You get the feeling that they are playing basketball for money, not for wins, and that they are on their way to becoming Olowokandi's, Yogi Stewarts, Big Country Reeves's, etc.

There needs to be mandatory off-season work. Guys need to be ADDING SKILLS in the off-season, working out their bodies, building muscle (because it's basically impossible to gain weight during the season, playing three to four games a week along with practices). Chandler might be at fault for a poor workout regime that had him coming to camp with back spasms.

You put Eddy Curry in shape, with mental training in defense and a few more polished post moves, and you make Tyson Chandler build up some serious lats and get a serious jump shot, and you make Crawford build upper body strength and learn how to post up smaller guys, and you've got a serious basketball team.

But otherwise, you have what we have: little to no improvement.

They've let my hopes down. Hopefully, they'll commit this summer with Skiles, Bach, Gill and whoever else. I see that potential in Hinrich, to elevate his game... someone who takes basketball seriously as his profession, not just as a glitzy way to get easy cash.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> In case it isn't clear, I'm sold on making Crawford the star of this team. but he needs a pippen-like sidekick to take some pressure off him and to give the team a lift. Curry ain't it.


awww shucks.

But anyhow. I agree with what your plan. I don't think we need both Chandler and Curry as badly as we need the pippen sidekick, second scorer. I think ideally we would want to keep Chandler, because his type of game would work best in conjunction with AD and the unnamed second scorer and Crawford.

The question is, will how bad is Chandler's back? Is he going to be able to eventually play this season?

And as far as trading Curry...I think there may be a certain owner in Texas who would love to start an actual real live center even if he doesn't play defense and rebound as well as the SF that he currently has at the position.

We could certainly live with Jamison or Walker at the 3. Especially an in-shape Walker.

The other team to talk to, would obviously be Seattle. They have Radmanovich and Rashard Lewis. Both of whom should be star 3's. Though I'm slightly leary of trading Curry straight up for Vlad, it's certainly an option. Maybe Vlad plus a draft pick.

And then there's indiana. Where Bulls players go on the way to the all-star game. Al Harrington would look very nice in a bulls uniform.

Q Richardson might be a good second guy to have.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

I agree that a Scottie Pippen-type would be better than Chandler.

After that, if we just got a Gary Payton-type or Jason Kidd-type at PG we would be set.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> awww shucks.
> ...


You have to look at the salaries for CBA purposes. Curry's doesn't come close to Walker's, Lewis', Jamison's, Harrington's, etc. No 1-for-1 trade is possible. We'd have to throw in a bunch of players to even it out, if we don't want to give up guys like Crawford, Hinrich, etc.

If we're trading for a max player, we have to potentially trade AD, too, to be the max filler (so to speak). But doing so would actually hurt us unless we got a Foyle in return.


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> The other team to talk to, would obviously be Seattle. They have Radmanovich and Rashard Lewis. Both of whom should be star 3's. Though I'm slightly leary of trading Curry straight up for Vlad, it's certainly an option. Maybe Vlad plus a draft pick.


Do you guys really think Curry will be traded...I thought he was 'untouchable' ?

About the trades, I don't know if they would work. I don't think we would give up Rashard Lewis, he seems to be a big part of our future plans. Vladimir on the other hand, could well be traded. I think we would be shopping Vlad for a PF/C if Nick Collison didn't get injured for the season. But, I don't think the Bulls would do a Radman for Curry trade, even if we threw in a future pick. 

I'd like either one of Curry/Chandler, but Chandler would probably be a better fit on the Sonics. We really need rebounding help, and Curry doesn't seem to be a strong rebounder. Lewis and Radman average 6.6 rpg and Curry only gets 6.8 rpg despite being a monster at 6'11" 285 lbs.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> Do you guys really think Curry will be traded...I thought he was 'untouchable' ?


It depends on what the coach and GM decide is the strategy. 

First, is the season a wash? If so, what do we do: just play out the remaining 62 games and chalk it up to experience or do we trade guys that fit the condenders this season to build a roster we think can win next season?

Second, it's not technically a wash. a .400 record the rest of the way might get us 8th seed. Yeah, it's that bad. So do we play to make the playoffs? If so, we can:

1) Wait for our team to be healthy. When is that going to be? It's already 25% of the season gone, and we've just got 5 wins. Do we wait another 25% of the season and hope we have 10 wins by then? What if we don't get healthy by then, even. And if we do get healthy, even tomorrow, do we have a team that really has a chance to win ballgames (I think not).

2) Trade our scrub players for other teams' scrub players. I see these kinds of proposals all the time. I don't think it will help us win, but it can gain us depth at our weak positions (backup G, starting SF).

3) Trade our best (and healthy or not) players where we have depth for similar quality (or better if we're lucky) players who can play the positions we're weak at.

If it's #3, then it's AD, Chandler, or Curry we have as trade bait.

There's two questions asked. What would I do, and what is probably going to happen. The answer to your question is, "probably nothing." In that case, we're going to have the 2nd worst record in the league by the end of the season.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I'm sure someone will post this URL to start a thread, but it contains some things salient to this thread.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...gamer,1,3630090.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines

It left the Bulls 5-15 overall and 1-3 under new coach Scott Skiles, who showed some frustration with his team for the first time.

"I'm very disappointed," he said. "I felt like our third-quarter effort (when they were outscored 30-18) really hurt us. It was very poor, to say the least. This was the third or fourth game in a row we came out [after halftime] with very little life. That's something we need to address. It put us in a hole.

<B>Sounds JUST like Cartwright used to.</B>

"They're a lot better," said Parker, who had 13 points and seven assists. "[Antonio] Davis [16 points and 13 rebounds] is looking pretty good. They've got some inside guys now. If they find some outside shooters, they'll be fine."


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Twenty games into the season last year with our Rose/Marshall led team, guess what our record was. 

5-15

Same as this year.

And we fininished with 30 wins last year, which with this year's Eastern Conference would put us fairly close to the playoffs.

So an optimist whose optimism is proportional to our wins (whatever that means) would at least be pegging us at 30 wins. But no, not you. You have us down at 15 or 20 wins.

And we are still 5-5 against the Eastern Conference (0-10 versus West), and we have 44 games left against Eastern Conference teams and just 18 against the West. An optimist might point that out.

Last year with our great Rose/Marshall led team, we hardly had any injury problems at the beginning of the season and we were still 5-15. So wouldn't the fact that we have matched that record with our injury problems suggest that maybe we might still have it in us to improve on last year's win total. Well, apparently not if you are an optimist.

And an optimist might have pointed out that, unlike early in the season, in the middle of the fourth quarter we have had a chance to win all four games in the Skiles era. Unlike getting blown out every third or fourth game like when we had Rose and Marshall early in the season. That's progress in my book, but apparently not in an optimist's.

I like what we are seeing from Hinrich, Crawford, and Chandler, and Curry is better since Skiles got here. Not great, but better. I would like to see how we do when our team MVP for the first month gets back. (A guy I might add that I think you would have traded for a piece of cheese last year. Or at least a guy you were not as high on as Marcus Fizer.) But as an optimistic, you are prepared to give up on the new team, just four games after it was completely ripped apart. I would hate to see how many minutes you would have given them if you weren't such an optimist.

DaBullz, if you are an optimist, then I am a Nobel Prize winner.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

No way do we trade any of the three C's IMO. As clueless as Eddy looks one night he can look completely dominant the next. His light just hasn't gone off where he can be that player yet. And, having Tyson in the game completely changes things. His defense can force a whole lot of altered shots by the other team. Plus he can really pull down some tough offensive boards. 

I agree as much as the next person that this team could use and atheletic swingman. There are plenty of guys we can have on our wish list to be sure. I WISHED that we had signed Posey instead of Pip. Unfortunately that didn't happen. I'd say the Bulls should be looking for a package deal that includes Fizer, a 1st round pick, and possibly someone like Gill. Put that feeler out there and see who the best 3 you can get is. If nothings doing then wait till next daft and go after Darius Rice or maybe one of the euro's. In any case, the Bulls won't ge getting ahead by giving away the pieces they have lost so long to get.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I'd mention that the trade we made was utterly bad, but then I'd be rambling a bit too much.


Why was Rose not producing here this season? Rose was getting the minutes. He's turned it on in Toronto, as expected. What makes you think that Rose would have all of a sudden started to play hard for us? Who do you blame for Rose's bad attitude, if not Rose? Cartwright? Pax? Triangle? What was your suggestion for fixing it?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Eddy Curry was supposed to break out this season and be our #1 option on offense. I don't think he's playing well enough to beat out AD for the starting C job, if Chandler were healthy.


I agree with most of what you wrote. The same thing is true now as was true at the start of the season. This team will only go as far as the 3 Cs will take us.

1 C is playing very well.
1 C is playing below average.
1 C is hurt.

Not enough production from the Cs... bottom line.

The team that I see playing now at least tries hard, except for Curry. At least Curry still has the chance to change.

I agree that all this losing sucks and I don't see what the answer to it is at this point.


----------



## Half-Life (Jan 1, 2003)

^^so true. I still believe that we can get it together soon. When Tyson comes back and when/if Eddy starts to realize that he is essential to the team..then this team can really break out. Until then, every single game is going to be close, painful, and heartbreaking.


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

why dont you people just wait instead of overeacting? sheesh, its the same people who have been overeacting since the start of the season. 'Jamal is to blame for the blowout losses, trade him', sound familiar? 'Kendall Gill is our best player, hes shooting blah blah blah', sound familiar? Dabullz i think you overeact as much as anyone probably because you base so much on the last games stats, at some point i hope you learn the nature of basketball. Meaning players will go through hot and cold streaks. Most of us knew Gill wouldnt keep it up, most of us knew Crawford would have his great games along with some bad ones but he needed the opportunities. Most of us know that Curry and Chandler are work in progresses, and havent matured to what they can be. Alot of you were ready to condemn Crawford at the beginning of the season, and look at him now  Apply that to Chandler and Curry, or overeact and say their busts and get rid of them for peanuts like alot of you wanted to get rid of Jamal when he got benched  Now your saying AD is our best player just because he had a great game last night, but most of us know he wont keep that up either. 

I could go on and on with some of the overeacting retardedness that goes on here. From saying we dont need Chandler because the Bulls looked good without him for one game, to saying Heinrich is the next Kidd or Payton just because he plays decent D and looks to pass first  I mean its rediculous at thsi point because some of you dont learn from being wrong apparently, and constantly think the sky is falling. For the last time, the sky isnt falling. 

I've got my criticisms and i tend to agree with Dabullz that the trade with Toronto was stupid, but that doesnt mean the Bulls have no hope. There are alot of positives right now, be as pessimistic as you want to be, but i clearly see more positive than negatives. Skiles is much better than Cartwright, i think thats obvious at this point. The offense and defense looks MUCH better than they did under Cartwright. Jamal has broken out, and taken it to the next lvl. Alot of Jamal-supporters were waiting for the Bulls to committt to him instead of pulling him after one mistake, and see where that got Jamal? What if we traded Jamal for Alvin Williams or Othella Harrington, how stupid would some of you overeactors look? THe players believe in the coach, something you couldnt say under Cartwright. Veterans that come here such as AD and Jerome, along with Skiles have the highest of praise for the potential of Curry. Granted that needs to be translated into the games, but it at least gives me the reassurance that he has the potential and displays that potential in practices. That kind of praise coming from veterans is nothing to scoff at. 

So for the last time, stop overeacting. You know who you are. Dont think playoffs this year, think development and improvement. If they make it to the playoffs thats great, but if they dont then think positively towards next year. If you want to trade to fix all the problems, then i hope your willing to accept the stupidity of hindsight and overeacting to the present. Theres a reason alot of teams would be more than happy to take any of the 3 C's off the Bulls hands, the sad thing is the Bulls and some fans are dumb enough to do something so rash :devil:


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Happyface</b>!
> why dont you people just wait instead of overeacting? sheesh, its the same people who have been overeacting since the start of the season. 'Jamal is to blame for the blowout losses, trade him', sound familiar? 'Kendall Gill is our best player, hes shooting blah blah blah', sound familiar? Dabullz i think you overeact as much as anyone probably because you base so much on the last games stats, at some point i hope you learn the nature of basketball. Meaning players will go through hot and cold streaks. Most of us knew Gill wouldnt keep it up, most of us knew Crawford would have his great games along with some bad ones but he needed the opportunities. Most of us know that Curry and Chandler are work in progresses, and havent matured to what they can be. Alot of you were ready to condemn Crawford at the beginning of the season, and look at him now  Apply that to Chandler and Curry, or overeact and say their busts and get rid of them for peanuts like alot of you wanted to get rid of Jamal when he got benched  Now your saying AD is our best player just because he had a great game last night, but most of us know he wont keep that up either.
> 
> I could go on and on with some of the overeacting retardedness that goes on here. From saying we dont need Chandler because the Bulls looked good without him for one game, to saying Heinrich is the next Kidd or Payton just because he plays decent D and looks to pass first  I mean its rediculous at thsi point because some of you dont learn from being wrong apparently, and constantly think the sky is falling. For the last time, the sky isnt falling.
> ...



Well Said! :yes: :yes:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*I'll repeat what I said in the other thread*

Avg Points before and After:
90.3/88.0 (-2.3)

Avg PPG before and After:
101.1/90.8 (-10.3)

This trade has cost us 2.3 ppg in offense and gained us 10.3 ppg in defense so far.

In other words, it's brought us closer, not further away. The fact that we're losing doesn't signify that the changes were a failure, but instead signifies that we had a very long way to go in the first place.

We've made up some of the ground, but in order to win, that remaining differential has to be crossed.


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> Twenty games into the season last year with our Rose/Marshall led team, guess what our record was.
> 
> 5-15
> ...


I totally agree with this!!!

I don't care what the record is, the team is playing much, much better. Before the trade they were painful to watch and made me change the channel. Their lack of effort was disgusting. Now they are in each game. It will take time b/c Jamal is adapting to his new, huge role. My only point of concern is that Eddy is so weak. He makes me angry but I don't want to trade him. Give him time to work with Davis in practice.

Speaking of Davis - the Toronto trade looks bad for us based on wins. I want to know who from Toronto is going to guard Tim Duncan, Shaq, Brad Miller, Yao, Ilyguskis, or even Olawakandi? Davis played Tim Duncan so well last night. He only got 14 shots off and it was a close game. It's not like the Spurs didn't need his offense. Davis just didn't let him shoot. 

I don't need stats to see that the Bulls are far more competitive and will benefit from their upcoming easier schedule.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> Twenty games into the season last year with our Rose/Marshall led team, guess what our record was.
> 
> 5-15
> ...


Ding, ding, ding... we have a winner.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Last year when Hubie Brown took over for the Grizzlies he lost his first five games and ten of his first twelve. And that 12th loss was by 33 points to Utah.

Did his team give up? No. Did Jerry West panic and trade away his young talent? No, the Gooden/Miller trade was young guy for young guy. And guess what, things got better for Memphis. After starting 2-18, they finished 26-36.

Well, Skiles started over later, so if we are like the Grizzlies we will need another ten games or so to turn things around, in particular since in addition to a coaching change, we traded away our two best players (at least last year's two best players). However, we are probably not as bad as Memphis was. (We are 4-12, whereas they were 0-8 before the coaching change.) Also, we have suffered through a lot more injuries, and we would probably expect the injury situation to get better rather than worse for the rest of the season.

Considering all of that plus that we have a lot more games left against Eastern Conference teams who we are 5-5 against plus the fact that 35-40 wins might get you anywhere from a sixth to eighth seed in the Eastern Conference playoffs, I think there is still a good shot for us to be in playoff contention if we turn things around in the next ten games or so (maybe by going 3-7 or 4-6). We will have to start playing well after that and we won't be able to afford many more injuries, but we are still in the hunt right now. We just have to start playing a little bit better. Not a lot better like earlier in the season.


----------



## Lusty RaRue (Sep 9, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Some people may think there's a light at the end of the tunnel. Well the tunnel's been 6 years long, and it's been very dark. Unfortunately, the light is a train coming head on. Trainwreck in progress, folks.


Agreed.

I differ with you on trading a 5 without getting one or more back simply because of their rarity.

I think Skiles will be fine. Never saw him as a "saviour".
I'm sure most of what he says are things BC said too.

My "scapegoat" is actually 2.

Primarily it's Paxson. Paxson was GREAT on the radio and GREAT in his personal life. I truly am perplexed by his moves as GM however precisely because I expected so much from him.

I think it's inexcuseable to not have secured a vet 1 THIS SUMMER. There were plenty available. As you know, I consider Pippen a 3 because that's who he guards and that's how players are positioned in the NBA(contrary to popular belief). But OK he's fine for the triangle when it's run which was hardly ever last year and will be never from now on. So after less than 20 games, the primary reason(s) for Snot to be here are gone: triangle offense & Rose. Bright move. Not.

Vladimir Stepania & Tyronn Lue could've BOTH been had for the money Pimpin is taking. 

If Kirk is still alive around the new year, he'll hit "the wall" that all rookies do since they're not used to playing so many games. It'd be nice if Paxson could get a vet 1 by then.

The other big beef I have with Paxson is the love affair with sentiment/style/reputation over substance: Pippen: old Bull, Gill: Illinois guy, Blount: old Bull, Davis: wanted to come here before, Kendra from Aurora. Earth to John P.: These guys are older and fine in token amounts of salary and playing time but a bad idea given the amount of both they recieve on this young team. At least Blount and Gill don't cost much but Pippen and Davis sure do. 

Effort is nice and was needed but shouldn't be confused with effectiveness.

This added to the 100% DEAD spot taken by "J" means that: the Bull are playing on borrowed time. 

The Bull should've EXPECTED these players to miss games and NOT be able to carry the team and yet they are getting major minutes on a regular basis.

My second "scapegoat" is an attitude. FJ called it the And1 crowd. I was going to call it the Rucker Park attitude/game. It reminds me of the movie: Searching for Bobby Fischer.

http://www.hollywood.com/movies/detail/movie/171541

In short it's about a young chess player with talent. There's the strict teacher who teaches sound chess and there's the more accepting street player who teaches more exciting but less sound chess. He actually uses both in the end.

I really think that JC is the tail that wags the dog that is EC. That tail wagged the both of them to play street ball when they both would've been better served by playing fewer games and working more on their bodies and skills last summer.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Lizzy</b>!
> I don't care what the record is


Says it all.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Ding, ding, ding... we have a winner.


Ding, ding, ding... we have 1-3 and 5-15. Winner? I don't think so.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

at least we're only losing by 5 and not 25, which was a regularity during the BC/Rose administration.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: I'll repeat what I said in the other thread*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Avg Points before and After:
> 90.3/88.0 (-2.3)
> 
> ...


It's been demonstrated by Kneepad and NCBullsFan that the Bulls were among the quickest teams to shoot the ball last season. You can gain 10.3 PPG on defense merely by slowing down the offense to use up more of the :24 clock. Guess what? That's what we've done - hence all the :24 clock violations.

Add to that the fact we've given up an average of 55.6 points in the second halves of ballgames for the last 3 games, and I don't see how you can argue we have gained anything on defense as a team.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> at least we're only losing by 5 and not 25, which was a regularity during the BC/Rose administration.


I understand your sarcasm. Fine. Key words "we're only losing." Aren't you tired of watching the Bulls lose, no matter how they lose?

We don't know how Rose and Marshall would have played with Skiles as their coach. And I frankly don't care if we lost with them or we lose without them. The big issue with Rose and Marshall is we gave up our only two quality guys who could play SF and we got garbage in return.

My gripe isn't so much we traded those guys, it's what we're left with now that they're gone.


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Says it all.


I knew you were going to isolate this part of my post as I was typing it but I thought...ahhh who gives a ****!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> I like what we are seeing from Hinrich, Crawford, and Chandler, and Curry is better since Skiles got here. Not great, but better. I would like to see how we do when our team MVP for the first month gets back. (A guy I might add that I think you would have traded for a piece of cheese last year. Or at least a guy you were not as high on as Marcus Fizer.)


I suggested we trade Crawford and Fizer and Marshall for Antoine Walker. If a 3-time all-star, who was an all-star last season as well, is "cheese" then I'm the nobel prize winner.

The bottom line is we are losing with our hopes pinned to ONE guy. And we're one Fred Hoiberg ball fake away from a disaster of unprecedented proportions.

(If you don't understand the ball fake reference, think back to how Jamal fell on his head a few games back).

Injury situation is getting better? No. It's getting worse. Hinrich now has back spasms and we're forced to play him. And then there's this:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...sbits,1,2320515.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines

Knee problem recurs, Pippen sidelined again


Scottie Pippen missed his eighth game Monday night, and it's looking less likely he'll hit the Bulls' goal of playing 60 games. "I am obviously concerned," general manager John Paxson said. "Scottie wants to be out there. If he felt he could play, he'd be out there. I was hopeful his knee would feel better than it has. I've got to give him a chance to see if he can get it right. The thing that hurts our team the most is when he's been on the court we've been better. Even the last two games there were situations, taking the ball out of bounds in Philadelphia, where he could make a difference."

Pippen had his knee drained again Monday. It is believed to be at least the third time it has been necessary this season, and players usually are out about a week after such procedures. The last time, Pippen insisted on playing, which resulted in the problem recurring. …


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I understand your sarcasm. Fine. Key words "we're only losing." Aren't you tired of watching the Bulls lose, no matter how they lose?
> ...


lighten up... anyway, I WOULD rather see a team compete to the final buzzer and lose by 5 than lose by 25 in a game that's over halfway through the third. It's choosing a lesser of two evils for sure, but at least it's a team I can cheer for.

and if wins are what you care about, I would think you'd be ecstatic that we sent Jalen "I'd rather start and lose than be a spark off the bench and win" Rose.

we're playing better (albeit marginally) since the trade. the "how would Rose and Marshall do under Skiles" thing is a chicken/egg question that we'll never know the answer to. I can tell you that I doubt we would have improved our defense by 10ppg allowed if Jalen and Donyell were out there, and neither of them were giving us enough on offense before they were dealt.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> The bottom line is we are losing with our hopes pinned to ONE guy. And we're one Fred Hoiberg ball fake away from a disaster of unprecedented proportions.


The quality of logic is going downhill fast when you start throwing out stuff like that.

By that logic, every team with a superstar is "one Fred Hoiberg ball fake away from a disaster of unprecedented proportions."

Sorry, but that's just plain ****ing moronic, and there's no way to sugar-coat it.

Sorry to be harsh, but I'll freely apologize if you go onto the T-Wolves forum and suggest they're "one Fred Hoiberg ball fake away from a disaster of unprecedented proportions." if Kevin Garnett gets hurt, and onto the Lakers forum and say they're "one Fred Hoiberg ball fake away from a disaster of unprecedented proportions." if Shaq gets hurt, and onto the Spurs forum and say they're "one Fred Hoiberg ball fake away from a disaster of unprecedented proportions." if Duncan gets hurt.

Jeez. No ****? Any team that relies on one player for a big chunk of their game has problems if he goes down.

The linguistical slight of hand that's occuring here is to suggest the Bulls are somehow out of the ordinary in this regard. And it is slight of hand, because anyone with any sense knows better when they stop and think about it.

The mention of this problem as a problem, is itself reason to believe people have stopped thinking.

*This team does NOT need to be blown up.*

In EVERY tangible measure except for wins we have improved significantly. *We've reduced our average points allowed by 10 points a game* at the same time as we've been playing two young players routinely criticized for their defense.

We lost three relatively close games to teams expected to make the playoffs. That is not a trainwreck. A trainwreck is getting routinely blown out and scoring in the 60s.

It's perfectly fair, I think, to say Pax and crew ****ed up going into the season. But it's equally clear that we're playing better since the changes than before them.

To suggest we weren't flies in the face of reality. We have lost hardly anything in scoring. We have gained an impressive amount of defensive production.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

We're better defensively, all without Chandler in the lineup. Crawford is a stud, Hinrich is our PG of the future, quick.. somebody wake Curry up!

Can't wait for 'My assessment of the Bulls, 5 games into the Skiles era'


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

And the "we got garbage" back for Marshall and Rose argument is full of it too. 

Well, maybe not... lots of people said that Marshall and Rose played defense like garbage. Now it's clear based on our defensive production before and after that they played defense *worse* than garbage. With garbage, we've allowed 10 less points a game than with Marshall and Rose.

Also worth noting, although not surprising given the way Rose shot for us, is that we only lost 2 points a game by trading Rose and Marshall for garbage.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> lighten up... anyway, I WOULD rather see a team compete to the final buzzer and lose by 5 than lose by 25 in a game that's over halfway through the third. It's choosing a lesser of two evils for sure, but at least it's a team I can cheer for.
> ...


Looking at the Raptors after the trade, they're 4-0. I don't see what they have now that we didn't before the trade. They have Vince Carter where we had Crawford (and yes, Crawford's stats since the trade have been as good/better than Carter's). They have Bosh and we have Curry. Etc.


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

Antoine wouldnt have changed this team, other than everyone complaining about his shot selection and how much he shoots the ball. Hes doing well in Dallas but who doesnt supported by that All star cast? I'd be curious what Antoines shooting percentage is anyways. I wouldnt trade Crawford for him straight up, unless you want to eat your words when Crawford becomes one of the best guards in the league and Antoine is gunning you out of half the games. So you wanted to couple Antoine with Jalen? Talk about low shooting percentages, funny how its turned into Crawford for Alvin Williams to Crawford for Antoine 

You may want to win 5 more games this season at the expense of developing youth, but i dont. Good teams are formed through development and planning, not trading them away for players who have already reached their primes. I dont think a few extra losses to good teams is nearly as big of a deal as you make it out to be. If Antoine and Jalen were here, i'd be much less excited about the future of the Bulls, in fact i think it'd be pretty bleak. You have 2 selfish, less coachable players who think they know everything already, both have reached their primes already, if not declining.., whom are streaky shooters. And your giving up a player with some of the most potential in the NBA on the verge of breaking out. 

The Bulls are fine despite your pessimism. Antoine would've been a nightmare here, especially if coupled with Jalen. Jalen still hasnt found his shot in Toronto, the only thing saving him is him playing PG and distributing the ball. So unless you think the Bulls would've converted Jalen to PG for the Bulls, he would've still been playing poorly missing those jumpers. Antoine is one of the most frustrating players in the league, his shot-selection is worse than Jamals on a bad day. 

Some of you need to get a grip. Its obvious the young players are still developing, and that takes some patience. Even without Pippen, Chandler, etc. they were leading most of the game against SA, one of the top teams in the league. In fact, they've been winning most of the games they've played recently but havent come through yet in the 4th. I dont see nearly the problems or the need for some trade right now as much as some of you overeactors do. I think at some point i'm just gonna start phasing your opinions out because its non-stop overeacting after every little thing


----------



## curry_52 (Jul 22, 2002)

I guess 95% of the fans in here would be happy if we end 5-77, and we lost every game by 10 or less points. 

Crawford wont get a new, big, contract if the Bulls win 20 games and he ends up averaging 25 Points, 5 Rebounds, 5 Assists. 

And, unfortunately, Pax will have to wait until next offseason to add new talent and, finally, make a Playoffs run. With another season under their belts + a high draft pick + trade/signings + Jay Williams (Hopefully) + New Orleans moving to west + Bobcats playing in East = we will achieve our goal. 

Another wasted season!!!!!!

:upset:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Mikedc

The differences between this team and teams you mentioned, like Minny, are HUGE.

If Minny lost KG, they'd still have Cassell and Sprewell (and Wally if he ever gets off IR). Their playoff chances might be seriously hurt, but they wouldn't be at risk of losing more games than any team in NBA history.

IF we lost Crawford, we get to watch JYD jack up shots from the outside, trying to pick up Crawford's scoring load. And we would be at risk of losing more games than any team in NBA history.

(Yeah, I'm exaggerating a little about JYD, but only a little and enough for effect).


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: I'll repeat what I said in the other thread*



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> It's been demonstrated by Kneepad and NCBullsFan that the Bulls were among the quickest teams to shoot the ball last season. You can gain 10.3 PPG on defense merely by slowing down the offense to use up more of the :24 clock. Guess what? That's what we've done - hence all the :24 clock violations.
> 
> Add to that the fact we've given up an average of 55.6 points in the second halves of ballgames for the last 3 games, and I don't see how you can argue we have gained anything on defense as a team.


It's really easy to argue it. The other team is scoring less. In fact, they're scoring a lot less than before the changes. At the same time, we are only scoring a little less than before the changes.

That is a defensive improvement.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Looking at the Raptors after the trade, they're 4-0. I don't see what they have now that we didn't before the trade. They have Vince Carter where we had Crawford (and yes, Crawford's stats since the trade have been as good/better than Carter's). They have Bosh and we have Curry. Etc.


they have a good coach, they were playing .500 ball by holding teams to 70ppg before the trade, relying fairly heavily on the guys that we now have, and there was and is no ambiguity about which player on that team is their Vince Carter, so to speak. The trade boosted their offense and will likely (IMO) end up hurting their defense. The question is whether the offensive boost will outweigh the loss of defensive intensity. So far, so good for them. And though we're only 1-3 since the trade, our defense has improved substantially more than our offense has suffered. So far, so good for us too, although much less so. Our win% is the same as pre-trade, but we were in every game to the wire.

I looked at the box and saw that we didn't get out on the break at all. I know it's the Spurs and it's hard to run out on them, but we still need to at least try to create easy baskets that way in EVERY game until our offense in the halfcourt improves (which might take a while, admittedly)

on a positive note, and it's a small one, Curry was having one of his "soft as charmin" games last night, but unlike in past games where he disappears for good if he doesn't score early, he provided a late spark. I'm grasping for straws here and I know it, but maybe that's something he can build on...and maybe Skiles can get through to him more than past coaches.


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Looking at the Raptors after the trade, they're 4-0. I don't see what they have now that we didn't before the trade. They have Vince Carter where we had Crawford (and yes, Crawford's stats since the trade have been as good/better than Carter's). They have Bosh and we have Curry. Etc.



Oh give us all a break. Crawford JUST found himself no thanks to you, Vince has been doing his thing for years. Are you seriously trying to compare Jamal right now to Vince? Thats a joke. Jamal needs alot more seasoning, which is why most people realize the Bulls will be alot better once they get that seasoning, and not overreacting to the present situation like some of you are :sour: 

Bosh isnt too bad either btw, and it helps that AW has some experience, much more than Heinrich does at least. Of course Donyell is a great addition to them, and i dont htink the Bulls used him nearly as much as they could have this year. It shows with how much emphasis Toronto has given him in their lineup and what hes producing. Right now teams have to respect his jumper.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>curry_52</b>!
> I guess 95% of the fans in here would be happy if we end 5-77, and we lost every game by 10 or less points.


don't be silly.

the sobering truth is, we've gone from losing games by 25 regularly to losing games by 5 and being right there until the final minute or two. 

no one is doing backflips about that, but it is a tangible improvement, and it does provide some hope that with effort and experience those games will turn into more and more 5 point wins. it's heartbreaking to see games slip away in the final few minutes, but not nearly as painful as seeing a team that looks like they don't belong in the NBA at all.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Mikedc
> 
> The differences between this team and teams you mentioned, like Minny, are HUGE.
> ...


I'll just leave it at you exaggerating.

It does nothing to strengthen your argument and quite a bit to harm it.

Would those other teams suck quite as bad if they lost their primary guy? Who cares. They would suck and it would be a disasterous waste of a season.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

"Basketball is 80 percent effort and 20 percent skill," Gill said. "After three or four years, you either have it or you don't." -- Kendall Gill

Rip on Gill if it makes you happy. He's not the only one I've seen say the same thing.

The "still developing" argument holds no water. At some point you have to show the real goods. -- that's another rough quote I saw recently.


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> "Basketball is 80 percent effort and 20 percent skill," Gill said. "After three or four years, you either have it or you don't." -- Kendall Gill
> 
> Rip on Gill if it makes you happy. He's not the only one I've seen say the same thing.
> ...



Effort doesnt make your shot go in, or say much for someones ability to create and get to the hole :no: 

And if we went by your logic regarding "still developing", we would've gotten rid of Jamal for scrubbs earlier in the season. Its like you wanna repeat the Brad Miller and Artest deal all over again. Thank god your not GM


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

Pax got ripped off in this deal. Yes, this team is better than it was before, but a loss is a loss no matter the differential between scores. 

Paxson should have demanded MoPete in the deal, kinda like Toronto demanded Marshall. Pax should have refused trading Marshall unless they got Peterson in return. Rose, Marshall, Baxter for AD,JYD, and MoPete would look much better. If Toronto refused, then don't make the trade. 

My assessment of the Bulls after 4 games is...

Injuries have played a big part into losing these close games. Chandler, Pippen, Erob, and now Hinrich and Blount have all suffered injuries. 

Jamal Crawford has done everything I expected him to do once given the freedom on offense. And Hinrich and Crawford have both played well together. Cartwright was wrong in both situations. Dead wrong. 

Crawford is by far the best player on the team, even when Chandler comes back. He has no help. Hinrich has played well but his shooting his horrible. Just like Linton Johnson, Kendall Gill, Eddy Curry, JYD, AD. Wait, that's the entire team. 

Eddy is quickly becoming a bust. Chandler has played up to his expectations but he's been injured. Crawford didn't get a good chance to play well with BC as coach, but now with Skiles giving him the opportunity, he's also playing up and beyond expectations. 

Curry isn't and doesn't have an excuse. Neither does this team. I was convinced and basicly guaranteed that the Bulls would make the playoffs this year. They're 5-15 now, but I'm not going back to the mindset of development and "wait till next year". It's going to be a long and frusterating year. And the fact that the East is so bad doesn't give me hope. It just makes me more upset.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JAF311</b>!
> Pax got ripped off in this deal. Yes, this team is better than it was before, but a loss is a loss no matter the differential between scores.
> 
> Paxson should have demanded MoPete in the deal, kinda like Toronto demanded Marshall. Pax should have refused trading Marshall unless they got Peterson in return. Rose, Marshall, Baxter for AD,JYD, and MoPete would look much better. If Toronto refused, then don't make the trade.
> ...


Agreed, 100%.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Happyface</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My logic does not ever involve trading for scrubs.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I see a lot of you are kind of nitpicking diffrent things that Dabullz said. But I think the main point about our depth at the 2 and 3 is a legitimate concern.

My question is--Do we need Davis, Curry, and Chandler all three, together, as badly as we need another scorer on the perimeter? Right now we do because Chandler is hurt. But doesn't Davis basically do what we ask Chandler to do? He rebounds. Makes easy baskets when it's given to him. Blocks a few shots. Granted, he's not going to be KG in the future or anything. But if our apples are in the Eddy Curry cart as far as dumping the ball into him on offense, do we really need the extra bit that Chandler gives us? And if we do, then do we need Davis?

I mean, Chandler has basically been nonexistant for the bulls this year. His back propensity to get injured definitely makes me worry. And we still haven't seen that Eddy and Tyson can actually both play well at the same time. Eddy seems to slack off more when Tyson is on the floor with him.

I mean right now all of the pressure is on Jamal Crawford to single-handledly win games. Sure, somenights, he might have it. But he is literally going to have to put up numbers in the mid to high 30's on a lot of nights if he doesn't have any help. And don't think the scouting report on him won't be out within a matter of days. Teams will be focusing on him like they did on Jalen. I'm pretty certain the new bulls scouting report will look like the one from last year, except where it says "take Jalen Rose out of the equation and the bulls have no chance" it will say Jamal Crawford.

If we just added one sure shot perimeter player preferably at the 3, things would be a lot less tenous. Alarm bells need to be going off if we are starting Linton Johnson at the 3.

We have to face the reality that Scottie is not going to be there for us this season, and may retire at some point this season. Eddie Robinson is too injury prone. Marcus Fizer...who knows about him. You can't get offense out of JYD. That's why Toronto traded him.

And when Hinrich hits the wall, that puts us at an even greater setback at the 1, which we counted on Pippen being able to play some minutes at.

Dabullz is right in that if Jamal goes down, our season is finished. If Iverson goes down for Philly, they still can play John Salmons and Aaron Mckie. If Duncan goes down, they stil have Malick Rose to go with Rasho. We're looking at Orlando without T-Mac type of situation.
Surely Pax will do something.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Injury situation is getting better? No. It's getting worse. Hinrich now has back spasms and we're forced to play him.


For the record, Hinrich came down awkward on a rebound last year at the beginning of the season and missed two games (though he likely was ready to go after the first). After he returned to playing he didn't have any further pain/problems.


----------



## DaFuture (Nov 5, 2002)

*trades like the one*

DaBullz is suggesting is what got the Wizards in trouble. You dont trade old for young and short for tall. Just a basic rule of thumb. It always comes back to bite you in the ***. I dont think I can ever remember a time when a trade like that has ever worked out for the team trading young talented big men.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: trades like the one*



> Originally posted by <b>DaFuture</b>!
> DaBullz is suggesting is what got the Wizards in trouble. You dont trade old for young and short for tall. Just a basic rule of thumb. It always comes back to bite you in the ***. I dont think I can ever remember a time when a trade like that has ever worked out for the team trading young talented big men.


So you wouldn't trade Manute Bol for Isaiah Thomas? That's about as short for tall a deal as there can be.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

who did the sixers trade bradley for? I'm almost positive they came out ahead on that deal.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> who did the sixers trade bradley for? I'm almost positive they came out ahead on that deal.


Interesting. Bradley and Chandler have a lot in common, IMO.

Bradley:

Selected by the Philadelphia 76ers in the first round (second pick overall) of the 1993 NBA Draft....Traded with Greg Graham and Tim Perry to the New Jersey Nets for Derrick Coleman, Rex Walters, and Sean Higgins on 11/30/95....Traded by the Nets with Ed O'Bannon, Robert Pack and Khalid Reeves to the Dallas Mavericks for Sam Cassell, Chris Gatling, Jim Jackson, George McCloud and Eric Montross on 2/17/97....Re-signed by the Mavericks on 8/8/01.


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> My logic does not ever involve trading for scrubs.




You do realize that my point was based on the time when Jamal was struggling in the first few games where you and alot of others wanted to just get rid of him, and the names you guys were throwing out there were people like Alvin Williams, Othella, etc. because his stock was very low compared to now. If that occured, which is supported by your "dont want to hear the word potential, what are they doing now" philosophy, the Bulls would clearly have been ripped off. Jamal could very easily have been traded then, and alot of you would be eating crow bigtime, especially with some of us rubbing it in your faces twice as much as people are now. Actually the backlash of that would probably be something alot of you could never live down who supported such a trade. Look what patience has done? Increased Jamals value ten-fold when some of you thought he could never become the player he is. Same can be said for Curry and Chandler. 

I dont care about these silly arguments some of you are making about winning now. Fact is the Bulls arent that bad with all the injuries and issues their going through. I wouldnt rush into anything, then again i'm not one of those people overeacting to everything :uhoh:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Happyface</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are 100% wrong.

I would never suggest trading Crawford for Alvin Williams. If you can find a post where I did, I will happily eat crow. But the reverse should be true - if you can't.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

though I agree with DaBullz about 10% of the time, I will vouch that he rarely suggests trades and the ones he does suggest bring in all-star caliber (or close to it) players in return. IE guys who he thinks will boost our win total immediately but aren't over the hill.


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

I could've sworn you were one of the ones saying for Alvin Williams, i know you were leading the charge to trade him at the time, saying how detrimental he was to the team, and how all thier blowout losses were his fault. My bad if you didnt say AW, and if you didnt, who were you proposing to trade him for at that particular time? I know it could'nt have been too great a player considering his stock at that time wouldnt have netted you much more than a scrubb, all things considered(Cartwright benching him, along with fan backlash for questioning Cartwright about him being a cancer).

Regardless whoever it was, my point still stands. Jamals value was very low earlier and alot of you wanted to trade him at the time because he wasnt producing, and you blamed him unfairly while taking Cartwrights side. IF Jamal were playing for another team right now, you along with alot of others would be eating alot more crow than you already are. Sadly, thats what it might take for some of you to realize what the term patience and development mean.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> We can't undo the trade we just made. I think things were desparate before the trade and even moreso since the trade.
> ...


Now, in the future, or both? What are the odds we can land a good 2/3 player in the draft or via a less significant trade vs. the odds that can acquire a center to replace Curry or Chandler via the same means? A decent swing player will make a bigger difference now, but in the long run a better center makes the difference and marginal swingmen can be more readily found.

To wit:



> One strategy that appeared to work was for teams to look at guys at the end of other teams' benches for guys who could breakout and be a major player. Guys like Desmond Mason come to mind.


But see, this is the exact opposite of what you've been preaching. We don't need to give up a franchise player to acquire some guy off the end of a bench. That's patently counterintuitive. You can get a guy like that by trading a pick or trading a guy at the end of your own bench, thus preserving.

What you've suggested in the past... and even by implication at the bottom of THIS post is that you can't look for a guy on a bench, you have to go get a guy who's proven (Jamison, Walker, Finley, Jones, etc.).



> I know it is unpoluar to think of trading Curry or Chandler, but they are about all we have to offer at this point, in trade. Or Hinrich or Crawford, but we're already so thin at G we can't afford to do a 1-for-1 swap at that position.


But if we're looking to scoop up some unknown gem off the end of someone's bench, we don't need to trade a star. A guy sitting on the end of a bench doesn't have any more value to a team than a guy sitting on the end of our bench. Thus, Fizer should be able to get him. Or beyond that, we could look at trading our pick.



> On the other hand, it is clear we are no longer develping Curry. if we are, it is into something a lot less than he ultimately could be. Before he's ruined completely, we may as well give some other team a chance.


How are we no longer developing him. He's out there playing... and averaging 17 and 7 over the last five. Obviously he's got a long way to go, but it's hardly apparent that he's about to be "ruined completely". 



> We won't miss him as much as it might first appear. AD and Blount can truly man the C position better than Curry has, and we can really use a consistent scorer at any other position to complement Crawford.
> 
> In case it isn't clear, I'm sold on making Crawford the star of this team. but he needs a pippen-like sidekick to take some pressure off him and to give the team a lift. Curry ain't it.


You're "sold on making Crawford the star of this team"? Respectfully, I think one of the problems here is that you're a quick sale. You're sold on Crawford after 4 games in a new system whereas before you were ready to give him away?

Weren't you also sold on the trade after the first game? Even though you were opposed before it and have been opposed since?

Yes, we need another scorer, I agree. And for the right players, I'd consider trading anyone. But I don't see any reason to be more desperate now than before the trades.

Yep, Pip is likely a total loss. ERob is a flake and Chandler has missed too much time. And it's an excuse to say "we'd be better if they were healthy". But the fact that they aren't healthy is also not an excuse to make a desperate move. Perhaps its hard to recognize that from a close perspective, and it's more instructive to look at another team.

Take Phoenix. One proposal I made was for them to trade Joe Johnson for Fizer. At the moment, Phoenix is desperate for a PF, since their top two guys are hurt. If they value Johnson as a better player than Fizer though, would they be smart to trade him to us for a guy they only want to use as a stopgap? Probably not. Nor should we trade someone we see as a long-term fit in order to handle an injury problem.

At its root, signing Pip was most likely a mistake, but you don't go and compound your mistakes.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Happyface</b>!
> I could've sworn you were one of the ones saying for Alvin Williams, i know you were leading the charge to trade him at the time, saying how detrimental he was to the team, and how all thier blowout losses were his fault. My bad if you didnt say AW, and if you didnt, who were you proposing to trade him for at that particular time? I know it could'nt have been too great a player considering his stock at that time wouldnt have netted you much more than a scrubb, all things considered(Cartwright benching him, along with fan backlash for questioning Cartwright about him being a cancer).
> 
> Regardless whoever it was, my point still stands. Jamals value was very low earlier and alot of you wanted to trade him at the time because he wasnt producing, and you blamed him unfairly while taking Cartwrights side. IF Jamal were playing for another team right now, you along with alot of others would be eating alot more crow than you already are. Sadly, thats what it might take for some of you to realize what the term patience and development mean.


The only time I suggested we trade Jamal was for Antoine Walker (Jamal+Fizer+ERob). It is exactly because I highly valued Jamal that I thought we could get a 3-time (and current) all-star in return.

As for AWill, given the makeup of the team we had, pre-trade, I do think he would have been a better fit for us at PG than having Jamal play out of position and/or playing Gill as a starter.

All year last season, I was for Jamal playing PG over JWill, as well.

I was never opposed to Crawford playing SG, and I frequently posted that I thought he could be our first option on offense, that he could be THE guy in the triangle to create his shot with the :24 clock running out, and so on. Given the makeup of the team we had, I did (and still do) think that Rose or Pippen should have been our starting PG, but Rose was all we had at SF if we refused to play Marshall there.

I even suggested that because of his offensive ability and his being a liability on defense, that the Bulls might consider putting 4 strong defenders on the court with him and just give him the ball and let him shoot 100% of the time if he wanted.

And yes, he was the PG and playing it poorly and significantly responsible for the blowout losses we were suffering. There's no crow to be eaten for stating the truth.


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> The only time I suggested we trade Jamal was for Antoine Walker (Jamal+Fizer+ERob). It is exactly because I highly valued Jamal that I thought we could get a 3-time (and current) all-star in return.
> ...



Hummm Cartwright and Triangle? How else can you justify such a change in Jamals play, when hes doing now basically alot of the same stuff he was doing before?

I'm going to have to do some digging i guess, since thats not what i remember. I could've sworn you were one of the biggest advocates for getting rid of Jamal for peanuts at the time.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Mikedc

We don't need to find a center to replace a curry or chandler. We have AD and JYD to play for either one. The Championship Bulls won with guys like a crippled Cartwright and a mediocre Longley at center.

So, your question is not the right one. The question should be, can we easily find guys like JYD, Jahidi White, Etan Thomas, etc., to give us energy/defense/rebounding at the position?

As for end of the bench players. Desmond Mason was part of a deal that included Ray Allen. Milwaukee didn't get him by trading their junk players for him.

Maybe we did get that kind of guy in Chris Jeffries, but he sure didn't look good when he played for us the one game.

Injuries isn't the reason to make changes in the team. 1-3 and counting (the losses) is. The depth is a critical reason, as well, and injuries merely illustrate how poor our depth is, and exposes our terrible weakness at SF and in our guard rotation.

When I posted that I agreed with the trade, I fully qualified it by saying that I drank some kool-aid. And I further qualified it by saying in that very post that the Bulls desparately need to do a Curry-for-Artest trade to fulfill the vision that the trade created.

Without that Artest type player at SF (and a solid backup G), the trade is horrible. If you like Curry/Chandler so much that we can't part with one of them to bring us that Artest type player, then the trade is horrible.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Happyface</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fine, I'll add more for you to ponder and do some digging about.

When people said Jamal shot too much, I disagreed. 

The big change in Jamal's play is simple. He's playing the 2, and he's taking 25 FGA per game. People whined about Rose and his 19 FGA per game last season (I felt Rose should have taken 25/game as well). 

Dig away, and let me know if you like salt on your crow, or if you prefer chocolate syrup.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I like Mike's idea of Fizer for Joe Johnson and if they would do that I think the Bulls should jump all over it. Joe has some incredible skills, is a good athelete, and should be able to play either the 2 or the 3. I'd consider that a much better roster balancing move than anything involving a Chandler or Curry trade. Just think, Fizer for Joe, we sign Rick Brunson, boom...we're done and the team has balance again. 

IMO, Chandler is a stud. Sure, he is hurt right now but recall how he played BEFORE his back started acting up. He can change the whole composure of a game simply with his defense. Curry is the same way on offense. He still isn't consistent but good lord would I hate to ship Curry off somewhere and watch that light bulb finally go off. When Currys lightbulb goes off the Bulls won't be worrying about their record as much as preparing for the playoffs. It's all about WHEN. And, IMHO, a deal involing Curry or Chandler (unless it's something pretty major in return...think T-Mac) should simply NOT happen. AD is an aging vet brought in to pound some toughness into Eddy in practice, not replace him. And Chandler is just too darn good when he is healthy to warrant trading.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Fine, I'll add more for you to ponder and do some digging about.
> ...


I don't know what to say about this. It sure looks to me like your doing a 180 to me. I guess HappyFace and I must be really misunderstanding your posts or your coming up with some revisionist history.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't know what to say about this. It sure looks to me like your doing a 180 to me. I guess HappyFace and I must be really misunderstanding your posts or your coming up with some revisionist history.


I think you are blinded by your worship of Jamal Crawford and by your revulsion of people who don't equally worship him.

It's a matter of public record. You can search through my posts and come up with something to support your claims about me taking a 180.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I think you are blinded by your worship of Jamal Crawford and by your revulsion of people who don't equally worship him.
> ...


I worship Jamal now? Geez, gimme a break. It's just basketball man. I like Crawford SLIGHTLY more than I like Chandler and Curry. I SUPPORT Jamal and HAVE supported Jamal from day 1 because I recognize that he is a special talent. 

I'm not going to dig through posts to prove anything, thats petty and quite frankly I have more important things to do like setting up my Crawfordtree....errr..christmas tree :laugh: 

But the posters here know what you have said in the past and they know what you are saying now. I will leave it to their own good judgement to see if the two measure up the same or not.

Peace!


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> Injuries isn't the reason to make changes in the team. 1-3 and counting (the losses) is. The depth is a critical reason, as well, and injuries merely illustrate how poor our depth is, and exposes our terrible weakness at SF and in our guard rotation.


this is nitpicking again maybe, but wouldn't a lot of teams around the league suffer from depth issues if they were missing their starting PF (and possibly best player on the team), and both primary SFs (Pip and ERob)? 

I see your point though. We lack a consistent, starting-caliber (or better) SF (but not depth per se as we have 3 SFs, 4 if you count JYD there), and are pretty much 3 deep in the backcourt barring Mason coming off IR, not being traded or cut for Brunson, and becoming serviceable.

Still, I think a lot of teams would reel if they were missing no fewer than 3 rotation players, 2 being starters. That's hardly something you can criticize at face value. The optimistic assumption that Pippen would be reliable and contribute in most games seems have to been the fatal error.


----------



## Happyface (Nov 13, 2003)

well i did some digging, not thorough at all mind you, problem is the pages only go up to page 25 and alot of the reactions that occured during the time of those blowouts is off the board from what it seems. I can only find stuff after the benching, probably because some of those threads were so long they kept getting bumped on top.

Anyhow, i wont eat crow because i'm like 99% sure you werent saying the things you say you were saying, well maybe some of it you said. Honestly, i could swear on my life that you said the reason why we were blown out was because Jamal shoots too much or he gunned us out of those games. And specifically blaming that for the blowout losses. If i'm wrong on that, then i might need to see a doctor about my memory


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Happyface</b>!
> well i did some digging, not thorough at all mind you, problem is the pages only go up to page 25 and alot of the reactions that occured during the time of those blowouts is off the board from what it seems. I can only find stuff after the benching, probably because some of those threads were so long they kept getting bumped on top.
> 
> Anyhow, i wont eat crow because i'm like 99% sure you werent saying the things you say you were saying, well maybe some of it you said. Honestly, i could swear on my life that you said the reason why we were blown out was because Jamal shoots too much or he gunned us out of those games. And specifically blaming that for the blowout losses. If i'm wrong on that, then i might need to see a doctor about my memory


Think you can find a DR. to give a group discount? :laugh:


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Happyface</b>!
> well i did some digging, not thorough at all mind you, problem is the pages only go up to page 25 and alot of the reactions that occured during the time of those blowouts is off the board from what it seems. I can only find stuff after the benching, probably because some of those threads were so long they kept getting bumped on top.
> 
> Anyhow, i wont eat crow because i'm like 99% sure you werent saying the things you say you were saying, well maybe some of it you said. Honestly, i could swear on my life that you said the reason why we were blown out was because Jamal shoots too much or he gunned us out of those games. And specifically blaming that for the blowout losses. If i'm wrong on that, then i might need to see a doctor about my memory


Pages go all the way back to the beginning on here. The 25 pages you saw was just 30 days. Go back to where you were before and you see the black directly above the 25 pages? It says 30 days on the right? there is a drop down box there that can take you back as far as you want to go.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> this is nitpicking again maybe, but wouldn't a lot of teams around the league suffer from depth issues if they were missing their starting PF (and possibly best player on the team), and both primary SFs (Pip and ERob)?
> ...


AD has been putting up numbers as good as Chandler ever did, and more consistently. I don't think the loss of Chandler is as big as people make it out to be. 

But the rest of your post is quite interesting to me.

You're talking about injuries to ERob and Pippen as though those two guys should make a hill of beans of a difference to us. They should be the guys playing when the REAL SF is hurt -- see my point?

Paxson has me baffled at this point.

Mason Jr. absolutely belongs on the active roster, and he should have played the whole 2nd half last night, simply because we don't have anyone else, and it was a real risk to play Hinrich (risk further injury). Even Red Kerr was talking about who would be our backup PG if Hinrich couldn't play in the 2nd half.

Linton Johnson is a guy I happen to like (I was a big fan of his dad when he played for the Bulls). He should NOT be our starting SF under any circumstances at this point in his career.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> Pages go all the way back to the beginning on here. The 25 pages you saw was just 30 days. Go back to where you were before and you see the black directly above the 25 pages? It says 30 days on the right? there is a drop down box there that can take you back as far as you want to go.


30 days ago would be Nov. 8th.

We had suffered our 4th blowout (to Philly) on Nov. 7th.

Dig further back. Feel free.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> AD has been putting up numbers as good as Chandler ever did, and more consistently. I don't think the loss of Chandler is as big as people make it out to be.


In his 4 games, Davis has averaged 34.3 minutes per game. He has also averaged 11.3 points (on 12.3 eFGA for 46.1 eFG%), 11.5 rebounds, 1 block, and 2.8 turnovers.

In his 10 games, Chandler has averaged 28.6 minutes per game. *Per 34.3 minutes,* he has averaged 15.6 points (on 13.2 eFGA for 59.2 eFG%), 12.4 rebounds, 1.6 blocks, and 1.9 turnovers.

Add up the number of turnovers and eFGA and they add up 15.1 per 34.3 minutes for both Davis and Chandler. Yet with the same total turnovers plus eFGA, Chandler generates 4.3 more points per 34.3 minutes. Do you think those extra 4 points might have come in handy in the Philly game or even in the New Orleans or San Antonio games? And that ignores the fact there are no offensive rebounding opportunities on turnovers and they tend to lead to easy buckets for the other team. Plus Chandler is averaging an extra 1.1 rebounds and 0.6 blocks. With as close as our games have been, Chandler versus Davis could easily be the difference between 3-1 and 1-3.

And it isn't even Davis's minutes we should be comparing to. Chandler's minutes would come partially at the expense of Davis, but also would probably come from Curry, Blount, Fizer, Williams, and Johnson. Figuring that in, Chandler easily could have pushed us to 3-1.


----------



## 7thwatch (Jul 18, 2002)

Good point NC.

We should also remember that for a few games Chandler was playing hurt and it affected the level of his play, thus his stats are not quite as good as they might have been. I would take a fully healthy Chandler over Davis any day, let alone over Blount or Linton.

I think Chandler would have been enough to win at least 2 of those 3 games. Heck, Erob would have been enough to win the Philly game.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> In his 4 games, Davis has averaged 34.3 minutes per game. He has also averaged 11.3 points (on 12.3 eFGA for 46.1 eFG%), 11.5 rebounds, 1 block, and 2.8 turnovers.
> ...


We'd have given up 5 more points per game, in my best judgement. The differences between Davis and Chandler are minute, though you can quibble with a case based upon eFGA figures.

Davis in his last 3 games has 16 pts/13 rebounds, 11/15, and 7/13. Not only is his defense better, but those kinds of games are typical of Chandler's production.

You're right about it not being Davis' minutes he'd take, but that is misdirection. It has nothing to do with the statement "Davis does the things we expect of Chandler."


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> AD has been putting up numbers as good as Chandler ever did, and more consistently. I don't think the loss of Chandler is as big as people make it out to be.
> ...


as for AD, yes he has produced...but how about having BOTH AD and Chandler available? AD should not be logging more than 25-30 minutes at his age, I would say. I think it's better to monitor his minutes and see to it that he provides as much energy as possible in those rationed minutes. Let's talk about depth...our depth at the big positions is good, maybe even excellent by eastern conference standards, when we have Tyson available. It would improve our team to have two of Tyson/AD/Curry on the frontline all the time. It's not an either/or proposition. AD won't go to IR when Tyson comes back. They'll both still play, and given Skiles's lack of patience for Eddy's (lack of) effort, they'll probably share the frontcourt a fair amount.

as for our SFs, I wasn't suggesting either guy was a world-beater, and we do need an upgrade badly, but ERob is one of our better defenders and is very active off the ball and capable of hitting midrange jumpers and finishing on the break (which we MUST do more, regardless of who we're playing). He can give us 10-12 ppg minimum in a starting role if you give him a few chances to get free and shoot. Pippen provides plenty when his body is able; solid defense (still good team defense), court savy for late game situations (he would have inbounded that ball vs. Philly), some offense, good passing. He can also be a spot-reliever at PG when Hinrich and/or Crawford need the rest. No, he's not "the answer" at SF, but he would give us a lot of nice things if his body would allow it. Linton Johnson plays hard and can defend, but that's about it. 

Do you think missing those guys makes no difference to this team? Yes, we need to find "the guy" there, I agree. But missing not one but TWO guys there who are capable of contributing even modestly has hurt us.

maybe we'll be forced into bringing Mason off IR if Blount is out for a week or two with his knee injury. That could be a slight blessing in disguise. I'm sure Kirk and Jamal will be thrilled.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

The difference between a guy with 59.2 eFG% with just 1.9 turnovers per 34.3 minutes versus 46.1 eFG% with 2.8 turnovers per 34.3 minutes is huge. It is the difference between a guy who could be a focal point of the offense and a guy who really can't be.

Also, we have one player on our team who has cracked the top 50 in John Hollinger's list for this season (through all of November), and Hollinger is as good at this as just about anybody. Yes, Chandler comes in at #14.

http://www.alleyoop.com/prates/prates04.htm

If Chandler was 10 or 20 years older, you would be singing his praises, but alas he is only 21 so you there isn't much chance you will give him a fair shake.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Think about the alternative.

Instead of "what if we had Chandler, too?" questions, we should be asking, "what if we had Artest, too?"

If not Artest, Jamison. If not Jamison, Eddie Jones. And so on.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

And Wilt Chamberlain. And George Mikan. And Oscar Robertson. Just imagine the possibilities.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> The difference between a guy with 59.2 eFG% with just 1.9 turnovers per 34.3 minutes versus 46.1 eFG% with 2.8 turnovers per 34.3 minutes is huge. It is the difference between a guy who could be a focal point of the offense and a guy who really can't be.
> 
> Also, we have one player on our team who has cracked the top 50 in John Hollinger's top 50 list for the season (through all of November), and Hollinger is as good at this as just about anybody. And Chandler comes in at #14.
> ...


I think he's wonderful. I think Davis is nearly as wonderful.

The only thing I think about Chandler in 10 or 20 years is how many rebuilding plans we'll have gone through by that point in his career.

If Chandler were a great defensive player, I'd be singing his praises right now. Age has NOTHING to do with it. Losing has everything to do with it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> And Wilt Chamberlain. And George Mikan. And Oscar Robertson. Just imagine the possibilities.


Now you're being ridiculous for no good reason.

It was bad enough you found some statistical formula from some guy that shows Chandler is a better player than Iverson.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Think about the alternative.
> 
> Instead of "what if we had Chandler, too?" questions, we should be asking, "what if we had Artest, too?"
> ...


nice tangent. Chandler is already on our roster, though. no thanks to Jamison, also. he's not, as you would say, a "winner". And in recent years, neither is Eddie Jones. would you trade Tyson for Eddie Jones, by the way? just curious.

so are you conceding that AD AND Chandler is a better alternative than AD OR Chandler?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Now you're being ridiculous for no good reason.
> 
> It was bad enough you found some statistical formula from some guy that shows Chandler is a better player than Iverson.


Fair enough on being ridiculous, but it was hardly any less relevant to the discussion in this thread than your stuff about Artest, Jamison, and Jones. Both deflected from the real argument.

And John Hollinger is not "some guy." He is THE guy - the Bill James for the NBA. He writes for Sports Illustrated and has for the last two years written the most recognized book analyzing NBA statistics. He is highly read by the stats guys working for NBA teams, including, I might add, the Bulls.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Fair enough on being ridiculous, but it was hardly any less relevant to the discussion in this thread than your stuff about Artest, Jamison, and Jones. Both deflected from the real argument.
> ...


Based upon THE GUY's ratings, would you trade Iverson for Chandler, if you were Philly?

How about Nowitzky for Chandler if you were Dallas?

Or Pierce for Chandler if you were Boston?

My suggestion of looking at these SFs is not unrealistic. Paxson CAN be making calls inquiring about these guys. Wilt is dead, though Paxson could conceivably sign one of those old coots to a contract, though they are certainly in no physical shape to play NBA basketball anymore.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> nice tangent. Chandler is already on our roster, though. no thanks to Jamison, also. he's not, as you would say, a "winner". And in recent years, neither is Eddie Jones. would you trade Tyson for Eddie Jones, by the way? just curious.
> ...


It isn't a tangent. Look at post #3 in this thread.

We can't trade Tyson for Jones. It doesn't work under the cap, unless we did something like AD+Chandler for Jones+Butler. And that is a trade I think deserves consideration.

AD and Chandler is better than AD and Curry. How's that for an answer?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Based upon THE GUY's ratings, would you trade Iverson for Chandler, if you were Philly?
> 
> How about Nowitzky for Chandler if you were Dallas?
> ...


Yet another diversionary tactic. When did I ever mention using those ratings (and only those ratings) to determine trade value? Please feel free to search through my entire post history for such an argument. You won't find one and you know that. But you figured throwing out a red herring might somehow help your case.

You said that "AD has been putting up numbers as good as Chandler ever did." I pointed out using this year's "numbers" that that was not true. Then you proceeded to point out that Davis was better on defense, which has nothing to do with "AD putting up numbers as good as Chandler ever did." Then you started to talk about Artest, Jamison, and Jones, which had nothing to do with "AD putting up numbers as good as Chandler ever did." And now after I point out that a highly respected NBA statistics guy rates Chandler's "numbers" this year very highly, you are bringing up trades that have nothing to do with "AD putting up numbers as good as Chandler."

If you don't want to defend you claim that "AD has been putting up numbers as good as Chandler ever did," that is fine, but then why bring up all of this other extraneous stuff?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Mikedc
> 
> We don't need to find a center to replace a curry or chandler. We have AD and JYD to play for either one. The Championship Bulls won with guys like a crippled Cartwright and a mediocre Longley at center.


The championship Bulls at the best ever on one wing and a top 50 player ever on the other. Thus, they could get away with less at the center position. Unless you think we're going to get MJ-like performance from Jamal and Pip-like performance from whomever we traded Curry for, I think you're vastly underestimating the importance of good big men. 



> So, your question is not the right one. The question should be, can we easily find guys like JYD, Jahidi White, Etan Thomas, etc., to give us energy/defense/rebounding at the position?


:laugh: Again, see above.

If we could trade Curry or any of our guys for a young Pippen, I would do it. But short of maybe TMac or Pierce, I don't see anyone out there, and I'm not at all sure that a combination of a good C and a good SF isn't just as good as a mediocre C and a superstar SF.



> As for end of the bench players. Desmond Mason was part of a deal that included Ray Allen. Milwaukee didn't get him by trading their junk players for him.


So what, that's only one trade. It happens for teams all the time... and 1st round picks are good ammunition.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Yet another diversionary tactic. When did I ever mention using those ratings (and only those ratings) to determine trade value? Please feel free to search through my entire post history for such an argument. You won't find one and you know that. But you figured throwing out a red herring might somehow help your case.
> ...


I asked a series of questions and got nothing resembling an answer. I don't suggest those trades, but merely suggest that the data suggests those trades (but reality is a far different thing).

Chandler is averaging 13/10. Davis is averaging 11/10. Davis IS putting up numbers as good as Chandler.

Neither is a guy who could be the focal point of an offense -- your choice of words.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> The championship Bulls at the best ever on one wing and a top 50 player ever on the other. Thus, they could get away with less at the center position. Unless you think we're going to get MJ-like performance from Jamal and Pip-like performance from whomever we traded Curry for, I think you're vastly underestimating the importance of good big men.


I think you're vastly overestimating the importance of good big men.

Having quality big men is no guarantee of a championship. Ewing was one such big man who never won. So he came close you may say. So did the Pacers, without a quality big man (or one that was crippled at best). Who was Phoenix' big man when they played us in the finals? Oliver Miller? Who was Seattle's? Shawn Kemp?

In the NBA today, there are two teams with good big men and at least 4 teams without who are serious contenders for the title.

Since we DON'T have quality big men, I don't see a choice but to do what those 4 teams are doing to be contenders.


----------



## Parabull (Nov 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I think you're vastly overestimating the importance of good big men.
> ...


Agreed. Although I know that the following teams are much different from the Bulls, they have had success in the East without any good (offensive) bigs to speak of:

Nets
Celtics
Pistons
Bucks (in the Ray Allen, GR, Sam Cassell year)
76ers

They often build a team around good perimeter scoring and tough defense, which I think we can aim towards with AD, JYD, and either EC or Tyson on the inside. I see Kirk as being an Eric Snow type of PG for us, and JC being our scoring (not Iverson level, but like Rip/Chauncey).


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Who was Phoenix' big man when they played us in the finals? Oliver Miller?
> ...


what was charles barkley a lobster salad?

how soon they forget


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Parabull</b>!
> 
> 
> Agreed. Although I know that the following teams are much different from the Bulls, they have had success in the East without any good (offensive) bigs to speak of:
> ...


Those are all good teams, but nothing special


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> I think you're vastly overestimating the importance of good big men.
> 
> Having quality big men is no guarantee of a championship. Ewing was one such big man who never won. So he came close you may say. So did the Pacers, without a quality big man (or one that was crippled at best). Who was Phoenix' big man when they played us in the finals? Oliver Miller? Who was Seattle's? Shawn Kemp?


Don't play that rhetorical bull**** game. I never said that it was a guarantee of winning. Historically though, a good big man is more likely to put you in the ballpark than an equally good (or perhaps slightly better) smaller guy.



> Since we DON'T have quality big men, I don't see a choice but to do what those 4 teams are doing to be contenders.


Just come out and say what you think. We can keep going around in circles or just get to the point. If you think Curry or Chandler is going to be a bust, then fine. Come out and defend THAT position on its principles.

Say you think he's NEVER going to be as good as a guy like Artest or Jamison. Lay out that argument, and it'll at least be honest and straight forward. But the argument that we should trade away a guy who's got a good chance to develop into a franchise center to get a good or even very good but ultimately not franchise quality swing player is not going to fly.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Don't play that rhetorical bull**** game. I never said that it was a guarantee of winning. Historically though, a good big man is more likely to put you in the ballpark than an equally good (or perhaps slightly better) smaller guy.
> ...


What I think is we can be a team like the old Pistons, with a variety of talented role players to go with a guard/wing oriented offense, since we don't have a Kareem/Wilt/Shaq/Hakeem type of C on the team.

Being a bust and being a dominant "best 50 in the history of the NBA" player is a wide wide range, and I don't suggest our guys are all the way at the best or bust end of the spectrum. Something in between.

We simply have a glut of guys at the 4/5 and are REAL weak at the 1/2/3. Weak at the backup 1/2 and at all the 3 depth chart positions.

And we're losing.

What I've said is that Artest is a perfect fit for our needs. Chandler is something of a luxury, considering our depth. Artest is a budding superstar. I aim my sites high.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> The difference between a guy with 59.2 eFG% with just 1.9 turnovers per 34.3 minutes versus 46.1 eFG% with 2.8 turnovers per 34.3 minutes is huge. It is the difference between a guy who could be *a focal point* of the offense and a guy who really can't be.





> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Chandler is averaging 13/10. Davis is averaging 11/10. Davis IS putting up numbers as good as Chandler.
> 
> Neither is a guy who could be *the focal point* of an offense -- your choice of words.


There is a big difference between being A focal point and THE focal point, and you know that. The offense runs through THE focal point almost all of the time when he is in there. Players who are A focal point will get plays run for them, and when they have a good match-up or are being particularly effective, the offense may run through them for a short period of time. 

So you make a point about emphasizing my "choice of words," yet you misquote me in doing so. Diversionary tactic #100.

A guy with a 59.2 eFG% is someone to run some plays for. A guy with a 46.1 eFG% with about the same number of attempts is not. Missed field goal attempts do make it harder for teams to win, and that is why Davis's numbers are not as good as Chandler's, in particular since he has more missed field goals plus more turnovers.

More than anything right now, we need players who can put the ball in the hole or get to the line when we get the ball to them in a place to score. Chandler does that effectively, while Davis has not so far.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> What I think is we can be a team like the old Pistons, with a variety of talented role players to go with a guard/wing oriented offense, since we don't have a Kareem/Wilt/Shaq/Hakeem type of C on the team.
> ...


A-freaking-men to this post brother. Although I think you are selling TC and EC a bit short, I think even with your pessimistic view, we can be a team equal to the late 80's Pistons -- without the on-court felonies. I am not willing to stake a bet that EC or TC will be Wilt type dominators, but I'm not willing to exclude the possibility as to either. That is where we may disagree. And as to the last exchange above this, I have to agree with NCBullsFan. You misquote his stance and overstate your own case.

But as to your take stated in the above quote, you are right on.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Semantics. Nothing more, nothing less.

You describe THE focal point to fit your needs, then describe how <B>A</B> focal point can be <B>THE</B> focal point for short periods of time.

The Bulls did run plays for AD yesterday, and they ran plays for TC before the trade (he hasn't played since). My take is that AD was quite good when they ran plays for him, and that Chandler has never been good when we ran plays for him -- Chandler gets his points mostly on dunks and at the FT line after he's fouled getting rebounds.

So I don't believe your numerical argument is convincing.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Semantics. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> You describe THE focal point to fit your needs, then describe how <B>A</B> focal point can be <B>THE</B> focal point for short periods of time.
> ...


Well, thanks for pointing out that I am not even qualified to know what I am trying to say. You apparently are the expert on that, as well.

If Davis was "quite good when they ran plays for him," why does he have a quite bad 46.2 eFG%? 

And, of course, there is no way to prove or disprove who is better when plays are run for them, since there is no such statistic. But given the statistics that are available, Chandler would have to be about the most efficient offensive rebounder in the game to for him to have this overwelming advantage in eFG%, yet still be worse when plays are run for him. Chandler is not pretty, but he gets to the line at a very high rate, which makes him an effective option. Also, by getting other bigs in foul trouble, he helps out his teammates when these bigs play more passive defense to avoid additional foul trouble.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Its a shame that a 21 year old averaging 14 and 7 and has improved each year is being given up on because he cant be a franchise player as a 21 year old. Lets do the same thing we did with Miller and Artest, help them become good players and then trade them away right before their prime and watch them become stars on other teams while we wonder why we traded them.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, thanks for pointing out that I am not even qualified to know what I am trying to say. You apparently are the expert on that, as well.
> ...


Well, there is the game log, which supports my memory:

Q2
9:07 19-23 Antonio Davis enters the game for Jerome Williams. 
8:45 19-23 Antonio Davis missed 15 ft Jumper. 
8:17 19-23 Antonio Davis missed Free Throw 1 of 2. 
8:17 19-24 Antonio Davis made Free Throw 2 of 2. 
7:39 19-24 Antonio Davis missed 11 ft Jumper. 
6:31 23-28 Antonio Davis made 14 ft Jumper. 

That's 4 plays they ran for him in about 2:30 of game time.
ERob missed a dunk on a fast break in that time (Curry missed the putback), and Gill shot two FTs after grabbing an offensive rebound on one of the Davis misses.

They more sporadically ran plays for Davis throughout the game. He finished with 6-11 FG (.545) with 4-6 FT shooting. 

As someone who's watched all the games, start to finish, I don't remember the Bulls putting in Davis after a timeout and running plays for him like they did last night.

That's 13.64 eFGA, and .587 eFGA% in the game they ran plays for him.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> Its a shame that a 21 year old averaging 14 and 7 and has improved each year is being given up on because he cant be a franchise player as a 21 year old. Lets do the same thing we did with Miller and Artest, help them become good players and then trade them away right before their prime and watch them become stars on other teams while we wonder why we traded them.


This is what I agree with. You have to have some patience. They had patience (and stupidity) in grooming Crawford, and now they have a guard that is blossoming. Chandler was showing signs of being able to consistently contribute in NBA games this season, before the injury. Curry needs to get his head right. Giving up on him would be foolish.

I read post after post regretting that we game up Artest and Brand. In hindsight, I agree. Let's not make the same mistake twice. I don't see anything wrong with Curry other than his attitude. A 21 year old's attitude CAN be adjusted.


----------

