# Cavs-Pistons Series From a Bulls Perspective



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Is anyone watching the series and readjusting what they think about the Bulls?

What I see is the Cavs, who are also pretty young, staying competitive down to the final seconds in Detroit and winning at home.

To make a long story short, that gives creedence to me to the thought that they're better than us.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

i don't agree. the cav role players have played over their heads at home. the pistons have done what they usually do, underachieve. instead of seizing control, they've let the cavs dictate tempo, and figured they could pull it out late, which has proven to be a mistake. where's the superiority? i don't see it. lebron's done what lebron does. i don't see where either team is superior to the bull overall. i suspect the cav CAN win, though i still strongly doubt that they will. their role players blow chunks (even if it goes seven, the role players true colors will show given time) imo, but as bull fans should know, with a superstar all can be forgiven.

further, the basketball i've watched in all four games has been damn near unbearable to watch from a quality standpoint. outside of a couple of highlight dunks by lebron, this series has been an abomination. the bull would have been a much better matchup against either team, than watching the sleepfest they've put on against one another.

whilst its true the bull will have to beat either team to get out of the east, it's hardly an impossible task.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I think the development of Tyrus and #9 will indicate if we can beat either team in a series. We need one of the two to become a legit post-threat, otherwise it will be extremely difficult.

Either way, I hope the Spurs win. Why? LOL @ CWebb yelling at the Bulls in Game 6 "You won't stop me from getting my ring." Yeah, CWebb you really earned it with those 'injuries' this year at Philly. Cavs - I don't want LBJ to enter the argument of GOAT. Titles starting at the age of 22 will help that.

End Result - Hopefully Spurs win in 6 in the finals.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> Is anyone watching the series and readjusting what they think about the Bulls?
> 
> What I see is the Cavs, who are also pretty young, staying competitive down to the final seconds in Detroit and winning at home.
> 
> To make a long story short, that gives creedence to me to the thought that they're better than us.


I think it gives creedence to the thought that the Pistons are a team of players who believe that just showing up should get them wins. Also, I think Chris Webber is showing his age more and more with each passing game. 

Neither team has played brilliantly, and there's been plenty of questionable game strategy. The Spurs are going to wipe the floor with whoever ends up winning.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Agreed the Cavs are also ahead of us.

Anyone watching the Cavs series, can we all agree that the last thing they need is a Duhon-like PG? I go mad when poster say Duhon could be a starter on teams like Cavs or Lakers. A combo guard like Gibson is a much better fit next to James.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

If the Pistons had played as uninspired basketbal against us as they are against Cleveland, they would be watching the Bulls play in the finals.

The Bulls would have difficulty with Cleveland's front line. So I agree that they are the better team this year. The only chance the Bulls would have is that our guards got hot and stayed hot -- which can happen.


----------



## O2K (Nov 19, 2002)

I think its more that the pistons were more focused against the bulls. You could tell by the way they were talking in the first three games they were saying stuff like "we know this bulls team can beat us" or "this is a tough bulls team, we have to play our best" and then after going up 3-0 they lost focus. They don't seem to have the same fire against cleveland that they did against chicago and i suppose that is because 1. chicago swept miami, 2. chicago has ben wallace, 3. everyone is saying that the bulls are built like the pistons.

motivation was a key.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

The Cavs/Pistons series has been very enlightening to me in that it really demonstrates why the Bulls have not been able to advance in the playoffs. IMO it is clear that the Cavs and Pistons are superior teams because of their size and skill at key positions. For example, Billups and Wallace, at their respective positions, were players the Bulls couldn't stop in the recent Pistons/Bulls series. The Cavs, however, because of their size and physicality, are able to neutralize them. 

Aside from a freak like James, players like Gooden, Verajao, and Pavlovic are neutralizing the size and skill advantage the Pistons demonstrated against the Bulls. Unless the Bulls can physically match-up better against the type of players the Cavs and Pistons put out on the floor, I see the Bulls as perennial also rans. This is obvious to me. Gordon and Hinrich are good players, but not good enough to overcome the size/skill advantage the Piston backcourt has over them. The Bulls frontcourt, is inferior in both size and skill to both the Pistons and the Cavs frontcourt. 

The Bulls are good, but not good enough.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

I can't believe Pax picked Hinrich over LeBron!


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

charlietyra said:


> For example, *Billups* and Wallace, at their respective positions, were players the Bulls couldn't stop in the recent Pistons/Bulls series. The Cavs, however, because of their size and physicality, are able to neutralize them.


Uhhh....What?!?! 

1) Billups had his way with the Cavs backcourt last night, He basically did what he wanted to do against anyone they put on him, until late in the game. And they lost, despite that.

2) Billups struggled mightily in the first 2 games, and they won, despite that.

Wallace is another matter. But I have to chuckle when someone like PAVLOVIC (who does NOTHING better than gordon, except stand a bit taller and is a MATADOR compared to hinrich, is being trumpeted as some sort of defensive stopper. :laugh:



> Unless the Bulls can physically match-up better against the type of players the Cavs and Pistons put out on the floor, I see the Bulls as perennial also rans. This is obvious to me. Gordon and Hinrich are good players, but not good enough to overcome the size/skill advantage the Piston backcourt has over them. The Bulls frontcourt, is inferior in both size and skill to both the Pistons and the Cavs frontcourt.


The Cavs are actally an EASIER matchup for the bulls. Lebron would have to run around A TON more on defense, chasing Luol Deng around, and Deng would get his, despite that, since Lebron is not nearly as long, nor does he have the same kind of interior help movement that Detroit has to stop those curls.

Gibson would get abused on the defensive end by Ben Gordon, and in the playoffs where you are allowed to be physical, Gibson does not pose NEARLY the defensive problems that Billups does. Moreover, its funny, because we all know that Hinrich can guard Rip hamilton, the problem for us was Billups. ANd last time I checked, Gibson is EVEN SMALLER than Gordon, both in bulk AND in height. So this idea that their backcourt is neutralizing Detroit with their size is laughable. And before anyone mentions pavlovic, I'll point out that as soon as he came in, Chauncey went right to work in the post, and went right around him on the drive last night. Kirk can guard Larry Hughes effectively too. We've seen him do it.

Big Z would pose a different set of problems, but not because he's some offensive force. He's a good rebounder and an underrated defender. Our deficiencies against his size would be addressed.

We pose matchup problems for them too. They don't have anyone who can effective guard our back 3.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

I should add that posts like these make me a bigger fan of acquiring Nene, and drafting hawes.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Team matchups are unique and fluid things. I never believe the whole Team X beat team Y who beat Team Z, therefore Team X is better than Team Z. You just have to look at head-to-head analysis to determine who is better. We have had enough trouble with the Cavs in the past couple years that you can make this argument without having to look at the teams' respective performances against the Pistons.

Personally, I think the Cavs and Bulls are roughly equal right now, with maybe a slight lean towards the Bulls. But hey, I could be wrong.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Team matchups are unique and fluid things. I never believe the whole Team X beat team Y who beat Team Z, therefore Team X is better than Team Z. You just have to look at head-to-head analysis to determine who is better. We have had enough trouble with the Cavs in the past couple years that you can make this argument without having to look at the teams' respective performances against the Pistons.
> 
> Personally, I think the Cavs and Bulls are roughly equal right now, with maybe a slight lean towards the Bulls. But hey, I could be wrong.


Game set and match. We have a winner here too.:clap2: Unless they make some serious moves (which right now they can't), I expect us to be better than them as soon as next season.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Well the Bulls could have played avoided playing the Pistons if they had 1) not lost to the Cleveland team you guys say they are supposedly better than AT HOME or 2) not gotten blown out by the Nets, who the inferior Cavs just polished off before getting to the Pistons.

I think the Cavs have a superstar, and the Bulls don't, and playoff basketball is more often than not about superstars. To beat the Pistons, you either need amazing team chemistry, with a balanced attack that can go inside and outside or you need a superstar. The Bulls have neither.

It's annoying to me that through all of this, most of you refuse to give Cleveland any credit. Most of you all didn't think they were better last year either.

Hopefully the Cavs get to the Finals and win the Title this year, maybe then you guys can give them some respect.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Well the Bulls could have played avoided playing the Pistons if they had 1) not lost to the Cleveland team you guys say they are supposedly better than AT HOME or 2) not gotten blown out by the Nets, who the inferior Cavs just polished off before getting to the Pistons.


Irrelavent for the discussion at hand.



> I think the Cavs have a superstar, and the Bulls don't, and *playoff basketball is more often than not about superstars*. To beat the Pistons, you either need amazing team chemistry, with a balanced attack that can go inside and outside or you need a superstar. The Bulls have neither.


But they will have both. The Cavs only have one. And do you want me to point out all the "superstars" that were beaten by TEAMS without them in this year's playoffs?

Dallas, Miami, Houston, Los Angeles, etc. 

And lets not act like you guys aren't the most rested team in the playoffs, what with that LOTTERY team you guys faced in the first round.



> It's annoying to me that through all of this, most of you refuse to give Cleveland any credit. Most of you all didn't think they were better last year either.


Prove it. Break out the quotes.



> Hopefully the Cavs get to the Finals and win the Title this year, maybe then you guys can give them some respect.


This statement is silly and shows how out of touch with the current state of the Cavs you really are. They will be lucky to beat the spurs more than once, even IF they get past the pistons.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> Hopefully the Cavs get to the Finals and win the Title this year, maybe then you guys can give them some respect.


I don't think much of their chances against the Spurs, frankly, even if they were to make it through.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Well the Bulls could have played avoided playing the Pistons if they had 1) not lost to the Cleveland team you guys say they are supposedly better than AT HOME or 2) not gotten blown out by the Nets, who the inferior Cavs just polished off before getting to the Pistons.
> 
> I think the Cavs have a superstar, and the Bulls don't, and playoff basketball is more often than not about superstars. To beat the Pistons, you either need amazing team chemistry, with a balanced attack that can go inside and outside or you need a superstar. The Bulls have neither.
> 
> ...


Exactly right. It's amazing to me the mental gymnastics some posters will go through in order to (1) refuse to see the obvious and (2) admit that the Bulls may not be as good as they think they are. 

In critical games down the stretch the Bulls lost to both the Cavs and the Nets. Both of these teams are problems for the Bulls and IMO would have probably beaten the Bulls in the playoffs. I am not saying the Bulls are a bad team. They just don't match up well. 

James and his supporting cast are in the ascendancy. Even if they don't beat Detroit in this series they are going to get better and should be the best team in the East next year and beyond. LeBron is just that good and is only going to get better. The Bulls as presently constituted do not have the weapons to stop this from happening. They don't have the superstar they need nor is their team play good enough at this point. That is all I am saying. It is a fact not conjecture, otherwise the Bulls would still be playing. Why can't some posters just acknowledge this fact instead of putting forth these nonsensical arguments which contradict reality.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

series they are going to get better and should be the best team in the East next year and beyond. LeBron is just that good and is only going to get better. The Bulls as presently constituted do not have the weapons to stop this from happening. They don't have the superstar they need nor is their team play good enough at this point. That is all I am saying. It is a fact not conjecture, otherwise the Bulls would still be playing. Why can't some posters just acknowledge this fact instead of putting forth these nonsensical arguments which contradict reality.[/QUOTE]

again, i disagree. the cavs record the past two seasons have been identical. the bull/cavs and bull/piston:chill: matchups have been hotly contested and while james has been the difference (he is in all of the cav victories; it's a *lottery team *without him), his supporting cast is suspect. THAT is reality. now, all things being equal maybe the piston series this year will mark an ascendancy; that remains to be seen. they'll likely have 80% of the same roster next year and we'll just have to see what happens. i personally don't see anything in this cav/piston matchup that leads me to believe the bull can best either team with some tweaking. if the cavs don't beat the piston this year, they're in the same boat as the bull, imo. however, with the superstar on board what do they do? i'd like to know how they will get better. i don't see an identity with that team, but i'll give them credit for playing good TEAM defense against the pistons.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Is anyone watching the series and readjusting what they think about the Bulls?
> 
> What I see is the Cavs, who are also pretty young, staying competitive down to the final seconds in Detroit and winning at home.
> 
> To make a long story short, that gives creedence to me to the thought that they're better than us.


The Cavs are young in that they have LeBron, Gooden, Gibson, Varejao, and I guess Hughes (although it seems like he's been around forever). It's a good core, but hardly what I'd consider championship worthy. 

Then you have guys like Marshall and Ilgauskas on the downside of their careers. And IMO, Ilgauskas is the real X-factor for the Cavs. The man is 7'3 and skilled as heck; I think he opens things up a ton for his teammates.

Take away Ilgauskas though, and I find nothing particularly scary about the Cavs. He's always been the guy to cause us fits. Without him, they're a decent playoff team that won't make it to the Finals. With all their money tied into LeBron, Hughes, and Z, this team might not get further than they are now (without significant changes).


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The Bulls don't beat that Cavs team in a 7 game series. They don't beat the Pistons either.

Its a toss up if the Bulls beat this years Nets.

If the goal is to "win now," it would be a mistake, IMO, to put to much weight in our defeat of a dying Heat team.

If the goal is to watch our fine young men blossom and be a legit NBA Title contender in 3 years, then who cares. Just build for the future. Pray for Thabo, Tyrus and the #9 pick to blossom. Also pray for a center to fall into our lap.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> The Bulls don't beat that Cavs team in a 7 game series. They don't beat the Pistons either.
> 
> Its a toss up if the Bulls beat this years Nets.
> 
> ...


I don't think anyone is really denying that the Cavs have a _marginally_ better team right now. Like I said though, take away the inside skill of Ilgauskas who is rapidly declining and this team is going nowhere in the next 3-5 years, IMO.

The consensus from most Bulls fans is that, while we don't have a better team right now, we have the higher upside (maybe as soon as next year). Between Tyrus, Thabo, and whomever we draft at #9 in a deep draft, there's still some untapped ability on this squad. 

And historically, teams who play a horribly ugly brand of ball like the Cavs is typically not a Finals worthy team. One of the worst East finals I've seen in years.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> If the goal is to "win now," it would be a mistake, IMO, to put to much weight in our defeat of a dying Heat team.


The post-Pistons series loss revisionist history of the Miami series is amazing to me. It is shocking the way the Heat could win the NBA Championship last year and yet this year, with essentially the identical squad, be regarded as feeble losers.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> The post-Pistons series loss revisionist history of the Miami series is amazing to me. It is shocking the way the Heat could win the NBA Championship last year and yet this year, with essentially the identical squad, be regarded as feeble losers.



It was shocking to see the rapid demise of a team like that as well.

But, when many of the players are old, not hungry anymore and hurt and the young superstar is banged up as well it can happen, as we saw.

It was great to make the 2nd round. Good bounce back from the horrific regression from the previous year. We're basically back to where we started, with less upside and a flawed roster. 

I just think it would be a mistake a rest on laurels and the like based on beating a clearly banged up Heat team.


It would be like the Wizards thinking they were title ready 2 years ago after beating the Curry-less and Deng-less Bulls before getting whipped in the 2nd round. Bad move, IMO.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

I think the Cavs are better than the Bulls right now. If the Cavs beat the Pistons in this series, I'd have to say that they're significantly better.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

transplant said:


> I think the Cavs are better than the Bulls right now. If the Cavs beat the Pistons in this series, I'd have to say that they're significantly better.


I can agree with that.

Not to the point where it is panic worthy, but yeah. The Cavs have an edge. The guys are learning to mesh with King James, and that is good for the Cavs and bad for the rest of the league. They aren't ready to claim the throne just yet, but they are heading that way. They may not be Bulls-like dynasty, but James will get a ring or 2 in his career.

I see the Bulls as the team in the East with the best chance of continuing an upswing in development toward contender status. The Cavs will get incrementally better. I think the Pistons have sort of leveled off. Most of the rest of the East is either mired down in the muck or have to make that climb (as the Bulls did) from mediocre to good, before they can (as the Bulls are in a position to do) make the climb from very good to great.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> It was great to make the 2nd round. Good bounce back from the *horrific regression *from the previous year.


i love the smell of hyperbole in the morning; it smells like an agenda.....:biggrin:


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

The Krakken said:


> But they will have both. The Cavs only have one. And do you want me to point out all the "superstars" that were beaten by TEAMS without them in this year's playoffs?
> 
> Dallas, Miami, Houston, Los Angeles, etc.


Dallas was beaten by a team with Baron Davis, one of the NBA's elite point guards, Houston beaten by a team with an elite young point guard and a 20/10 power forward. You may quibble about Boozer as superstar, but there just aren't that many 20/10 guys in the NBA. The last time I checked the Lakers lost to a team featuring Steve Nash and Amare Stoudemire. You might not qualify them as superstars, but I think most of the NBA does. The Heat were old and injured. Wade didn't have his A game. So, if you're disqualifying Boozer, Deron Williams, Baron Davis, Nash, Stoudemire from being "superstars" I fail to see how a one armed Dwyane Wade makes the cut.

Going further, let's look at the list of NBA champions to see how many teams without superstars win titles, shall we? Well, we do have one recent example, the 2004 Pistons (and let's give them credit for having a great run over the last five years). Before that? You have to go all the way back to the 78-79 titles, won by the Bullets & Sonics. That's about a 10% success rate. So, maybe futuristxen has a point?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> i love the smell of hyperbole in the morning; it smells like an agenda.....:biggrin:


Haha, I missed that one. If a 6 win difference is a horrific regression, not to mention taking the champs to narrow 6 games, then what's a mild/moderate regression?


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Haha, I missed that one. If a 6 win difference is a horrific regression, not to mention taking the champs to narrow 6 games, then what's a mild/moderate regression?


as well, shouldn't an eight game improvement this season (*without* stik and the fatman) be worth* at least *a mild/moderate superlative???

yea, i know.....the second round means nothing (unless....well you guys know the rest, lol)......


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

You want my expert analysis? The Cavaliers are tall.

Sounds stupid, sounds simple... but quite frankly, they are one tall team. Right now I see that as the biggest hurdle the Bulls have in overcoming the Cavs... it at least makes up that 1 game difference. If the Bulls can add some height (hopefully with some skill) and the Cavs stand still (obviously they could also improve) then I think the Bulls would have a good chance of beating them in a 7 game series.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> Dallas was beaten by a team with Baron Davis, one of the NBA's elite point guards


Hinrich is included in that list of elite PG's no? Can you name definitively 8 PG's that are better than him?



> Houston beaten by a team with an elite young point guard and a 20/10 power forward. You may quibble about Boozer as superstar, but there just aren't that many 20/10 guys in the NBA.


Boozer is no more a superstar than Luol Deng. And neither is Deron Williams. Moreover I'd take the combination of Deng, Gordon, and Hinrich over JUST Deron, Boozer, insert backcourt player from the Jazz any day of the week.



> The last time I checked the Lakers lost to a team featuring Steve Nash and Amare Stoudemire. You might not qualify them as superstars, but I think most of the NBA does.


The argument was, "in the playoffs, its a SUPERSTAR's league". Is there a bigger superstar than Kobe Bryant? Yes Nash had a better team. But that's my point: If we have a BETTER TEAM, than Cleveland, it doesn't matter WHO their superstar is. Apparantly you agree. SO I fail to see what you are arguing against.....



> The Heat were old and injured. Wade didn't have his A game.


But.......its a superstars league in the playoffs....right?



> So, if you're disqualifying Boozer, Deron Williams, Baron Davis, Nash, Stoudemire from being "superstars" I fail to see how a one armed Dwyane Wade makes the cut.


I'm not disqualifying them. In fact, I'm suggesting that we'll have similar talent to these players (except Nash) in less than 3 years, as our own budding players become stars. I see one superstar (nash), and a bunch of stars, with one on the verge of superstardom (Amare). Wade is on Nash's level, but nobody else on that list is even close.



> Going further, let's look at the list of NBA champions to see how many teams without superstars win titles, shall we? Well, we do have one recent example, the 2004 Pistons (and let's give them credit for having a great run over the last five years). Before that? You have to go all the way back to the 78-79 titles, won by the Bullets & Sonics. That's about a 10% success rate. So, maybe futuristxen has a point?


What a red herring. 

1) The league has had DYNASTIES over the last 25 years. Seven teams account for nearly all of those titles: Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, Bulls, Rockets, Lakers again, Spurs, and Pistons again, with one title to the heat. 

2) Lets look a little closer at those dynasties, shall we? 

1st Lakers Dynasty--2 superstars, another 2 all-stars and a top sixth man. Only the Suns in the current NBA compare

Celtics Dynasty--Bird, Mchale, Parish, DJ......do you want me to continue naming names from that LOADED roster?

Piston's dynasty--Guess what? No real Superstar. Ultimate team (not unlike the current pistons dynasty) Isaiah was a superstar, but not on the Magic, Bird, Jordan--Lebron, Wade, Kobe, Nash level. In fact, he wasn't much more of a superstar than Chauncey billups is today.

Bulls--Jordan and Pippen (2 superstars), and later Rodman (a third borderline superstar), Horace Grant (All Star), and Kukoc (leading 6th man). Any current Team compare with them? This Cavs team that's supposed to dominate the league for the next 10 years? Not right now.

Rockets--Olajuwon was the only superstar. A couple of fringe all-stars. In fact, this team is the one that most closely resembles lebrons, current CAVS team with regard to makeup. But even they only got to two finals. I'll say this about this team, the reason it worked is because they had the best pivot in the league at the time. Again, he was dominant in the post and it made everyone around him MUCH better in a way that no wing player NOT NAMED JORDAN or MAGIC has been able to do, before or after.

Lakers--Kobe and Shaq. Two superstars. In fact, THE TWO BEST PLAYERS IN THE LEAGUE at the time. Does the current Cavs team compare to them? Nope.

SPurs--See Rockets--change Olajuwon to duncan, and the rest stays the same.

Second pistons team--See first pistons team. Substitute Isaiah thomas for Chauncey billups.

The cavs don't fit the mold of ANY of those teams, lebron or no lebron.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> i'd like to know how they will get better. i don't see an identity with that team, but i'll give them credit for playing good TEAM defense against the pistons.


They'll get better by starting Daniel Gibson at point guard and moving Larry Hughes to the bench from the start of the season. And they'll get better if Lebron takes the summer off from international duty, and then doesn't coast through the year like he did this year.

And if they as a team don't shoot the worst free throw shooting percentage in the league, that's worth some more wins.

But they aren't really built to be a smashing regular season team. They make their bones in the playoffs. Which I think is in contrast to the Bulls. I can see the Bulls having a great regular season record, possibly better than the Cavs, next year, but unless they address their post scoring problem, they'll probably be at a deficit against the Cavs in the playoffs.

The Bulls are kind of the East version of the Suns.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> What a red herring.
> 
> 1) The league has had DYNASTIES over the last 25 years. Seven teams account for nearly all of those titles: Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, Bulls, Rockets, Lakers again, Spurs, and Pistons again, with one title to the heat.
> 
> ...


So what you're saying is that the Cavs are one superstar, and the Bulls are two superstars away from being a dynasty.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> So what you're saying is that the Cavs are one superstar, and the Bulls are two superstars away from being a dynasty.


Not at all. I'm saying that if you are going to use past champions and their superstars as an argument as to why the rest of the league should just start handing over the championship trophy to Lebron now, the argument is going to have a TON of holes in it, beginning with how those teams were constructed, and the fact that they were dynasties (their superstars stayed together for years, and in some cases, entire careers--difficult to do in todays NBA). 

Lebron's Cavs may indeed be better than us this year. It means nothing with regards to who is the better team next year and beyond. We will improve significantly in the frontcourt, and to a point in the backcourt. As a team, they may not get much better than they are right, now, because outside of Lebron getting better, and Daniel Gibson, they don't have NEARLY as much room to improve as we do. Larry Hughes is in his prime. Z is on the decline. Yell is on the decline. Pavlovic will never be Manu, and lacks the physical talent to tremendously improve. They don't have a high draft pick. They have huge salaries that make it difficult to bring people in, and will have to RE-MAX lebron again in 3 years (which will bring his salary near Kobe/KG levels), further strapping them for cash.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

See, I don't see why Z is going to decline any more than Wallace is going to decline. They've got two solid young bigs in Gooden and Varajao. We hopefully will have two in Tyrus and our draft pick.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> The Bulls are kind of the East version of the Suns.


If you ask someone to describe the Suns, they'll likely make two observations

1. They run a lot and score
2. They don't play much defense

The Bulls don't run that much, and are among the best defensive teams in the league.

I fail to see any similarity, really.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> See, I don't see why Z is going to decline any more than Wallace is going to decline.


I assume it's based upon the fact that Z has chronic foot problems, if I recall. Aren't his feet one of the 5 uninsured body parts in the NBA?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I assume it's based upon the fact that Z has chronic foot problems, if I recall. Aren't his feet one of the 5 uninsured body parts in the NBA?


Umm... he had feet problems 8 years ago.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/news/2003/02/02/waag_0203/



> The Cavs' center will be making his first trip to the NBA All-Star Game this weekend, completing a journey back from severe foot problems that nearly forced him into retirement.
> 
> "Two years ago, I wasn't even thinking about this," he said.
> 
> ...



http://www.swerbsblurbs.com/article_detail.php?id=674



> The Ten Worst Injuries In Cleveland Sports History
> 
> 6. Zydrunas Ilgauskas' broken foot, 2000
> 
> ...



Sounds like it was pretty gnarly, but you're right, it was quite a few seasons ago.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Looks like LBJ has learned that Killer Instict. Cavs up by 4 in OT with 30ish seconds left.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

lebron james is just ridiculous


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

I'm very, very glad that this is going 2OT. Hopefully the Pistons pull it out and take the series.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the Pistons (and don't really mind the Cavs when they aren't playing us). Going to school in Ohio, though, is a nuisance. Way too many fans of the Cleveland LeBrons, and only a few Cavs fans who I can actually talk NBA with without having to listen to nonsense. For the sake of not having to hear how Cleveland's the best team in the East next year, Detroit needs to win this series. The way I see it, Spurs are champs anyway, so I could care less who goes to the Finals. And being a Spurs fan (moderate one), it works out nicely.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Dang it.

Kudos to LeBron for absolutely beasting. Yeesh.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

LeBron scored the last 25 straight points to secure the win. That is utter domination. Just amazing.


----------



## ballafromthenorth (May 27, 2003)

I haven't been that amazed while watching a basketball game in a while. Lebron was unbelievable. Just wow. Glad I decided to watch the game..SO glad the Pistons lost..


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

I bet that if internet message boards had existed back in the late 80s and early 90s, Knicks and Cavs fans would have said much the same things about the Bulls as what many people are saying on this thread: we're a better team, they stink besides Jordan, etc. 

How can people not view LeBron and the Cavs as a major, enormous stumbling block for the Bulls for the next twelve years? I don't care if he's not as competitive as Jordan or Magic -- he's got a lot more natural ability than either of them did. And somehow I don't think tonight's might-as-well-put-him-into-Springfield-now game is a peak of any kind; it's probably just the start of his taking things to a whole new level. 

But the Cavs can't beat the Spurs, so don't sweat it.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I think the only thing this shows as far as the Bulls are concerned is.....what the **** was up with games 1 and 2???? Total disappearance.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> I bet that if internet message boards had existed back in the late 80s and early 90s, Knicks and Cavs fans would have said much the same things about the Bulls as what many people are saying on this thread: we're a better team, they stink besides Jordan, etc.
> 
> How can people not view LeBron and the Cavs as a major, enormous stumbling block for the Bulls for the next twelve years? I don't care if he's not as competitive as Jordan or Magic -- he's got a lot more natural ability than either of them did. And somehow I don't think tonight's might-as-well-put-him-into-Springfield-now game is a peak of any kind; it's probably just the start of his taking things to a whole new level.
> 
> But the Cavs can't beat the Spurs, so don't sweat it.


It was incredible tonight to be sure. I turned to my roommate during the game and said, "Well, this is the game people are going to talk about when they say it all began for LeBron." It was stunning. He just imposed his will on them tonight.

Nice to see you back, Scott.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

And that game is why at the end of the day, the NBA is a superstar league. One player can put a team on his back and make them unbeatable.

Great defense + Great player=Can beat anyone on any given day.

The Bulls only real shot from the looks of it, would be to aquire Kobe. Which...Lebron and Kobe in the same division. And DWade with them in the conference. That would be criminal.


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

Just.. wow on Lebron's game. Easily one of the best performances I've ever seen from a single player. The shots he hit were amazing. Once he improves his FT shooting there's no stopping him.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

I dont remember ever seeing a player dominate a game like that in my lifetime.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> See, I don't see why Z is going to decline any more than Wallace is going to decline. They've got two solid young bigs in Gooden and Varajao. We hopefully will have two in Tyrus and our draft pick.


It's possible...I personally think Big Z is going downhill fast though. Wallace doesn't have anything near the injury history of Ilgauskas. Frankly, I'm surprised Z has lasted this long with that reconstructed foot he's been playing on.

I completely agree with what someone else said...the Cavs are a tall team. Their formula isn't that complicated: LeBron (top 5 player) + passable group of big wings (Hughes/Pavlovic) + big frontcourt (Z, Drew, Varejao, Marshall) = good team in a weak conference. 

They definitely dwarf us in two areas: size & superstardom. Our best bet is to overcome the size deficiency. We have enough half-stars (Gordon, Deng, Hinrich, Wallace, potentially Tyrus) to off-set Lebron if we can overcome the size problem.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> How can people not view LeBron and the Cavs as a major, enormous stumbling block for the Bulls for the next twelve years? I don't care if he's not as competitive as Jordan or Magic -- he's got a lot more natural ability than either of them did. And somehow I don't think tonight's might-as-well-put-him-into-Springfield-now game is a peak of any kind; it's probably just the start of his taking things to a whole new level.
> 
> But the Cavs can't beat the Spurs, so don't sweat it.


I'm not sure anyone is denying this, Scott. I'm sure every one of us views LeBron (and Dwight Howard, for that matter) as THE stumbling block for the next 10 years. He's an amazing player, and it's nothing short of spectacular how he's carried a very mediocre squad this far (and maybe further!).

I think we're just downplaying their future, more than anything, compared to the Bulls. This Cavs team is capitalizing on a VERY weak conference, for one. Their second best player (Big Z) is going downhill fast. They're capped out for the next 4 years if I'm not mistaken. Not really any good trade assets like we have.

Still a team we have to overcome, but we're more than capable with the pieces we have. The Bulls are on the upswing, whereas the Cavs are at their peak (in that they don't have much room to improve over the next 4-5 years). I think most would agree with that, right?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

yodurk said:


> It's possible...I personally think Big Z is going downhill fast though. Wallace doesn't have anything near the injury history of Ilgauskas. Frankly, I'm surprised Z has lasted this long with that reconstructed foot he's been playing on.


Out of Wallace and Ilgausaks, which one has better athleticism and which has better height and shooting skills. Which attributes will age better?


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

let's trade deng and gordon, 9th pick and throw in tyrus thomas for Lebron. we need to bring that kid to chicago.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

yodurk said:


> It's possible...I personally think Big Z is going downhill fast though. Wallace doesn't have anything near the injury history of Ilgauskas. Frankly, I'm surprised Z has lasted this long with that reconstructed foot he's been playing on.


Just so you know, Z has been one of the Cavs' healthiest players in the last 4 years. His past foot problems are essentially a non-issue at this point, barring a freak injury.

They're not like chronically bothering him or anything.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

Sith said:


> let's trade deng and gordon, 9th pick and throw in tyrus thomas for Lebron. we need to bring that kid to chicago.


Deal!


----------



## Wishbone (Jun 10, 2002)

now this is going to sound like yet another knee-jerk reaction...

but last nights game shows us all once again that the Bulls desperately lack a superstar player that they need to get to championship contention.
LeBron put on the most spectacular show I've ever seen him do, and just flat out willed his team to victory. There was no stopping him, Detroit looked like they were back on their heels from the 4th quarter on. there was simply no answer for him, and no way at all to keep him from getting to the hoop pretty much any time he wanted to.

of course... there's a few caveats before I completely write off the Bulls.
they *were* one botched game away from getting the same seed that the Cavs had allowing them to just waltz into the conference finals. and the Bulls were a second half-meltdown away from evening up their series with the Pistons in game 3. so, I can't just say the Bulls have no hope at all ...
but man is it frustrating watching this Cavaliers team- essentially a one-man franchise- just power past Detroit on their home court with a chance to get to the finals with a win on their own home floor. you have to scratch your head and think, "golly, the Bulls could sure use a star player like that"


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Wishbone said:


> of course... there's a few caveats before I completely write off the Bulls.
> they *were* one botched game away from getting the same seed that the Cavs had allowing them to just waltz into the conference finals.


That's not true, is it. They were one botched game from playing Cavs in the 2nd round.


----------



## Wishbone (Jun 10, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> That's not true, is it. They were one botched game from playing Cavs in the 2nd round.


had they beaten NJ in the regular season closer, they would have had the 2nd seed -- and squared off against NJ again in the first round. 2nd round would have been winner of the Toronto-Wizards matchup. which means Toronto.

Cleveland would have had to face Miami in the first round, and if they get past them, Detroit in the 2nd.


I can imagine a very different view of history if the Bulls won that game in NJ... Cleveland doesn't have the outside shooting or the defense to stymie Miami, and bow out in the first round. Another epic battle takes place between Detroit and Miami, with Shaq and Wade pulling it out in a gruelling 7 game series.
Then they march into Chicago where they get swept.
The whole basketball world goes into massive uproar as the Bulls are now viewed with remarkable awe and respect for slaying the dragon.
*end rampant wild speculation*


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Wishbone said:


> had they beaten NJ in the regular season closer, they would have had the 2nd seed -- and squared off against NJ again in the first round. 2nd round would have been winner of the Toronto-Wizards matchup. which means Toronto.
> 
> Cleveland would have had to face Miami in the first round, and if they get past them, Detroit in the 2nd.
> 
> ...


Or

The Bulls lose to Jersey in the first round and we all line up like so many lemmings and leap to our deaths.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Out of Wallace and Ilgausaks, which one has better athleticism and which has better height and shooting skills. Which attributes will age better?


Good question, and I don't have a good answer. I tend to think that Wallace can play at a high level longer than people have been saying. Guys with a solidly built 6'9, 240 lb frame with minimal injury history certainly have the potential to play until the age of 40. Karl Malone and Dennis Rodman come to mind...I'd put Wallace in that category when it comes to physical ability and work ethic.

Past history suggests that 7-footers lose their mobility quite rapidly once they start to decline. Ewing, Olajuwon, David Robinson, and Sabonis were all stars one day, and within the span of 2 years, they really broke down in a hurry. 

Shaq is the only 7-footer I can really think of who remains/remained very very productive at age 34/35. I think you'll find far more 6'9 guys who had longer careers. I'm uttering this all from memory though, so I could be wrong. Just my gut feeling.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Good question, and I don't have a good answer. I tend to think that Wallace can play at a high level longer than people have been saying. Guys with a solidly built 6'9, 240 lb frame with minimal injury history certainly have the potential to play until the age of 40. Karl Malone and Dennis Rodman come to mind...I'd put Wallace in that category when it comes to physical ability and work ethic.
> 
> Past history suggests that 7-footers lose their mobility quite rapidly once they start to decline. Ewing, Olajuwon, David Robinson, and Sabonis were all stars one day, and within the span of 2 years, they really broke down in a hurry.
> 
> Shaq is the only 7-footer I can really think of who remains/remained very very productive at age 34/35. I think you'll find far more 6'9 guys who had longer careers. I'm uttering this all from memory though, so I could be wrong. Just my gut feeling.


Kareem was still a very good player at age 38. Parrish also was effective when he was 35 or so. I think both he and Kareem played until they were about 40.

IMO, and somewhat OT, greatest oldsters in the history of sports were Nolan Ryan who was still great at age 45 and Gordie Howe who played professional hockey with his sons when he was 50.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I tend to think that Wallace can play at a high level longer than people have been saying.


I don't think Wallace played at a high level last season.

And its going to be downhill from here.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Good question, and I don't have a good answer. I tend to think that Wallace can play at a high level longer than people have been saying. Guys with a solidly built 6'9, 240 lb frame with minimal injury history certainly have the potential to play until the age of 40. Karl Malone and Dennis Rodman come to mind...I'd put Wallace in that category when it comes to physical ability and work ethic.
> 
> Past history suggests that 7-footers lose their mobility quite rapidly once they start to decline. Ewing, Olajuwon, David Robinson, and Sabonis were all stars one day, and within the span of 2 years, they really broke down in a hurry.
> 
> Shaq is the only 7-footer I can really think of who remains/remained very very productive at age 34/35. I think you'll find far more 6'9 guys who had longer careers. I'm uttering this all from memory though, so I could be wrong. Just my gut feeling.


I think there's a decent chance that both will hold up reasonably well for the next few years, but for different reasons.

For Ilgauskas, Sabonis is the best comparison...tall, big and great fundamentals, but not very athletic. Sabonis, a truly remarkable player, was injury-plagued late in his career. Still, he was pretty effective at age 36. Had Sabonis's body not betrayed him, he could have been a force to age 40. Abdul-Jabbar had a little bit of staying power after his athleticism had left him. Same for Robert Parish.

Wallace takes very, very good care of himself. This should serve him well in terms of longevity. Wallace relies on b-ball IQ, strength, conditioning and quickness. It's that last one that concerns me.

I like Ilgauskas's chances better.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

charlietyra said:


> Kareem was still a very good player at age 38. Parrish also was effective when he was 35 or so. I think both he and Kareem played until they were about 40.


I guess I just don't see Ilgauskas being on the same plane as Shaq, Kareem, and even Robert Parrish. While we're OT though, allow me to say that Arvydas Sabonis is probably the most fun-to-watch center I've ever seen, even in his later years. The guy always did something jaw-dropping with the ball while barely moving an inch, whether it was no-look passing, hook shot, or the flat footed 3-pointer. I really miss watching him.

Anyway, this turned into a Wallace vs Ilagauskas debate, which I find pretty irrelvant to what I originally brought up. The point is, the Cavs whole team has pretty much peaked where they're at...I don't see them getting any better than they are now. Few assets to trade, only late 1st rounders to add, and only MLE to spend in free agency. The LeBron show is getting them to the Finals this year, but can they really rely on him and ONLY him for the next 5 years or so? 

Ilgauskas - downside of his career
Gooden - already peaked
Hughes - already peaked, maybe on the downside even
Varejao - close to his peak
Pavlovic - late bloomer, probably near his peak after recent surge
Gibson - really their only guy with untapped ability, IMO
Snow - downside of career
Marshall - downside of career

Then there's the Bulls:

Hinrich - close to his peak
Gordon - close to his peak, IMO
Deng - still reaching his peak, but room to grow
Tyrus - tons of untapped potential
Thabo - high amount of untapped potential
Wallace - downside of career
Nocioni - already peaked
Duhon - already peaked
#9 draft pick? - in a deep draft, I assume this is a high upside player

Just my take on where we're at compared to Cleveland. Obviously they're a hurdle for us, but we have the talent to surpass them. Tyrus obviously is a big factor for where we go.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I don't think Wallace played at a high level last season.
> 
> And its going to be downhill from here.


The difference between your opinions of "playing at a high level" and not is puzzling to me.

Ben, of course, was NOT the DPOY last year. True. It was not a career defining year. But IMO, he still "played at a high level."


By comparison, I imagine Tyson Chandler is someone you would identify as "playing at a high level." At least I assume that is your analysis, since you have been one of the most vocal of the "Bulls Fans Peeing themselves Over Tyson Chandler" club. Ben Sux! Tyson Rulz! Ben Sux! Tyson Rulz!

Chandler and Wallace each played about 35 mpg last season.

Tyson put up 3 more points and 1.5 more total rebounds than Big Ben.

On the other hand, Wallace had one full steal per game more than Chandler, managed about 1/2 a block more than Chandler and managed 1 1/2 more assists. Tyson also picked up about 1 1/2 more personal fouls than Wallace. 

And its pretty tough to compare Tyson and Ben's playoff numbers. 

Yet you revere Tyson and paint Wallace as an over the hill hanger on.

Yes, I do understand that Tyson is younger and may continue to improve and by the end of Ben's contract, he will surely be about used up.

But the reports of the decline and fall of The Gong are overstated at this point.


And I apologize for contributing to yet another OT about Tyson/Eddy in an unrelated thread.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I guess I just don't see Ilgauskas being on the same plane as Shaq, Kareem, and even Robert Parrish. While we're OT though, allow me to say that Arvydas Sabonis is probably the most fun-to-watch center I've ever seen, even in his later years. The guy always did something jaw-dropping with the ball while barely moving an inch, whether it was no-look passing, hook shot, or the flat footed 3-pointer. I really miss watching him.
> 
> Anyway, this turned into a Wallace vs Ilagauskas debate, which I find pretty irrelvant to what I originally brought up. The point is, the Cavs whole team has pretty much peaked where they're at...I don't see them getting any better than they are now. Few assets to trade, only late 1st rounders to add, and only MLE to spend in free agency. The LeBron show is getting them to the Finals this year, but can they really rely on him and ONLY him for the next 5 years or so?
> 
> ...


You left out your assessment of whether LeBron has peaked or not. I'd be interested to know. 

The bottom line is very simple consolidation, bird-in-the hand type stuff: I'd much rather have one 22-year-old LeBron, who is on a fast track toward becoming one of the best players in NBA history, than a collection of very good players who individually have no chance of being anywhere near that good. Historically, the team with the good-but-not-great players, regardless of how many good-but-not-great players it has, doesn't fare well when it comes to winning championships.

I concede that it will be nigh on impossible for the Cavs to land a complementary player for LeBron who ends up being as good as say, Scottie Pippen. The question for me is whether or not LeBron even needs a player that good in order to succeed. It looks to me like he'll be able to win championships with a much lower-quality second banana.

To get strictly back on topic, what is striking when you compare the two series is how much better the Cavs have defended the Pistons than we did. It's pretty cut-and-dried, and imo it defies any of the qualifiers people have tried to throw at it: "I wish the Pistons had laid down like this for us," etc. LeBron's supporting cast may suck and/or be on the decline, but they have been the best defensive team of the playoffs and defend traditional half-court sets better than the Bulls do.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Ben, of course, was NOT the DPOY last year. True. It was not a career defining year. But IMO, he still "played at a high level."


Ben Wallace had what Dan Rosenbaum would term a very good "glory stat" season.

But his on-off numbers leave me wondering what it was that we just paid $17 million for. They are abysmal and in direct, stark contrast to what he did for the Pistons.

http://www.82games.com/0607/06CHI14D.HTM

(that on-off eFG% is borderline inconceivable)


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> At least I assume that is your analysis, since you have been one of the most vocal of the "Bulls Fans Peeing themselves Over Tyson Chandler" club. Ben Sux! Tyson Rulz! Ben Sux! Tyson Rulz!


Wow. Quite the instigator today, aren't you. Great mod skillz.

Ben does not suck. He had an average year. Tyson played slightly better, IMO, than Ben and many more years of playing at the level he played at last year and likely will continue to improve.

Ben is trending downward and despite all past glory didn't really show up for us when we needed him most. 

Paxson paid this guy 60 million over 4 years and dumped Chandler for PJ Brown. And Chandler obviously will be the better player over the next 3-4 years and is considerably cheaper. Idiotic, value destroying move. 







> And its pretty tough to compare Tyson and Ben's playoff numbers.


This is an idiotic thing to say, IMO. A great player can be on a non-playoff team. Happens all the time. Chandler was a lynchpin for the Bulls 47 win playoff team. Without him last season the Bulls would have been a losing team. Place him next to Hinrich, Gordon, Deng and Tyrus and our big man problem becomes one of the best young cores for the next 5 years. Nice move Paxson. 



> Yet you revere Tyson and paint Wallace as an over the hill hanger on.


I don't revere Tyson. I just think he's a quality young 7 footer and dumping him for PJ Brown is idiotic. 




> But the reports of the decline and fall of The Gong are overstated at this point.


Depends what you mean by "the gong." He's not a superstar, even though he's being paid like one. He's not an all-star. He'll never be all-NBA again. He's an undersized center who was part of a superstar-less winning team that won 1 NBA championship.

4 years, 60 million. The end result of Cap Space. Yuk. Come on lotto bal…. oh ****, wait. Uh oh.

He's decent. I'd rather him out there than Big Marty or some other "hunk of meat." 

If you want to quibble about the subjective term "high level" than fine. He's not playing at a high level for a guy paid as much as he is or with his pedigree, that's for sure.


---

There were very few times this season when Ben Wallace seemed like a NBA difference maker, which is what he supposedly is.

Color me unimpressed. 4 years, 60 million? Please.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

I like Gooden and Varejo, but without Z the Cavs don't scare me much unless Hughes ramps up his game a lot in the future. Z is declining at a rapid rate, as are Snow and Marshall. T hat's $22 million in dead weight salary to carry for the next 3 years along with LBJ's salary. The Cavs won't be adding much to their team in the next few years.

The Bulls' Wallace is obviously in decline, but not as much as the Cleveland 3 above. They don't call him "the body" for nothing. The Bulls have plenty of salary space, a lottery pick and two excellent young rookies to build on.

Unless you believe in one-man teams (and I don't) Cleveland has finished ahead of us for the last time in the regular season for many years to come.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Kukoc,

You thought the Wallace signing was a good move at the time it was made, right? Hence the instantaneous switch to that avatar you made?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Kukoc,
> 
> You thought the Wallace signing was a good move at the time it was made, right? Hence the instantaneous switch to that avatar you made?


I was excited about it, yes. I had plenty of doubts though. It seemed like a decent outcome to a bad Cap Space situation Paxson painted the team into. Then Paxson dumped Chandler for Brown. Ick. Cap Space was a shell game.

The Bulls would have been a poorer team last season without him.

And, Wallace vs Vanilla Gorilla, I'll take Wallace.

Like I said, you'll never hear me say that "BEN WALLACE SUCKS" He's no star though. Not even close. I didn't watch Pistons ball day-in, day-out. So a lot of my excitement was based on HYPE I think. Still though, even I'm allowed to have some wide-eyed enthusiasm about a signing, yes? I remember that MikeDC was one of the few people say, hey, this is a lot of money, there may be some other options to consider. That turned out to be a pretty solid opinon, IMO.

I remember some posters around here comparing him to Wilt Chamberlin, Bill Walton and Kareem last summer. That was laughable.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I was excited about it, yes. I had plenty of doubts though. It seemed like a decent outcome to a bad Cap Space situation Paxson painted the team into. Then Paxson dumped Chandler for Brown. Ick. Cap Space was a shell game.
> 
> The Bulls would have been a poorer team last season without him.
> 
> ...



You're absolutely allowed to be excited. I just think it's not fair to say "Great move!" when the move is made and then say, "What an idiot, terrible move!" after it's done. Lots of moves that look good at the time they are made end up being stinkers (ask Kenny Williams), but you have to judge the GM by the information available at the time of the signing.

As far as Wallace goes, I'd say he performed at or slightly below my expectations for him. His rebounding and defense were solid (and much, much more than solid on Shaq in the postseason). His passing was a godsend. His free throws were predictably atrocious. Honestly, the most disappointing thing for me was the "intangible" that he seemed to be pining away for his friends in Detroit. He went about his business, but I never felt like he was really inspired. I'm hoping more time away from his old team and more time with this squad will help that, but I'm not sure.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

charlietyra said:


> Kareem was still a very good player at age 38. Parrish also was effective when he was 35 or so. I think both he and Kareem played until they were about 40.
> 
> IMO, and somewhat OT, greatest oldsters in the history of sports were Nolan Ryan who was still great at age 45 and Gordie Howe who played professional hockey with his sons when he was 50.


Satchle Page (we'll never know how old he was, but he played big league baseball for nearly 50 years).
Pele had a pretty long career too.
Then there are the golfers, who typically leave the course in a casket.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> You left out your assessment of whether LeBron has peaked or not. I'd be interested to know.


Yeah, I left him out because I was emphasizing the mediocre cast that he's stuck carrying for the foreseeable future. Since you're interested, I think LeBron still has SOME room to grow. But mostly in the areas of intangible things, such as leadership and defense. But even the greatest of the greats needs help, and I think it'll be very hard for the Cavs to get him the proper help. They invested alot into Hughes and Ilgauskas, and it could prevent improvements for a long time.



> The bottom line is very simple consolidation, bird-in-the hand type stuff: I'd much rather have one 22-year-old LeBron, who is on a fast track toward becoming one of the best players in NBA history, than a collection of very good players who individually have no chance of being anywhere near that good. Historically, the team with the good-but-not-great players, regardless of how many good-but-not-great players it has, doesn't fare well when it comes to winning championships.


If I were picking a starting point for a team, then yeah, LeBron no question. But we have at least two, maybe three or four, guys who are (or will be) better than the Cavs' second best player. It's the same mold as the Pistons 2004 championship, basically; similar talent level, similar team concept. 



> I concede that it will be nigh on impossible for the Cavs to land a complementary player for LeBron who ends up being as good as say, Scottie Pippen. The question for me is whether or not LeBron even needs a player that good in order to succeed. It looks to me like he'll be able to win championships with a much lower-quality second banana.


He'll need someone that good if the Bulls continue their trend of improvement (alot depends on Thomas, as I've mentioned). Hughes as a second fiddle, long-term, isn't good enough IMO. Gibson is a long shot to be that good. A great second fiddle for them would be a guy like Deng or Gordon, but I highly doubt they have the chance to snag someone like that.



> To get strictly back on topic, what is striking when you compare the two series is how much better the Cavs have defended the Pistons than we did. It's pretty cut-and-dried, and imo it defies any of the qualifiers people have tried to throw at it: "I wish the Pistons had laid down like this for us," etc. LeBron's supporting cast may suck and/or be on the decline, but they have been the best defensive team of the playoffs and defend traditional half-court sets better than the Bulls do.


Completely agree. The Cavs' interior defense has been very underrated. Gooden, Varejao, and Ilgauskas make for a huge front line and they do a great job defensively. They certainly match up against Detroit better than our big guys did (it didn't help that Ben Wallace got injured just as we were figuring them out).


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> As far as Wallace goes, I'd say he performed at or slightly below my expectations for him. His rebounding and defense were solid (and much, much more than solid on Shaq in the postseason). His passing was a godsend. His free throws were predictably atrocious. Honestly, the most disappointing thing for me was the "intangible" that he seemed to be pining away for his friends in Detroit. He went about his business, but I never felt like he was really inspired. I'm hoping more time away from his old team and more time with this squad will help that, but I'm not sure.


Same here, I basically felt he met my expectations, maybe slightly below. I was mostly soured during his "adjustment phase"; some of those early games of the season were pretty bad. But he bounced back from that and seemed to mesh nicely toward the end and in the playoffs.

We were once again one of the top defensive teams in the league. We were one of the best teams with rebounding differential. Gordon, Deng, and Hinrich all became more efficient players offensively (I think Wallace's presence contributed to this). Tyrus has a guy to model his defensive game after. I think we'll be an even better team next season...50 wins at least.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

With the emergence of Pavlovic and Gibson (No coincidence that the Cavs have won three straight since they became the real "starters" with the Hughes injury although Pavs sucked last night) the Cavs core outside of Z has become young: here are the ages of the players who'll see PT next year.

Gibson 21 (he is definitely an NBA quality player: will be an All-NBA defender in the future)
Pavs 23 (playing leaps and bounds better this year so I expect more improvement)
Anderson 24 (will improve)
Gooden 26 (probably only slight improvement from here)
Hughes 28 (peaked)
Lebron 22 (he's just a freak)

I thought halfway through this season with Hughes floundering that the Cavs future was bleak because of Marshall, Snow, Hughes, Jones, and Welsey but the emergence of Gibson/Pavs gives Lebron at least a reasonable core aroudn him.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Yeah, Gibson is a player. He may be all Lebron needs. A sweet shooting, lighting quick, slasher/spot up shooter, with defensive ability. Kind of exactly what Larry Hughes was supposed to do.

Plus it should be noted that the Cavs owner is not scared of spending money. 

Not really worried about the Cavs future. Nor am I worried about the Bulls as presently constituted. Right now they are just a team of not-quite stars who some might develop into stars. But as Lebron showed last night, 1 transcendent superstar is better than 5 stars.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> But as Lebron showed last night, 1 transcendent superstar is better than 5 stars.



LeBron's going to need to win a title before he can show that.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

The Pistons have 5 stars? Billups, Hamilton, and Wallace are the only ones as far as I can tell.

As far as the series, I have a hard time coming up with an explanation. The Cavs have played well, but the Pistons have just played a terrible series (not unlike the Bulls against the Pistons). Sometimes it just works out like that.

Bulls-Pistons should have been more competetitve. We played as poorly as I could have imagined, missing open freaking shots all over the place and throwing the ball around like a grade school team. It was disgusting. Then again, "ifs, ands, or buts" are candies and nuts.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Lebron was incredible. Now I want to see him play the Spurs.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> Lebron was incredible. Now I want to see him play the Spurs.


Wish granted!

Final analysis, imo: Cavs-Pistons shows that the Cavs are an order of magnitude better than the Bulls. Period.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Wish granted!
> 
> Final analysis, imo: Cavs-Pistons shows that the Cavs are an order of magnitude better than the Bulls. Period.


Would you have said this before the Conference final started?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> Would you have said this before the Conference final started?


No, I would have said that the Cavs were merely a nose better than the Bulls, but I'm not sure what difference that makes. Aren't the playoffs the ultimate proving grounds?

They took four in a row (and had two last-second shots to tie or win Games 1 and 2) from a team that beat the stuffing out of the Bulls. The Cavs get upgraded accordingly.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

One thing to realize about Gibson and Pavolich and the gang is that James is the kind of talent that makes the game easier for his teammates.

These guys by themselves are likely not great NBA basketball players but James is the type of talent that makes everyone around him better.

He's this generation's Magic Johnson, IMO. The Jordan comparisons are not accurate. He does not have Jordan’s game at all.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

so how about those pistons?

i have no idea what their roster looks like next year.
everyone is writing (in the detroit papers) that this particular team is done and it's time to change things up. 
so does dumars shake it up or does he keep things the same and make some minor tweaks?


----------

