# Am I alone on that ?



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

We lost Kirk and B Miller and we got Booser (plus some change – Kover etc ) in return .

I am absolutely not convinced that it will make us better. At the best, we are the same mediocrity team that use to be last season .

May be I miss something, but I am wondering why some folks are so “orgasmic” and excited about upcoming season ?


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Brad Miller is not (and never was) the threat that Boozer is. He was also reduced to a smaller role in the overall scheme last season. Kirk was a good player, but probably our most disappointing starter all season. I feel like we'll replace Kirk's production with whoever our starting SG is next season (10ppg, 4rpg, 5apg is not something you cry about replacing). Our biggest concerns last season were post presence (Booze), outside shooting (Korver, Redick, Rose, Deng all working to improve that), Coaching (Thibodeau), and Depth (we'll have at least 9 players we're not embarrassed to see on the court next season... Last year we had 6). We've addressed all of those concerns. We'll be a better team.


----------



## Dancon7 (Jan 13, 2005)

The Bulls were a better team than their record last year. They had injuries to nearly every key guy-D Rose missed camp, Ty Thomas broke his arm, Hinrich, Miller, Deng, Gibson, Johnson, and of course Noah, who sat out almost a month and the Bulls went winless during his absence. Plus, they traded Salmons and Thomas to trim salary, obviously downgrading the team. Out of all of those injuries and trades, they still made the playoffs-primarily because Derrick Rose is an offensive force. They were a 50 win team on paper in a weak Eastern Conference and had a coach that was learning on the job. Thibodeau will also be learning on the job, but I think we all feel he's going to be an upgrade in the long run.

So you add Boozer, Korver, Asik, and possibly Redick to Rose, Noah, Deng, Gibson, and James Johnson, and the Bulls are right up there with the best of the East ON PAPER. Who knows if the injury bug returns? Maybe it hits Orlando, Boston, or even Miami this year instead. The most important piece is of course Rose. If he improves his shooting-and it sounds like that's his goal this offseason, then the Bulls have a top 10 player in the league, with a bunch of solid players around him. Miami will have 4 or 5 solid players and then a big dropoff. Boston will be a year older, without Perkins for much of the year, and Orlando could be without Redick, and stuck with Vince who is pretty much through. Atlanta showed that they have no heart in the playoffs. Milwaukee is going to be tough. I'd say:

1.Miami
2.Chicago
3.Orlando
4.Milwaukee
5.Boston
6.Atlanta
7.Washington
8.New York

Not a bad offseason, and plus, we get to boo LeBron. I'll take it.


----------



## BullNuts (Jan 18, 2010)

The Bulls had to do the Hinrich trade. They would have been crucified if they weren't a player in the 2010 FA swindle. Who is really better at the 2, Hinrich 6'3 or Korver 6'7? Who is a better PF Miller or Boozer? 

The Bulls are decidedly better. They will probably lock up Miller soon anyways. They'll have some depth.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Bulls96 said:


> We lost Kirk and B Miller and we got Booser (plus some change – Kover etc ) in return .
> 
> I am absolutely not convinced that it will make us better. At the best, we are the same mediocrity team that use to be last season .
> 
> May be I miss something, but I am wondering why some folks are so “orgasmic” and excited about upcoming season ?


Really?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Boozer is ten times the player that Miller is and Korver and JJ are better than just Kirk alone.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I'm not convinced we'll be much/any better either. I'd take Kirk's defense over Korver's shooting any day since Rose can't play anything resembling D. Boozer, not a fan. He'll probably be hurt anyway like the typical Dookie in Chicago (Dung, Jay Williams...we don't exactly have good luck with them staying healthy). 

We don't have JJ yet bizkit, and most don't think we'll get him since Magic will match. We took a small step forward and that's about it.


----------



## SWIFTSLICK (Aug 22, 2009)

Aren't you forgetting that Elton Brand was here? I don't recall him being injury prone here. Typical Dookie? Are you sure, you're not just UNC biased?


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Am I surprised that there are 2 posters on here who don't think we got better? A little.

Am I surprised at who they are? Not at all.


----------



## TheDarkPrince (May 13, 2006)

The Bulls won 41 games last year with no inside scorer, no 3 point shooting and Noah missing 20+ games. Boozer fixes that lack of low post scoring. Korver (and maybe Redick) will fix the 3 point shooting. Now we need to stay healthy and imo we are easily a 50 win team.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> ... We took a small step forward and that's about it.


Thank you, that is exactly my sentiments. 

This is why I am thinking perhaps we have to wait another four years (Deng ‘s contract expiration) just in order to be a top contender in our Division.


P.S. Caseyrh , you don’t need to comment...we all know your “numbers” and affection with league elite Small Forward – Dungsimo the Reaper


----------



## SWIFTSLICK (Aug 22, 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3JPa2mvSQ4&feature=related


Baby Steps to the elevator... baby steps to the elevator...


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

Carlos Boozer, J.J. Redick, Kyle Korver >>>>>>>> Kirk Hinrich, Brad Miller, Hakim Warrick


Are you serious? The Bulls definitely improved with these three signings, and they have another $5-6m to add to their bench.

Rose
Redick
Deng/Korver
Boozer/Gibson
Noah

That's a very solid 7-man rotation. If they can add another solid ball-handler, I'll really like it. 

Please do not underestimate the kind of explosiveness their offense can have when they trot Redick and Korver out there at the same time as Rose, Boozer and Noah. The Bulls now have two of the best shooters in the game on the same team as Derrick Rose. That's a good move.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

Ironic how the two most pessimistic posters (and caseyrh haters) have the same avatar.

Say what you want about the talent on paper. When you add up the NBA 2K10 overall ratings, perhaps the current Bulls roster isn't so much better than last year's.

When you put tactics into the equation, however, the Bulls are a much better team now than last year's: 

Boozer's post presence on offense will open up cutting lanes for Deng and Rose as well as potential openings for Korver should his defender come to double team Boozer. 

Boozer's midrange shooting and experience in the pick-and-roll will increase the effectiveness of Rose in this play. 

Korver's (and possibly Redick's) shooting will mean less collapsing defenses for Rose when he beats his defender off the dribble 90% of the time, while Boozer and Noah's finishing ability at the rim also mean that Rose can either finish his own layup/dunk or pass it off to either two if a shotblocker trys to challenge him.

Those are just a few examples of the type of offensive plays that the Bulls should be able to do consistently this year -- the type of plays that were rarely possible with last year's roster.

Defensively, I have faith in Thibodeau's ability to bring the Bulls up another level. If you watched a lot of Celtics games in the playoffs, you noticed that Thibodeau was the guy walking the sidelines when they were on defense. If everyone on the Bulls commits, they are going to be fun to watch. Bulls/Bucks games are going to be low-scoring affairs.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

okay … we will come back to this subject sometimes in April 2011.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Bulls96 said:


> okay … we will come back to this subject sometimes in April 2011.


Good luck rooting against the Bulls all year. I swear I don't know why some fo you guys put yourselves in this position.

It was the same thing with BullHitter. The dude dissappeared once we made the playoffs. It's like some of you guys are more concerned with whining then you are with just rooting for the Bulls.


----------



## S.jR. (May 18, 2010)

Along with what others have stated.. I would say it helps that the #1 seed in the East could possibly be battling for an 8th seed? Toronto who was on our heels last season could very well fall way off. And I believe we have a chance to be much more consistent. We are and were young last season, but I think the leaders of this team got much better from the previous season to last and I would say they would only progress with what I believe will be much better coaching and supporting cast. Will we take the east crown? Probably not. But will we win our division? That we have a great chance of doing. I would say be hopeful, we have cap and moves to make now and possibly later.. it isn't over yet.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

I'll be disappointed if we don't win 50 games.

I'll be disappointed if we don't win our division.

I'll be disappointed if we don't win the first round of the play-offs.

I think this team can compete with ANY team in a 7 game second round series and won't be surprised AT ALL if we play in the Eastern Conference Finals.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Wynn said:


> I'll be disappointed if we don't win 50 games.
> 
> I'll be disappointed if we don't win our division.
> 
> ...


Yep.

I think we win our division and lock up at least a top 3 seed in the playoffs. That will most likeley have us facing Boston in the second round. I think we can take Boston. So I have us going to the east finals against Miami. I think Miami will be a big favorite vs us, but you never know what could happen in a 7 game series or how healthy both teams will be.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

It's something bordering on insanity to think it's not a roster upgrade. Seriously? We add a friggin' all-star, Olympic team, 20/10 guy and a deadeye shooter? Not to mention the fact the Bulls aren't done filling out their roster? And we might be _worse_?

Oi vai.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> It was the same thing with BullHitter. The dude dissappeared once we made the playoffs. It's like some of you guys are more concerned with whining then you are with just rooting for the Bulls.


casey, or should you rename yourself "mr. credibility"; that's not nice!; first off, i stayed away BECAUSE i didn't want to argue anymore about how mediocre the bulls were, point blank period, end of sentence and since the bulls didn't do ANY of what you OR i predicted no sense in posting until the smoke cleared.

btw: re: the playoffs.... they also got their *asses kicked* in the playoffs too; without a second scoring option, all rose did was suck up the shots the other two options left; bfd. what was the end result? same as when they had the "elite role players".....the "scrappy up and comers".....that's the funniest monicker i've heard on the internet yet.

also since you seem stuck on pisspoor players like josh "brokenjumpshot" childress who wasn't even a euroleague all-star, who wants to debate with a clown like you in the second place? atl wouldn't pay that scrub, now greece realizes he wasn't even worth the 7 mil or so they gave him and are willing to send his scrub-butt back to the nba.

the bulls will have an entirely NEW team in place next year. i'll comment when they appear finished with team building. as well, they're about to purge luol's "elite role playing" ass off the team too. what's to crow about? they filled one hole while creating another, and seems you believe jj redick and korver are credible options at two guard (did you really think he's better than gordon?...roflmao). boozer and the backups; sounds like a plan.....:baseldance:

so as far as credibility goes; take it to the houston rockets who you seem to believe value your stat-ho opinion. 

bbb.net doesn't need my input, and you can keep my handle out of your posts. i'll be back when i get back, until then keep your weak assed arguments with those who want to participate with your "statstically backed up and rational arguments". easy there, mr. cranky.... :horsepoop:


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> It's something bordering on insanity to think it's not a roster upgrade. Seriously? We add a friggin' all-star, Olympic team, 20/10 guy and a deadeye shooter? Not to mention the fact the Bulls aren't done filling out their roster? And we might be _worse_?
> 
> Oi vai.


It's like trying to have a conversation with kindergardners, isn't it? What's the point of even spending the time making reasonable conversation?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Wynn said:


> It's like trying to have a conversation with kindergardners, isn't it? What's the point of even spending the time making reasonable conversation?



Yeah, sometimes you just have to let their biases. Sigh.


Ooh, just noticed this was post 6,666. Neato.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> casey, or should you rename yourself "mr. credibility"; that's not nice!; first off, i stayed away BECAUSE i didn't want to argue anymore about how mediocre the bulls were, point blank period, end of sentence and since the bulls didn't do ANY of what you OR i predicted no sense in posting until the smoke cleared.
> 
> btw: re: the playoffs.... they also got their *asses kicked* in the playoffs too; without a second scoring option, all rose did was suck up the shots the other two options left; bfd. what was the end result? same as when they had the "elite role players".....the "scrappy up and comers".....that's the funniest monicker i've heard on the internet yet.
> 
> ...


You pretty much proved my point tough guy. Keep rooting against us...


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Nice to see friendly Bullhitter again.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> casey, or should you rename yourself "mr. credibility"; that's not nice!; first off, i stayed away BECAUSE i didn't want to argue anymore about how mediocre the bulls were, point blank period, end of sentence and since the bulls didn't do ANY of what you OR i predicted no sense in posting until the smoke cleared.
> 
> btw: re: the playoffs.... they also got their *asses kicked* in the playoffs too; without a second scoring option, all rose did was suck up the shots the other two options left; bfd. what was the end result? same as when they had the "elite role players".....the "scrappy up and comers".....that's the funniest monicker i've heard on the internet yet.
> 
> ...


An excellent post, BH !!!

We all miss Gordon and I am sure Kirk’s absence will be noticeable too (within first 
two months into the season).


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

SWIFTSLICK said:


> Aren't you forgetting that Elton Brand was here? I don't recall him being injury prone here. Typical Dookie? Are you sure, you're not just UNC biased?


Oh I was thinking about Brand. We've all seen what a winner he is. 32 wins in 2 years with him, and then out he went. We got rid of him before the injuries hit by a year, good riddance too. It's just pretty much a fact that Dookies don't make for good NBA players. Grant Hill? Christian Laettner? Hype and nothing. All the guys we've had, nothing worth writing home about. What a joke that school is when they are supposed to translate to the NBA.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

TheDarkPrince said:


> The Bulls won 41 games last year with no inside scorer, no 3 point shooting and Noah missing 20+ games. Boozer fixes that lack of low post scoring. Korver (and maybe Redick) will fix the 3 point shooting. Now we need to stay healthy and imo we are easily a 50 win team.


The Bulls were easily a 50 win team last year if they hadn't gutted the team mid-season and if they'd stayed healthy. Losing Salmons, Tyrus, etc hurt a lot. So, now you're saying that after having no SG, but replacing a decent PF in Taj with Boozer, we're a 50 win team. Looks like a lateral movement to me.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Damian Necronamous said:


> Carlos Boozer, J.J. Redick, Kyle Korver >>>>>>>> Kirk Hinrich, Brad Miller, Hakim Warrick.


Well, now you're wrong there, on several accounts. 

#1. Redick is NOT here yet, and it's expected to be matched. 

#2. It's not just Hinrich, Miller and Warrick. It's Hinrich, Miller, Tyrus Thomas, John Salmons, etc. I consider ALL of the lost players as a subtraction because they were part of this stupid FA plan, which I knew was going to be a god damn joke all along. Carlos Freaking Boozer, and Kyle Freaking Korver. Yipteedoo! Hinrich alone is better than both due to his complimentary D to Rose's complete lack of it.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

jnrjr79 said:


> It's something bordering on insanity to think it's not a roster upgrade. Seriously? We add a friggin' all-star, Olympic team, 20/10 guy and a deadeye shooter? Not to mention the fact the Bulls aren't done filling out their roster? And we might be _worse_?
> 
> Oi vai.


We have no SG. We have no shot blocker. We have no defender in the back court. This team may have gained a 3pt shooter and an offensive-minded PF, but we lost Tyrus's shot blocking, Salmons offense, Kirk's defense. We don't know how Thibs' scheme will work. We also, as I said before, have no SG since Korver is another SF. So right now, no, our roster isn't necessarily a lot better than it was at it's best last year, before they started shipping guys out for this FA bullcrap. We had a good team last year, till they dumped guys right and left to try to get one of the sissies down in Miami. Unless it really gels and Rose learns to play D, then it could be much the same as last year. A playoff team but nothing special...we'd have gotten out of the 1st round and a higher seed, if not for those trades.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> We have no SG.


We have Korver, signed Reddick to an offer sheet and have either 8 or 15 mil to fill that gap if we don't get Reddick.

And BTW way we didn't have a shooting guard at the end of last season either (Hinrich is a big pg forced to play out of position because of Rose).



> We have no shot blocker.


Really? We have two very good ones (Gibson and Noah) Deng is a good shotblocker also for a sf.




> We have no defender in the back court.


not yet, but we still got a lot of money to spend...



> This team may have gained a 3pt shooter and an offensive-minded PF, but we lost Tyrus's shot blocking, Salmons offense, Kirk's defense.


Not just a shooter, one of the best shooters. Something that was a huge weakness for us. And provided we get Reddick that is now a tremendous strength of ours.

And not just an offensive minded pf. One of the best rebounding pf's in the game and a very good and extremeley efficient interior scorer. Something we have been soreley lacking for... (well forever I think)

TT was a nightmare, Kirk was a huge liability offensiveley, Salmons was terrible for us.




> We don't know how Thibs' scheme will work.


We know that it worked for the celtics.



> We also, as I said before, have no SG since Korver is another SF.


Korver is actually a SG according to espn http://espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=2011
trades


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i think the bulls are much better in the post...boozer can score down there is a very good rebounder, has good face up game and can play p'n'r ball very well, it puts taj on the bench where he belongs and CB becomes the bulls 2nd best player

on the perimeter not at all , quite the opposite, they lose their starting 2 and best perimeter defender and their backup pg in 1 fell swoop.

its not like kirk is pete myers shooting the ball, he is above avg.(83rd all time in nba 3point % 9 spots ahead of larry bird) redick and korver are better from 3 but kirk has them beat at almost everything else, better athlete , handle, passer, defender than either of them....he is no superstar but the bulls are worse off for him not being there.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> We have no SG. We have no shot blocker. We have no defender in the back court. This team may have gained a 3pt shooter and an offensive-minded PF, but we lost Tyrus's shot blocking, Salmons offense, Kirk's defense. We don't know how Thibs' scheme will work. We also, as I said before, have no SG since Korver is another SF. So right now, no, our roster isn't necessarily a lot better than it was at it's best last year, before they started shipping guys out for this FA bullcrap. We had a good team last year, till they dumped guys right and left to try to get one of the sissies down in Miami. Unless it really gels and Rose learns to play D, then it could be much the same as last year. A playoff team but nothing special...we'd have gotten out of the 1st round and a higher seed, if not for those trades.



This is what's weird. Your post is just blatantly factually wrong. I don't understand. We have Kyle Korver. We may get Redick. If not, we will surely sign another SG. Acting like the current roster is the final roster is just dishonest.

Noah is a decent shot blocker. Boozer is a competent defensive player. I have no idea on Asik.

You lost all credibility when you complained of losing Tyrus freaking Thomas.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I put this in another thread but will say it again: The Bulls are shaping up to be the most well-rounded teams in the East, and one of the most balanced in the entire NBA.

We have almost every critical gap filled by somebody:

- Elite slasher / shot creator (Rose)

- Elite post-up presence (Boozer)

- Elite 3-pt shooting (Korver, maybe Reddick)

- Elite rebounding (Noah, Boozer, Gibson, Deng)

- Anticipated elite defense (Noah, Gibson, Deng; Thibodeau's schemes; potentially Asik and another defensive wing like Brewer)

- Anticipated very good passing and ball movement (Rose, Boozer, Noah; Thibodeau's emphasis here)

Is there anything I"m missing? I really don't anticipate that we'll be lacking anything on this team. The biggest thing is that we really could've used another star presence. There is a huge burden on D-Rose. He is our only perimeter player who can create shots. Unless James Johnson surprises the hell out of us, that isn't about to change. Let's just hope D-Rose is up to the challenge.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

yodurk said:


> I put this in another thread but will say it again: The Bulls are shaping up to be the most well-rounded teams in the East, and one of the most balanced in the entire NBA.
> 
> We have almost every critical gap filled by somebody:
> 
> ...



Perimeter defense to me seems now like the most glaring deficiency.

We should be a ridiculously elite rebounding team.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> i think the bulls are much better in the post...boozer can score down there is a very good rebounder, has good face up game and can play p'n'r ball very well, it puts taj on the bench where he belongs and CB becomes the bulls 2nd best player
> 
> on the perimeter not at all , quite the opposite, they lose their starting 2 and best perimeter defender and their backup pg in 1 fell swoop.
> 
> its not like kirk is pete myers shooting the ball, he is above avg.(83rd all time in nba 3point % 9 spots ahead of larry bird) redick and korver are better from 3 but kirk has them beat at almost everything else, better athlete , handle, passer, defender than either of them....he is no superstar but the bulls are worse off for him not being there.


I like Hinrich.

But all he could do scoring wise was 11 points on 41% fg shooting in 33.5 minutes per game.

Reddick meanwhile averaged 10 points in 22 minutes on 44% fg shooting.

I'm not saying Reddick is better but he is a much better scorer/shooter.

And we really needed a shooter. It was something we were soreley lacking. So when you look at our backcourt and say we lost Hinrich so our backcourt got worse. You have to realize that while we may have gotten a bit worse from a talent perspective. Our offense is likeley always going to have a phenomenal shooter on the court (provided we land Reddick) between Reddick and Korver.

That will make us a very tough team to defend against.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

jnrjr79 said:


> This is what's weird. Your post is just blatantly factually wrong. I don't understand. We have Kyle Korver. We may get Redick. If not, we will surely sign another SG. Acting like the current roster is the final roster is just dishonest.
> 
> Noah is a decent shot blocker. Boozer is a competent defensive player. I have no idea on Asik.
> 
> You lost all credibility when you complained of losing Tyrus freaking Thomas.


No, there is nothing "blatantly factually wrong" about my post. We don't have a SG. Korver is a SF, and a one dimensional one at that. People bitched we didn't have a pure SG, well we still don't. Kirk was more of a SG than Korver. We don't have Redick yet. I'm looking at what we DO have, not bull**** speculation like you're doing that we will sign a high quality SG and/or Redick. I'm comparing our roster AS-IS to what it was before the gutting started last year.

Noah is decent, nothing special. Boozer isn't much on D at all, or at least hasn't been. 

Tyrus was a shot blocking threat. His first 3 years shot blocking stats are 3/4 of Dwight Howard's (~300 vs ~400), in a lot less minutes. Losing Tyrus hurts your D due to losing his presence as a shot blocker, since he makes people alter their shots a lot and is a great eraser. He needs to get his head on straight, but losing him did hurt. Whether mr credibility mod wants to think so or not is irrelevant.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Da Grinch said:


> i think the bulls are much better in the post...boozer can score down there is a very good rebounder, has good face up game and can play p'n'r ball very well, it puts taj on the bench where he belongs and CB becomes the bulls 2nd best player
> 
> on the perimeter not at all , quite the opposite, they lose their starting 2 and best perimeter defender and their backup pg in 1 fell swoop.
> 
> its not like kirk is pete myers shooting the ball, he is above avg.(83rd all time in nba 3point % 9 spots ahead of larry bird) redick and korver are better from 3 but kirk has them beat at almost everything else, better athlete , handle, passer, defender than either of them....he is no superstar but the bulls are worse off for him not being there.


Exactly.


----------



## Phill23 (Oct 15, 2002)

The Bulls are better but not 10 games or more better. They still need a SG that can create his own shot and some depth off the bench.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> No, there is nothing "blatantly factually wrong" about my post. We don't have a SG. Korver is a SF, and a one dimensional one at that. People bitched we didn't have a pure SG, well we still don't. Kirk was more of a SG than Korver. We don't have Redick yet. I'm looking at what we DO have, not bull**** speculation like you're doing that we will sign a high quality SG and/or Redick. I'm comparing our roster AS-IS to what it was before the gutting started last year.



Korver is a SG. But, continue with the reality distortion field...


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

jnrjr79 said:


> Korver is a SG. But, continue with the reality distortion field...


http://www.nba.com/playerfile/kyle_korver/

Looks like it says FORWARD-guard there. Not guard-forward as some do. He's more of a forward than guard, period. Kirk is more of a SG than he is. Neither one of them is a pure SG, which is what we lacked. Kirk can at least play defense and handle the ball. Korver is a shooter, period. I guess for what he does, it doesn't make a difference if he's a SG or a SF, since he isn't gonna handle the ball or D up anyway. So he's a 3pt shooter on the wing, and that's about it. Since both SG and SF are on the wing, it's irrelevant. But we still have no real SG, whether you wanna call Korver one or not.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> http://www.nba.com/playerfile/kyle_korver/
> 
> Looks like it says FORWARD-guard there. Not guard-forward as some do. He's more of a forward than guard, period. Kirk is more of a SG than he is. Neither one of them is a pure SG, which is what we lacked. Kirk can at least play defense and handle the ball. Korver is a shooter, period. I guess for what he does, it doesn't make a difference if he's a SG or a SF, since he isn't gonna handle the ball or D up anyway. So he's a 3pt shooter on the wing, and that's about it. Since both SG and SF are on the wing, it's irrelevant. But we still have no real SG, whether you wanna call Korver one or not.



If it's irrelevant, why are you arguing the point?


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

jnrjr79 said:


> If it's irrelevant, why are you arguing the point?


Because he's not a starting-caliber actual SG, which is what I meant when I said we didn't have a SG. My point about irrelevance, was simply that what the actual position you wanna call him is irrelevant, due to him being one dimensional at whatever position you actually DO play him at. He's a shooter, and that's it. He's not going to defend either position very well, and isn't gonna creat his own shot off the dribble very well. He's gonna hang around the 3 point line and fire 3s, and that's about it. I like the addition of him as a shooter, but lets not pretend he's gonna give us much else, and he's a 6th-man type, not a starter. There's a reason why in 7 years he's started a total of 103 games (less than 20% of his career games). There's also a reason why over half of his career shots were 3 pointers. He's the definition of a career role player who sits on the wing to shoot 3s....for that role, it's irrelevant what his position is classified as. 

Bottom line? We have no SG on the roster. We have a 6th man that is a forward first, guard second, and he's not a starter caliber player. Otherwise, nothing at all. So you'd be putting a guy that is NOT a natural SG, or a starter either for that matter, as the starting SG, and trying to make do if you went with as-is. As I said before, I'm not going to speculate that we're going to land someone any better that is already proven either. I'm analyzing the roster as it is right now. Better/deeper in the front court, and much weaker (incomplete with no depth at either position or even a starting SG) in the back court.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Oh and one final point here. People bitch about Hinrich's stats here. Well Hinrich is a career 38% 3pt shooter. Korver is 41%. NOT that much difference, for a guy that is a 3pt shooter only compared to a defensive specialist that also plays the point. Also, in Korver's stint as a starter, he was a whopping 11 ppg guy.....you know, the same #s that Kirk put up the last 3 years. Hinrich was a 16 ppg guy as well, excluding his rookie year, one down year, and then since Rose came. Even if Korver was going to be pushed into the starting SG role, it'd be a net negative big time.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Hell Reinsdorff himself even came right out and said "if we get a SG" we'd be better than Miami. Obviously he doesn't think we have a SG either.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Because he's not a starting-caliber actual SG, which is what I meant when I said we didn't have a SG. My point about irrelevance, was simply that what the actual position you wanna call him is irrelevant, due to him being one dimensional at whatever position you actually DO play him at. He's a shooter, and that's it. He's not going to defend either position very well, and isn't gonna creat his own shot off the dribble very well. He's gonna hang around the 3 point line and fire 3s, and that's about it. I like the addition of him as a shooter, but lets not pretend he's gonna give us much else, and he's a 6th-man type, not a starter. There's a reason why in 7 years he's started a total of 103 games (less than 20% of his career games). There's also a reason why over half of his career shots were 3 pointers. He's the definition of a career role player who sits on the wing to shoot 3s....for that role, it's irrelevant what his position is classified as.
> 
> Bottom line? We have no SG on the roster. We have a 6th man that is a forward first, guard second, and he's not a starter caliber player. Otherwise, nothing at all. So you'd be putting a guy that is NOT a natural SG, or a starter either for that matter, as the starting SG, and trying to make do if you went with as-is. As I said before, I'm not going to speculate that we're going to land someone any better that is already proven either. I'm analyzing the roster as it is right now. Better/deeper in the front court, and much weaker (incomplete with no depth at either position or even a starting SG) in the back court.



Gotcha. If your point is that we have no starting-caliber SG, rather than no SG at all, that's fair. I also doubt Korver can hold down the 2 full-time and would like to see the Bulls sign someone who has a more complete game. Korver will be a great 2/3 3-point threat off the bench for 20-30 minutes per night, but I'd like to see Redick and a perimeter defender signed as well.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Oh and one final point here. People bitch about Hinrich's stats here. Well Hinrich is a career 38% 3pt shooter. Korver is 41%. NOT that much difference, for a guy that is a 3pt shooter only compared to a defensive specialist that also plays the point. Also, in Korver's stint as a starter, he was a whopping 11 ppg guy.....you know, the same #s that Kirk put up the last 3 years. Hinrich was a 16 ppg guy as well, excluding his rookie year, one down year, and then since Rose came. Even if Korver was going to be pushed into the starting SG role, it'd be a net negative big time.



Hinrich is absolutely a more complete player than Korver. 

Still, the Bulls have money left to burn and have made a massive, massive upgrade at PF. I'd take my chances with how the roster pans out by the start of the season vs. what we had last year.


----------



## BullNuts (Jan 18, 2010)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Because he's not a starting-caliber actual SG, which is what I meant when I said we didn't have a SG. My point about irrelevance, was simply that what the actual position you wanna call him is irrelevant, due to him being one dimensional at whatever position you actually DO play him at. He's a shooter, and that's it. He's not going to defend either position very well, and isn't gonna creat his own shot off the dribble very well. He's gonna hang around the 3 point line and fire 3s, and that's about it. I like the addition of him as a shooter, but lets not pretend he's gonna give us much else, and he's a 6th-man type, not a starter. There's a reason why in 7 years he's started a total of 103 games (less than 20% of his career games). There's also a reason why over half of his career shots were 3 pointers. He's the definition of a career role player who sits on the wing to shoot 3s....for that role, it's irrelevant what his position is classified as.
> 
> Bottom line? We have no SG on the roster. We have a 6th man that is a forward first, guard second, and he's not a starter caliber player. Otherwise, nothing at all. So you'd be putting a guy that is NOT a natural SG, or a starter either for that matter, as the starting SG, and trying to make do if you went with as-is. As I said before, I'm not going to speculate that we're going to land someone any better that is already proven either. I'm analyzing the roster as it is right now. Better/deeper in the front court, and much weaker (incomplete with no depth at either position or even a starting SG) in the back court.


Simply stated: Korver is a role player shooter for the 2/3 off the bench, tis all. The Bulls don't appear done. 

The real shame is the Bulls were hoodwinked by the unmentionable ones and gave away Hinrich for squat.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Yeah if we were talking SG at all, Rose could play that. But he's more of a PG, just like Korver is more of a SF, and those are the roles they're better suited for playing. If we get Brewer, Redick and Korver, that would work for me. No star SG in the Jordan/Vince mold, which is what I'd love to get, but those guys aren't exactly common. That roster would be decent, but still nothing compared to some teams. Pretty soon it won't matter, since the Thunder are going to dominate in the near future if it works out as I anticipate (them keeping guys and they continue to develop as they should...I love that roster).


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

BullNuts said:


> Simply stated: Korver is a role player shooter for the 2/3 off the bench, tis all. The Bulls don't appear done.
> 
> The real shame is the Bulls were hoodwinked by the unmentionable ones and gave away Hinrich for squat.


Yep, the 3 little piglets down in Miami.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

In hind-sight, it would have been nice to keep Kirk and draft someone like James Anderson or Dominique Jones. We could have still signed Korver and Asik, maybe keep Acie Law as back-up PG. If we thought we had a chance at LeBron/Wade/Bosh, though, we HAD to go for it.

I wonder what this roster would have done:

Rose/Acie Law
Hinrich/Dominique Jones
Deng/Korver/James Johnson
Boozer/Gibson
Noah/Miller/Asik

As is, we still look like we could be:

Rose/Acie Law
Redick/Brewer/Korver
Deng/Korver/James Johnson
Boozer/Gibson
Noah/Miller/Asik

I'm not sure Redick/Brewer is too much of a step down from Hinrich/Draft Pick. If anything, Hinrich is a more complete player than the options we're looking at bringing in.


----------



## BullNuts (Jan 18, 2010)

I'm not sure how much we'll miss Hinrich when the 3's start raining. It will be interesting.

Since we don't have a star SG. I'd just as soon have a 3 headed monster that can hit the 3. Hinrich and Pargo were really a downer when it came to being consistent threats from downtown.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Seriously, the issue was not lossing KH but lossing a player like anderson who would have been the perfect SG to match with Rose. Really we lost two SG's not one and that is what made my blood boil? 

david


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

giusd said:


> Seriously, the issue was not lossing KH but lossing a player like anderson who would have been the perfect SG to match with Rose. Really we lost two SG's not one and that is what made my blood boil?
> 
> david


Would you have passed on what seemed to be a VERY good possibility at LBJ or Wade? I think Reinsdorf and company started listening to the press and it got the better of them. Still, I think I'd have made the same moves as the FO in this circumstance.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I am old and well i guess i never thooght we had a chance to get james and imho basketball players win games and not cap space??? Just saying. KH and James Anderson would be very helpful for us next year??

david


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

giusd said:


> I am old and well i guess i never thooght we had a chance to get james and imho basketball players win games and not cap space??? Just saying. KH and James Anderson would be very helpful for us next year??
> 
> david


Well I'm not real old yet, but I didn't think there was much chance of either of the big 2 either. I knew all along that we'd miss out on them, and be stuck with no SG or draft pick. Reddick, Brewer and Korver do help make up for the loss of Kirk, but what about the draft pick that everyone is neglecting, besides you of course? Considering Korver is the only sure thing, and he's not as good as Kirk, so far it's a big downgrade due to that trade.


----------



## BullsBaller (Oct 6, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Yeah if we were talking SG at all, Rose could play that. But he's more of a PG, just like Korver is more of a SF, and those are the roles they're better suited for playing. If we get Brewer, Redick and Korver, that would work for me. No star SG in the Jordan/Vince mold, which is what I'd love to get, but those guys aren't exactly common. That roster would be decent, but still nothing compared to some teams. *Pretty soon it won't matter, since the Thunder are going to dominate in the near future if it works out as I anticipate (them keeping guys and they continue to develop as they should...I love that roster*).


Do you really think they will be able to resign all that talent? OKC is a small market. I ask b/c I know they had Harden come off the bench and was thinking about exploring the option to getting him. Would it be possible? Man that team drafts well!


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

BullsBaller said:


> Do you really think they will be able to resign all that talent? OKC is a small market. I ask b/c I know they had Harden come off the bench and was thinking about exploring the option to getting him. Would it be possible? Man that team drafts well!


Well, guys like Nick Collison will likely not be retained (he's gone after this year, unless they resign him cheap...part of that would hinge upon Mullens and Aldrich not working out fast enough/good enough). Otherwise, if you look at it, here's the main guys:

PG - Westbrook - only PG, dynamic, gotta be kept
SG - Sefolosha, Harden - only one retained eventually unless Thabs is kept cheap. Depends on what they need IMO, if they need the D of Thabs or the O of Harden, or if one becomes significantly better.
SF - Durant, obviously.
PF - Green, though a bit of a tweener forward. Personally, I'd like to see Mullens here.
C - They have a few lol. 


If they progress right, this is the lineup I'd hope for if I'm a fan/owner/coach:

Westbrook - Maynor
Harden - Cook
Durant - Sefolosha
Mullens
Aldrich - Pleiss

Sefolosha as the 6th man, though he may be the odd man out here. They have all the high picks/stars that will (expect to) get paid big in Westbrook, Harden, Durant and Green. Aldrich is middle of the road. The rest should all be much cheaper. If they win (as they should), they'll have finances to retain guys. If they don't, they'll lose guys right and left. That's a VERY young, talented group of guys that compliments eachother perfectly and should want to resign there. I see Nick Collison being the odd man out first, along with Jeff Green, and maybe one of Harden/Sefolosha. Green is undersized and overpaid for his production. A measely 5.8 rebounds per game, 14 ppg, .6 blocks per game, 1.0 steals, and a negative assists to turnover ratio. When it comes time to resign him, he'll likely think due to draft positioning (5th overall) that he deserves more than his production warrants.


----------



## BullNuts (Jan 18, 2010)

How would we look had we kept Gordon and Hinrich and not fallen for Wade's trap?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

BullNuts said:


> How would we look had we kept Gordon and Hinrich and not fallen for Wade's trap?



We'd look terrible. Had we kept both Gordon and Hinrich, we would not have been able to sign even Boozer, let alone Korver and the other guys with whom the roster will be filled out.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

BullNuts said:


> How would we look had we kept Gordon and Hinrich and not fallen for Wade's trap?


About the same as the mediocre team that won 41 games a few years ago. We likely wouldn't of had the cap space to sign Boozer.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

jnrjr79 said:


> We'd look terrible. Had we kept both Gordon and Hinrich, we would not have been able to sign even Boozer, let alone Korver and the other guys with whom the roster will be filled out.


Well, idk about terrible, but it would've been worse if we had Ben. Hinrich and Boozer = good team. Hinrich and Gordon = 3 guard rotation, with 2 of them playing no D, but we'd have a shooter in Gordon. I was really glad when we got rid of him, and still am....and there was no dookie bias here, I was all for drafting him. I just got sick of his inability to do anything but shoot over the years. Turnovers when dribbling, no defense, a size mismatch every night, etc. 

Overall, if we end up with Brewer and Redick, along with Korver and Boozer, we'll be a better team than with Kirk and Gordon by far. If we don't, and it's just Korver and Boozer and scrubs, then we'd be pretty much the same as if we had Gordon and Hinrich instead.


----------

