# 2014: Kevin Love?



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Increasingly, it appears the Bulls are trying to stack their deals up in a way that they can make another run at taking salary in a trade or entering the free agent market in 2014. 

Then I ran into this article by Wojnarowski:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba--kevin-love-losing-patience-with-timberwolves--losing.html



> In an interview with Yahoo! Sports, Love urged Minnesota's management to acquire the necessary talent to make the franchise a contender. If the Timberwolves don't start winning this season, Love isn't sure how long he'll want to be a part of Minnesota's future.
> "My patience is not high," Love said. "Would yours be, especially when I'm a big proponent of greatness surrounding itself with greatness? All these [Team USA] guys seem to have great players around them.
> "It's tough seeing all these guys that are young and older who have all played in the playoffs. When they start talking about that, I have nothing to talk about. If I don’t make the playoffs next year I don’t know what will happen."



In 2014, Love will be entering the last year of his deal and could be in the position to force Minny to sign & trade him or risk nothing in return. (We have seen this scenario of late, eh?)

So, my question is, would you make a run at Love? In this scenario, you'd have Love and Rose as your two max guys. Love would be your #2 star (i.e. your "Pippen," as Hoodey would say). Noah would be playing center next to him, one would presume. That would be your core.

I suppose the question then becomes, if your team is going to be Rose, Love, and Noah, who can you deal for Love in that scenario? His deal runs until 2015, so you can't sign him outright. Potentially you have the Bobcats pick, Boozer (who I guess would be an expiring), Asik (also an expiring, if matched), perhaps a signed & traded Deng, the rights to Mirotic, and potentially Taj if he is re-signed.

Anyway, is something like this viable? If so, is it desirable? Is Rose + Love a sufficient 1-2 combination to win you an NBA championship?

Love's numbers are obviously amazing, but I do tend to think he benefits from being the best player on a bad team. That said, he would easily be the Bulls' 2nd best player by a wide margin. I would expect his production to drop a bit on the Bulls. His rebounding and garbage points would not be as strong next to Noah.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> Increasingly, it appears the Bulls are trying to stack their deals up in a way that they can make another run at taking salary in a trade or entering the free agent market in 2014.
> 
> Then I ran into this article by Wojnarowski:
> 
> ...


No, no, no no, please no.

Love is a below the rim powerless forward who shoots 44.8%. When you average 26 PPG on 44.8%, you're actually hurting your team. 

I am though, not surprised that the people who have liked the players on this team from 04-present would like Love and vastly overrate him.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> I am though, not surprised that the people who have liked the players on this team from 04-present would like Love and vastly overrate him.



Nobody has even weighed in yet on whether it's a good decision. I'm glad to see you've already decided how they will vote, though. Very constructive!


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> Nobody has even weighed in yet on whether it's a good decision. I'm glad to see you've already decided how they will vote, though. Very constructive!


It is not necessary for their to be any discussion here, clearly. He already knows it all!


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> No, no, no no, please no.
> 
> Love is a below the rim powerless forward who shoots 44.8%. When you average 26 PPG on 44.8%, you're actually hurting your team.
> 
> I am though, not surprised that the people who have liked the players on this team from 04-present would like Love and vastly overrate him.



Anyway, to get to the substance of it, I am of two minds on Kevin Love. His numbers can be off-the-charts, but I worry he's the classic guy putting up huge numbers on a bad team.

His FG% is an issue, I suppose. However, the fact that scoring 26 PPG at a clip of 45% is "actually hurting your team" is news to Kobe Bryant and his 5 NBA championships. 

In any event, Love's TS% is a respectable .568, leaps and bounds above your boy Cousins at .499 (and Love is higher in just regular FG% at .457 vs. .439). Further, is any of his (real or perceived) inefficiency ameliorated if he is not the primary scoring threat on the team? Or, is he just going to score less but maintain the same levels of inefficiency? It seems like being paired with Derrick could take a lot of pressure off of Love to try to be more than he is in the scoring department.

The guy is a tremendous rebounder and would mesh very well with Rose if the Bulls were inclined to push the ball and play at a fast pace. That said, fast-paced offenses often sputter in the playoffs, so marrying yourself to that style of play may not be the way to go. Love, Noah, and Rose could certainly play an impressive up-and-down game.

For those who are lovers of PER (of which I am not, particularly), Love's is the 5th highest in the league, behind only LBJ, Paul, Wade, and Durant, and above the likes of Howard, Ginobli, Griffin, Rose, and Westbrook.

Anyway, Love may have inflated numbers or be otherwise overrated, but I suspect your aversion to him is based at least in part upon your general disfavor of the power forward position. Is that the case? It just seems bizarre to me that you would fixate on Cousins or DeRozan (clearly inferior players, IMO) as the answer for the Bulls, but then laugh off Love as an interesting possible trade target.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> Anyway, to get to the substance of it, I am of two minds on Kevin Love. His numbers can be off-the-charts, but I worry he's the classic guy putting up huge numbers on a bad team.
> 
> His FG% is an issue, I suppose. However, the fact that scoring 26 PPG at a clip of 45% is "actually hurting your team" is news to Kobe Bryant and his 5 NBA championships.


Let's delve into what you think you know. Now, that was a snide comment, but we see there isn't much substance behind it.

1999-00 - A guy named Shaq scores 29.7 PPG on 57.4% FG
2000-01 - Oh, there's that Shaq guy again. 28.7 PPG on 57.2% FG
2001-02 - Wouldn't you know it, some dude named SHAQ showing up with the final year of probably one of the two or three most dominant three year stretches in NBA history. 27.2 PPG on 57.9% FG
2008-09 - Bynum and Gasol combine to score 33.2 PPG. NEITHER player shoots lower than 56%
2009-10 - Bynum and Gasol score 33.3 PPG combined. Neither player shoots less than 53%

This is you wanting to speak as if you have credibility because you say something, and not covering your tracks.

Kobe Bryant did it. He also had five years of some of the best low post scoring ever in terms of PPG and efficiency. So, what are you saying? We're getting Kevin Love AND Shaq? Because if that's the case, I'm all in. Give me 2000 Shaq and I'll take Kevin Love's uncle on this team. 

You clearly demonstrate a lack of understanding on Kobe Bryant's career. He was always center dependent. You know what guards/swings haven't been center dependent in terms of needing the insurance of a low post scorer down there to give them the insurance so that they could play around and be Mr. shiny superstar? 

Michael Jordan
Lebron James
Dwyane Wade (because by then Shaq was hardly dominant, but to be fair on the other side, he was only that kind of player for one season and was greatly aided by officials)
Magic Johnson in 87 and 88 only

That's it. Most guys, including Rose, just can't get their teams enough easy buckets and pace an offense without the help of a guy like that down low. Watch MJ and you'll understand what I'm saying.

Now, I'll cover my bases. Am I claiming that no team has ever won without this approach? No. There have been plenty, and they can be explained away using various exceptions. But for the most part, your best PPG guy shooting 44% is generally bad and needs substantial insurance. 

We like to think of Kobe as this guy who drove his team to titles by being a one-man wrecking machine like Michael. That's not the case. Michael never needed at least 27 PPG on at least 53% FG from a player down low.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> Anyway, to get to the substance of it, I am of two minds on Kevin Love. His numbers can be off-the-charts, but I worry he's the classic guy putting up huge numbers on a bad team.
> 
> His FG% is an issue, I suppose. However, the fact that scoring 26 PPG at a clip of 45% is "actually hurting your team" is news to Kobe Bryant and his 5 NBA championships.
> 
> ...


And by the way, you've fixated on a lot of terrible crap. See "The Chicago Bulls for the last 9 years."

Cousins and DeRozan are guys I said I'd look at. I clearly did hedge this by saying that I don't have the resources to know that they aren't crazy or lazy or whatever. Clearly someone would have to figure that out.

But you'll never convince me that John Paxson REALLY sat down and went through all the possibilities of #2 guys he could try to bring in this summer and then said, "you know what, after combing the league for a #2 and looking at everyone and all of the possibilities, I think Kirk Hinrich is our best bet this summer." He was ALWAYS going to play it safe and get Hinrich.

DeRozan and Cousins are clearly potential guys. So if you get them and they bust in what would be vastly different roles for the Bulls, you're going to have a player less effective than Love. But if they make good on their potential in this new setting with Rose as their guide, they do have the physical talent to be massive threats against playoff teams late in the process. Love does not. 

This is the same philosophical debate that the two sides of Bulls fandom have been having for years. 

You're going to have to buy low on a guy who has massive potential and hasn't made it happen yet. Let me ask you. If DeRozan had already made good, do you think we'd have a chance in hell at getting him.

Face it man. Were you in a position to overrule Jerry Krause in 86, we never would have gotten Scottie Pippen. We both know it.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Hoodey said:


> We like to think of Kobe as this guy who drove his team to titles by being a one-man wrecking machine like Michael. That's not the case. Michael never needed at least 27 PPG on at least 53% FG from a player down low.


The Bulls didn't win titles because Jordan was a one-man wrecking machine. The Bulls won titles because the rest of the roster was also championship-quality when the 90's rolled around. You know better than I do that the Bulls in 94 had a legitimate shot at making the Finals.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> Let's delve into what you think you know. Now, that was a snide comment, but we see there isn't much substance behind it.
> 
> 1999-00 - A guy named Shaq scores 29.7 PPG on 57.4% FG
> 2000-01 - Oh, there's that Shaq guy again. 28.7 PPG on 57.2% FG
> ...



Ha. Way to veer way off on a tangent by engaging in a lame Bryant vs. Jordan argument. 

So, your point is you need multiple stars to win? Thanks for the brilliant revelation. 

Also, I've been clear that this discussion is Love as the #2 guy, not the #1. To support your argument, you distort things by trying to act as though I'm advocating for Love as a #1. It's transparent.

Also, thanks for the loving condescension re: watching Jordan. You're right, never heard of the guy. Maybe you can send me a YouTube link to some highlight videos?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> And by the way, you've fixated on a lot of terrible crap. See "The Chicago Bulls for the last 9 years."


These sentences don't mean anything.



> Cousins and DeRozan are guys I said I'd look at. I clearly did hedge this by saying that I don't have the resources to know that they aren't crazy or lazy or whatever. Clearly someone would have to figure that out.



Yes, that's Hoodey. He'd much rather just shit all over current management than actually offer any proposed solutions. When pressed to do so, he'll only "hedge" and acknowledge someone else would have to look into the matter.

This is a site devoted principally to discussing the Bulls and how they could be improved. Everyone by now understands that you hate many of the decisions made in the last decade or so. What you're light on is any constructive commentary on how to improve the Bulls going forward. Criticizing the past is easy. It's child's play. Many likely agree with you that a shakeup is needed. Still, when a new topic is started on how to improve the team, you simply resort to lazy, reductionist arguments about the past rather than say what you would do. I suppose if Cousins and DeRozan are your biggest ideas, that is unsurprising.



> But you'll never convince me that John Paxson REALLY sat down and went through all the possibilities of #2 guys he could try to bring in this summer and then said, "you know what, after combing the league for a #2 and looking at everyone and all of the possibilities, I think Kirk Hinrich is our best bet this summer."


He probably didn't, as it's Gar Forman's job.



> He was ALWAYS going to play it safe and get Hinrich.


Hinrich or something in that vein, yes. I agree and have observed that it's an uninspiring move. I doubt we disagree on this. What I did add was that it seems like things are being set up to make a run at things in 2014. I'd like to have a discussion about those potential targets, if you don't mind. Feel free to pursue your agenda in other threads where it's relevant.



> DeRozan and Cousins are clearly potential guys. So if you get them and they bust in what would be vastly different roles for the Bulls, you're going to have a player less effective than Love. But if they make good on their potential in this new setting with Rose as their guide, they do have the physical talent to be massive threats against playoff teams late in the process. Love does not.


I might agree re: Cousins in terms of the "physical talent" for the playoffs thing. He is a physical beast. However, he puts up worse numbers than the guy you claim is inefficient. (Gee, didn't address that, did you?) I'm simply pointing out that your own metric works against you.



> This is the same philosophical debate that the two sides of Bulls fandom have been having for years.


This simplistic point of view is the chief issue I would take with your approach to posting. I'm not sure there are only two "sides." Each move has its own proponents and detractors, and those camps are not always the same from move to move.



> You're going to have to buy low on a guy who has massive potential and hasn't made it happen yet. Let me ask you. If DeRozan had already made good, do you think we'd have a chance in hell at getting him.


Why do we have to buy low? Miami didn't buy low. Boston didn't buy low. L.A. didn't buy low. San Antonio is maybe the only team off the top of my head in recent years that won a bunch of chips through acquiring really unexpected talent.



> Face it man. Were you in a position to overrule Jerry Krause in 86, we never would have gotten Scottie Pippen. We both know it.


This is just stupid. This kind of acrimonious crap serves no purpose other than to destroy good will on the board. But next time I have a time machine available, I'll hop in it and ask 7 year-old me what he'd like to do vis a vis acquiring Pippen. I'm sure it'll be enlightening and prove that your hypothetical isn't just an example of being needlessly argumentative and childish.

We both know it.


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

I'm not Love's biggest fan but I'd take him every day of the week. A stretch 4 would do wonders for this team and especially for Rose.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> Ha. Way to veer way off on a tangent by engaging in a lame Bryant vs. Jordan argument.
> 
> So, your point is you need multiple stars to win? Thanks for the brilliant revelation.
> 
> ...


No, my point was that this:

"His FG% is an issue, I suppose. However, the fact that scoring 26 PPG at a clip of 45% is "actually hurting your team" is news to *Kobe Bryant and his 5 NBA championships."*

Is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Well, dumbest or most dishonest. Kobe Bryant is just a terrible example there. You can't cite 45% not being a problem and then go on to discuss a guy who played with Shaq and Gasol/Bynum. It's just f-ing terrible. 

And just kind of the tone of your posts. It's fine. I'm all good with it. But then when you start ripping my posting style and not my ideas, it's a little hypocritical. But hey, you're "Jnr." You're a great guy to these people so you can speak to people however you want, and if they dare return in kind, well they're just a bad guy lol.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> These sentences don't mean anything.


Of course you get to assign lack of meaning. I mean, you are a moderator, right. But you would never use that influence to influence opinion. 



> Yes, that's Hoodey. He'd much rather just shit all over current management than actually offer any proposed solutions. When pressed to do so, he'll only "hedge" and acknowledge someone else would have to look into the matter.
> 
> This is a site devoted principally to discussing the Bulls and how they could be improved. Everyone by now understands that you hate many of the decisions made in the last decade or so. What you're light on is any constructive commentary on how to improve the Bulls going forward. Criticizing the past is easy. It's child's play. Many likely agree with you that a shakeup is needed. Still, when a new topic is started on how to improve the team, you simply resort to lazy, reductionist arguments about the past rather than say what you would do. I suppose if Cousins and DeRozan are your biggest ideas, that is unsurprising.


Dude this is garbage. In the fools gold thread, I gave you an entire essay on how I would go forward off of a potential trade for Gasol. 

While you're busy telling me to shut up in other threads and trying to turn me into a "moderation issue" for disagreeing with your supportive non-support of Paxson's regime, you kind of fail to notice that you're talking about me in a reply to me. Condescending much. Again, I don't care, until you start a whining fest about how I post.

I would go for DeRozan or Cousins. I know you're looking for me to go all in on someone, so that if they fail you can come back to anything I say with "well, why don't we just trade for player X?" 

I gave you guys that are good talent risks. I'm not saying "well I'm not really sure about them." In a preliminary sense, I would go for them. However, I'm also telling you that good GMs need contacts they can call up, similar to Knight trying to inform Portland that they should take Jordan in 84, to say "hey, what's the scoop on this guy." We're fans. We can hardly be responsible for vetting pro athletes. THAT SAID, I'm fine with going for it on a guy and him being a total miss IF you have Rose and IF you don't commit insane money to that guy. You trade for DeRozan on his rookie deal, you don't offer him new money, and if he turns into a crazier T-Whack mixed with Eddy Curry, you cut him loose and the "bad side" of the deal is that you have Rose and cap room.



> Hinrich or something in that vein, yes. I agree and have observed that it's an uninspiring move. I doubt we disagree on this. What I did add was that it seems like things are being set up to make a run at things in 2014. I'd like to have a discussion about those potential targets, if you don't mind. Feel free to pursue your agenda in other threads where it's relevant.


But, my point is, don't you make a run for 2014 by trading Deng's contract this summer. Are we really going to have financial freedom to sign a #2 next summer? I don't see where the precursors to a move are. 

Additionally, what if we don't make a move next year or summer. Where will your patience level be then?



> I might agree re: Cousins in terms of the "physical talent" for the playoffs thing. He is a physical beast. However, he puts up worse numbers than the guy you claim is inefficient. (Gee, didn't address that, did you?) I'm simply pointing out that your own metric works against you.


Difference is, Cousins is two years younger at a position that develops much slower. He might as well be four years younger. Big difference as well in terms of the physical talent. 

How do you handicap "likelihood to get better?" There has to be some physical tool that a player is not utilizing due to youth and therefore lack of fundamentals. That's why the 1988 Bulls got way better and the 2007 Bulls never did. Cousins has that. Love is a finished product. I don't mean to say Love will never get better, but not nearly as much as Cousins can. 

But it is a risk. If Cousins were a sure thing and also a player Sacramento would trade, every GM in the league would be camped out in Sacramento right now. He's a boom or bust prospect. He either ends up somewhere north of Curry and somewhere south of Brad Daugherty OR he helps you win championships in a big way. Just like a young Bynum. 



> Why do we have to buy low? Miami didn't buy low. Boston didn't buy low. L.A. didn't buy low. San Antonio is maybe the only team off the top of my head in recent years that won a bunch of chips through acquiring really unexpected talent.


Miami made a sale in free agency. Riley or Wade or whoever closed deals. They would make Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glen Ross proud. If we can do that we don't need to trade for boom or bust prospects.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> No, my point was that this:
> 
> "His FG% is an issue, I suppose. However, the fact that scoring 26 PPG at a clip of 45% is "actually hurting your team" is news to *Kobe Bryant and his 5 NBA championships."*
> 
> ...



Huh?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> Of course you get to assign lack of meaning. I mean, you are a moderator, right. But you would never use that influence to influence opinion.


I'm a moderator on an internet message board about the Chicago Bulls. Try saying it out loud and sounding cool when doing so. Methinks you may drastically overestimate the importance of the distinction.




> Dude this is garbage. In the fools gold thread, I gave you an entire essay on how I would go forward off of a potential trade for Gasol.
> 
> While you're busy telling me to shut up in other threads and trying to turn me into a "moderation issue" for disagreeing with your supportive non-support of Paxson's regime, you kind of fail to notice that you're talking about me in a reply to me. Condescending much. Again, I don't care, until you start a whining fest about how I post.


Just face facts. You tell everyone else what they think before they even have a chance to express themselves. Just look at the second post of this thread (which is, in its own way, utterly hilarious). I'm sorry if pointing out this tendency bothers you somehow, but it's simply true. 

Also, as a style tip, don't use quotes when you aren't quoting someone. It's just confusing. 

In any event, we have certain rules here about how people treat each other. It's what you do in a civil society. You'll notice we've chosen to do nothing with respect to your posting style other than ask you to treat people with a modicum of respect. These requests have largely gone unheeded, obviously. The reasons for not affording us that simple courtesy are unknown to me, and I suspect will remain that way.


> I would go for DeRozan or Cousins. I know you're looking for me to go all in on someone, so that if they fail you can come back to anything I say with "well, why don't we just trade for player X?"
> 
> I gave you guys that are good talent risks. I'm not saying "well I'm not really sure about them." In a preliminary sense, I would go for them. However, I'm also telling you that good GMs need contacts they can call up, similar to Knight trying to inform Portland that they should take Jordan in 84, to say "hey, what's the scoop on this guy." We're fans. We can hardly be responsible for vetting pro athletes. THAT SAID, I'm fine with going for it on a guy and him being a total miss IF you have Rose and IF you don't commit insane money to that guy. You trade for DeRozan on his rookie deal, you don't offer him new money, and if he turns into a crazier T-Whack mixed with Eddy Curry, you cut him loose and the "bad side" of the deal is that you have Rose and cap room.


Fair enough. 



> But, my point is, don't you make a run for 2014 by trading Deng's contract this summer. Are we really going to have financial freedom to sign a #2 next summer? I don't see where the precursors to a move are.
> 
> Additionally, what if we don't make a move next year or summer. Where will your patience level be then?


I've already said I want to trade Deng now after what I suspect will be his lone All-Star season. So, on this front, you're inventing a disagreement with me that doesn't exist.

With respect to trading him to free up room for 2014, no, that is not necessary as he expires in 2014. So, though I favor moving him now, the genesis of this thread was the idea that Deng expiring, Hinrich expiring, and Boozer potentially being amnestied, it appears like the Bulls may be setting themselves up for a reload in the 2014 offseason.



> Difference is, Cousins is two years younger at a position that develops much slower. He might as well be four years younger. Big difference as well in terms of the physical talent.


So you're saying you expect Cousins to become much more efficient than he is now? Because that's what needs to happen in order for your argument to hold water. The dude has immense physical skills and there's no denying it, but I'm not sure so far we've seen any indication that he's some scholar of the game driven to improve himself by leaps and bounds. Can an external force light that fire? I'm not sure. Most of the time, but not all of the time perhaps, boneheads stay boneheads. Sometimes you can manage a boneheaded guy if the rest of your team is strong, but I believe that works more frequently in a supporting rather than a starring role.



> How do you handicap "likelihood to get better?" There has to be some physical tool that a player is not utilizing due to youth and therefore lack of fundamentals. That's why the 1988 Bulls got way better and the 2007 Bulls never did. Cousins has that. Love is a finished product. I don't mean to say Love will never get better, but not nearly as much as Cousins can.


Thing is, Love doesn't really have to get any better in order to be an effective #2. He's already there. If you want to make the argument that Love as a guy who is already a star won't be acquirable, while a potential star in Cousins might be, then fine. But Cousins is a project and Love is not, and we both seem to agree on that.



> But it is a risk. If Cousins were a sure thing and also a player Sacramento would trade, every GM in the league would be camped out in Sacramento right now. He's a boom or bust prospect. He either ends up somewhere north of Curry and somewhere south of Brad Daugherty OR he helps you win championships in a big way. Just like a young Bynum.


I agree he is a boom or bust prospect. To me, this feels a lot like Tyrus vs. Lamarcus again. 




> Miami made a sale in free agency. Riley or Wade or whoever closed deals. They would make Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glen Ross proud. If we can do that we don't need to trade for boom or bust prospects.


Heh, you do know that the Alec Baldwin character is not meant to be admired, right? Or are you someone who thinks Michael Douglas in Wall Street is supposed to be a hero? 

But sure, on the broader point, I agree. We don't have a great history of closing on free agents post-MJ. Ben Wallace was a major coup, but then it ended up not working out terribly well. Boozer was, at the time, I suppose ok from a "can you close" perspective only in that there were other teams with cap space that could have gotten him, but it's widely reported he, too, preferred Miami. And, of course, there's good reason not to be terribly excited that we succeeded in closing that deal, though I think the Bulls win more basketball games because they have him.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> So you're saying you expect Cousins to become much more efficient than he is now? Because that's what needs to happen in order for your argument to hold water. The dude has immense physical skills and there's no denying it, but I'm not sure so far we've seen any indication that he's some scholar of the game driven to improve himself by leaps and bounds. Can an external force light that fire? I'm not sure. Most of the time, but not all of the time perhaps, boneheads stay boneheads. Sometimes you can manage a boneheaded guy if the rest of your team is strong, but I believe that works more frequently in a supporting rather than a starring role.


Okay, I think we've put some of the bickering behind us and we're ready to talk hoops. So here goes.

I personally feel there are two separate issues at play with Cousins. He's kind of crazy. Kind of a light version of Artest or Rodman mentally, but being crazy can be controlled and is far less problematic than an utter lack of motivation.

The second dynamic is just going to be true of centers now. It's true of Dwight, it's been true of Bynum early on and it's definitely true of Cousins. These guys aren't brought up in a system that even pretends to teach post footwork to the kind of talents who can actually use it. Cousins showed up with the back to the basket fundamentals that Kareem probably had when he was 17. And I'm not really using immense hyperbole when I say that.

Even when true centers who have the size and explosiveness do add a post game, it's like Bynum, where you literally have Kareem spoon-feeding a guy who is much harder to teach at 22 or 23. 

It's the whole pimpy AAU dynamic where no one in high school is interested in teaching these kids anything because their AAU coach is probably a lot like Myron Piggy, and then they end up with a guy like Calipari who is interested in them learning what they need to be successful for one year at Kentucky, but not in teaching them some long range skills like a post repertoire.

Cousins is already putting up good numbers, so it's not like we're talking about Eddy Curry here. It's actually funny that it's exactly the opposite. At Cousins age, all Curry was good for WAS his FG%. He just needs to improve the FG%. He did average 18.1 PPG and 11.0 RPG as a 21 year old. 

So the Bulls, if they traded for him, would have to be ready to make the commitment LA made to Bynum from the standpoint of a developmental staff. 



> Thing is, Love doesn't really have to get any better in order to be an effective #2. He's already there. If you want to make the argument that Love as a guy who is already a star won't be acquirable, while a potential star in Cousins might be, then fine. But Cousins is a project and Love is not, and we both seem to agree on that.


We're grading on two different systems. In terms of regular season number-grabbing on a terrible team and in terms of a guy you can already bet will be able to wreck shop in the first couple rounds of the playoffs, yes, you can call Love a #2. Has he shown that he can cause the athletic mismatches that a Dwyane Wade, Russell Westbrook, Scottie Pippen or Pau Gasol could? No. I don't see him giving Chris Bosh a hard time. When, right or wrong, you look at Tyson Chandler. And even as a rather above average center, he was a nightmare physically for the Heat to deal with. 

On Cousins upside, he can be the kind of #2 Wade or Westbrook is from an impact standpoint. Really, all he'd need to do is be the guy he is now, get incrementally better each year, and add two big things. A baby hook game and the ability to pass to wide open shooters if he's doubled. You CAN teach him that. You can't make Kevin Love add a ton of explosiveness and grow 3 inches. 

Love has proven to be a deep playoff #2 the way that Mark Price proved it. As in, not really yet. 



> I agree he is a boom or bust prospect. To me, this feels a lot like Tyrus vs. Lamarcus again.


Not really. This whole thing is so positional. A boom or bust prospect better be a center or an swingman with ridiculous athleticism.

Say Tyrus had panned out. Do you know how ridiculous you have to be to have a top 2 impact on a title team as a SF? Go through the list of first or second best players on title teams since 1980 and here are the guys who were SFs.

Bird - 81, 84, 86
Erving - 83
Worthy - 87, 88
Pippen - 91-93, 96-98
Pierce - 08
James - 12

Consider the only guys on that list to be #1s were James and Bird. That's four years out of 32? Ouch. 

Then consider the gap between Pippen and Pierce.

A small forward, with the exception of Bird, who could load up 30 footers all night with lightning quick release, really has to be a ridiculous athlete AND have a do-it-all game fundamentally, including scoring. Tyrus on his very best day was probably a poor man's Rodman pre-PF days. 

It's why I question the rush to turn Gibson into the next guy we need to pay more than marginal money. He's a 3/4 tweener who can't dribble or shoot.

You talk centers and you ask, how many different little things could Alonzo Mourning execute? Shaq could back down and dunk or pass out of a double or triple team. Bynum to me barely has any multi-faceted basketball skill at all. Guys like Perkins effect title runs at Cousins size, and you can honestly say "okay, if Kendrick Perkins were 6'9" 235, he wouldn't be in the NBA at all. 

Cousins doesn't need to boom nearly as much as a guy like Tyrus. 



> Heh, you do know that the Alec Baldwin character is not meant to be admired, right? Or are you someone who thinks Michael Douglas in Wall Street is supposed to be a hero?


He was not, but his point was kind of true. You either do/provide results/make sales or you don't.

My "buy low" thing was not meant for the summer period. If we're going to sign a free agent or if we had Boston's massive treasure chest of assets that they had in 07, fine. That's not what I'm talking about though. I'm saying once you get past the draft and since there are no free agents, this is something you can do now. You can trade for a Demar Derozan and if he completely busts, you can move on next summer or after two years. 



> But sure, on the broader point, I agree. We don't have a great history of closing on free agents post-MJ. Ben Wallace was a major coup, but then it ended up not working out terribly well. Boozer was, at the time, I suppose ok from a "can you close" perspective only in that there were other teams with cap space that could have gotten him, but it's widely reported he, too, preferred Miami. And, of course, there's good reason not to be terribly excited that we succeeded in closing that deal, though I think the Bulls win more basketball games because they have him.


I'd just like to see us adopt a mentality that we have to identify guys who can help us in a role - say, second star - and if a guy doesn't truly do that enough for us to beat a good champion, we have to hold our money over or do something to stay flexible. You crap out on Lebron? Okay. Trade Deng for a younger potential guy you can cut ties with and DONT sign Boozer. Now you can try again in the summer of 2011 or you can just be under the cap or flexible enough, because you never know who might come open. 

I'm saying this. If we get cap space again and a guy isn't the guy or doesn't give serious indications that he is such, let's not get into any deals we can't get out of. 

On this front, I'm curious if you agree with one thing. It seems like long term, big deals to guys like Deng and Boozer are dying. You just don't see a lot of teams this summer busting out big cheddar for guys who aren't difference makers. You don't see guys getting offered 6 years, 72 mill to be #3 guys. So maybe the market changes FOR US before the next time we have cap space? No?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Your assessment of Cousins is interesting. Of the two guys you've mentioned, I agree he's the one that has the true potential to pan out as a championship #2 option. The physical tools are not questionable. The only thing that worries me is he seems like, well, a dumbass. He clashed with Westphal this year and asked twice to be traded. Coangelo called him out for his maturity issues on Team USA. Rather than take that constructively (and maybe it was a dumb move by Coangelo), he turned it into this media hoopla. I see no signs yet that he's started to get his act together. He could easily be another Michael Beasley. All the talent in the world can't make you a championship-level talent if you can't get things reasonably straightened out between your ears.

Guys like Artest or Rodman you can get away with. Bigger star personalities on the team and coaches can keep them in line if you have a tightly run ship. But if you're brought in to be one of the leaders? I have my concerns. But sure, I acknowledge that a move for him would be very high risk/high reward. The payoff could certainly be huge. Obviously, your tolerance for risk seems higher than mine, and maybe you'll be right that it's a risk worth taking in this instance. I'd be open to it under the right circumstances, potentially, but I'm not hugely optimistic.

I agree with the notion that you need guys to fill roles, and you can't just pay every player you have their market rate simply because it's fair. The Bulls for a long time were in asset accumulation mode. Basically, prior to getting Rose, this made sense. Now, since getting Rose, they've been in something resembling both contention and asset accumulation mode. Like some others here, I think the Bulls roster had an outside chance at a title this year, but that a consolidation trade for a true 2nd star is the most desirable move. Other than Howard, however, there have not been a lot of ideas as to who that guy could be. As to Howard, it appears this has always been a non-starter as Howard seems to have very particular ideas on where he'll go, and winning NBA championships is clearly not his primary consideration.

It makes sense that the market is slowing a big. The CBA has changed the dynamic. I think you'll still see stupid deals, but fewer. Mid and small market teams will always likely be desperate to retain their own guys and will overpay. They just won't be able to overpay for as much and as long. For the Bulls, there is often criticism they fall in love with their own guys too much (and, bizarrely, the exact opposite criticism that they are cheap and let their own guys walk). I think that criticism has been a bit overblown. Deng's deal is a bit high for my taste. Noah and Rose are paid fine. The Boozer deal doesn't drive me up the wall because he will ultimately be amnestied, you must figure, and we wouldn't have any cap room anyway if we lost him now. In any event, the Deng and Boozer deals will come to an end. 

I share an apprehension about giving big money to a guy like Taj (or Omer) just because they can go get big money elsewhere. Long story short, a winning basketball team isn't likely to have 5 guys making 10-ish million per year. But, there are advantages to resigning your own talent. If a consolidation trade is what you want, you need pieces that can be moved. This is going to be some combination of quality players, overpaid guys approaching the end of their contracts, and draft picks. If you are too hesitant to re-sign your own guys, you may lack the chips necessary to pull off the move you want to make. The downside is all these signings can take you out of the free agent market if you don't stagger them. Obviously, the Bulls seem like they aren't intending to enter the FA market in a meaningful way until 2014, given the way the current contracts look to be structured.

Rhyder made an astute point against tanking the other day, that applies at least in the scenario of a consolidation trade. You want the player you intend to trade for to extend with you. The only way you can help assure that is by demonstrating to that player that you will be a contender even after you give up the pieces necessary to acquire him. You can't do that with a gutted roster. Moreover, one would think you look more appealing as a destination if you're on the cusp of winning championships already than being a lottery team. I think this tips the scales away from al all-out tank mode to me. The other thing is I really don't think the Bulls can field a roster bad enough to tank in a significant fashion, so in my mind, it's not really worth bothering. If we're talking the 21st pick vs. the 14th pick, I'm not terribly interested.

Now to shift gears entirely on where I think our approaches differ in terms of long-term planning. I do not believe a player's position matters as much as you seem to. It does not always hold true, but most of the time, the teams with the greatest talents win. With Miami, they didn't win their first season largely because they needed time to cohere as a team, because Dallas did some really smart things defensively, and because Dirk played out of his friggin' mind. And Dallas was talented in their own right. But I tend to believe that it doesn't really matter what position a team's stars play. The Thunder will probably win championships with Westbrook and Durant as their best players. The Spurs did it with Duncan & Robinson and Duncan & Ginobli & Parker. You need contributions from role players for sure, but playing along with star players sure does bring out the best in otherwise unremarkable NBA talents. Miami just won with jack in terms of post-up players. The Jordan Bulls did the same. The Spurs did it with one of the best inside talents of all time. Kobe's Lakers did it with good post talent. Dallas did it without a big post presence (Chandler a virtual non-factor offensively and Dirk being a stretch 4). I don't think there's a universal rule in what your balance has to be. I just think, all things being equal, you need a bunch of damn talented guys on your roster, and that talent will outweigh position.

Like you, though, I think we share a notion that not all talent is created equal. I doubt Carmelo ever wins a championship. I don't think his style of basketball is particularly conducive to winning. I've been lambasted for taking that position, but I haven't been proven wrong just yet. So when I refer to "talent," I suppose there needs to be an implied style of play component to that analysis rather than simply raw talent.

Anyway, Rose is damn good and the Bulls have a bunch of above average guys on their roster. Rose is better than anyone on the 2004 Pistons. The roster as presently constructed might be able to steal a championship, but I doubt could win a whole bunch of rings. So, consolidation is ultimately where I would like to go. Rose plus one other star plus Noah to me could win you quite a few rings one day. The question to me is who that #2 option is. I know you're not a fan as described above, but in this thread I wanted to consider whether Love could fill that role. If not, and if the Bulls seem like they're planning for a retool in 2014, I'm interested for us to consider what other candidates might be out there to fill that role.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

to be honest Love as he is now isn't good enough to be a core member of a top team.

he's a big man who plays no defense , but isn't an overwhelming force on offense who you would have to gameplan against to defeat(like dirk for instance)

he is a finisher on their team not a creator of any kind which is fine but a top 2 player on a team that contends and plays no defense he needs to be a lot more efficient in his scoring.

when push comes to shove Love is going to have to beat teams with his outside shot which is usually a bad idea for anyone . but if you cant get your shot at will like a dirk or a kobe its a worse idea .

at best he is a 3rd guy.

but more likely he is a classic "good enough to get you beat" kind of guy until he improves more as a creator or commits to scoring more efficiently and plays better defense which he may be very capable of doing but isn't achieving currently.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Love's just fine if you also have a big center in the middle who can bang bodies and protect the rim, it's why the Love-Pekovic(who runs about 6'10" 280) pairing was very successful last year. I don't know if Noah can be that guy, meaning you'd probably have to overhaul the front court. As far as the Kobe comparisons go, his shooting percentages weren't any better when he was missing the playoffs/getting bounced in the first round in the years between Shaq leaving and Gasol arriving than when he was competing, so Love having to do too much on a bad team shouldn't really be surprising to anyone.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Bogg said:


> Love's just fine if you also have a big center in the middle who can bang bodies and protect the rim, it's why the Love-Pekovic(who runs about 6'10" 280) pairing was very successful last year. I don't know if Noah can be that guy, meaning you'd probably have to overhaul the front court. As far as the Kobe comparisons go, his shooting percentages weren't any better when he was missing the playoffs/getting bounced in the first round in the years between Shaq leaving and Gasol arriving than when he was competing, so Love having to do too much on a bad team shouldn't really be surprising to anyone.


pekovic is no where near enough to make up for love's relative indifference to guarding the rim.

the t-wolves finished 25th in defensive efficiency , no champ in the last 10 years(and only twice in the last 30) has finished worst than 10th , mostly the champ finished in the top 4.

the wolves would need DPOY at center to make up for him.

and even then he's still not efficient enough because he doesn't create for others...he's just not a championship core piece unless he gets better at the stuff that wins titles.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> pekovic is no where near enough to make up for love's relative indifference to guarding the rim.
> 
> the t-wolves finished 25th in defensive efficiency , no champ in the last 10 years(and only twice in the last 30) has finished worst than 10th , mostly the champ finished in the top 4.
> 
> ...



What about re-signing Asik, having him be your defensive presence at center, and dealing Noah away for a 2 or 3? Asik maybe an offensive liability, but he is an elite defender in the lane.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Da Grinch said:


> pekovic is no where near enough to make up for love's relative indifference to guarding the rim.
> 
> the t-wolves finished 25th in defensive efficiency , no champ in the last 10 years(and only twice in the last 30) has finished worst than 10th , mostly the champ finished in the top 4.
> 
> ...


Nobody's arguing that Minnesota was a title contender last year, but if you don't think that Love and Pekovic worked well together then you're just plain wrong, that pairing is easily better than Boozer/Noah. If you can't win games when you're getting about 40 and 20 from your starting frontcourt then your problems lie elsewhere. Minnesota was bad last year because they had one of the worst swingman rotations in the league, Rubio was just a rookie, and Rubio, Pekovic, and Love(to a lesser extent) missed games to injury.




jnrjr79 said:


> What about re-signing Asik, having him be your defensive presence at center, and dealing Noah away for a 2 or 3? Asik maybe an offensive liability, but he is an elite defender in the lane.


He's very good on defense, but not to the point that you'd want him starting on a contender unless he was clearly the fifth-best starter. If you had healthy Rose, Love, Deng, a very good two-guard(like Eric Gordon), and Asik to just be big? Maybe, but it's a stretch. If you're going to offer little to nothing on offense and just rebound and defend the paint, like Mutombo in Philly, then you need to be one of the best defenders in the league.....like Mutombo.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> What about re-signing Asik, having him be your defensive presence at center, and dealing Noah away for a 2 or 3? Asik maybe an offensive liability, but he is an elite defender in the lane.


i'd resign asik and basically reload for 2014, 

but even then Love wouldn't cut it he's not good enough on either side of the ball.

the only 4 in my lifetime that wasn't a standout defensively on a title winning team was dirk and he was unstoppable that year , he had a TS% of .612 that season and he created for others by virtue of his dominance he forced double teams , love doesn't do that much , not nearly enough 

love is basically a finisher and scores no where as efficiently as dirk did that year.

if you are going to be a finisher you have to be among the league's best in efficiency because the guy who is creating for you usually is taking most of the risk with his efficiency with shots at the end of the shot clock and turnovers...for the most part all you have to do is shoot and you are getting the ball in an advantageous position .

big men have to close down the lane and force bad shots , in the absence of that they have to be extremely efficient, and many bigs do both

the bigs that won titles over the last decade include bosh , haslem(it was lebron really playing the 4 down the stretch of games with bosh at center)
tyson and dirk
gasol and bynum
perkins and garnett
shaq and haslem
ben and rasheed wallace 
shaq and horry 
shaq and horace grant 
duncan and rasho 
duncan and david robinson

how many defenders of love's ilk do you see there ?

its just not wise to even try to build a team around him.

a team with love as 1 of its best 2 players may be very fan friendly but it wont win anything significant because the best teams make you take harder shots than they do .


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Bogg said:


> Love's just fine if you also have a big center in the middle who can bang bodies and protect the rim, it's why the Love-Pekovic(who runs about 6'10" 280) pairing was very successful last year. I don't know if Noah can be that guy, meaning you'd probably have to overhaul the front court. As far as the Kobe comparisons go, his shooting percentages weren't any better when he was missing the playoffs/getting bounced in the first round in the years between Shaq leaving and Gasol arriving than when he was competing, so Love having to do too much on a bad team shouldn't really be surprising to anyone.


You're saying you should be favored to beat the Heat with Kevin Love and Derrick Rose? That's really what you're saying when you say he's "fine"??


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Bogg said:


> Nobody's arguing that Minnesota was a title contender last year, but if you don't think that Love and Pekovic worked well together then you're just plain wrong, that pairing is easily better than Boozer/Noah. If you can't win games when you're getting about 40 and 20 from your starting frontcourt then your problems lie elsewhere. Minnesota was bad last year because they had one of the worst swingman rotations in the league, Rubio was just a rookie, and Rubio, Pekovic, and Love(to a lesser extent) missed games to injury.


i'm not saying love isn't a very good player , but the bulls supposedly are about winning titles and history has been pretty solid with proof that if your bigs aren't very good defensively , you are not winning one.

and love while being an excellent rebounder is not a good defender , let alone a very good one.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> What about re-signing Asik, having him be your defensive presence at center, and dealing Noah away for a 2 or 3? Asik maybe an offensive liability, but he is an elite defender in the lane.


You don't beat teams like Miami saying "okay, I'll be worthless offensively but I'll defend the rim and you can just sag defensively and score." 

First, Love isn't good enough offensively to have a real impact v. Miami. But even if you presumed he was, a Love/Asik pairing is awful against the Heat. They'd just pull their center again and play Bosh at the five. 

To beat Miami, one thing you need is a center who can make them miserable if they try to play Bosh at the five. If you had say, Andrew Bynum, and they play Bosh at the five, now you're just cashing easy buckets every time down the floor and forcing them to bring in Haslem or Anthony. 

Omer Asik isn't "not that good offensively." He's god awful. So Miami would just leave him and guard the Bulls 5-on-4. And honestly, Asik's defense is vastly overrated in this city. When I tell fans from other cities what Bulls fans think of Asik's defense - mind you, fans who have seen him play - they laugh and ask if I'm really serious.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Da Grinch said:


> i'd resign asik and basically reload for 2014,


How are you re-signing Asik and reloading for anything? He kills your cap flexibility until the end of his deal. I'm sorry, I'm not banking the Bulls future (if I were Paxson/Forman or even a good GM) on the idea that you will get a superstar back in a sign-and-trade for Asik in two summers. 

The good news is, if Paxson matches Asik, it will guarantee his firing. Asik sucks and when he continues to suck, considering his deal, fans will turn on this management group like you can't believe. It's already starting just because of the Howard stakes and the Bulls not being in on it. Hanley and Rosner this morning were saying that every text and call they were getting wanted this management group gone now.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Hoodey said:


> You're saying you should be favored to beat the Heat with Kevin Love and Derrick Rose? That's really what you're saying when you say he's "fine"??


No, what I'm saying is that he's fine as your power forward if you have a big center who defends the rim. There's no one move that's going to make the Bulls a championship favorite, but if you can upgrade from Boozer to Love that's a huge step forward. Upgrade the front court to Love and a big center, get a pair of #2/3 types on the wing, and get Rose back in similar form? Yea, you've got a shot against Miami, especially if Wade's declining.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Man there's a lot here. I may leave out massive chunks of it in the interest of time. Assume that if I do, I either have no strong feelings on it or I agree.



jnrjr79 said:


> Your assessment of Cousins is interesting. Of the two guys you've mentioned, I agree he's the one that has the true potential to pan out as a championship #2 option. The physical tools are not questionable. The only thing that worries me is he seems like, well, a dumbass. He clashed with Westphal this year and asked twice to be traded.


I kind of like that he clashed with Westphal. I like the champions of league history. Guys like Jackson, Riley, Daley, Holzman, Wooden (I include him because the most effective offensive NBA strategy is derived from him), Auerbach - they all have a certain aura about them. Then you have the guys that they routinely pounded into a pulp like Westphal and they have yet another aura with different strategies. I think of a guy like Westphal with Mark West as his center calling himself a team of destiny and all of the pre-title celebrating they did in 93 before the cold Bulls choked them out, and I think "I kind of like a guy who doesn't like that guy." He probably sees the guy for what he is - a guy who will never put together a championship anything. 



> He could easily be another Michael Beasley. All the talent in the world can't make you a championship-level talent if you can't get things reasonably straightened out between your ears.


I'd disagree that Beasley had all the talent in the world. His offensive fluidity sucked and he had tweener size. When I think "all the talent in the world" I think 6'11" 270 putting up 19 and 11 as a 21 year old. 



> Guys like Artest or Rodman you can get away with. Bigger star personalities on the team and coaches can keep them in line if you have a tightly run ship. But if you're brought in to be one of the leaders? I have my concerns. But sure, I acknowledge that a move for him would be very high risk/high reward. The payoff could certainly be huge. Obviously, your tolerance for risk seems higher than mine, and maybe you'll be right that it's a risk worth taking in this instance. I'd be open to it under the right circumstances, potentially, but I'm not hugely optimistic.


I'm not weighing "trading for Cousins" v. perfection though. It's not "well should we get Cousins or go behind door #2 and become the 86 Celtics." Do I like Cousins and Rose more than Rose, Deng and Noah? YES lol! 

As far as the leadership thing, you wouldn't bring him in to be a team leader in a locker room sense. Your best or most talented players don't have to be that and often aren't that. There are stories from I believe the book "The Jordan Rules" where the other Bulls would see Jordan in a press conference talking about something he told the team and say to each other, "he said that?? When?!" Bill Cartwright and Scottie Pippen were probably the emotional locker room leaders from a morality standpoint. By the second three peat, they didn't need much leadership as they were just way better than everyone, mostly because of how bad the rest of the league had become. 

The easy way to build a title team is either:

1. Get a superstar, make sure that you continue to suck so that you can draft other stars a la the OKC Thunder.

2. Sign a bunch of guys or have a couple really good-great players force their way to your city via trade. 

You don't get a superstar, sign a bunch of role players to 10 mill+ deals, and then look for a second star after the fact. So now that we're here, the Cousins thing is kind of a way of getting creative in a muddy situation. I mean Paxson can't call Howard up because that's tampering. Rose can call him but seems unwilling to do so. We'll see how unwilling he is in 2014 when he hasn't sniffed a ring yet. 

Obviously if I could just pick from a list of best players in the league to match up with Rose, Cousins would not be my #1 guy. 



> I agree with the notion that you need guys to fill roles, and you can't just pay every player you have their market rate simply because it's fair. The Bulls for a long time were in asset accumulation mode. Basically, prior to getting Rose, this made sense. Now, since getting Rose, they've been in something resembling both contention and asset accumulation mode. Like some others here, I think the Bulls roster had an outside chance at a title this year, but that a consolidation trade for a true 2nd star is the most desirable move. Other than Howard, however, there have not been a lot of ideas as to who that guy could be. As to Howard, it appears this has always been a non-starter as Howard seems to have very particular ideas on where he'll go, and winning NBA championships is clearly not his primary consideration.


I guess I've just never been a fan of the assets, though I do admit they have some value or of the idea that it's a given that John Paxson and/or Gar Forman can ever pull a trade off involving assets. I've been hearing about this for 7 years. 

I also don't believe they were ever real contenders to beat Miami. They overrated their own players. They needed a second star and they have acted as if they haven't needed one. When they missed on Lebron, they signed Boozer because they "had to" when I ask you, if they would have instead traded Deng for an expiring deal (upon missing on James), would the 2010 cap space still evaporated if they didn't sign Boozer?

As for Howard, Paxson, Forman and Rose needed to make a sale there. You call him up and GET HIM to play in Chicago. Jerry Krause got Scottie Pippen for nothing. Jack McCloskey got Rodman, Laimbeer and Dumars for jack bleep. If you're not doing that - if you're not getting steals in the draft/draft day trades/trades, then you better be a salesman. Because if you're doing neither, what is your value as a GM?



> It makes sense that the market is slowing a big. The CBA has changed the dynamic. I think you'll still see stupid deals, but fewer. Mid and small market teams will always likely be desperate to retain their own guys and will overpay. They just won't be able to overpay for as much and as long. For the Bulls, there is often criticism they fall in love with their own guys too much (and, bizarrely, the exact opposite criticism that they are cheap and let their own guys walk). I think that criticism has been a bit overblown. Deng's deal is a bit high for my taste. Noah and Rose are paid fine. The Boozer deal doesn't drive me up the wall because he will ultimately be amnestied, you must figure, and we wouldn't have any cap room anyway if we lost him now. In any event, the Deng and Boozer deals will come to an end.


This reminds me of the illusion of the political middle. In swing states, they all vote for Obama and then Obama struggles, so the idea is that the "middle" all switched and voted for Romney - for example. When maybe you just had a lot of Obama people simply stay home and not vote because they were discouraged and a lot more republican die hards feel galvanized and get to the polls. One side simply stays home.

So that when you have Rosner this morning saying "what happened to all of these people who were saying two months ago that the Bulls would contend and now they all think the Bulls management sucks?" The answer - it's NOT THE SAME PEOPLE! The people who thought the Bulls were awesome simply aren't calling or texting the score and the people who never liked Paxson or Forman are calling and texting the show, when two months ago they knew the end to the movie before Rose's injury and just didn't care.

I don't think the same people who call Paxson cheap for letting Gordon walk are the ones who think he loves Deng too much. I think the disillusioned Gordon fans have simply become apathetic or gone away. Whereas the "Paxson loves Deng" crowd still actually cares about the Bulls future and is still here. 

My issue with the Deng deal isn't Deng and it isn't necessarily even the deal. Imagine Luol Deng was never a Bull to begin with. Say we get Rose, suck for another year and get a guy of Westbrook's TALENT (not position, talent), and then after the fact we add Deng for that deal, fine. It's signing him to that crippling deal at the time we signed him. I also agree that If we were to move Deng, picks and maybe other assets in a deal for a legit #2, Noah's deal then becomes fine.  It was the way that they were randomly all just thrown together that has always been my ultimate issue. 



> I share an apprehension about giving big money to a guy like Taj (or Omer) just because they can go get big money elsewhere. Long story short, a winning basketball team isn't likely to have 5 guys making 10-ish million per year. But, there are advantages to resigning your own talent. If a consolidation trade is what you want, you need pieces that can be moved. This is going to be some combination of quality players, overpaid guys approaching the end of their contracts, and draft picks. If you are too hesitant to re-sign your own guys, you may lack the chips necessary to pull off the move you want to make. The downside is all these signings can take you out of the free agent market if you don't stagger them. Obviously, the Bulls seem like they aren't intending to enter the FA market in a meaningful way until 2014, given the way the current contracts look to be structured.


Here's my ultimate misunderstanding of a consolidation trade. When has one ever happened other than Boston? In my life I've seen Magic, Larry, Isiah, Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan, Michael win titles over a course of 35 years. In those 35 years, what consolidation trade has their been other than Boston where Pierce basically recruited those guys to force their way to Boston anyway. I realize Dwight will be dealt in one, but I don't think he brings Brooklyn a title anyway. 

Let me ask you this. Dwight Howard does not have a post game and makes Wilt Chamberlain look like a guy with no insecurities whatsoever lol. Would you rather give up the world in a 4-team deal for him or take a shot on Cousins, who will cost you much, much less? Because after Howard is dealt, who is the next consolidation mega-talent on the horizon? Mind you that Howard will be dealt five years after the last mega consolidation trade. 



> Rhyder made an astute point against tanking the other day, that applies at least in the scenario of a consolidation trade. You want the player you intend to trade for to extend with you. The only way you can help assure that is by demonstrating to that player that you will be a contender even after you give up the pieces necessary to acquire him. You can't do that with a gutted roster. Moreover, one would think you look more appealing as a destination if you're on the cusp of winning championships already than being a lottery team. I think this tips the scales away from al all-out tank mode to me. The other thing is I really don't think the Bulls can field a roster bad enough to tank in a significant fashion, so in my mind, it's not really worth bothering. If we're talking the 21st pick vs. the 14th pick, I'm not terribly interested.


But if we tanked, why would we be a lotto team? Because Rose is hurt all year, not because we're not good. 

I guess I would still tank because consolidation trades are you guys' thing, and I've never once said that that's the answer. It very rarely has been the answer in NBA title history. While things would be different for Dwight coming here, it won't be the answer in Brooklyn either. 



> Now to shift gears entirely on where I think our approaches differ in terms of long-term planning. I do not believe a player's position matters as much as you seem to. It does not always hold true, but most of the time, the teams with the greatest talents win. With Miami, they didn't win their first season largely because they needed time to cohere as a team, because Dallas did some really smart things defensively, and because Dirk played out of his friggin' mind. And Dallas was talented in their own right. But I tend to believe that it doesn't really matter what position a team's stars play. The Thunder will probably win championships with Westbrook and Durant as their best players. The Spurs did it with Duncan & Robinson and Duncan & Ginobli & Parker. You need contributions from role players for sure, but playing along with star players sure does bring out the best in otherwise unremarkable NBA talents. Miami just won with jack in terms of post-up players. The Jordan Bulls did the same. The Spurs did it with one of the best inside talents of all time. Kobe's Lakers did it with good post talent. Dallas did it without a big post presence (Chandler a virtual non-factor offensively and Dirk being a stretch 4). I don't think there's a universal rule in what your balance has to be. I just think, all things being equal, you need a bunch of damn talented guys on your roster, and that talent will outweigh position.


I could convince 9 impartial people that positions matter. Centers or players who can function as centers matter. But, once you have that player, your other stars don't have to be a SG or a PG. If you have Andrew Bynum playing with the best SF in the league or the best PG in the league, you probably have a title shot either way. 

If you don't have a center or a player who can function in that role, you're likely a one-time champion (and for a reason, because you're not a great champion) or you're REALLY, REALLY talented. You reference the Heat. Go get me 3 guys who are top 5 in the league in PER (2009) and they can probably play any position they want. Michael is Michael. Tell me "we're getting Michael" and I'll go burn the rule book right now.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> How are you re-signing Asik and reloading for anything? He kills your cap flexibility until the end of his deal. I'm sorry, I'm not banking the Bulls future (if I were Paxson/Forman or even a good GM) on the idea that you will get a superstar back in a sign-and-trade for Asik in two summers.
> 
> The good news is, if Paxson matches Asik, it will guarantee his firing. Asik sucks and when he continues to suck, considering his deal, fans will turn on this management group like you can't believe. It's already starting just because of the Howard stakes and the Bulls not being in on it. Hanley and Rosner this morning were saying that every text and call they were getting wanted this management group gone now.


i really wouldn't be trying to win this season , they are basically a .500 team at best , i'd essentially tank and would trade boozer and probably deng as well for more efficient and more athletic players .next year's draft is a strong one a top 10 pick will be worth alot .

asik could be a good trade asset, or he could just useful, he is a good player

Pax will never be fired, the bulls dont fire people in management very often, and besides that would mean pax was somehow disappointing reinsdorf ...and the bulls still make a lot of money so its doubtful.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> 26 PPG on 44.8%, you're actually hurting your team.


Dude, lay off the drugs. 

If he was shooting like 34% or 39% then ok, but really? The guy was basically the entire team and you are saying he was hurting them? Wow.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Bogg said:


> No, what I'm saying is that he's fine as your power forward if you have a big center who defends the rim. There's no one move that's going to make the Bulls a championship favorite, but if you can upgrade from Boozer to Love that's a huge step forward. Upgrade the front court to Love and a big center, get a pair of #2/3 types on the wing, and get Rose back in similar form? Yea, you've got a shot against Miami, especially if Wade's declining.


Love is a step forward. But he's a step forward where you still have to go backwards to go forward, if that makes sense. Think of the 92 Cavs, the 2011 Bulls and you'll be on the track to thinking the same way.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Da Grinch said:


> i really wouldn't be trying to win this season , they are basically a .500 team at best , i'd essentially tank and would trade boozer and probably deng as well for more efficient and more athletic players .next year's draft is a strong one a top 10 pick will be worth alot .
> 
> asik could be a good trade asset, or he could just useful, he is a good player
> 
> Pax will never be fired, the bulls dont fire people in management very often, and besides that would mean pax was somehow disappointing reinsdorf ...and the bulls still make a lot of money so its doubtful.


General disdain, rage and eventual apathy will set in. Will the Bulls still sell enough luxury boxes that they can tell the fans "screw what you think, it's Pax till we die?" Sure. But I've never been a big believer that doing something stupid just because you can suddenly makes the stupid thing you did a smart thing. Just because you had the power to do it, it's still stupid.

The post you wrote could be written in the book "1000 techniques to start in 1908 and eventually become the Chicago Cubs circa 2012." 

Hey, after the Cubs won their last world series, they sold the whole team off. There was no logical reason to do this. They just did it because they could. That has worked out great.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

thebizkit69u said:


> Dude, lay off the drugs.
> 
> If he was shooting like 34% or 39% then ok, but really? The guy was basically the entire team and you are saying he was hurting them? Wow.


When I said "you're hurting your team" I was supposing that you could take the context clues and realize that I'm talking about the context of him being a leading scorer on a championship team.

I was wrong and I had too much faith in you lol.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> General disdain, rage and eventual apathy will set in. Will the Bulls still sell enough luxury boxes that they can tell the fans "screw what you think, it's Pax till we die?" Sure. But I've never been a big believer that doing something stupid just because you can suddenly makes the stupid thing you did a smart thing. Just because you had the power to do it, it's still stupid.
> 
> The post you wrote could be written in the book "1000 techniques to start in 1908 and eventually become the Chicago Cubs circa 2012."
> 
> Hey, after the Cubs won their last world series, they sold the whole team off. There was no logical reason to do this. They just did it because they could. That has worked out great.



my reasoning is the bulls have a star you cant trade for in rose everything else you can get with money and assets.

but sometimes you have to sacrifice to be in position to have them or take gambles that may or may not work out .

pax has never shown a willingness to do that so ultimately i doubt he'll ever be successful enough to win .

you should work on your reading comprehension because i have never had much faith in the man. so where you insinuate i somehow back his decisions is interesting to say the least.

cubs references mean nothing to me i live in nyc and dont follow baseball anymore.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Da Grinch said:


> my reasoning is the bulls have a star you cant trade for in rose everything else you can get with money and assets.
> 
> but sometimes you have to sacrifice to be in position to have them or take gambles that may or may not work out .
> 
> ...


No, I don't think you do have faith in the man. I'm not even talking about you. I frequently hear "well, Jerry will never fire him because he's Jerry." What I think when I hear that is, "that doesn't make it smart not to fire him. That makes Jerry an idiot."

Krause was an awesome GM pre-98, but honestly, it might have been time to bring in a Gar Forman type with greater decision making around 2002. When Jerry Krause got offered the GSW pick and THREE future first rounders for Jay Williams and said no, and when Jerry Krause signed Ron Mercer and Eddie Robinson, it was getting out of hand.

But Reinsdorf apparently had some weird father-figure loyalty issues or something. That's called being a terrible, creepy, stupid owner.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> When I said "you're hurting your team" I was supposing that you could take the context clues and realize that I'm talking about the context of him being a leading scorer on a championship team.
> 
> I was wrong and I had too much faith in you lol.



But then isn't your post a red herring? The discussion is about Love being a potential candidate as a #2, not a #1.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> But then isn't your post a red herring? The discussion is about Love being a potential candidate as a #2, not a #1.


No. 

Rose is a #1 super star, but he's a PG and we're still looking for a guy to be a top scorer. Will Rose score a lot of points? Sure. But we need another guy who can go over 20 PPG, and even then 44.8% won't cut it. Rose himself is not the scorer that O'neal was or Gasol/Bynum combined to be. He is a low percentage scorer himself, which is fine because of all of the various problems he presents teams with with his all around game. But we need a high percentage guy to pair with Rose. Rose and a low percentage volume scoring PF is a bad duo to win a CHAMPIONSHIP.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> No.
> 
> Rose is a #1 super star, but he's a PG and we're still looking for a guy to be a top scorer. Will Rose score a lot of points? Sure. But we need another guy who can go over 20 PPG, and even then 44.8% won't cut it. Rose himself is not the scorer that O'neal was or Gasol/Bynum combined to be. He is a low percentage scorer himself, which is fine because of all of the various problems he presents teams with with his all around game. But we need a high percentage guy to pair with Rose. Rose and a low percentage volume scoring PF is a bad duo to win a CHAMPIONSHIP.



its even more important when you consider the bulls other players are not high efficiency shooters .

the only bull in the top 50 TS% from last season is kyle korver and he wont be a bull much longer according to reports.

for comparisons sake the thunder have 4 guys in the top 50(durant, collison , harden and thabo) and the heat have 3(James , Chalmers joel anthony)


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

I think the argument about Love has to focus around his defense, not his offense... 26 ppg on 44.6% is not bad at all for a guy who shoots five three pointers a game.

Here are the guys that scored more than Love on higher percentages last year: Lebron James, Kevin Durant


Here are the guys that scored over 20ppg with better than a 44.5% FG% (which excludes our man Rose, incidentally, who shot 43% this year): Durant, James, Russell Westbrook, Dwyane Wade, LaMarcus Aldridge, Dirk Nowitzki, Blake Griffin, Dwight Howard and David Lee


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Hoodey said:


> Love is a step forward. But he's a step forward where you still have to go backwards to go forward, if that makes sense. Think of the 92 Cavs, the 2011 Bulls and you'll be on the track to thinking the same way.


If it makes you better then it makes you better, and since you're probably sending out some combination of Boozer, Noah, Deng, and a pick or two in this hypothetical scenario, it's not like you're hamstringing yourself to get him. Nobody's saying you have to stop looking for star players to pair with Rose and Love, but a big with a good jumper who controls the glass is going to pair well with a drive-and-kick point guard.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

For what it is worth from an efficiency standpoint, Love and Larry Bird have nearly the same career TS% (Love is .002 higher).

I think you could build around Rose and Love if you filled in the right pieces (Another star-type on the wing, a rim protecting 5, etc...)


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Dornado said:


> For what it is worth from an efficiency standpoint, Love and Larry Bird have nearly the same career TS% (Love is .002 higher).
> 
> I think you could build around Rose and Love if you filled in the right pieces (Another star-type on the wing, a rim protecting 5, etc...)


bird creates for others, love doesn't.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> bird creates for others, love doesn't.


Look, Kevin Love is not Larry Bird, let's get that out of the way... I definitely don't want anyone thinking that I think that.

Larry Bird may be the greatest passing forward ever (he's at least in the conversation), so I agree... but Kevin Love also has some other skills (like being an elite level rebounder and the league's best outlet passer) that impact the offensive game positively for his team beyond his own shot taking/shot making. 

My point is that he helps you rather than hurts you offensively (which was the initial charge).


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Dornado said:


> Look, Kevin Love is not Larry Bird, let's get that out of the way... I definitely don't want anyone thinking that I think that.
> 
> Larry Bird may be the greatest passing forward ever (he's at least in the conversation), so I agree... but Kevin Love also has some other skills (like being an elite level rebounder and the league's best outlet passer) that impact the offensive game positively for his team beyond his own shot taking/shot making.
> 
> My point is that he helps you rather than hurts you offensively (which was the initial charge).



my point is that while Love is a good offensive player , he is basically just a finisher(26.0 points and 2.0 assists is black hole territory) ...and guys who just finish plays on title teams have to be extremely efficient .

love isn't .

bigs on title winning teams have to be good on defense 

love isn't .

he's a good player but he isn't a real building block for a team that wins titles or even really title contention, not as a top guy 1-2 or possibly even 3rd guy , he's a 3rd guy at best , but even then his defense wont cut it.

essentially he's good enough to get you beat.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> *my point is that while Love is a good offensive player , he is basically just a finisher(26.0 points and 2.0 assists is black hole territory) ...and guys who just finish plays on title teams have to be extremely efficient .
> 
> love isn't .
> 
> ...


Just to play devil's advocate, Dirk Nowitzki averaged 23 points and 2 assists last year as a stretch 4 who doesn't play great defense for the Mavericks, and they did alright for themselves. Dirk is slightly more efficient over his career than Love from a TS% standpoint, but still - they put the right pieces around him (like Chandler, others).


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

So let's review. You want Love to lead the league or near in rebounds,post up on offense, stretch the defense with 3's... and play defense too ? Defense is a team concept anyways. He'll do his part. 

The Bulls have already peaked. You already role players leaving for more money and time rotting your team out from the inside. You can't spend season after season waiting for Rose. And what about Boozer ? Amnesty is always hard to do. And who do you get to replace him ?

Big men like Love may not mean much to you but, he is everything to the Wolves. What you would have to offer for him is too much. You'll have to find another way. 

Bulls don't have a #2. No one takes over when Rose is gone. That's a flaw in itself.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Dornado said:


> Just to play devil's advocate, Dirk Nowitzki averaged 23 points and 2 assists last year as a stretch 4 who doesn't play great defense for the Mavericks, and they did alright for themselves. Dirk is slightly more efficient over his career than Love from a TS% standpoint, but still - they put the right pieces around him (like Chandler, others).


dirk shot career high .612 the year the year they won a title
the following year shot .564 and was eliminated in the 1st round


and dirk is much better defender than love he wasn't always but he improved over time....and to be perfectly honest a better offensive player too, he is more than capable of beating any team when he gets hot in a playoff series.

Love has never had so much as won 40% of his games in a season , they are not really comparable to me.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Bogg said:


> If it makes you better then it makes you better, and since you're probably sending out some combination of Boozer, Noah, Deng, and a pick or two in this hypothetical scenario, it's not like you're hamstringing yourself to get him. Nobody's saying you have to stop looking for star players to pair with Rose and Love, but a big with a good jumper who controls the glass is going to pair well with a drive-and-kick point guard.


It makes you better than Boozer, but that's not saying much. It doesn't make you better than the Heat and now you're really locked in. I'm not interested in being the 91-95 Knicks at BEST (and when I say that, I mean in terms of impact v. the champions; the Knicks only had one great player, but he was a great center). 

You still have to say "we're going to have to rebuild to beat the Heat."

Another thing I'd question is just the matchup. There is Love against the league. Is he a good matchup over 7 games with Bosh? I don't think so. 

This is people who simply like Kevin Love wishing that he was the answer. The same people ironically probably thought Sean McRoberts and Chase Budinger would be consequential in the NBA.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> This is people who simply like Kevin Love wishing that he was the answer. The same people ironically probably thought Sean McRoberts and Chase Budinger would be consequential in the NBA.


We have one of those... I think one of our members is still waiting for the Joe Alexander breakout. Or BJ Mullens.

Love is obviously better than those guys... other than complexion they don't have a whole lot in common.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Dornado said:


> We have one of those... I think one of our members is still waiting for the Joe Alexander breakout. Or BJ Mullens.
> 
> Love is obviously better than those guys... other than complexion they don't have a whole lot in common.



Who is Joe Alexander? And I'm not asking in a sarcastic Stephen A. Smith way. I really have no idea who that is.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> When I said "you're hurting your team" I was supposing that you could take the context clues and realize that I'm talking about the context of him being a leading scorer on a championship team.
> 
> I was wrong and I had too much faith in you lol.


Dude, a stupid comment is a stupid comment. We all make them from time to time, just own it. 

I'm not making the argument that Kevin Love is the missing piece to a title run but lets be real honest here, ANYONE would have loved to have had Kevin Love average those numbers for US in 2011, his rebounding and ability to stretch the defense would have helped us out greatly against the Heat.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

thebizkit69u said:


> Dude, a stupid comment is a stupid comment. We all make them from time to time, just own it.
> 
> I'm not making the argument that Kevin Love is the missing piece to a title run but lets be real honest here, ANYONE would have loved to have had Kevin Love average those numbers for US in 2011, his rebounding and ability to stretch the defense would have helped us out greatly against the Heat.


Isn't that the same thing they said about Boozer? Pulling a defense away from the basket has worked for a primary 4 or 5 scorer in terms of winning a title when? Dirk? Dirk was WAY better than Love at this and he still only got one ring. 

When I hear about paint players, I don't want to hear about outside scoring "pulling defenders away." I want to hear about how your inside scoring is effective.

You're playing plausible deniability here. Love has demonstrated nothing in the playoffs and is a low percentage shooter in the regular season. Instead of having him prove something in the playoffs and coming back to me with that, your approach is, "well, we haven't seen him yet, so how do you KNOW he WONT tear it up." 

Love is a rich man's Carlos Boozer. We need much better.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> Who is Joe Alexander? And I'm not asking in a sarcastic Stephen A. Smith way. I really have no idea who that is.












8th pick in 2008.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> Isn't that the same thing they said about Boozer? Pulling a defense away from the basket has worked for a primary 4 or 5 scorer in terms of winning a title when? Dirk? Dirk was WAY better than Love at this and he still only got one ring.
> 
> When I hear about paint players, I don't want to hear about outside scoring "pulling defenders away." I want to hear about how your inside scoring is effective.
> 
> ...


The difference is Carlos Boozer is not as good as Love, never has been and never will be. If a stretch 4 is your primary scorer and main guy then yeah I agree, but Love + Rose is a devastating 1-2. Love stretching the D opens up lanes for Rose and Rose's penetration opens up shots for Love. Love is also the games best rebounder so that has to count for something right?

Dude a rich man's Carlos Boozer is a perennial allstar lol. 

But I do agree with you, I would like *much better*, but the reality is, this is not the 90's. There aren't many impact, bruising, inside scoring 4's anymore. The game is changing, we are seeing 6'9-6'11 guys dribbling and shooting 3's much more than ever. Does that mean they are better than the guys in the 90's? Heck no, but its just the direction in which the league is trending right now. Kevin Love is a top 5 big man, who doesn't play like a "BIG MAN" but none the less, is a top 5 big man lol.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> Who is Joe Alexander? And I'm not asking in a sarcastic Stephen A. Smith way. I really have no idea who that is.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Dornado said:


>


These pictures are going to give me nightmares again.


----------

