# The problems presented by Carlos Boozer



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

I wrote this for my beginner blog that I won't pimp here (just trying to learn). It's mostly the feelings I have when I hear Holmes and others go back and forth about this on the Score. Anyway, here goes:

The problems presented by Carlos Boozer 

I thought to myself, "shouldn't you be happy?" Carlos Boozer was hitting fadeaway jumpers as the Bulls rolled on their way to a 12th win. Boozer was fading to the sides of the basket and even releasing the ball from the free throw line and hitting jumper after jumper.

The problem, which may just be the cynicism of an adult sports fan, is the question "what will happen when these jumpers don't fall in the playoffs?"

It may be a bit cynical or brutal of me to just rush to the playoffs, but winning seasons just don't do it for me when you're talking about a team with 6 titles in the Chicago market. This is especially true when you have a player like Derrick Rose.

Is Derrick Rose a Shaquille O'neal or even Tim Duncan like figure in my eyes? No. Mostly because a guard needs to be better than a center to have the same impact. Rose's impact may be somewhere north of Scottie Pippen, potentially in that Isiah Thomas range. He's not a guy, like maybe Shaq or Jordan, who you can give a Carlos Boozer to and say "go win championships." He's not that great. Great to be sure, but not that great.

If Rose was 6'6" and had the potential to dunk on multiple defenders at the hole, then maybe a fallaway jumpshooter like Boozer would be enough.

Boozer's offense

Boozer has a few problems. 

For one, he lacks explosiveness. You'd have to put his explosiveness in the Charles Oakley range. He's not an athlete at the four position. And what many casual fans don't get is that to be a non-athlete at the four position, you better be 6'11" and very skilled. That is, if you want to be a #2 on a title team. 

With his athleticism, or lack of athleticism, if Boozer was 6'11" and had finesse post moves or a faceup game that got him to the basket, much like a not-so-young-anymore Rasheed on the 04 Pistons, he'd be fine. The problem with Boozer's athletic makeup is that he combines short height for a four with explosiveness that is sorely lacking even at the five. 

Secondly, although Boozer is not nearly as good of a player, rebounder or defender, he has Elvin Hayes problem offensively. Many people in Chicago may watch Boozer's fadeaway and think of Jordan. Isn't that what the "Chicago fadeaway memory" should be? It's not mine. 

I remember criticism of Hayes, whose fadeaway wasn't the result of backing down and being stonewalled or pushed out. Jordan would back you down and then if you held your ground he'd fade on you as a last resort. His first priority was to find a weakness in your defense and get to the basket. Boozer often fades away as his first priority, much like Hayes did. Players who do that don't get that that's not what a fadeaway is for. You want to fade after you've pushed your defender as close as he'll let you get. And you want to fade only when there are no holes to the basket.

Why are fadeaway jumpers bad? Boozer is a second option, and if your second option is shooting fadeaways as a first resort, your first option better have a name like Jordan or Abdul-Jabbar if you want to win rings. Derrick Rose isn't quite that level of talent. 

Boozer's next problem is that he's a bad match with Joakim Noah. If Noah was 280 lbs. like Kendrick Perkins, and therefore pushing people around, or if he was an athlete like DeAndre Jordan, this would be different. The fact is Joakim Noah is a 6'11" non-athlete with no offensive skill, insufficient explosiveness to be a shot altering force off of his defender and the weight of an average sized four. 

The Bulls problem with a team like Miami is that no one player of Boozer, Noah, Asik or Gibson has the height, size and explosiveness to dictate terms against Joel Anthony and Udonis Haslem offensively or on the glass. Because Boozer and Noah can't pull the defense down to the paint, and aren't explosive with the ball even if they get a step, Miami can sag their pressure toward Rose on the perimeter. Each defender can take a step toward Rose knowing that if Noah or Boozer get the ball, they can get back and still hold each player to an average shot. 

That forces Rose into jumpers or into getting over aggressive.

Past Champions and what they have in common

Look, if the Bulls want to win 60 games a year (after this 66 game season) and lose in the Finals, then shooting jumpers and rebounding misses will work. 

However, if you want to be a champion, you're looking for some things in common. 

1) Have a player whose overall game is dominant against any opponent. A true dominator like Magic, Bird, Jordan, Olajuwon, Shaq, Duncan or Wade. 

Generally speaking you're looking for a star center. The league was so weak in the years that the Spurs won, that even though he was a 6'11" 260 lb. power forward, Tim Duncan was generally enough. 

If that player is a guard or forward, they should possess a trait or traits that transcends even other really good players. Magic's passing at 6'8" or Jordan's athleticism and finishing skills at 6'6"... Wade's one brilliant season in 06...

2) When you don't have that single dominator, you have to get better offense from your #2. Sure Billups, Hamilton or Rasheed Wallace were no Jordan. But they had incredible role players and the offense of Rasheed was much better than Boozer, even if Rip Hamilton was no Jordan or Wade. Also, 04 was a very weak time in the East and the Lakers had serious locker room problems.

Look at teams that weren't clearly built around one guy and you'll find that the #2 or #1 in post offense was much more capable than Boozer. 

If Rose has Rasheed Wallace, Kevin Garnett and Kendrick Perkins or even Dallas's unique mix of athletes, he probably has a good chance. If Rose was Jordan, then Boozer might be enough. Rose is not that good though. He probably needs a mix of players like Garnett and great role players or Rasheed and great role players. 


Common retorts and why they don't work

1) "Rose is that good."

No, he's not. As Rose has become the focal point of other defenses, and as the Bulls have gone from 8-seed to likely being a perennial 1 or 2-seed, his FG% has gone from 48.9% in 2009 to 43.9% now. 

Much like Kobe, when your FG% is that low, you're going to need a Shaq or Pau Gasol to supplement the offense. 

So, no sin here. I don't think Rose is good enough to be an "independent" offense type, where he alone can dominate the offense. Almost no players ever have been that good. Kobe wasn't that good either. Even he has needed Pau Gasol, whose post offense was brilliant in 09 and 10. 

2) "Boozer is what he is; I bet if Lebron had never been a free agent, you would have been excited about Boozer." 

Not really. Not for 15 million. 15 million is what you pay a good #2 who can help you win a championship. If no player like that exists you hold the money over.

You didn't have to be a genius to figure out that Boozer wasn't worth that money. Utah may have been a winning team, but how much of that was Deron Williams? How much of that was Sloan's coaching? If you were Bulls brass, did you even see how Boozer was dominated in the 08 series v. the Lakers?

The big issue here is Paxson. This is the second time he's paid (a) $15 million a year (b) for a player's past and not his future (c) to a short frontcourt player with an offensive game that doesn't belong in the NBA Finals. 

And that's what the problem is. The problem is Paxson. He can build a competitive team, but this isn't 2005. Gone is the era where the 99-04 teams are so fresh in everyone's mind that it's enough to win a bunch of regular season games only to get bounced in the playoffs.

Paxson needs to show he can make changes to this team that will allow the team to score inside. 

A lot of people want to be mad at Boozer. Personally I'm not mad at him. If someone offered me 15 million and I was only worth 8 million I'd jump for joy. This, when combined with overpaying Chandler, overpaying Ben Wallace and overpaying Deng (though not nearly by as much) is a problem. The Bulls currently have a very good #1 (Rose may not be a top #1 player historically, but in this era few are better) and a bunch of third options (at least in terms of a championship).

Think about this. Paxson lucked in to Rose, netting him with one lottery ball. Before that, this team was Hinrich, Deng and Gordon. None of those three are better than a #3 option on a title team. Where would this team be without the luck of getting Rose. And you can respond with, "yeah, GMs have to get lucky, look at Krause with Jordan." Okay, so now that Paxson has Rose, has he acquired a Scottie Pippen? Or has he never acquired a player other than Rose who you would call much better than Horace Grant?

Because that's what this team is to me. It's Derrick Rose with a bunch of guys who aren't quite as good as Horace Grant was in his prime.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Mostly I'm curious where we can go from here. Can we supplement Boozer with a goon like Perkins? Can we try getting guys who just beat the crap out of people like Udonis Haslem? Do we have to swing a trade for a Gasol?

Waiting on Boozer and Noah and adding 29th picks and MLEs is not going to get us to a title unless Miami has a whole injury riddled season.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

I very much agree.

Management seems to think this team is a simple case of "plugging a few holes" at some positions and we've got a title. I think this feeling mainly comes from the fact that we were so close to the Finals, and in some ways (even though we lost in 5), so close to beating the Heat (if you treat each game individually).

But as the term goes, "so close, yet so far". 

I think it's fools gold to look at our ECF appearance and say, "Man, we're THIS close!". Because we're really not. 

We need a bonafide second option on this team. Not a bunch of faux second options.

We still need more, and until Bulls management realizes that (or the Heat get very unfortunate with injuries), we're going to be a perennial stepping stone for Miami on their way to multiple Final appearances.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Pay Ton said:


> I very much agree.
> 
> Management seems to think this team is a simple case of "plugging a few holes" at some positions and we've got a title. I think this feeling mainly comes from the fact that we were so close to the Finals, and in some ways (even though we lost in 5), so close to beating the Heat (if you treat each game individually).
> 
> ...


I think a few things about this. I'm not saying you disagree here, but I think we're farther than even your appraisal of management's appraisal.

I think the distance between a ECF loser and a finals winner is perhaps bigger than the distance between 41 wins and 55-60 wins or the distance between a 30 win team and a 41 win team.

Conference Finals losers include teams like the 92 Cavs and 07 Jazz. 

Gerenally speaking I think one thing separates winners from losers late in the playoffs. To even get to the conference finals you have to play well as a team, play defense, give good effort, have one really good scorer or a bunch of pretty good players. You do need to do all of the little things that the early Paxson teams used to get credit for (as if it was some kind of earth shattering thing to play defense and try hard). 

In addition though, I think the winning teams are either extremely dominant defensively, which would be like adding a David Robinson or Ben Wallace in their primes to this team OR they have enough offensive options that are good enough that they don't go for long stretches without scoring. 

You have to be able to get into the ECF and Finals and then for 8-14 games you have to have the kind of offense that can pace a game. You need inside and outside offense and you need to be able to get a bucket on any given possession with high efficiency.

The problem with Paxson's teams is they go off for 10 minutes and then they go cold (less so since Rose got here but relative to the Heat that was still the problem). Or they go off for one game and then when the jumpers don't fall they can't buy a win v. elite competition. 

Something needs to remedy this. Boozer aint it.


----------



## 29380 (Feb 23, 2009)

Pay Ton said:


> I very much agree.
> 
> Management seems to think this team is a simple case of "plugging a few holes" at some positions and we've got a title. I think this feeling mainly comes from the fact that we were so close to the Finals, and in some ways (even though we lost in 5), so close to beating the Heat (if you treat each game individually).
> 
> ...


Carmelo Anthony for Luol Deng, Bobcats 1st round pick, Bulls 2012 1st round pick, Bulls 2014 1st round pick

Would you do this?


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

Knicks4life said:


> Carmelo Anthony for Luol Deng, Bobcats 1st round pick, Bulls 2012 1st round pick, Bulls 2014 1st round pick
> 
> Would you do this?


No.

Melo is definitely a bonafide second option this team needs, but he's also a liability on defense and a definitive ball-stopper. He stints the offensive flow of whatever team he's on.

Incredible individual talent, though.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Pay Ton said:


> No.
> 
> Melo is definitely a bonafide second option this team needs, but he's also a liability on defense and a definitive ball-stopper. He stints the offensive flow of whatever team he's on.
> 
> Incredible individual talent, though.


Not really. Anthony is tremendously overrated. He shoots 45.8% for his career, which is not good for a 6'8" forward who is a bonafide second option and for a guy who plays no defense. Pippen was a defensive ace who shot 47.7% in the regular season. That number was probably much higher at Anthony's age as well. And yet if you asked the average fan how close they would put Anthony to Pippen, based on the marketing they'd probably say somewhat close. 

Best part about Anthony? In the playoffs that FG% drops to 41.9%! That's Jalen Rose on the Bulls bad LOL. And Jalen Rose SUCKED on the Bulls. Badly. He had matador olay defense and never saw a premature pullup jumper he didn't love to death. 

But more importantly, a trade for Anthony does NOTHING for our real weakness - CENTER AND POWER FORWARD. This is the concern. It plays out like this. Listen to the score or 1000 and why did the Bulls not get it done v. the Heat? Because Derrick Rose didn't trust his teammates. What?! No. The Bulls had no threat of inside scoring whatsoever unless Rose drove and the Heat just chose to zero in on that.

I don't want people in this town to blame Rose or to think that we need to upgrade Deng or Hamilton. We need better frontcourt players period.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

I don't disagree. I realize that Melo is a volume scorer, which is why I don't find him to be a necessary puzzle to this team, especially to give up Lu and picks.

As for C and PF being our weaknesses, well, I feel like, more specifically, we do need more post scoring, but then again, so do a lot of teams. That doesn't mean I feel we have a weakness at those two positions. Relative to a lot of teams on the East, I don't find it to be a weakness.

But if you want to zero in on post scoring, yeah.

It's really as simple (simple in theory, not in practice) as becoming less of a jump-shooting team, and getting more points in the paint with a player who can do that. Doesn't have to be with our C or PF.

And I say this as a very ardent critic of Boozer.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Pay Ton said:


> I don't disagree. I realize that Melo is a volume scorer, which is why I don't find him to be a necessary puzzle to this team, especially to give up Lu and picks.
> 
> As for C and PF being our weaknesses, well, I feel like, more specifically, we do need more post scoring, but then again, so do a lot of teams. That doesn't mean I feel we have a weakness at those two positions. Relative to a lot of teams on the East, I don't find it to be a weakness.
> 
> ...


As to C and PF realize how you frame it. "Relative to a lot of teams in the east" - That's been Paxson's problem since day one. He shot simply to be better than "a lot of teams in the east." And because of the Krause years and the general Cub fan/Wannstedt fan mentality in this city "being competitive" got eaten up.

If you want to be a team that inevitably loses in the ECF, even with 60 wins, then Boozer and Noah "aren't a weakness." And I'm sure that's a money making strategy for this team. After all, why try to do better when entertaining games, 60 wins and not being able to buy a bucket for 10 minute stretches v. the Heat will bring in plenty of money in this city. 

As far as points in the paint, we have Derrick Rose. He's gonna get to the paint plenty. But without offensive threats close to the basket, teams can devote more of their defense to him. So once they stonewall him with more defense, are you suggesting he back out and drop it in to a SF who is then going to post up? 

The problem is this. Center is the only position that there isn't someone bigger than you can throw on that player. Say the Bulls are going to post Deng and he suddenly starts getting offense that way. Okay so Miami counters by putting Haslem on Deng in the post and that one is over. Or when Boozer was a little younger. The Lakers put Gasol on him in 08 (when Bynum was not really a starter) and Boozer went away really fast. 

This team's weakness is PF and C if they want to be champs. Whether they want to get a big goon like Perkins or a guy who can back down like Gasol, they aren't going to win rings with Boozer and Noah down there. 

I realize they're like better than the Bucks and Sixers. But that's just not good enough for me.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

And I'm not so much a critic of Boozer as I am of Paxson for continuously wanting to pay 15 mill per to 6'7"-6'9" players like Boozer and Wallace for their past and not for the life of the actual contract they are signing.

Wallace was a disaster and I see the Boozer thing ending terribly as we waste years of Rose's career.

The problem is, who do you trade. You see, the rest of the league isn't madly in love with the guys that Paxson falls in love with. There is probably no trade, even with 5 first rounders and other players, that the Lakers would take where we get Gasol and the best player we trade is Boozer or Noah. 

At the end of the day, and I've been saying this for about 5-6 years, Paxson is as bad at evaluating front court players as Angelo was at evaluating offensive linemen.


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

Dallas just won a championship shooting jumpers. Boozer has always been a good shooter he's just taking more because it's pretty much all he's got these days with his lack of athleticism, so I'm not too worried about that yet. 

Dallas winning it last year has given a lot of teams hope because it shows that you don't need all stars at every position, you just need one superstar and unselfish players that fit around him and I think the ones we have around Rose fit. The offense when Rip is in there looks miles ahead of what it was last year but whether it's enough we're not going to know until the playoffs. If all Rip does is stop teams from doubling Rose that's going to go a long way because when he's able to go into attack mode the offense looks unstoppable as long as we knock down the open shots that he gives them.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Melo isn't a second option. You put him on the Buls and he's your #1.

Get real.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Melo isn't a second option. You put him on the Buls and he's your #1.
> 
> Get real.


Well yeah, if you mean he's going to be the main scorer on the team.

But, as far as an offensive option (which includes assists, penetrating, and making the right decision, and if needed...scoring), I consider Rose the first option.

Okay? Better?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

garnett said:


> Dallas just won a championship shooting jumpers. Boozer has always been a good shooter he's just taking more because it's pretty much all he's got these days with his lack of athleticism, so I'm not too worried about that yet.
> 
> Dallas winning it last year has given a lot of teams hope because it shows that you don't need all stars at every position, you just need one superstar and unselfish players that fit around him and I think the ones we have around Rose fit. The offense when Rip is in there looks miles ahead of what it was last year but whether it's enough we're not going to know until the playoffs. If all Rip does is stop teams from doubling Rose that's going to go a long way because when he's able to go into attack mode the offense looks unstoppable as long as we knock down the open shots that he gives them.


Yeah but where was that elite player for Dallas? In the frontcourt. Not only that but you had Tyson Chandler right next to him. 

That's the whole thing this fan base has been missing for a long time. You can say "hey, you don't need a traditional true superstar center." 

Okay, but even if you're just going to shoot jumpers and rebound your misses, you need to dictate terms in the frontcourt. Whether that's with Gasol/Bynum, the supposed "power forward" Tim Duncan (if Boozer was 6'11" 260 we'd be champs), or even with a combination of frontcourt talents like Dirk, Chandler, Marion, etc. 

Name me all the teams that won titles by shooting jumpers. 04 Pistons? Okay, Wallace and Wallace of 04 would eat Noah and Boozer alive. 08 Celtics? Garnett of 08 would make plays on Boozer all day and deny him offense and Kendrick Perkins would push Noah around. 11 Mavericks? Seriously, Chandler and Dirk would own this team in a 7 game series. 89 Pistons. These two guys against Rodman, Laimbeer, Mahorn, Salley and Edwards in a league with greater contact? Doubt it.

So yes, in the vast minority you can shoot jumpers and win a ring. And you need a frontcourt a LOT better than ours to do it. 

This is all about one thing. As we lose, I fear this city will look to what Derrick Rose could have done better. It's not about that. It's about Paxson acquiring better frontcourt players.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Pay Ton said:


> Well yeah, if you mean he's going to be the main scorer on the team.
> 
> But, as far as an offensive option (which includes assists, penetrating, and making the right decision, and if needed...scoring), I consider Rose the first option.
> 
> Okay? Better?


LOL fans who overrate heavily marketed players. Carmelo is a volume scorer who will win as many rings as Iverson. Zero. And for him or players like him to even compete for a title you need a defensive cast like the 01 Sixers just to make it a doable proposition.


----------



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

First, Carlos Boozer is averaging 14.6 points, 8 rebounds in 29 minutes per game on 53% shooting. Everybody is acting like in 35 minutes per game, he's putting up 9 and 4 on 40% shooting. Second, you talk about Boozer's high number of jumpshots. Before the season started, Rose mentioned how he and Thibs were looking for situations where they can get Boozer in pick and pop situations. It isn't necessarily Boozer wanting to shoot more jumpshots, but how the offense has chosen to use him.

Now as for the playoffs, we made the ECF with a bad Boozer. Boozer is indeed a somewhat hot/cold player, but they cold shooting performances don't occur that often. only 5 of 16 games this season has Boozer shot under 47%. When Boozer is having a red hot night against the Heat, the Bulls are that much more likely to win. If he's having a bad night, well we have a more than capable backup in Taj Gibson and then we'll just need to hope the experience of last year and the addition of Rip will be enough to pull us to victory.


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> Yeah but where was that elite player for Dallas? In the frontcourt. Not only that but you had Tyson Chandler right next to him.
> 
> That's the whole thing this fan base has been missing for a long time. You can say "hey, you don't need a traditional true superstar center."
> 
> ...


Why are you talking about what those teams would do against our team? Are we going to be playing them any time soon? We beat Dallas twice last year, both without Boozer so it's not like they would 'own' us during a series. I'm not saying we're better than the teams you mentioned but you did mention enough to say that it's far from impossible to win a title hitting jumpers. It's not like we're strictly a jump shooting team anyway, Rose gets to the line and knocks them down.

I'm more worried about Boozer's defense than offense. I think I've seen him rotate once since he's been here, but if he keeps hitting shots than I can live with it.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Seems like an odd time to be complaining about Boozer. Boozer is playing his best basketball since wearing a Bulls uniform. The 20+ pounds he lost in the off-season have clearly helped. Granted he has never been a defensive stalwart but in the 5-6 games I've seen this year, he is playing competent team defense most of the time with fewer lapses than last year. He is 100% healthy and he has his confidence back. I am cool with him taking that 10-15 footer as long as he mixes in some occasional post play, which he does (NOTE -- this is Thibs call, not Boozer's anyway....you guys really think Thibs would let Boozer freelance within this offense?). Also, I am fine with his numbers given 29 minutes per game; and I honestly don't want him playing more than 30 minutes most nights given his injury history.

Sure, we are paying him too much. Such is life. If his deal were 4 years, $40M, I somehow doubt the extra $5M per season would make a big difference; we already have a team full of mid-level caliber players anyway, what is another one going to add?

The Bulls have a decent shot to win a title; it is hard to ask for much more. Let's be real, unless injuries come into play this is a 3-team race: Miami, Chicago, Oklahoma City. A healthy Bulls team will beat the other 26 teams without much trouble in a playoff series. They have the #1 defense in the league, a top 10 offense, and an elite level closer. The difference from last year is that we have a competent offense now (no more Bogans, healthy Boozer, improved Brewer, added Hamilton -- these are positive changes, they add up). Do I wish we could sneak into the top 5 offense territory? Yes, of course. I am HOPING we find a way to snag JR Smith once he becomes available and essentially replace Korver with JR. IMO, that could be that minor piece that puts us over the top; I believe we are just that close.

My larger concern is with the health of this team. Rose and Rip have not gotten off to great starts health wise. And Noah...there is still time but something will need to click with him sooner or later. Go Bulls!


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

mvP to the Wee said:


> First, Carlos Boozer is averaging 14.6 points, 8 rebounds in 29 minutes per game on 53% shooting.


For 15 million, the first two numbers you list kinda suck man. And the 53% has been proven to go down in the playoffs. We've played what 16 or so games, and very few have been against the kind of frontcourts that WILL give Boozer trouble in the playoffs. 



> Everybody is acting like in 35 minutes per game, he's putting up 9 and 4 on 40% shooting.


Nope, never said that and don't really care about what his stats are in the REGULAR SEASON where 80% of the teams we play won't give him the problems that the Heat or the Lakers would. To get excited about 14 and 8 is a 2007 Bulls mentality where, if you dealt in reality, you saw the Pistons manhandling of us coming sure as day. 



> Second, you talk about Boozer's high number of jumpshots. Before the season started, Rose mentioned how he and Thibs were looking for situations where they can get Boozer in pick and pop situations. It isn't necessarily Boozer wanting to shoot more jumpshots, but how the offense has chosen to use him.


First, I'm not mad at Boozer. This isn't emotional for me. This isn't like when people in this town hate a guy and can't come off of it. Boozer is what he is. I can't stand that Paxson continues to think that guys like Boozer and Ben Wallace (at the time we signed him for the money we signed him for) are good ideas.

And I'm talking about the many times where Boozer posts up and without attempting to have a primary move to the basket, his first move is a fallaway jumper, not pick and pops. Yeah, if Tibs makes him pick and pop, it's not his FAULT. But I'm not dealing in fault. I don't hate Boozer. He's a decent player who a championship GM either doesn't sign or pays about 9 mill per for.



> Now as for the playoffs, we made the ECF with a bad Boozer.


Fans in this city never seem to get how MASSIVE the difference is between beating Seattle to MAKE The NFC Championship and beating the eventual champs in the NFC Championship or how huge the difference is between beating the Hawks to MAKE the ECF (the Hawks are a regular season team just like we were in 07) and actually beating Miami. It's a big difference. If you don't know that and you think that losing ECF teams like the 92 Cavs are even in the same neighborhood as champions, then I guess making the ECF sounds great. Winning is takes a LOT more than making it.

Now, the one way I think we have a chance is if we make it and the Heat have a debilitating iunjury like Wade being out. Short of that I anticipate no better than a 4-2 loss. 



> Boozer is indeed a somewhat hot/cold player, but they cold shooting performances don't occur that often. only 5 of 16 games this season has Boozer shot under 47%. When Boozer is having a red hot night against the Heat, the Bulls are that much more likely to win.


Here are Boozer's FGM and FGA attempted v. the Heat in the ECF last year.

Game 1 5-10 FG
Game 2 3-10 FG
Game 3 8-19 FG
Game 4 7-14 FG
Game 5 1-6 FG
Series total: 24-59 or 40.6% or basically "bad for a PG"

That's two GOOD games that are acceptable for a player that Paxson chooses to give 15 million to and 3 terrible games. Feast or famine. And feast or famine teams have never made champions very well. You need to be a team that either feasts, or when it's not going great is still eating just fine. 

You need a guy, unless your guard is Jordan and not Rose, who can get you the consistent basket down low when you need it. Not a guy who goes for 30%, 42.1% or even a god awful 16.7% in ECF games.

This is Paxson's problem. He likes to sign guys who, when it matters, when there are no games v. the Wizards or Raptors, goes out and shoots 40.6%. We're a team who made the ECF, and we're also a team who is equipped to go out and have their 15 million #2 shoot 40.6 IN THE ECF. 



> If he's having a bad night, well we have a more than capable backup in Taj Gibson and then we'll just need to hope the experience of last year and the addition of Rip will be enough to pull us to victory.


Not how it works. If you're Paxson or a fan of his and you're trying to hold yourself up as a good decision maker, you don't get to say "well, if our 15 million dollar man isn't hot in the ECF, maybe Taj Gibson will be." 

Quick glance at game 5 where Boozer shot 1 for 6. Taj Gibson shot 0 for 3 because Miami gets it (at least more than Paxson). Haslem and Anthony were equipped to push our ENTIRE FRONTCOURT around. Taj Gibson wasn't going to go in there and get any more physical than anyone else in our pedestrian perennial second round winner/ECF loser frontcourt.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

mvP to the Wee said:


> First, Carlos Boozer is averaging 14.6 points, 8 rebounds in 29 minutes per game on 53% shooting.


For 15 million, the first two numbers you list kinda suck man. And the 53% has been proven to go down in the playoffs. We've played what 16 or so games, and very few have been against the kind of frontcourts that WILL give Boozer trouble in the playoffs. 



> Everybody is acting like in 35 minutes per game, he's putting up 9 and 4 on 40% shooting.


Nope, never said that and don't really care about what his stats are in the REGULAR SEASON where 80% of the teams we play won't give him the problems that the Heat or the Lakers would. To get excited about 14 and 8 is a 2007 Bulls mentality where, if you dealt in reality, you saw the Pistons manhandling of us coming sure as day. 



> Second, you talk about Boozer's high number of jumpshots. Before the season started, Rose mentioned how he and Thibs were looking for situations where they can get Boozer in pick and pop situations. It isn't necessarily Boozer wanting to shoot more jumpshots, but how the offense has chosen to use him.


First, I'm not mad at Boozer. This isn't emotional for me. This isn't like when people in this town hate a guy and can't come off of it. Boozer is what he is. I can't stand that Paxson continues to think that guys like Boozer and Ben Wallace (at the time we signed him for the money we signed him for) are good ideas.

And I'm talking about the many times where Boozer posts up and without attempting to have a primary move to the basket, his first move is a fallaway jumper, not pick and pops. Yeah, if Tibs makes him pick and pop, it's not his FAULT. But I'm not dealing in fault. I don't hate Boozer. He's a decent player who a championship GM either doesn't sign or pays about 9 mill per for.



> Now as for the playoffs, we made the ECF with a bad Boozer.


Fans in this city never seem to get how MASSIVE the difference is between beating Seattle to MAKE The NFC Championship and beating the eventual champs in the NFC Championship or how huge the difference is between beating the Hawks to MAKE the ECF (the Hawks are a regular season team just like we were in 07) and actually beating Miami. It's a big difference. If you don't know that and you think that losing ECF teams like the 92 Cavs are even in the same neighborhood as champions, then I guess making the ECF sounds great. Winning is takes a LOT more than making it.

Now, the one way I think we have a chance is if we make it and the Heat have a debilitating iunjury like Wade being out. Short of that I anticipate no better than a 4-2 loss. 



> Boozer is indeed a somewhat hot/cold player, but they cold shooting performances don't occur that often. only 5 of 16 games this season has Boozer shot under 47%. When Boozer is having a red hot night against the Heat, the Bulls are that much more likely to win.


Here are Boozer's FGM and FGA attempted v. the Heat in the ECF last year.

Game 1 5-10 FG
Game 2 3-10 FG
Game 3 8-19 FG
Game 4 7-14 FG
Game 5 1-6 FG
Series total: 24-59 or 40.6% or basically "bad for a PG"

That's two GOOD games that are acceptable for a player that Paxson chooses to give 15 million to and 3 terrible games. Feast or famine. And feast or famine teams have never made champions very well. You need to be a team that either feasts, or when it's not going great is still eating just fine. 

You need a guy, unless your guard is Jordan and not Rose, who can get you the consistent basket down low when you need it. Not a guy who goes for 30%, 42.1% or even a god awful 16.7% in ECF games.

This is Paxson's problem. He likes to sign guys who, when it matters, when there are no games v. the Wizards or Raptors, goes out and shoots 40.6%. We're a team who made the ECF, and we're also a team who is equipped to go out and have their 15 million #2 shoot 40.6 IN THE ECF. 



> If he's having a bad night, well we have a more than capable backup in Taj Gibson and then we'll just need to hope the experience of last year and the addition of Rip will be enough to pull us to victory.


Not how it works. If you're Paxson or a fan of his and you're trying to hold yourself up as a good decision maker, you don't get to say "well, if our 15 million dollar man isn't hot in the ECF, maybe Taj Gibson will be." 

Quick glance at game 5 where Boozer shot 1 for 6. Taj Gibson shot 0 for 3 because Miami gets it (at least more than Paxson). Haslem and Anthony were equipped to push our ENTIRE FRONTCOURT around. Taj Gibson wasn't going to go in there and get any more physical than anyone else in our pedestrian perennial second round winner/ECF loser frontcourt.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

garnett said:


> Why are you talking about what those teams would do against our team? Are we going to be playing them any time soon? We beat Dallas twice last year, both without Boozer so it's not like they would 'own' us during a series. I'm not saying we're better than the teams you mentioned but you did mention enough to say that it's far from impossible to win a title hitting jumpers. It's not like we're strictly a jump shooting team anyway, Rose gets to the line and knocks them down.
> 
> I'm more worried about Boozer's defense than offense. I think I've seen him rotate once since he's been here, but if he keeps hitting shots than I can live with it.


Seriously, you don't get why I'm talking about those teams? Because you're talking about winning a championship shooting jumpers, I'm talking about the 5 teams that have done that (instead of having an inside scoring game) since 19-freaking-79. 

89 Pistons
90 Pistons
04 Pistons
08 Celtics
11 Mavericks

What makes you think we're as good as any of them or that we can dictate the terms that those teams could dictate in the frontcourt, not only offensively but defensively and on the boards.

Those teams showed that you can win a title roughly once every 6 years shooting jumpers. And, to do it, you only need to have a frontcourt of:

Laimbeer, Rodman, Salley, Edwards, Mahorn
Wallace, Wallace
Perkins, Garnett
Nowitzki, Chandler, Marion

If you're going to assert that Paxson's model "can be a winning model" then you need to be prepared to discuss the model and discuss what it takes, rather than oversimplifying it to "hey, they shot jumpers, so all you need to do is launch them and you can be the same thing they are, champions." No you can't lol! You need to have serious ammo in the frontcourt.

Next, you're doing what Bulls fans always do.. you're marginalizing the difference between the regular season and the playoffs. In the playoffs, there aren't the back to backs with travel across country. There isn't the feeling that "hey, we can lose to the Bulls and just try to pace ourselves over the next 3 weeks because we have a home stretch coming up."

More importantly, when you play a team in December, you're 15 games into the season, not 100 games! You don't think that that makes a difference? You think if we played Dallas in the Finals, the frontcourt wouldn't have loomed much larger than December, when running teams haven't been beaten up for a whole season yet?

It is possible to win a title shooting jumpers. Now, do this. Go get me Ben Wallace and Rasheed Wallace, Noah can be their backup and we'll roll to a ring.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

yodurk said:


> Seems like an odd time to be complaining about Boozer. Boozer is playing his best basketball since wearing a Bulls uniform.


That's what #2s on playoff losers do. They play great when it's 30 teams and bad when they're down to the 1, 2 or 3 best teams in the league. It's classic Phoenix Suns ball. 

I guess it's futile. You either know what wins in the playoffs and how those things are vastly different than putting up good #s in the regular season or you don't. It's not a surprise that many people don't. Every time I talk NBA of the last 10 years I inevitably run into tons of people who are SHOCKED that Steve Nash and the fullcourt Suns never won a ring.



> Sure, we are paying him too much. Such is life.


No, such is not life. What you just said sums of the sorriness of this whole front office. 

Remember when Paxson and his legion had us convinced that this team was going to contend around Kirk freaking Hinrich, Luol Deng and Ben Gordon (laughable), all of whom have games that are somewhere south of Horace Grant.

I remember looking at that team and thinking "uh, what's everyone so fascinated by. It's the 93 Heat of Grant Long, Glen Rice and Steve Smith - ALL OF WHOM had games (at least at that time in the case of rice) somewhere south of Horace Grant.

THEN the whole battlecry of Paxson nation is, "well, Paxson doesn't have that superstar, because you have to get lucky to get one of those. What would Jerry Krause have been if the organization didn't luck into Jordan in 84?

Now Krause clearly was absorbed in his own ego, and he really lost it after 98. But when he got lucky (even though I realize that he was not the GM in 84), just like Paxson did with Rose, he went out and got Scottie Pippen.

Paxson paid 15 million for Carlos Boozer. 

So you got lucky and got that player that you can build a title team around. Now, I realize it's not as big of a home run as Jordan, because Rose will never sniff that level of all-time greatness. But it's not like you're stuck in the mediocrity trap of trying to build around Mark Price either. You have that superstar. You had to know that it was going to take more than Carlos Boozer to win with Derrick Rose.

Now, is my contention that you have to sign Boozer for 10 mill instead of 15? NO! It's that once you miss on James and Wade, you don't sign Boozer AT ALL! Because you are CLAIMING TO BE WORTHY OF BEING GM OF THE BULLS, which means you either show us the money or you suck; you decide who you need to get to give Rose what he needs to win a ring and you go get that player. Whether it's trading for Gasol, trading for Perkins, trading for a pick in the Rose draft to get Jordan or Hibbert or anything else you need to do. 

Right now Boozer's money should have been held over until we found a better option, Deng should be making 9.5-10 mill and Noah should be making 7.5-8.0. 

You want an example of who you go get; and who is not "ungettable?" 

Nene 
6'11" 260
career FG - 56%
career PLAYOFF FG - 53%

That's he's making 13 million and Boozer is due 15 million next year is not "such is life." It's a freaking travesty that exposes Paxson as being a former player that people like and want to like, who is also in way over his head in terms of building a championship team. 

And I realize Nene won't be any closer to winning in Denver than we are, but he's not playing with Derrick Rose in Denver.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Durk, here's an example of a solution that I believe a championship GM makes.

Go to LA and find out what it would take to get Bynum. They showed they'd deal him, they have him signed for two years and their needs are completely tailored to what we have. They have Gasol already, so their good down low either way. They need a few young players who can give them the rotation that they'll need to survive the season and go into the playoffs with young legs where they'll still rely on the inside outside game of Bryant and Gasol. 

So you start with Bynum and the principle deal being for Noah, who only makes 11. Then you add a CJ Watson and Brewer or Korver (I prefer adding Korver, but LA might want Brewer) and draft picks to the puzzle. 

With Bynum occupying bodies Boozer or Gibson, Deng and Rose can roam free and have tons of clear lanes to the basket whether driving or going in for putbacks. 

Now LA is younger and has more depth and fresher legs and the Bulls have the inside threat they need. Do you think Joel Anthony or Udonis Haslem would push Bynum from in front of the rim? Not a chance.

That's how a championship GM builds a title team. Go get Cousins for the Bobcats pick and see if Rose and company wouldn't change his mentality the same way the Bulls changed Rodman or the Pistons changed Wallace. Do something. Cause this aint it man.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I don't get the obsession with the $15M per year salary. The reality is that big men with skills get paid in this league. It is not like there were mobs of better players available to use our cap space on and we badly needed a big man with offensive skill. Our offense would be a travesty without Boozer right now; I am glad we got him. 

The cap space in summer 2010 was use it or lose it. The Bulls took the best player they could get their hands on, and they improved. It is not my money, I could care less if it was $10M versus $15M. Small detail in the grand scheme of things; practically speaking, that barely affects anything with regard to the Bulls' flexibility. And you know what, Boozer is actually doing fairly well right now. That's what he does when he is healthy. This is a far far cry from Ben Wallace.

You don't need to force some championship model upon this team in which there is a clear cut #2 man. The Bulls have a leader/superstar, a very well balanced starting 5, a deep bench, and the league's best D. That gives us a shot. There is not any one size fits all model for a title contender. The "balance and defense" model has worked in the past.

P.S. I am pretty certain Bynum is the last player the Lakers will trade. He is their only young talent and their cornerstone if they're ready to blow things up. And DeMarcus Cousins? Yikes...maybe someday he will get it together, but he has a long ways to go before he reaches his epiphany. Let him be someone else's problem until then.


----------



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

> For 15 million, the first two numbers you list kinda suck man. And the 53% has been proven to go down in the playoffs. We've played what 16 or so games, and very few have been against the kind of frontcourts that WILL give Boozer trouble in the playoffs.


For 15 million, 14 and 8 shouldn't cut it, but if given the normal 35 minutes per game, he'd probably get closer to 16-17 points and 10 rebounds. 




> Nope, never said that and don't really care about what his stats are in the REGULAR SEASON where 80% of the teams we play won't give him the problems that the Heat or the Lakers would. To get excited about 14 and 8 is a 2007 Bulls mentality where, if you dealt in reality, you saw the Pistons manhandling of us coming sure as day.


We've played Orlando, Atlanta twice, Lakers, Clippers, and Boston(not sure if you still consider them a playoff team). Of those 6 games, he only had 1 bad game against Atlanta. 



> First, I'm not mad at Boozer. This isn't emotional for me. This isn't like when people in this town hate a guy and can't come off of it. Boozer is what he is. I can't stand that Paxson continues to think that guys like Boozer and Ben Wallace (at the time we signed him for the money we signed him for) are good ideas.


Wallace was bad, but I disagree about Boozer. When not injured he produced. Him being injured often shouldn't be a shocker to any of us.



> And I'm talking about the many times where Boozer posts up and without attempting to have a primary move to the basket, his first move is a fallaway jumper, not pick and pops. Yeah, if Tibs makes him pick and pop, it's not his FAULT. But I'm not dealing in fault. I don't hate Boozer. He's a decent player who a championship GM either doesn't sign or pays about 9 mill per for.


Boozer never was someone that took it inside against an athletic shot blocker, that's why when you see him matched up against a guy like Josh Smith, he'll go for the jumpshot the majority of the time. He's always been like that. Miami's frontcourt also isn't all that. Their defensive strength lie on the perimeter, Haslem is tough but someone Boozer can more than handle. Bosh isn't as good defensively as he is offensively. 



> Fans in this city never seem to get how MASSIVE the difference is between beating Seattle to MAKE The NFC Championship and beating the eventual champs in the NFC Championship or how huge the difference is between beating the Hawks to MAKE the ECF (the Hawks are a regular season team just like we were in 07) and actually beating Miami. It's a big difference. If you don't know that and you think that losing ECF teams like the 92 Cavs are even in the same neighborhood as champions, then I guess making the ECF sounds great. Winning is takes a LOT more than making it.


Considering the ECF means you're amongst the final 4 teams is pretty impressive. The Seahawks were a team that didn't really deserve to be there(though they beat the Saints), the Hawks deserved to be in round 2 where they won a tough series against Orlando. Who exactly did Miami play in round 2? The aging Celtics?


> Now, the one way I think we have a chance is if we make it and the Heat have a debilitating iunjury like Wade being out. Short of that I anticipate no better than a 4-2 loss.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why are you complaining about Boozer's playoff performances? He was obviously hurt by turf toe. Yes he gets hurt a shit ton, but at least he tried to play through it, despite him not being very effective. He's not someone that tends to regress in the playoffs. With Utah he put up averages of: 23.5ppg, 12rpg, 54%fg; 16ppg, 12rpg, 41%fg(bad, I know); 20.6ppg, 13rpg, 53%fg; 19.7ppg, 13rpg, 53%fg.




> Not how it works. If you're Paxson or a fan of his and you're trying to hold yourself up as a good decision maker, you don't get to say "well, if our 15 million dollar man isn't hot in the ECF, maybe Taj Gibson will be."
> 
> Quick glance at game 5 where Boozer shot 1 for 6. Taj Gibson shot 0 for 3 because Miami gets it (at least more than Paxson). Haslem and Anthony were equipped to push our ENTIRE FRONTCOURT around. Taj Gibson wasn't going to go in there and get any more physical than anyone else in our pedestrian perennial second round winner/ECF loser frontcourt.


Sure, Gibson being good doesn't excuse a bad Boozer performance/series, but we're all here to win a series against the Heat, if one night Boozer doesn't bring it and Gibson does, then Gibson should see the majority of the minutes. The reason we lost to the Heat isn't all on Boozer, the whole team lost that series. I'm not as worried as you are for this season though. The way I see it, we lost because:

-Boozer was playing hurt. Rose is sitting out because of the same injury and Thibs said before that Boozer's case of turf toe was much more serious. Will he be hurt this post season again? Who knows, but that's what we signed up for.
-Korver sucked. He shot 4 for 14 on 3's I believe. Most were open.
-Keith Bogans. His lack of offense allowed Wade to roam around on defense and help out on every other player.
-Rose sucked. Because other guys didn't step up(including Boozer) and hit their open shots, Rose opted to go into hero mode. He made some awful decisions where he didn't pass the ball to the right guy and went up for a shot instead and missed since he was so well defended. 
-Lebron was in hero mode. And it worked. If Lebron played Dallas as well as he played against us, especially the 4th quarter, the Heat are champions. If he plays us as badly as he plays Dallas, we win. We were up on them in game 2 until Lebron took over in the final minutes, same for game 5. 

Now how can we win a series against them this season?

-Be healthy. I'm happy Boozer and Noah aren't seeing heavy minutes, it diminishes their chance of injury. They also seem to both be coming around as a duo, let's see if they can keep this consistent and bring it against a title contender.
-Hit open shots. If guys like Korver hit most of their open shots, it will make Miami stop trapping Rose up so high, because there always will be a guy wide open in such a scenario.
-Use Rip Hamilton. I think people forget about just how bad Bogans was. Bogans was so bad, that Wade wouldn't really bother defending him and roam around on defense. Rip isn't someone to leave open like Bogans. 
-Use the experience. We've been there, now we know what to expect. I don't doubt that Rose has seen all his errors on film and has looked to fix it. 
-Pray Lebron doesn't go into hero mode again. He needs to keep his 4th quarter struggles against the Bulls, not turn into a god when facing them.


The Heat are truly a great team despite not having any championships. Beating them is no easy task.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Knicks4life said:


> Carmelo Anthony for Luol Deng, Bobcats 1st round pick, Bulls 2012 1st round pick, Bulls 2014 1st round pick
> 
> Would you do this?


Hell no. Carmelo doesn't play D. Deng isn't a sissy anymore, and has some new-found shooting range, so I wouldn't do an offense for defense trade, plus give up 2 1sts, including one that should be very high when we get it unprotected in '16 (unless of course they really change things around in Charlotte). I think we need Deng's defense on LeBeyotch too much. If you want to get really in-depth on the comparison, Deng is a better rebounder, shoots a higher FG%, almost as high 3pt %, and is a better defender. Carmelo does add 10 points per game, and is the better player overall, but not enough to give up 2 1sts as well, and he's a year older as well. We already have a defensive liability in Boozer, we don't need another. Take out Charlotte's pick and I'd probably do it. I view that pick, aside from a trade for Dwight Howard, as the only possibility of adding a star to compliment Rose.

As for the OP, I disagree. Rose is a superstar and good enough to win with this team if they get hot at the right time and get lucky. I don't see a dynasty or a juggernaut, mostly due to his reasons with Boozer, but I see a contender. Of course, my starting 5 wouldn't even be close to what the Bulls currently have out there. Rose, Brewer, Deng, Gibson and Asik would be my starting 5, with Korver being the instant offense off the bench at the 2 or 3, and when I bring in Watson off the bench to spell Rose, I'd bring in Hamilton to be the "go-to" guy while Rose is out.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I don't agree that you need frontcourt scoring. I'd go with the old Bulls' model of Rodzilla and some scrub big body in the paint. In other words, Gibson and Asik. Gibson is no Rodman, but he is a great defender and good rebounder. Asik is better than any stiff the Bulls had during their dynasties. Get your O out of your backcourt (Rose provides a lot, and the SG and SF can at times) and have your bigs be garbage men and rebounders, getting their points off of put backs and getting 2nd chance point opportunities for the backcourt. That's not ideal, but given the players on the team, that's how I'd do it, and much how it is when they have their best players (Gibson and Asik) on the court.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

yodurk said:


> I don't get the obsession with the $15M per year salary.


I think the fact that you don't get this says it all. When you have a player like Rose, you're going to be drafting lower and lower as he gets closer to his prime. When you have that $15 dollars open, you need to get a legit #2 option. Carlos Boozer is not a #2 on a title team. $15 million, when you have Rose and the city of Chicago and Bulls to sell should get you the #2 you need to WIN titles. 

What was the problem with the last CBA as a lot of pundits put it? Guys like Carlos Boozer were making salaries too close to that of Rose, Lebron, etc. No one ever questioned whether Rose or Lebron should make their money, but the reason the owners were allegedly in trouble was overbloated contracts to guys like Boozer.

When Paxson had that $15 million, that was his shot. If you don't get Lebron or Wade, first of all you suck because you couldn't make the sale, and your only value is as a talent evaluator and salesman. Secondly, you hold the money over rather than blow your load on locking yourself into being over the cap on Boozer.

And don't give me "oh, we were going to be over the cap anyway after Rose got paid." Noah and Deng are also overpaid, so we should have been sitting pretty even next summer. 



> The reality is that big men with skills get paid in this league.[/qute]
> 
> Well the problem is you likely have the same philosophical view as Paxson. All 4s and 5s, regardless of height or weight are "bigs." I think smart GMs pay money to legit athletes at the center position (or 260 lb. "power forwards" like Gasol and Duncan). I think occassionally a smart GM may decide that a four is worth the money. Usually fours are worth it as role players. Citing Dirk, Duncan and Gasol is worthless in response. If Boozer was 7 feet or 6'11" 260, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

But how do you feel about Carlos Boozer?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

mvP to the Wee said:


> For 15 million, 14 and 8 shouldn't cut it, but if given the normal 35 minutes per game, he'd probably get closer to 16-17 points and 10 rebounds.


This still isn't 2007. I don't care what he does v. Cleveland and Phoenix. Until further notice, this guy is a "guy who makes $15 mill and shot 40.9% v. the Heat in the ECF." Period. 



> We've played Orlando, Atlanta twice, Lakers, Clippers, and Boston(not sure if you still consider them a playoff team). Of those 6 games, he only had 1 bad game against Atlanta.
> 
> Wallace was bad, but I disagree about Boozer. When not injured he produced. Him being injured often shouldn't be a shocker to any of us.


Bynum was out v. LA, Boston is old and irrelevant, Atlanta is a classic regular season team that will always fail in the playoffs. They're a full court team and the playoffs is still a half court game. Orlando has managed to consistently build just about the worst team you could put around a center like Dwight Howard.

Okay but "not bad" is not good enough when you have $15 mill and one shot to give Rose a #2. Don't give me excuses. He shot 40.9% v. the Heat in the ECF. If he was fat or has been injured often, then why did the GM give him 15 mill? Why not just hold the money over until the following season?

Boozer may not be Ben Wallace bad, but that doesn't make him Pau Gasol good either. 



> Boozer never was someone that took it inside against an athletic shot blocker, that's why when you see him matched up against a guy like Josh Smith, he'll go for the jumpshot the majority of the time. He's always been like that.


Again, if even YOU realize this, then why did Paxson give him that contract? You don't give 15 million to guy who isn't a great defender or rebounder and ALSO can't take it inside against an athletic shot blocker. 

This is classic "don't build the 92 Cavs on accident" 101! LOL. 



> Miami's frontcourt also isn't all that. Their defensive strength lie on the perimeter, Haslem is tough but someone Boozer can more than handle. Bosh isn't as good defensively as he is offensively.


Then why didn't Boozer shoot better than 40.9%? First, I have always thought Bosh was overrated. They looked better to me with Haslem and Anthony out there. Bosh has some of the same problems Boozer does, but if you just LOVE power forwards and consider them "bigs" (as if all bigs are created equal), people probably don't see why. Bosh can't back down other 4s and doesn't have the skill to hit high percentage in the high post like say a Rasheed Wallace. It's relatively easy to keep Bosh out of the paint. 

What Jerry West and John Wooden would tell you is that being 6'11" and jumping high like Bosh or being 260 like Boozer ONLY matters if you can convert it into close high percentage shots.

Now as for Haslem and Anthony, Riley understood what most people don't. You can't have five stars, but Riley clearly has a priority in his non stars. PGs who are quick and power players who play with power and explosiveness. Joel Anthony and Udonis Haslem may have little basketball skill or statistical prowess in a lot of ways. Yet they pushed Boozer and Noah around and if you're being honest you know it. 





> Considering the ECF means you're amongst the final 4 teams is pretty impressive. The Seahawks were a team that didn't really deserve to be there(though they beat the Saints), the Hawks deserved to be in round 2 where they won a tough series against Orlando. Who exactly did Miami play in round 2? The aging Celtics?


The Hawks are a full court team. They're simply not built for the transition from regular season full court game to the halfcourt game of the playoffs.

The ECF should not be impressive when you have Derrick Rose. It wasn't impressive in 1989. But hey, I guess the difference is people REALLY LIKE Paxson. I don't care about like or dislike. 

This isn't going to be some "oh shucks at least we made it there" thing like 92 Cavs fans.

Who Miami played is irrelevant. You know why? They beat US.

Look, Carlos Boozer is a nice regular season player - just like Larry Nance. 




> Why are you complaining about Boozer's playoff performances? He was obviously hurt by turf toe. Yes he gets hurt a shit ton, but at least he tried to play through it, despite him not being very effective. He's not someone that tends to regress in the playoffs. With Utah he put up averages of: 23.5ppg, 12rpg, 54%fg; 16ppg, 12rpg, 41%fg(bad, I know); 20.6ppg, 13rpg, 53%fg; 19.7ppg, 13rpg, 53%fg.


Depends who he's playing. Did you watch him with Pau Gasol on him in 08? I'm not interested in the regular season or even the first 2 rounds of the playoffs (unless you're playing the eventual winner of the CF finals a round early etc.). What do you do against that elite competition? Because against Gasol and Miami Boozer was rather pedestrian.

If he gets hurt all the time why did we give him the kind of contract a young Scottie Pippen would get nowadays?



> Sure, Gibson being good doesn't excuse a bad Boozer performance/series, but we're all here to win a series against the Heat, if one night Boozer doesn't bring it and Gibson does, then Gibson should see the majority of the minutes. The reason we lost to the Heat isn't all on Boozer, the whole team lost that series.


Do you know why we lost v. Miami? 

Their strategy was to overplay Deng and the backcourt knowing that even if Boozer got a step down low, Haslem or Anthony could get back and cut him off. 

When defenses sag on Kobe he can pass the ball in to Gasol and make them pay, which draws the defense back to the paint. 

You don't face this problem against Boston or a very poorly built Orlando team. A healthy LA team, Miami, OKC.. these are the few teams that can get physical enough to cause this problem. You need to be able to score inside to get the defense off of Rose. 

The other things you can do are to have a ridiculous all around team like the 04 Pistons. We are not that good at 3 positions. Or if Rose was Jordan he would still just go to the basket and dunk on two guys. Or you can get a goon like Perkins to offset Miami's goons. 

If you can't do one of those things then the Miami defense will just be able to focus way too much on Derrick Rose for me to turn around and blame Rose for the series.

Deng played good and Rose did too. The Miami loss was all about Noah and Boozer getting pushed around.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

OK. You're right, we're all wrong and don't know anything. For your sake, I hope you can enjoy the ride like most Bulls fans. It is not everyday we can wake up to a 14-3 record. If all you can do is complain that it's not good enough, then I'm not sure what to tell you. It's like having your parents buy you a Corvette for your 16th birthday, then complaining it's not a Lamborghini. Bulls fans have been spoiled...the sense of entitlement from some fans gets old. Be appreciative that you have a Corvette; I know I certainly am, and am enjoying every minute of it. I won't turn down the upgrade if the opportunity presents itself, but I also know it just might be good enough as long as it doesn't break down along the way.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

yodurk said:


> OK. You're right, we're all wrong and don't know anything. For your sake, I hope you can enjoy the ride like most Bulls fans. It is not everyday we can wake up to a 14-3 record. If all you can do is complain that it's not good enough, then I'm not sure what to tell you. It's like having your parents buy you a Corvette for your 16th birthday, then complaining it's not a Lamborghini. *Bulls fans have been spoiled*...the sense of entitlement from some fans gets old. Be appreciative that you have a Corvette; I know I certainly am, and am enjoying every minute of it. I won't turn down the upgrade if the opportunity presents itself, but I also know it just might be good enough as long as it doesn't break down along the way.


I don't think we've been too spoiled. It's been 14 years since we've been spoiled. The real fans are still fans, and the team owes us a lot for sticking around through all those garbage years. 

With that said, I'm enjoying every minute of D-Rose. The rest of the team, aside from the bench mob, I couldn't care less about. Not a fan of them at all.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> Until further notice, this guy is a "guy who makes $15 mill and shot 40.9% v. the Heat in the ECF." Period.


Does this mean Rose is going to be known as the guy who shot 35% v. the Heat in the ECF until further notice?

And... doesn't this mean our entire team is going to be known as the team that shot 39% v. the Heat in the ECF, until further notice?


If not, I think it may be time to move on.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

yodurk said:


> OK. You're right, we're all wrong and don't know anything. For your sake, I hope you can enjoy the ride like most Bulls fans. It is not everyday we can wake up to a 14-3 record. If all you can do is complain that it's not good enough, then I'm not sure what to tell you. It's like having your parents buy you a Corvette for your 16th birthday, then complaining it's not a Lamborghini. Bulls fans have been spoiled...the sense of entitlement from some fans gets old. Be appreciative that you have a Corvette; I know I certainly am, and am enjoying every minute of it. I won't turn down the upgrade if the opportunity presents itself, but I also know it just might be good enough as long as it doesn't break down along the way.


Wait, are you saying you do know something? Have you actually read about NBA history and looked at the commonalities between title teams and teams that fall short in conference finals?

I don't think you do know much. I think you start with the idea that you like Paxson and then you work backwards from there, but I've been through this with Paxson's fans. 

We were going to contend around Gordon, Deng and Hinrich (LMAO). And I took that to mean REALLY contend, as in have a legit shot to win the Finals. Then, when we didn't, it was because of luck. Paxson's fans said that Krause only won because he got lucky enough to be Jordan's GM. Ditto anyone else who has ever gotten a mega superstar. But then we got Rose! We lucked in to the player that Paxson's fans said we needed win a title. And what do we get as his second fiddle? A guy like Pippen who even Krause was able to get us? No. For 15 million we got a 260 lb. 6'7" forward who doesn't use his 260 lbs. because he fades away as his primary move and isn't an elite defender or rebounder.

Awesome.

And of course your post was "yeah, you're right." You weren't about to argue the actual points.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Dornado said:


> Does this mean Rose is going to be known as the guy who shot 35% v. the Heat in the ECF until further notice?
> 
> And... doesn't this mean our entire team is going to be known as the team that shot 39% v. the Heat in the ECF, until further notice?
> 
> ...


The guy was the MVP of the league. I think it's a pretty obvious conclusion that the defense was going to him first. Or are you arguing that the defense really planned to double team Boozer lol. Boozer was getting single teamed and couldn't do anything.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

yodurk said:


> Bulls fans have been spoiled...the sense of entitlement from some fans gets old.


You can go tell someone else to be appreciative for Paxson's indictable decisions. 

No one is spoiled my man. Not everyone lives in the bubble you live in where the NBA started the day that John Paxson became GM of the Bulls. Some people have actually looked outside of that bubble and said "hey, these championship teams started by guys like Jerry West, were they some happy accident? Or do they have things in common?"

I'm sorry man. It's not luck and you're not spoiled if you expect a guy who thinks he's qualified to be GM to actually build a team purposefully around a proven championship model.

Take the 86 Celtics. Most consider them the best ever. 

Bird - Drafted by Auerbach a year early
McHale, Parish and Dennis Johnson - Acquired in trades for the following players: Ricky Robey, Joe Barry Carroll, Greg Kite and Rod Foster.

So, Auerbach knew the players he needed to go out and win a proven model. Parish patrolled the paint. McHale scored inside on an extremely high percentage. Dennis Johnson was the defensive ace and distributor in the backcourt and Bird made it all go. And Auerbach was smart enough to get the players he wanted to get to do these things. Of course Dave Cowens, Jo Jo White and John Havlicek had already proven that this was no accident. Auerbach knew how to win rings and he got the players to do it. 

Jerry West did the same thing in LA.

This is Chicago where we have the third most championships. We have Derrick Rose. If John Paxson can't do the same thing, he should quit. Jerry FREAKING Krause could do it. Larry Krystowiak is your power forward and Jordan is back? No problem. He went out and got Rodman for Will freaking Perdue. Jordan needed a supporting cast? No problem. Even Crumbs Krause could go out and get Pippen and Grant in one offseason. 

If Paxson can't start ripping some people off in trades, he should quit. I think his grace period was the Ben Wallace dirty diaper.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

This guy's fun.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

King Joseus said:


> This guy's fun.


His posts are too long though. I even agree with him at times (like Boozer not being the answer mainly), but it's just too tedious to read a post arguing the same thing he already argued before.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

King Joseus said:


> This guy's fun.


Yes, I think we have a new kukoc4ever. I've been suffering from withdrawals after all these years.


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

Hoodey...

You're making this GM thing sound simple. Like, "um, if you can't make all the right moves you're an idiot GM and should quit.."
Paxson, like all Gm's has done some good things and some bad things. The Boozer signing, in my opinion, is still up the air. We missed out on Bosh, and Boozer was the only other FA that filled the biggest void this team had at the time..a low post threat. If we didn't give him the money, someone else would've, and we would still be looking for a PF.
You brought up Nene... I would love to have him here...but he wasn't available then, and when he was, we didn't have the paper..not Paxson's fault.
This is a team that won the most games in the NBA last year and made it to the ECF... Pax has to be doing something right other than getting lucky.
What would you do as GM?? I saw your Bynum fantasy... so you present that to L.A. and they promptly say "no." Now what? ...because if L.A. is dealing Bynum, it's for Howard...not Noah and a couple role players. Bynum is L.A.'s last valuable young piece...it's not as easy as you make it sound to get him... So now what?


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> Wait, are you saying you do know something? Have you actually read about NBA history and looked at the commonalities between title teams and teams that fall short in conference finals?
> 
> I don't think you do know much. I think you start with the idea that you like Paxson and then you work backwards from there, but I've been through this with Paxson's fans.
> 
> ...


I know it is convenient to your argument and helps you get up on the soapbox, but you do realize that there really aren't any unflinchingly loyal Paxson supporters on this forum, right? Bulls fans, not "Paxson" fans (to wit, you're not going to find anyone who actually thought the Hinrich/Gordon/Deng Bulls were contenders to win a championship). I think you'll find that most here are objective - which goes both ways - acknowledging his (and the organizations) failures _and _successes. 

You wrap up your post with "You weren't about to argue the actual points", which is kind of ironic when you're in here railing against a strawman.


----------



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

Power forward by salary:

Kevin Garnett 21.4 million
Tim Duncan 21.2 million
Dirk Nowitzki 19 million
Pau Gasol 18.7 million
Amar'e Stoudemire 18.2 million
Elton Brand 17 million
Zach Randolph 15.2 million
Antawn Jamison 15 million
Chris Bosh 14.5 million
Al Jefferson 14 million
Carlos Boozer 13.5 million
Josh Smith 12.4 million
Lamarcus Aldridge 12.4 million
David Lee 11.6 million

Other than Aldridge being underpaid, I think Boozer is paid the right amount for what he brings


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Being 15-3 really sucks.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Who would Hoodey have signed as a FA instead of Boozer?

That's the question that needs addressing instead of calling out people for being blind Paxson supporters. Answering LeBron, Bosh, or Wade does not count.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Hell no. Carmelo doesn't play D. Deng isn't a sissy anymore, and has some new-found shooting range, so I wouldn't do an offense for defense trade, plus give up 2 1sts, including one that should be very high when we get it unprotected in '16 (unless of course they really change things around in Charlotte). I think we need Deng's defense on LeBeyotch too much. If you want to get really in-depth on the comparison, Deng is a better rebounder, shoots a higher FG%, almost as high 3pt %, and is a better defender. Carmelo does add 10 points per game, and is the better player overall, but not enough to give up 2 1sts as well, and he's a year older as well. We already have a defensive liability in Boozer, we don't need another. Take out Charlotte's pick and I'd probably do it. I view that pick, aside from a trade for Dwight Howard, as the only possibility of adding a star to compliment Rose.
> 
> As for the OP, I disagree. Rose is a superstar and good enough to win with this team if they get hot at the right time and get lucky. I don't see a dynasty or a juggernaut, mostly due to his reasons with Boozer, but I see a contender. Of course, my starting 5 wouldn't even be close to what the Bulls currently have out there. Rose, Brewer, Deng, Gibson and Asik would be my starting 5, with Korver being the instant offense off the bench at the 2 or 3, and when I bring in Watson off the bench to spell Rose, I'd bring in Hamilton to be the "go-to" guy while Rose is out.


DaBabyBullz had something positive to say about Deng? mg:


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Rhyder said:


> DaBabyBullz had something positive to say about Deng? mg:


Hey his pu$$itis hasn't flared up in a while, and he's improved. But the main thing, is I don't see how we can add impact talent to this team without that Bobcat's pick, even if we have to wait till '15 or '16 to get it (unprotected). I guess we can cut Boozer to free up cap space for a FA too. But overall, short of a trade for Dwight Howard, which we all know won't happen, I don't see how this team could get good enough to be a dynasty. I think we're a contender if we get hot the way it is, but I don't think Rose alone is going to beat teams like the Heat very often in the playoffs when it matters.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Hey his pu$$itis hasn't flared up in a while, and he's improved. But the main thing, is I don't see how we can add impact talent to this team without that Bobcat's pick, even if we have to wait till '15 or '16 to get it (unprotected). I guess we can cut Boozer to free up cap space for a FA too. But overall, short of a trade for Dwight Howard, which we all know won't happen, I don't see how this team could get good enough to be a dynasty. I think we're a contender if we get hot the way it is, but I don't think Rose alone is going to beat teams like the Heat very often in the playoffs when it matters.


I think a lot of Bulls fans are seriously undervaluing the addition of Rip. He is going to open up a lot of room for Rose and our bigs, which was the main thing we had missing against the Miami series.

I would agree with you that we should hold on to the Charlotte pick unless it is in some sort of Dwight-like consolidation trade. That pick, and Mirotic, are the future as Boozer and Rip start to fizzle out. We will not have cap space to sign anyone above the MLE until the 15-16 season barring trades. I am really high on Mirotic. I am also really high on the fact that Charlotte will be bad the next few seasons.

For a contender, I think our future looks bright in terms of talent coming our way.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Rhyder said:


> I think a lot of Bulls fans are seriously undervaluing the addition of Rip. He is going to open up a lot of room for Rose and our bigs, which was the main thing we had missing against the Miami series.
> 
> I would agree with you that we should hold on to the Charlotte pick unless it is in some sort of Dwight-like consolidation trade. That pick, and Mirotic, are the future as Boozer and Rip start to fizzle out. We will not have cap space to sign anyone above the MLE until the 15-16 season barring trades. I am really high on Mirotic. I am also really high on the fact that Charlotte will be bad the next few seasons.
> 
> For a contender, I think our future looks bright in terms of talent coming our way.


I wouldn't call Dwight a consolidation prize lol. That's like winning the draft lottery again, dependent upon what we'd have to give up to get him. Regardless though, I'd give up damn near anything to get Rose and Howard on the Bulls. It'd be easy to build upon the best PG and C in the league. 

As for the Charlotte pick, we just have to hope they don't get lucky in the lotto in the next few years and get good all of a sudden. Like the Timberwolves this year. They've had their pick protected for years, and this year there's finally no protection and it's very possible they could make the playoffs. So one year after picking 2nd overall, their pick isn't protected and it should be in the teens. (Right now they'd be slated to pick 14th or so, and if they beat the Rockets tonight, they're only 1 game out of the playoffs). Just imagine if the Clippers could have a top 3 pick via the Wolves to add to Paul and Griffin. A lot can happen in Charlotte in 3-4 years. Until then the protection is: top 14 in '12, 12 in '13, 10 in '14, 9 in '15 and unprotected finally in '16. Hopefully what happened to the Clippers with the Wolves doesn't happen to the Bulls in this scenario.

Do you really think Mirotic will actually come to the NBA? I've read quite a few stories that made it sound like a longshot. 

As for Rip, it remains to be seen. Hopefully you're right.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I wouldn't call Dwight a consolidation prize lol. That's like winning the draft lottery again, dependent upon what we'd have to give up to get him. Regardless though, I'd give up damn near anything to get Rose and Howard on the Bulls. It'd be easy to build upon the best PG and C in the league.
> 
> As for the Charlotte pick, we just have to hope they don't get lucky in the lotto in the next few years and get good all of a sudden. Like the Timberwolves this year. They've had their pick protected for years, and this year there's finally no protection and it's very possible they could make the playoffs. So one year after picking 2nd overall, their pick isn't protected and it should be in the teens. (Right now they'd be slated to pick 14th or so, and if they beat the Rockets tonight, they're only 1 game out of the playoffs). Just imagine if the Clippers could have a top 3 pick via the Wolves to add to Paul and Griffin. A lot can happen in Charlotte in 3-4 years. Until then the protection is: top 14 in '12, 12 in '13, 10 in '14, 9 in '15 and unprotected finally in '16. Hopefully what happened to the Clippers with the Wolves doesn't happen to the Bulls in this scenario.
> 
> ...


The only reason I said Dwight-like, is because Dwight has all but said that he does not want to come to Chicago. If he would re-sign here, there's no question I'm throwing Noah, Deng, and the Charlotte pick at Orlando.

On Mirotic, I do not think we will see him until the 14-15 season. There's a small chance he waits until the 15-16 season, and probably an even smaller chance he comes over during the 13-14 season.

Chicago was his choice destination, and us "promising" to pick him was the reason he did not pull his name for the draft. I think the hoopshype interview has him making some compelling statements that he wants to play for the Bulls someday.

http://hoopshype.com/blogs/sierra/nikola-mirotic-i-stayed-in-the-draft-because-of-chicago


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Rhyder said:


> The only reason I said Dwight-like, is because Dwight has all but said that he does not want to come to Chicago. If he would re-sign here, there's no question I'm throwing Noah, Deng, and the Charlotte pick at Orlando.
> 
> On Mirotic, I do not think we will see him until the 14-15 season. There's a small chance he waits until the 15-16 season, and probably an even smaller chance he comes over during the 13-14 season.
> 
> ...


Yeah Noah, Deng, Boozer, a couple 1sts for Dwight would work for me too, if he'd resign. You'd probably have to take back Turkoglu, so that would give you a crappy 3 for a year anyway. 

Rose, Watson, James, Lucas
Hamilton, Korver
Brewer, Turkoglu, Butler
Gibson, Scalabrine
Howard, Asik

We wouldn't have the depth we have now, but it'd still be acceptable. 

In a few years:

Rose
Brewer
Korver
Mirotic
Howard

If Mirotic turns out to be a Dirk-type player, Rose, Howard and he would make for one hell of a big 3. Throw in a defender in Brewer and a shooter in Korver and I'd like that lineup a lot.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I wouldn't call Dwight a consolidation prize lol.


Consolidation, not consolation.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Dornado said:


> Consolidation, not consolation.


Haha yeah when I read it I read consolation, and then when I typed it I typed it wrong too. Now it makes more sense since I see he said consolidation, rather than consolation lol.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Firefight said:


> Hoodey...
> 
> You're making this GM thing sound simple. Like, "um, if you can't make all the right moves you're an idiot GM and should quit.." Paxson, like all Gm's has done some good things and some bad things.


Let's clarify here. "Some good things and some bad things" doesn't mean that any GM should quit. If you're a young GM who takes over the current Raptors or Cavs and you do "some good things and some bad things" with no "superstar that you need to get lucky to get" (a phrase Paxson's fans threw around before we got Rose), then you're fine.

But Paxson isn't a young beginning GM. He's had his first generation team in that of Gordon, Deng and Hinrich. This isn't the Cleveland Cavaliers, rather it's one of 3-4 franchises you'd most identify the NBA with historically. And Paxson isn't sitting there with marginal picks and without the guy that his fans said he needed to get lucky to get. He has the youngest MVP ever.

Guess what. That guy who can build around Derrick Rose and win TITLES exists. There is a GM who is good enough, just like there was a GM that was good enough when Auerbach and West did it. Or the guy who put the 89 Pistons together (forget the name). If Paxson can't step up to that level of being a salesman and talent evaluator, then a) he needs to quit and go manage the Raptors and b) Reinsdorf needs to say "I have Derrick Rose, who wants to come be my Jerry West?" 

Some good things and some bad things was a decent argument back when we had Deng and Hinrich and Paxson's fans could still argue "hey, getting that superstar that you need to build a title team around, that's just luck." It's not 2007 anymore.

I'm not saying that because I don't like Paxson. I'm saying that because if I was analyzing the situation from an outside perspective, that's how I'd feel.

Perfect example of the fact that I can remove myself from who I like or dislike. I thought Laker fans were just fine if they wanted Kupchak's head before the Gasol trade. He wasn't cutting it. He was the kind of GM who was building the 92 Cavs around Kobe freaking Bryant. When he pulled that trade off he served notice that he wasn't just a GM who does "some good things and some bad things." He was ready to play with the big boys. 

It's time. Either Paxson swings a robbery fleecing a la the Gasol trade or he should move on and let us get a guy whose previous resume has something better than "former radio guy" on it. 

I loved him as a player. But as a GM he's yet to pull one move that has made me say "this guy knows something that nobody else knows." 



> The Boozer signing, in my opinion, is still up the air.


Not really. Let me save you a few years. 

Carlos Boozer:

Career REGULAR SEASON FG% 53.7%
Career Playoff FG% 48.9%
2011 Playoff FG% 43.3

So as you can see the FG% goes down as his competition gets better (last year he played later into the playoffs than most years, if not ever). Now, let's boil his FG% down to the very best of his playoff competition. We'll concentrate on last year's ECF and the games he has played against Pau Gasol.

2008 Western Conference Semifinals
Game 1 - 6-14 FG 42.9%
Game 2 - 3-10 FG 30.0% 
Game 3 - 12-21 FG 57.1% 
Game 4 - 5-15 FG 33.3%
Game 5 - 6-16 FG 37.5%
Game 6 - 5-16 FG 31.3%
2009 Western Conference First round
Game 1 - 11-16 FG 68.8%
Game 2 - 8-18 FG 44.4%
Game 3 - 9-17 FG 52.9%
Game 4 - 7-13 FG 53.8%
Game 5 - 3-8 FG 37.5%
2010 Western Conference First Round
Game 1 - 9-17 FG 52.9%
Game 2 - 9-21 FG 42.9%
Game 3 - 7-16 FG 43.8%
Game 4 - 4-11 FG 36.4%
2011 Eastern Conference Finals
Game 1 5-10 FG 50.0%
Game 2 3-10 FG 30.0%
Game 3 8-19 FG 42.1%
Game 4 7-14 FG 50.0%
Game 5 1-6 FG 16.6%

Total: 128 FGM 288 FGA 44.4%

20 games isn't a fluke, and if you're not a rebounding and defensive machine full of athletic explosiveness, 44.4% is terrible. Equally terrible is a decline from 53.7% (career regular season) to 48.9% (playoff) to 44.4% (his career FG% against teams that eventually played in the Finals).

Now, let me ask you this. Do you think Paxson was aware of that number? Because his FG% in those 15 games before last year has to tell a very good GM "don't give this guy 15 mill per." 

There's nothing to still be decided. His 15 games against the three time eventual Finalist Lakers created the presumption that, at his best, he's a career regular season player. 

You know who wasn't a playoff guy? Wilt Chamberlain, whose stats and FG% dropped by a lot in the playoffs. You know who is? Players ranging in regular season skill from Kerr and Horry to Jordan and Gasol. 

That has to be a major consideration in the thinking of whether or not you make a guy the #2 on your team long term. 

The jury isn't out on Boozer. For fans who are tuning in to see if he plays hard every night v. the Nets and Wizards? Sure. For people who already know that he has NEVER BEEN the same player when it counts as he is when it doesn't count, mostly because you're just not gonna get as hot v. the 08, 09, 10 Lakers and 11 Heat as you can v. the wide array of useless teams you play in the season, there is not this "vast amount of additional info we need to make a determination."

Now, if you like Pax, and you desperately WANT it to work out, I guess the jury is still out. The jury has been out for 103 years on Clark and Addison, no?



> We missed out on Bosh,


I'm very glad we did. His regular season career FG% is 49.3%. Not that great for a 6'11" supposed superstar. In the playoffs? His FG% drops to 45.9%, which is barely good for a 6'5" SG. 

For Boozer, the disparity is because he has very little to go on when his first back down move doesn't completely blow his defender away. He immediately fades away because he doesn't have a secondary and third power move despite being 260 lbs. Against a 260 lb. 7 footer like Gasol or against a guy who is just muscling him out like Haslem, Boozer's whole game is going to be fading away like Elvin Hayes.

For Bosh, he's just way too skinny and his faceup game is just not skilled enough. If he's facing someone who is athletic enough to stay in front of him and make him play with his back to the basket, he's just gonna get pushed off the block and if he does shoot, it's gonna be an inefficient attempt. Bosh needs to play more like Rasheed Wallace or Kevin McHale. He doesn't have the skill. 





> and Boozer was the only other FA that filled the biggest void this team had at the time..a low post threat.


But he's not a low post threat in the playoffs, especially against the better teams. If you're looking at a guy who is NOT a playoff low post threat, and your goal is the Finals, why pay that guy? Fear that you won't ever get anyone? Again, if we were going to lose that cap space by this coming summer if we didn't sign Boozer, a) that's Paxson's fault for overpaying Deng and Noah and b) it's easier to get out from under Deng and Noah in summer 12 than it is once you additionally overpay Boozer.

The problem with Paxson, and many of his fans, is that they didn't ask the right question in terms of what we needed. The question was not specific enough. 

"Do we need a low post threat?" That's general. Boozer qualifies. If you also ask ".. that will still score against the best 3-4 teams in the league?"... Boozer falls short and it's not close. 



> If we didn't give him the money, someone else would've, and we would still be looking for a PF.


Okay, my answer is "so what?" If you don't overpay Deng and Noah, you're still able to look. I'd rather still be looking for 1, 2 or even 3 years than pick the wrong guy and commit to him. Also, even if Rose's new deal put us over the cap, it's not like Luol Deng is unmarketable to a team under the cap in a giveaway scenario where you have a guy you want to sign in 2012, but you're going to have to give Noah or Deng away. 



> You brought up Nene... I would love to have him here...but he wasn't available then, and when he was, we didn't have the paper..not Paxson's fault.


Yes it is. We overpaid Deng in what, Fall 08? We weren't magically over the cap, as if the money just disappeared. We paid Deng too much, period. We paid DENG like a #2 option when he isn't either. 

I heard a guy on 680 in SF talking about how the problem with the league is not the money that James, Wade and Dirk make, but that the money that the Luol Dengs of the world make is too close to the salaries of the top guys. He was right. So the new CBA was set up to punish the proposition of paying marginal #3s legit #2 salaries. We have two marginal #3s making #2 money. 



> This is a team that won the most games in the NBA last year and made it to the ECF... Pax has to be doing something right other than getting lucky.


This is a problem Bulls fans have though. They view regular season wins as directionally proportional to postseason wins. Sliderule style. "Well, we won 60+ games Johnson. If you grab the sliderule and see where that puts us in the playoffs we should either win or lose the Finals right?"

Very very good full court teams often play below their regular season records in the playoffs, where the game is still reduced to being equally efficient in half court opportunities without going dry for long periods of time.

Have you ever asked yourself why Nash's Suns have never done anything in the playoffs despite all of those regular season wins? It's because they weren't built to get a bucket with high efficiency on any given possession, which is what you need to do in the playoffs. 



> What would you do as GM?? I saw your Bynum fantasy... so you present that to L.A. and they promptly say "no." Now what? ...because if L.A. is dealing Bynum, it's for Howard...not Noah and a couple role players. Bynum is L.A.'s last valuable young piece...it's not as easy as you make it sound to get him... So now what?


First, don't talk down to me lol. "Bynum fantasy." You live in a delusional fantasyland regarding just about everything in re Boozer and this team. And it's because you like Paxson. 

I'd do whatever I had to do to get a legit center or perhaps that rare game-changer who isn't a true center who only plays the center position.

I remember being mocked by Bulls fans back when I wanted to trade back in to the draft for either Jordan or Hibbert the year Rose was drafted.

I watched the Thunder get Kendrick Perkins, the perfect goon to pair up with a weak player like Boozer, for Jeff Green. 

I've watched Nene go by us when we could have had the money if Paxson didn't overpay the biggest fantasy of this team in a decade, Luol Deng paid Scottie Pippen dollars as if he'll ever even be much better than Horace Grant in his prime.

So you ask me what I'd do? Would I ONLY pursue Bynum? No. My list would be:

Howard - probably too much compensation and he is kind of a head case about where he wants to go
Bynum
Gasol
Perkins
Chandler (if we just DIDNT SIGN ANYONE in 2010, we could have had Chandler, who I'd much prefer over Boozer. Also, don't feed me "what about Noah?" Noah is a backup 4/5 on a title team. He was Paxson's choice, not mine.)
Jordan
Hibbert
Nene
Cousins (I'd try to get him for rock bottom, basically if he works out great, if he doesn't it only cost me X - you know, how Krause got Rodman and how Dumars got Wallace)

As for mocking the offer of Noah to the Lakers for Bynum, guess what. YOU and Paxson love Noah and were enamored with him and overpaid him. He'd be hard to trade because NO ONE else thinks he's worth that salary lol. I don't. 

If I was GM we'd have a whole different cast of players on this team. We'd be as big as possible in the frontcourt and as fast as possible in the backcourt. Our PFs would primarily be goonish role players. If we got a big goon center like Perkins, then we'd go with a more offensive PF who could still play a role, but we wouldn't pay a lot for him. 

Of all of Paxson's acquisitions the only ones I've like have been Rose (luck), Brewer, Gibson, Watson. I also didn't mind Noah and Deng but certainly minded their contracts after they were re-signed.

So, I'm calling you out on Boozer NOW, when we are winning. In the playoffs, let's go back and re-visit his REGULAR SEASON FG% this year and then how he shoots in the ECF if we make it there. You won't be able to say "oh sure, it's easy to criticize Boozer NOW, where were you in January, because I'm right here." You also won't be able to act like his dramatically declined FG% is a) a revelation or b) something Paxson shouldn't have seen coming.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Dornado said:


> I know it is convenient to your argument and helps you get up on the soapbox, but you do realize that there really aren't any unflinchingly loyal Paxson supporters on this forum, right? Bulls fans, not "Paxson" fans (to wit, you're not going to find anyone who actually thought the Hinrich/Gordon/Deng Bulls were contenders to win a championship). I think you'll find that most here are objective - which goes both ways - acknowledging his (and the organizations) failures _and _successes.
> 
> You wrap up your post with "You weren't about to argue the actual points", which is kind of ironic when you're in here railing against a strawman.


> Let's just say I've been reading this forum back when Bullsville was posting here. I'm definitely sure the tune has changed to "hey, wait a minute, we never said that the Bulls were going to contend with Hinrich, Deng and Gordon." Why don't you go back and read what was written back in about 2007 when the Bulls were "oozing with oodles of assets" (that they converted into Joakim Noah LOL). See, back THEN, at the time, that was the conventional thought here.

> I've read Bulls fans for about 9 years on all forums including here, realgm and hoopshype. Like Bteambomber on Hoopshype (another guy who likes to act like he wasn't calling the Bulls contenders in 07-08), they aren't objective. They like Paxson. They may pretend to be objective, but the benefit of the doubt for this fraud is nauseating if you actually have gone back and even just read the book of basketball OR gone deeper and asked "hmm, championship teams, what exactly DO they have in common." 

It's not objective to say that the "jury is still out for Boozer" and then to mock someone's "Andrew Bynum fantasy" when the only reason I'd have to call up Kupchak and offer Noah to begin with is because that's who John Paxson thought was good, not who I thought was good. 

Granted, this forum has changed some. I don't see a lot of nauseating guys from the jib days. Guys who couldn't wait to trade for Joel Pryzbilla (Bullsville). But the defense of Paxson when there really just isn't one all in the name of "it could go either way" - on guys it is not gonna go either way on (Boozer's playoff post threat) is still here.

If you really are interested in being objective, you and others will begin to have a real, open-minded, non-conclusory discussion about the kind of players you need to win a title and who we need to get to finish that puzzle.

I remember when I was obsessed with getting a true scoring center. You don't need that. But the guys you do need who aren't true center who score 25 PPG aren't far off. Ben Wallace still dominated the game physically and cleared the paint and Joe Dumars put him with a very skilled athletic four with center height. Tim Duncan may not be a true center, but he is 6'11" 260. Kendrick Perkins may not have any individual offense, but he completely physically dominated the paint and particularly Pau Gasol in 08. 

Yeah it is MORE objective though, because in 08 if I started posting these concepts there already would have been like 4 complete panic attacks.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

mvP to the Wee said:


> Power forward by salary:
> 
> Kevin Garnett 21.4 million
> Tim Duncan 21.2 million
> ...


It's a league that drastically overvalues the position Jordan called "powerless forward" in interviews. First, don't talk to me about Gasol, Duncan or Dirk. If Boozer was 6'11"-7'0" 260 lbs. or had Dirk's skill, this wouldn't be a conversation.

Other than that and Garnett, who on that list is really worth much in the final two rounds of the playoffs? What's your point on say Antawn Jamison? "Paxson is dumb but someone else was really freaking stupid?" Cause that's the only thing I get out of that list.

I think Paxson is a mildly good GM like the guy who built the 92 Cavs. But mildly good GMs don't win rings and this isn't Cleveland.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> Being 15-3 really sucks.


It's not that it does suck. Regular season wins from fullcourt teams who are not great in halfcourt situations against really good frontcourts don't have a direct translation to playoff success.

Of course I'm happier than I would be if we had the same problems and we were 8-10. 

But if you have seen Nash's Suns and know WHY they haven't been good, then it's not hard to realize that we won't be going on a 15-3 win percentage v. the Heat if we play them again.

Dornado, exhibit A. This guy would fight you tooth and nail in 07 if you didn't like the Gordon Deng Hinrich plan.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

I still don't see you saying who you would have signed instead of Boozer.

Sigh.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> I still don't see you saying who you would have signed instead of Boozer.
> 
> Sigh.


If you're asking what *I* would have done, you have to keep in mind, I wouldn't have signed Deng and Noah to long term deals. You don't give that kind of money to players whom you'd struggle to call definite #3s on title teams. I wouldn't have signed Wallace, outbid myself for Chandler (nobody was going to offer him similar money) or signed Hinrich to a contract worth that value. 

So I would have had the flexibility to sign Nene. And if I didn't get that done and didn't get Lebron or Wade, I would not have signed anyone for money in the 15 mill range. I would have held the money over and tried to maintain my cap room for this summer when Howard is a free agent.

And if your reply is "the cap room would have evaporated once Rose signed his deal" I refer you back to me not overpaying on bad long term deals for Deng and Noah. Both of them are decent players, just not at their salaries. 

And guess what? If, as a team with 6 titles in Chicago (3rd largest market; largest market not shared by two teams), if I didn't sell Nene, Lebron, Wade or Howard on signing, I'd expect to be fired. 

John Paxson is the Doug Collins of GMs.

Derrick Rose is the youngest MVP ever. I'm not going to buy this argument that you had to rush to commit the best mediocre option to 15 mill per because if you didn't it was all over.

I remember the summer Rose was drafted. I wanted the Bulls to:

1) Trade into the draft like they did to get Deng, but this time to get a mid teens pick to use on DeAndre Jordan or Roy Hibbert
2) Low-ball Deng with a contract in the 8-9 million range on a short deal. With Lebron and Wade coming up for free agency in two years (as of that summer) and Howard a couple years after, why on earth would you want to overpay Luol Deng?

If you saw Derrick Rose play prior to the Bulls drafting him, why on earth would you want to commit to Luol Deng, Joakim Noah and eventually Carlos Boozer?

Now, I answered your question. Answer mine. 

Are you denying that signing Deng and Noah to the contracts that we signed them to precluded us from having better options, whether it be signing Nene or holding the money over for better options after summer 10?

By the way, you've been very partisan in this debate for years and you always chime in with condescending questions or statements. "Sigh" or "yeah being 15-3 sucks." That sure is what I expect from a "moderator." 

How long do we get into this before you use your moderator powers to influence opinion lol.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Hypotheticals are fun.....but a complete waste of time.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Rhyder said:


> I think a lot of Bulls fans are seriously undervaluing the addition of Rip. He is going to open up a lot of room for Rose and our bigs, which was the main thing we had missing against the Miami series.
> 
> I would agree with you that we should hold on to the Charlotte pick unless it is in some sort of Dwight-like consolidation trade. That pick, and Mirotic, are the future as Boozer and Rip start to fizzle out. We will not have cap space to sign anyone above the MLE until the 15-16 season barring trades. I am really high on Mirotic. I am also really high on the fact that Charlotte will be bad the next few seasons.
> 
> For a contender, I think our future looks bright in terms of talent coming our way.


I think you assume that because our center and power forward aren't traditional low post scorers, then that means that they just need room and they're going to get to the basket with ease. 

Haslem and Anthony cheated off of their guy to take a step toward Rose, and when he got the ball to Boozer, Haslem got back to the ball and pushed Boozer around. When they got the ball to Noah he just didn't have the skill or explosiveness to finish. They didn't take 3 steps off of their guy but they did take one. The Heats defense was already cheating off of Rose. 

These guys aren't Gasol (low post scorer), but they also aren't Rasheed Wallace where they're just going to need one step to use their skill and athleticism to finish at the rim. 

Udonis Haslem can cheat off of Boozer and get back.

If these guys aren't going to be low post scorers, to have championship impact they need to finish with one step or push people around like Ben Wallace did. 

The problem we had was not our "bigs" (I still don't know what that even means. One all encompassing term groups Taj Gibson with Andrew Bynum??) not having room. They got pushed around like the court was a football field and like Haslem and Anthony were elite SEC defenders.

By the way, the term bigs really causes a mistake in basketball theory. Bigs makes it seem like they are interchangeable. "Hey, rotate a big in there. 7'1" 280? 6'8" 220? F it, it's all the same man!" CENTERS and POWER FORWARDS are two separate positions that come with different types that can force specific mismatches which require not only athleticism but some degree of skill.

Example - 

When you're Shaq and you're 7'1" 315 with explosiveness, do you need a lot of skill? Not much. You do need basic footwork and at least a baby hook, or you will look like Shaq did in the mid 90s.

Now, for every inch shorter you get or lb. skinnier, you need surplus skill and athleticism. So Boozer needs to be one hell of an athlete or skillful post player (McHale) to overcome the fact that he's 6'7". 

If you don't have surplus athleticism and skill (which would be why Hakeem stuck it to Shaq) you're going to be exposed late in the playoffs in the paint. 

Notice I never said you won't be able to be 16-3.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

King Joseus said:


> Hypotheticals are fun.....but a complete waste of time.


They're kind of necessary to answer the question "who would you have signed?" I wouldn't have limited myself the way Paxson did.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

You've got a number of offseasons to speculate on is the problem. There's so many altered courses for a number of franchises based on moves and non moves in 2008 offseason that then multiply in 2009 and multiply again in 2010. It's easy to say what would've happened if you freeze a bunch of things to occur as they did, but that's an oversimplified view.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

King Joseus said:


> You've got a number of offseasons to speculate on is the problem. There's so many altered courses for a number of franchises based on moves and non moves in 2008 offseason that then multiply in 2009 and multiply again in 2010. It's easy to say what would've happened if you freeze a bunch of things to occur as they did, but that's an oversimplified view.


Of course I can't predict every possible outcome, but neither can someone saying that Boozer definitely was the guy we needed to sign.

The question Jnrjr asked gets to the question "what philosophical differences do you have with Paxson." Part of it pretends that Paxson's moves were the only thing we could have done.

Deng, Noah and Boozer represent big money spent on players with vastly different skill sets than the kind of players I would have paid. 11-15 mill each for:

a) A 6'11" 245 lb. F/C without special athleticism for his size or any individual offensive skill and with the shoulder span of a 6'1" PG
b) A 6'7" 260 lb. PF who doesn't use his 260 to force his way to the basket, lacks the explosiveness to finish against very good defenders or Fs with a lot of size and decent athleticism and also isn't a great defender or rebounder. A guy who fades away as his first move...
c) A 6'9" SF who doesn't have a dribble drive game and isn't particularly quick.

39 million combined next year for these three? Spare me the idea that this was the best possible outcome for us or close to it. 

This in a league where Nene costs you 13 mill and Kendrick Perkins costs what? 7.8 million? 

It's a philosophical difference. There's the Jerry West/Red Auerbach school of thought where you control the paint with centers and elite PFs ranging from Abdul-Jabbar to McHale to Dave Cowens. Then there's the Paxson model where you think you can build a team that looks just like youre 1979 Notre Dame team and win titles.

One school of thought doesn't suck and the other one does. 

One school of thought screams "positions are going to go away and the game is changing." The other one proves that while some things always do change and evolve, what wins titles is eerily similar to what won them in 1984 and 1992 and 2000.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

jnrjr79 said:


> I still don't see you saying who you would have signed instead of Boozer.
> 
> Sigh.


This wasn't directed at me, but I wouldn't have signed anyone for that money if I couldn't get someone better. Cap space doesn't miraculously disappear if you don't use it, and guys like Rose getting bigger contracts cuts into it anyway. Since the Bulls don't pay the luxury tax, you gotta look at resigning guys in the future, or keeping them, when making a big, stupid expenditure like the Boozer one. 

Rudy Gay would've been my target though. Similar money, much better player, the right age instead of too old like Boozer, etc. That makes Deng expendable, or you could play them together. Ronnie Brewer was an excellent pickup, and one I would've done at the time too, as I had wanted him since the draft. Kyle Korver? Same as Brewer. Excellent pickup since we all knew we needed great shooters and he's the best or at least amongst the best. David Lee would've been a target before Boozer too. Younger, more durable, more productive. 

Or I would've looked at Nick Young (RFA in '11) to fill the void as a scoring 2. Tyson Chandler over Noah in '11. JJ Barea. Spending all the cap space really limits your options moving forward.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

henry sims


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> again.
> 
> Dornado, exhibit A. This guy would fight you tooth and nail in 07 if you didn't like the Gordon Deng Hinrich plan.


You are full of shit. You can't just make this shit up, all of my posts are archived. There is no way you can read my posts and come away with that conclusion... this is a superstar league and you need superstars to win... and Ben Gordon? Yikes. Seriously, you can't just make this shit up and expect people to take you seriously. You're mad about guys that were posting here over 5 years ago.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Do I wish we could sneak into the top 5 offense territory? Yes, of course.


You got your wish.

If the Bulls have problems, it's that we're going to get lazy because there is nobody out there testing us right now. 

And of course, there's Luol's injury...:-(


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Cap space doesn't miraculously disappear if you don't use it, and guys like Rose getting bigger contracts cuts into it anyway.



Actually, it does, when you have to re-sign the NBA's youngest-ever MVP. If that money doesn't get used on Boozer, it probably goes unused.

As to Hoodey, your plan (which is far broader than my simple question, which was which free agent should have been signed rather than Boozer) makes entirely apparent that you would have assembled a terrible team. So, I can now easily dispense with having to worry about this line of thinking. All those machinations simply to argue that you would have liked to have signed Nene? And no Boozer, Noah, or Deng on the team? That's a really awful plan.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Dornado said:


> You are full of shit. You can't just make this shit up, all of my posts are archived. There is no way you can read my posts and come away with that conclusion... this is a superstar league and you need superstars to win... and Ben Gordon? Yikes. Seriously, you can't just make this shit up and expect people to take you seriously. You're mad about guys that were posting here over 5 years ago.


I was talking about jnr not you.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> I was talking about jnr not you.



No you weren't. You made no reference to me saying Kirk, Gordon, et al. were championship contenders. If you did, obviously I would have disputed that, having never held that position.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> Actually, it does, when you have to re-sign the NBA's youngest-ever MVP. If that money doesn't get used on Boozer, it probably goes unused.


But why? 

The Bulls are at 77 million this summer if Rose is making 20 (hoopshype doesn't show his exact salary but I thought it was 19-20). Here are the salaries:

Boozer 15
Deng 13.3
Noah 11
Hamilton 5
Brewer 5
Korver 4.3

Now, Deng were overpaid clearly. His offer should have been 8 million per for 3 seasons, meaning that he'd be up this summer. If he walks in 08, fine. SFs are easily replaced when you are dominating at the PG position and in the paint. If he outplays his 8 million, which hasn't happened by leaps and bounds when you consider injury (which factors into market value even if not emotional value), I'm fine with losing him to someone willing to pay more if it means we have a shot at Howard.

Now, if Deng leaves us in 08, you have money open for Nene. We already had Rose, so we'd have been a team with Nene looking for a SF instead of a team with Deng looking for a center.

If Deng leaves this summer, your best offer to Noah was 9 million, and you never re-signed Boozer, now you're sitting at 47 million. I never would have signed Korver either, so make it 42. At 42 or even 47, you can give someone away to a team under the cap to get where you need to be to start signing the guys you want outright.

We'd have been over the cap without Boozer because *Paxson falls in love with players who don't fit any championship mold, and then he vastly overpays them due to his own ego.* He overpaid Hinrich and Chandler (who ended up being worth around 10-12, but much later than when Paxson overpaid him.



> As to Hoodey, your plan (which is far broader than my simple question, which was which free agent should have been signed rather than Boozer) makes entirely apparent that you would have assembled a terrible team. So, I can now easily dispense with having to worry about this line of thinking. All those machinations simply to argue that you would have liked to have signed Nene? And no Boozer, Noah, or Deng on the team? That's a really awful plan.


Why is it an awful plan though, because you say so.

Face it. Deng, Noah and Boozer bring you no closer to a title than Nene and no one. I don't have a problem having any of them ON THE TEAM at the RIGHT PRICE, but at 39 million combined YOU are off base.

You love Deng and Noah so much just like Paxson, who falls in love with anyone he drafts. 

Now, go back to 09 and say we sign Nene after Deng either takes a 3 year 24 million dollar deal and walks. Say Noah walks and Boozer never is signed. Even if we sign everyone else, we're sitting there with a starting lineup of:

Nene
Gibson
Brewer
Hamilton
Rose

at around 48 million. 

So please. You're the one who would be all distraught without Deng, Boozer and Noah, as if they are Pippen, Grant and Armstrong. I'd simply calmly sign other players and do just fine having already ensured that I will control the paint, the transition game and the dribble drive game. 

Controlling everything else isn't that hard when you've already controlled that.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> No you weren't. You made no reference to me saying Kirk, Gordon, et al. were championship contenders. If you did, obviously I would have disputed that, having never held that position.


I said "exhibit A, this guy..." By this guy I meant you.

By your mere defense of everything Paxson used to do you took that position. Everything comes with the implication "this is the right thing to do because it is going to help us contend." If it's not going to help us contend, why do it? 

And you defended everything he did then just like you do now. We have to do X because of the position we're in, never asking yourself if Paxson limiting us by overpaying CHANDLER and WALLACE and HINRICH and DENG and NOAH put us in the ultimatums you suggest we're in.

You simply don't know what makes a championship team and you have always pretended you do. You've pretended that being competitive means you will just have equivalent results in the playoffs, never asking yourself why Steve Nash's Suns never repeated their regular season success in the playoffs.

I realize that playoff winners and regular season winners (even BIG regular season winners) are playing two different games for the most part (regular season winners who play their best game in the halfcourt and closer to the basket always do just as good if not better int he playoffs; fullcourt regular season winners do not). You've simply never understood that.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> I realize that playoff winners and regular season winners (even BIG regular season winners) are playing two different games for the most part (regular season winners who play their best game in the halfcourt and closer to the basket always do just as good if not better int he playoffs; fullcourt regular season winners do not). You've simply never understood that.


Chicago Fast Break PPG: 15.7 (#10 in the league)
Miami Fast Break PPG: 18.8 (#2 in the league)
Differential: -3.1
***Good to see Miami will be worse in the playoffs.

Chicago Points in the Paint: 41.5 (#10 in the league)
Chicago Opponents Points in the Paint: 37.6 (#7 in the league)
Differential: +3.9

Miami Points in the Paint: 44.8 (#4 in the league)
Miami Opponents Points in the Paint: 36.5 (#4 in the league)
Differential: +8.3

Now discount the extra 3.1 points in the paint gained from fast breaks

8.3 - 3.9 - 3.1 = 1.3 Points in the Paint differential per game

1.3 points per game--that's the advantage Miami has on us on the inside in the halfcourt season to date.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> I said "exhibit A, this guy..." By this guy I meant you.
> 
> By your mere defense of everything Paxson used to do you took that position. Everything comes with the implication "this is the right thing to do because it is going to help us contend." If it's not going to help us contend, why do it?
> 
> ...



You seem to be relying primarily on strawmen.

I am not crazy about Hinrich. He's a solid vet but is overpaid. And, you may have noticed, he was dealt.

Deng and Noah are appropriately paid.

Also, you have deficient logical abilities if you think defending the re-signing of a current player is equivalent to stating that such re-signing will cause the team to win an NBA championship. 

Only 1 teams wins an NBA championship per year. Such is life. Until the Bulls were in a position to acquire a superstar, it made sense that they simply make the best moves available, acquire assets, and then build around the star once acquired. You have to make the best decision you can with your available options.

I have always felt the D'Antoni system is one not designed to win championships, so you're wasting your time on that one. Apparently you don't read very closely, but I've always valued strong defensive teams, which is why I wasn't a big proponent of trying to get Carmelo.

The team you assembled in your hypothetical was markedly worse on its face than the team actually assembled, so it's sure a good thing that you're not in the front office.

Also, you raise Grant and Armstrong as being some sort of super impressive NBA players. You must have selective memory based upon winning titles. It's pretty silly to hold up B.J. freakin' Armstrong on a pedestal.


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

Hoodey said:


> First, don't talk down to me lol. "Bynum fantasy." You live in a delusional fantasyland regarding just about everything in re Boozer and this team. And it's because you like Paxson.
> 
> I'd do whatever I had to do to get a legit center or perhaps that rare game-changer who isn't a true center who only plays the center position.
> 
> ...


First, I'm not talking down to you. Just presenting an argument. Also, I've never once said I was in love with Paxson and/or Noah like you claim. I just see some good things that Paxson has done...instead of just looking at it one-sided. Of course a GM will be judged by championships, and I think Paxson has this team in position to win one. We are deep, have a superstar, and a great locker-room. Of course anything could happen. Are people calling Pat Riley a bum because the Heat did not win last year? 
As far as the Bynum fantasy, I still think it is just that. If you're so down on Noah and think is so overpaid, it just furthers my argument that he cannot be the center piece of a trade for Bynum, like you proposed. I'm not sure to many people on here would think Noah, Brewer and some 1st rounders (all of which would be low 1st rounders besides the Charlotte pick) is going to get Bynum. Yes, I'm laughing at that deal...just like L.A. would.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

jnrjr79 said:


> Actually, it does, when you have to re-sign the NBA's youngest-ever MVP. If that money doesn't get used on Boozer, it probably goes unused.


Umm no it doesn't. When Rose's big contract pushes us over the salary cap, that means someone better will have to be cut to keep us under it. You and I have both seen the Bulls do this over and over. They pay someone too much, and then another person, and then when the LT is about to kick in, they get rid of him for scraps. Luckily Boozer's contract has the amnesty option now, but no one knew that would be the case when they gave it to him. So that was part of what I was talking about. Since we can easily dump him now, I don't have that much of an issue with it, but before that was an option I was livid with giving Boozer a penny because it meant someone else would be a "cap casualty" down the road as a result.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Rhyder said:


> Chicago Fast Break PPG: 15.7 (#10 in the league)
> Miami Fast Break PPG: 18.8 (#2 in the league)
> Differential: -3.1
> ***Good to see Miami will be worse in the playoffs.


Would you call Miami only a full court team? I mean, I don't think they're some dynasty for the ages like they thought they were, but does being good in the full court mean you have no halfcourt attack? Miami reminds me more of a poor man's version of Jordan's Bulls. In fact, like Jordan's Bulls, they are constructed around stars at the 2, 3 and 4 position.

Dwyane Wade is perhaps one of the best halfcourt SGs of all time, having shot 49.7% for an entire playoffs as he led his team to the title in 06. 

Wade's FG% career
Regular season 48.7
Playoffs 48.4

Believe me, if Derrick Rose was shooting 48.7% for his career or 48.4% for the playoffs for his career despite having played late into the playoffs, I'd be singing a different tune. 

Then they have Lebron James, who despite scoring 29.7 PPG is shooting 56.4%, which would be better than any FG% Michael Jordan ever shot by a full 2.5% if he finishes the season at that clip.

So, nice try, but I think while the Heat are good as a full court team, they're not ONLY a fullcourt team like we are.

THAT said, Wade is struggling with injuries, and if he continues to struggle and Hamilton plays well, that could change the complexion of the series. However, with a healthy Wade, we won't win.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> You seem to be relying primarily on strawmen.
> 
> I am not crazy about Hinrich. He's a solid vet but is overpaid. And, you may have noticed, he was dealt.


Solid is a term used by Chicago fans that means "I like player X." What does solid mean? Are you saying he forces advantages with his quickness? Are you saying he overcomes poor shooting with crisp passing and a good Assist to turnover ratio. Say something other than "Hinrich is a solid vet." What do you mean? He's not liquid? So many people in this town have been "solid." I didn't criticize Muhsin Muhammed for "not being solid." I criticized him for leading the league in drops in 05. I didn't criticize Jalen Rose for "not being solid." I criticized him for taking premature pullup jumpers without rebounders in position and without assessing open teammates and for playing matador defense.

I still hear this and it's puzzling. "Oh Rick Mirer or Marty Booker or Andres Nocioni were solid." Okay what were they good at and what weren't they lol. I'm aware they are not made of gas. 

The GM of the Bulls shouldn't be overpaying guys for not really being great at anything but not sucking either. 



> Deng and Noah are appropriately paid.


Based on what, you liking them?

Joakim Noah is a non-offensive center. He has no one-on-one offense. His jumper has a terrible hitch in it, he can't stay in position to get a high percentage shot off if he bangs down low because his shoulders are narrow like a guards. He's not explosive. And he doesn't overcome this by being some game changing athlete who is 6'10" 280 and knocks people around like Perkins or is 7'1" 250 and jumps out of the gym like Chandler. 

We've been through Boozer's series v. Miami. Now let's go through Noah's. 

Game 1: 4-14 FG 28.6%
Game 2: 4-9 FG 44.4%
Game 3: 0-4 FG 0.00%
Game 4: 3-10 FG 30.0%
Game 5: 2-4 FG 50.0%

That's 13-41. That's a jaw-dropping 31.7% for the series. See what I mean by REGULAR SEASON player. Joakim Noah's FG% went like this last year:

2011 Regular season: 52.5%
2011 Playoffs: 41.1%
2011 ECF: 31.7%

That's barely acceptable at 11 million if you're some kind of David Robinson-esque force on defense. Joakim Noah is not a great defender. He's a good defender. Against most of the league he can have a pretty darn good night. He was not some game changing force in the paint defensively either v. Miami.

So that's a real ARGUMENT as to why he's overpaid. Your argument was "Deng and Noah are appropriately paid" (... and the rationale to support this conclusion is because... I said so).



> Also, you have deficient logical abilities if you think defending the re-signing of a current player is equivalent to stating that such re-signing will cause the team to win an NBA championship.


When you're signing a guy for 13.3 million, you better be saying he's going to be a big time contributor to an NBA champion. You should at least be looking to get a #2 on a title team for that money. 



> Only 1 teams wins an NBA championship per year. Such is life. Until the Bulls were in a position to acquire a superstar, it made sense that they simply make the best moves available, acquire assets, and then build around the star once acquired. You have to make the best decision you can with your available options.


But signing Deng to this contract wasn't the best move available. You have to operate like that superstar could be coming any time. Why? Because in the case of the Bulls, he did come. But the Bulls overpaid Deng and Noah, and therefore they had cap space that "had to disappear" once Rose was going to demand more dollars. If you go back and say "is this guy going to be a #2 on a title team and thus be worth 13.3 mill in a few years" the answer had to be no.

Signing Chandler, Wallace, Hinrich, Deng and Noah were not the best moves. Nobody from outside of Chicago looks at those contracts and goes "wow, Paxson sure did get a deal."



> I have always felt the D'Antoni system is one not designed to win championships, so you're wasting your time on that one. Apparently you don't read very closely, but I've always valued strong defensive teams, which is why I wasn't a big proponent of trying to get Carmelo.
> 
> The team you assembled in your hypothetical was markedly worse on its face than the team actually assembled, so it's sure a good thing that you're not in the front office.


How would a team built around Nene, Hamilton and Rose be so much worse. Are you suggesting Nene was going to shoot 31.7% or 40.6% v. the Heat for a SERIES like Noah and Boozer did? 

Why is it worse? Because the omniscient condescending moderator who can't stop interjecting his non-moderate position says so?



> Also, you raise Grant and Armstrong as being some sort of super impressive NBA players. You must have selective memory based upon winning titles. It's pretty silly to hold up B.J. freakin' Armstrong on a pedestal.


Wait, you think Noah is appropriately paid at 11 million and you're criticizing Horace Grant!?!? Really? Wow dude, you really do have a man crush on Paxson. 

Let me help you out since you love players whose FG% disappears in the playoffs.

Here are some FG%s from Horace Grant

1991 regular season - 54.7%
1992 regular season - 57.8%
1993 regular season - 50.8%

Pretty good right. How about now:

1991 PLAYOFFS - 58.3%
1992 PLAYOFFS - 54.1%
1993 PLAYOFFS - 54.6%

Do you know what Horace Grant shot for the 1991 Eastern Conference Finals sweep of the Pistons?

68.9%

But yeah, he wasn't as good as the chumps that you love so much.

Seriously dude, go back and watch Horace Grant before you make stupid statements. And the fact is, Luol Deng might be paid money closer to Scottie Pippen money. And Scottie Pippen would EAT Luol Deng alive, just like Horace Grant would eat Joakim Noah alive.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> 2011 Regular season: 52.5%
> 2011 Playoffs: 41.1%
> 2011 ECF: 31.7%


2010 Regular season: 50.4%
2010 Playoffs: 52.8%

Boozer 2009 Regular season: 49.0%
Boozer 2009 Playoffs: 52.8%


This is a fun game. Noah and Boozer both battled injuries last year and weren't really 100%. They've shown in the past that they can compete at a high level in the playoffs.

Last year might be what they produce in the playoffs year to year going forward, but there's not nearly enough evidence to suggest that will be the case. You might argue Boozer's age and accompanying decline, but the argument doesn't quite hold for Noah.

They both rebound better in the playoffs too.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

As for contracts, ignoring the market value for big men when considering Noah's price tag is pure silliness.

There's not really a need to get into this any further. We get it. You don't like Paxson, or anything to do with the man and his choices as GM. That's fine.

Say we did have Deng at $8M a year, and that we didn't give Noah a big extension. We go into summer of 2010 and...the big three still sign in Miami. Okay, so we don't sign Boozer. We've got Rose/SG/Deng/Taj/??? for a year, resulting in little success and no MVP season from Rose with less wins, less help around him. We overpay Nene to get him to come here with our cap space (a deal quite similar to Noah's, if not more valuable). We might still be able to get Rip, or he might choose to go somewhere where he actually stands a chance of winning something. Let's say we get him. Rose/Rip/Deng/Taj/Nene with, for argument's sake, Watson/Korver/Brewer/Asik off the bench. We're not markedly improved, and we aren't any more likely to beat the Heat than we are as currently constructed.

Speculating on what could have happened or should have happened is all well and good, but things could just as well have gone poorly by not retaining assets and keeping a team out there with some veterans mixed in. We don't know. Your opinion that we've made mistakes is fine, but it's easy to call things out in hindsight. For all we know, clearing house after getting Rose leads to him being John Wall in Washington right now.

We've done a better job than a lot of teams, that's for sure. Do altered moves lead to the big three not getting together in Miami? Maybe, maybe not. Given superstars' desires to play together and in certain markets, I don't know that things would be all that different.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> Would you call Miami only a full court team? I mean, I don't think they're some dynasty for the ages like they thought they were, but does being good in the full court mean you have no halfcourt attack? Miami reminds me more of a poor man's version of Jordan's Bulls. In fact, like Jordan's Bulls, they are constructed around stars at the 2, 3 and 4 position.
> 
> Dwyane Wade is perhaps one of the best halfcourt SGs of all time, having shot 49.7% for an entire playoffs as he led his team to the title in 06.
> 
> ...


That was merely one piece of my entire point. The Heat get 1.3 ppg in the paint more in the halfcourt game. Does that signify them as a clearly superior halfcourt team, or that the Bulls are just a bunch of jump shooters?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

King Joseus said:


> 2010 Regular season: 50.4%
> 2010 Playoffs: 52.8%
> 
> Boozer 2009 Regular season: 49.0%
> ...


Boozer's career playoff FG% against teams who eventually played in the Finals is 44.4%. So you go find whatever single playoff season stats you want my man. I've more than proven my point.

Spare me the excuses. If you didn't like these players and didn't have high hopes for them; basically if you weren't a homer, you wouldn't be making excuses like this.

So what great team has either had a great series against? The answer is not one single great team. Neither has ever done anything warranting 11 or 15 mill. 



> Last year might be what they produce in the playoffs year to year going forward, but there's not nearly enough evidence to suggest that will be the case. You might argue Boozer's age and accompanying decline, but the argument doesn't quite hold for Noah.
> 
> They both rebound better in the playoffs too.


Well how about this. I'm TELLING you now that this is what you can expect. So, after that ends up being the case, don't come back and try to say "well, easy to say that after the fact, hindsight is 20/20."

Also, you don't give 11 to 15 mill for "well, sure they've been bad, and no I can't show you a great team they were great against, but there's just not enough BAD evidence yet" LOL.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

I enjoy how black and white things are for you. The world you live in must be an orderly place.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

King Joseus said:


> As for contracts, ignoring the market value for big men when considering Noah's price tag is pure silliness.
> 
> There's not really a need to get into this any further. We get it. You don't like Paxson, or anything to do with the man and his choices as GM. That's fine.


I don't get into broad terms like "big men" defining someone as an automatic good idea.

What are the individual characteristics?

Stop and ask yourself a few questions:

Can he back down and score one-on-one in the post? Okay, if he can - 
Can he do it against the biggest and best players? Okay, if he can - 
Are there any major weaknesses to his game? I can understand for example why you wouldn't want Eddy Curry of 05 even if he could back people down, because he couldn't rebound and defend like an NBA player
If he can't back people down and get points on a high percentage (most centers and PFs)...
Is his defense and rebounding and general size/explosiveness makeup something that alters games?

When a guy isn't really special in any regard like Noah, just saying "hey, he's a big man" is how you end up on the wrong side of the line between Jerry West and a few guys and everyone else. 

Kevin McHale for example had ridiculous post moves and was a very very good defender. If he had no post skill to go with his very ordinary athleticism and if he was just a "good" defender, he wouldn't have been starting for Boston in the mid 80s. 

But if you and Paxson were unleashed in Boston in 1983, you'd have both said "hey, he's a big, so check this out dude. Let's not just retain him. DOUBLE his salary, even if nobody else is bidding that high (Chandler)." 




> Say we did have Deng at $8M a year, and that we didn't give Noah a big extension. We go into summer of 2010 and...the big three still sign in Miami. Okay, so we don't sign Boozer. We've got Rose/SG/Deng/Taj/??? for a year, resulting in little success and no MVP season from Rose with less wins, less help around him. We overpay Nene to get him to come here with our cap space (a deal quite similar to Noah's, if not more valuable). We might still be able to get Rip, or he might choose to go somewhere where he actually stands a chance of winning something. Let's say we get him. Rose/Rip/Deng/Taj/Nene with, for argument's sake, Watson/Korver/Brewer/Asik off the bench. We're not markedly improved, and we aren't any more likely to beat the Heat than we are as currently constructed.


First, you're kind of presuming everything falls your way, which is what those whom I refer to as the "Paxson omniscient" have always done. You people have always talked to others as if you were given the book on the "right way." At the end of the day, like jnr, most of you don't even know basic things like "you don't just pay a guy because he's a 'big man'" and other things like "Horace Grant was REALLY freaking good.

8 million was Deng's value. To say "well, his contract was appropriate if you look at what OTHER idiots were overpaying for THEIR SFs" is problematic. And that's what you HAVE to be saying to suggest he's worth 13.3. The only defense is to live in a world where the market is set by people even dumber than Paxson.

Next, when you talk about Rose and Nene, you're really talking about the defense being pulled to Nene, who can score at ease if he gets sealed position in the low low post, and then the defense having to choose between also sealing Rose and leaving shooters wide open and letting Rose score with ease.

That would be why there are a lot of championship combos of really good low post scorers and good PGs or penetrating SGs and you don't see a lot of championship combos of the same kind of PGs and "decent big men, whom, after all, we must remember ARE big men" (LOL).

Walt Frazier, Willis Reed
Oscar Robertson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Gail Goodrich/Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain
Jo Jo White, Dave Cowens
Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Dennis Johnson, Kevin McHale
Maurice Cheeks, Moses Malone
Kenny Smith, Hakeem Olajuwon
Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O'neal
Tony Parker, Tim Duncan
Dwyane Wade, Shaquille O'neal

You know what you won't see? A lot of combos of PGs and guys like Carlos Boozer, or even better, winning titles.

To me, it's not an accident that's inexplicable that Malone and Barkley don't have rings. PF/PG pick-and-roll duos are a regular season event.

So you get Nene and pair him with Derrick Rose and you just aren't going to need the abundance of overpaid 3rd options to win rings. 

Second, if you strike out on the big 3, that kind of says something about your ability to close, doesn't it? Additionally, if you sign Boozer at a decent value, something like 4 years, 40 million, and you already have a true center like Nene, now Boozer might actually be a nice complimentary option. Nene has much more physical impact than Joakim Noah and can score with much greater ease. In other words, if there is a jumper in a game v. the Heat, I don't see Joel Anthony just muscling Nene. 

If you don't sign Boozer (likely), with Nene, there's also a much greater chance that you can get Joe Johnson. You're not still worried about a gaping hole down low. Nene is the kind of guy you can slap a role player next to and be fine. 

If your doomsday scenario happens, guess what, you're still sitting there with that lineup at around 47 mill. You're going to be fine going forward.

The reason YOU and jnr don't think so is in the back of your mind, you're not sure that John Paxson can sell Derrick Rose and the city of Chicago to prime free agent targets.

Admit it lol. 



> Speculating on what could have happened or should have happened is all well and good, but things could just as well have gone poorly by not retaining assets and keeping a team out there with some veterans mixed in. We don't know. Your opinion that we've made mistakes is fine, but it's easy to call things out in hindsight. For all we know, clearing house after getting Rose leads to him being John Wall in Washington right now.
> 
> We've done a better job than a lot of teams, that's for sure. Do altered moves lead to the big three not getting together in Miami? Maybe, maybe not. Given superstars' desires to play together and in certain markets, I don't know that things would be all that different.


Screw a "lot of teams." Paxson's fans, as the Deng/Hinrich/Gordon thing was creating apathy with non-hard core Chicago fans, said "hey, you need to get lucky to win a title." Well, luck showed up. Derrick Rose is here. So don't give me "better than a lot of teams." 

And just because things could have gone worse doesn't mean that Paxson got any of the three 39 million dollar amigos at a good value. 

This isn't the 1979 Notre Dame fighting Irish. So please, spare me the NBA versions of Kelly Tripucka and Bill Laimbeer (who was a nice compliment on Detroit but was also damn lucky he was paired up with guys like Rodman and Salley).


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

King Joseus said:


> I enjoy how black and white things are for you. The world you live in must be an orderly place.


And for you, I enjoy how things work like this:

1) Let me start with the conclusion "I like Paxson" and then rationalize another conclusion that fits into that
2) Hey, things could have gone worse, so I'm basically right

That's how you come up with gems like, "well, as for Noah, he IS a big man" LOL.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Rhyder said:


> That was merely one piece of my entire point. The Heat get 1.3 ppg in the paint more in the halfcourt game. Does that signify them as a clearly superior halfcourt team, or that the Bulls are just a bunch of jump shooters?


But you're citing regular season stats. And my point is that the Heat have two very good halfcourt players offensively, so when the game changes in the playoffs, the Heat can change what they do to operate just fine in the halfcourt.

We can't change what we do, which would be why Noah shot 31% against Miami in the ECF and Boozer shot 40.6%. As a duo, they probably shot around 37%. That's BEYOND awful for a startin frontcourt in a playoff series. I mean if one guy shoots bad but he's just not the main scorer and the other guy who is the main scorer shoots 52%, then that's different. When your whole starting frontcourt shoots in the mid 30s despite the other team being occupied by Rose, that's terrible and shows that your GM doesn't understand championship basketball.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

For anyone arguing "if we'd have done anything else, we could have faced CERTAIN DOOM!" - I submit this.

The Heat were playing a team defense designed to stop Derrick Rose and this is what the frontcourt shot:

Noah 13-41
Boozer 24-59
Asik 2-5
Gibson 13-25

Total: 52-130 - 40%

40% for your entire frontcourt. So don't give me "oh my god, can you imagine if we didn't have Noah and Boozer. Oh no.

In fact, those two shot 37%. 37-100. Wow. That is f-ing terrible for Allen Iverson let alone two guys in a starting frontcourt.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> But you're citing regular season stats. And my point is that the Heat have two very good halfcourt players offensively, so when the game changes in the playoffs, the Heat can change what they do to operate just fine in the halfcourt.
> 
> We can't change what we do, which would be why Noah shot 31% against Miami in the ECF and Boozer shot 40.6%. As a duo, they probably shot around 37%. That's BEYOND awful for a startin frontcourt in a playoff series. I mean if one guy shoots bad but he's just not the main scorer and the other guy who is the main scorer shoots 52%, then that's different. When your whole starting frontcourt shoots in the mid 30s despite the other team being occupied by Rose, that's terrible and shows that your GM doesn't understand championship basketball.


You do realize that all Miami did was trap Rose and force the ball out of his hands without another playmaker combined with that we were playing 3v5 on offense.

Rip is a huge upgrade as it gives them another ballhandler, shooter, and smart passer. If they halfcourt trap Rose, you swing the ball to Rip and play a quick two man game with Boozer for an easy shot. That couldn't happen last year as Deng and Bogans made up our wings.

As a lesser aside, Deng seems to have improved in his ballhandling or confidence with the ball in his hands this season as well. Perhaps he worked on this part of his game during the offseason. We surely needed more than one player that could create his own shot in the playoffs.

Point being, we are a vastly upgraded halfcourt team with the addition of Rip, who will get Noah and Boozer more easy attempts when they double team. Last year, I would agree that we were a poor halfcourt team.


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

I think the problem with this entire argument is the assumption that people LOVE everything Paxson does... they don't. There are things that he has done well, and thing he hasn't..and those can be debated.. But to completely tear him down and disregard anything good he has done is silly.
Remember how Angelo got ripped for having no back-up QB, or depth... Could you imagine if Paxson didn't have the back-ups we do or the depth (which he did.) ...He prob would of been run out of town by now... But he put together a complete team... Different strategies work... Having big men that shoot 60+% in the play-offs is great, but doesn't guarantee anything. I'm not sure anything you have said, GM move wise, is a lock to get the Bulls a championship.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Rhyder said:


> You do realize that all Miami did was trap Rose and force the ball out of his hands without another playmaker combined with that we were playing 3v5 on offense.
> 
> Rip is a huge upgrade as it gives them another ballhandler, shooter, and smart passer. If they halfcourt trap Rose, you swing the ball to Rip and play a quick two man game with Boozer for an easy shot. That couldn't happen last year as Deng and Bogans made up our wings.
> 
> ...


Well they do have Dwyane Wade. If Wade is hurt, I think we beat them regardless. But if he isn't hurt come playoff time, it's not like Rip is going to just have it made that way. He'll help.

But what's going to need to happen is a) Boozer and Noah scoring better, either one of them or both of them combined, especially since the defense isn't focused on them OR b) Paxson acquiring someone better.

IF we win, I'll be the first one to love a plate of crow. While I don't like Paxson, I'd never root against the beloved Bulls. Basically, if he proves me wrong, I'll be the happiest guy around cause the Bulls will be winners. But if we don't beat Miami, will you be man enough to say why we didn't beat them? And if we don't beat them, can you honestly say it will be because of Rose or Hamilton?

In fact, in your mind, why did we lose to Miami last year. What player was the biggest reason?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Firefight said:


> I think the problem with this entire argument is the assumption that people LOVE everything Paxson does... they don't. There are things that he has done well, and thing he hasn't..and those can be debated.. But to completely tear him down and disregard anything good he has done is silly.


Again, I don't think you need to say that Paxson is all bad to say what I have said. I don't think his supporters think he is always right. But, in totality, do they like his plan overall? To me if you like his plan overall, you're not really paying attention to commonalities between NBA champs. And no, not just the 00 Lakers either. Paxson's frontcourt collection has fallen way short of any frontcourt I know of that has won a title perhaps since the 1979 Supersonics.



> Remember how Angelo got ripped for having no back-up QB, or depth... Could you imagine if Paxson didn't have the back-ups we do or the depth (which he did.) ...He prob would of been run out of town by now... But he put together a complete team...


Not hard to have depth when other than the one superstar you have, you have consistently overpaid for third options. 

Depth is cool, but it shouldn't be the first thing you point to other than luck. Luck and depth is not a championship formula. It's a great thing to grasp at if you just like Paxson, but it's not something that should be on atop a GMs resume if you want rings. 



> Different strategies work... Having big men that shoot 60+% in the play-offs is great, but doesn't guarantee anything. I'm not sure anything you have said, GM move wise, is a lock to get the Bulls a championship.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Firefight said:


> I think the problem with this entire argument is the assumption that people LOVE everything Paxson does... they don't. There are things that he has done well, and thing he hasn't..and those can be debated.. But to completely tear him down and disregard anything good he has done is silly.


Again, I don't think you need to say that Paxson is all bad to say what I have said. I don't think his supporters think he is always right. But, in totality, do they like his plan overall? To me if you like his plan overall, you're not really paying attention to commonalities between NBA champs. And no, not just the 00 Lakers either. Paxson's frontcourt collection has fallen way short of any frontcourt I know of that has won a title perhaps since the 1979 Supersonics.



> Remember how Angelo got ripped for having no back-up QB, or depth... Could you imagine if Paxson didn't have the back-ups we do or the depth (which he did.) ...He prob would of been run out of town by now... But he put together a complete team...


Not hard to have depth when other than the one superstar you have, you have consistently overpaid for third options. 

Depth is cool, but it shouldn't be the first thing you point to other than luck. Luck and depth is not a championship formula. It's a great thing to grasp at if you just like Paxson, but it's not something that should be on atop a GMs resume if you want rings. 



> Different strategies work... Having big men that shoot 60+% in the play-offs is great, but doesn't guarantee anything. I'm not sure anything you have said, GM move wise, is a lock to get the Bulls a championship.


But when you say different strategies work, you forget that your cop out of "hey, it worked for the 04 Pistons" doesn't hold up. I've already told you how we fall dreadfully short of the 04 Pistons, 08 Celtics, 11 Mavericks and 89 Pistons - those teams that represent a different approach.

Carlos Boozer is not Kevin Garnett. He's not Rasheed Wallace, Dennis Rodman or Dirk Nowitzki. So the problem isn't necessarily the philosophical approach. I can live with you not getting prime Shaq on the Bulls. But if you're going to go for a 04 Pistons approach, you need the quality too.

As for my moves, I'd easily put them up against Paxson (and before you ask "well why aren't you a GM," we all know there is a lot of nepotism involved in that kind of thing; there might be 10 posters on this site alone that could do a better job than some GMs, but those posters aren't former players). I like centers who dominate the paint either offensively, defensively or as a complete goonish bully like Kendrick Perkins. I'd likely pair Rose up with a duo of Nene and a player like Perkins, Jordan or Hibbert. I'd then likely go for a Hamilton and Brewer. Guarantees? I guarantee you we wouldn't shoot 40% as a frontcourt and be pushed around by Haslem and Anthony.

The problem is, you don't know what you think you know about championship teams. Most of Paxson's fans don't. It kind of takes a hoops junkie/nerd to know about title teams and what makes them special. But Paxson's fans like to look at a few teams and say "see, Paxson's approach can work" without recognizing the differences between the Bulls and those teams. 

It's ... not an accident for example that Dirk didn't win it with a bunch of stiffs like Dampier and Diop at center but then with Chandler they win. Was the "build around Dirk" approach not working and then it suddenly did work because of magic? Or did Chandler make a difference in quality?


----------



## DunkMaster (Mar 1, 2011)

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-b...young-son-roots-against-father-163539521.html
Boozers kids don't even root for him, lol


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

King Joseus said:


> 2010 Regular season: 50.4%
> 2010 Playoffs: 52.8%
> 
> Boozer 2009 Regular season: 49.0%
> ...


It's also a fun game when you go back and look at this regular season and playoffs.

No Boozer injury, 53.2% in the regular season, 42.2% in the playoffs against the 8 seed.

When the 15 million dollar man drops 11% from regular season to playoffs, it is a fun game. 

Care to apologize for him now?


----------



## SWIFTSLICK (Aug 22, 2009)

Hoodey said:


> Mostly I'm curious where we can go from here. Can we supplement Boozer with a goon like Perkins? Can we try getting guys who just beat the crap out of people like Udonis Haslem? Do we have to swing a trade for a Gasol?
> 
> Waiting on Boozer and Noah and adding 29th picks and MLEs is not going to get us to a title unless Miami has a whole injury riddled season.


Miami would never be that unlucky. They're the NBA's cash cow. People watch them whether they love them or hate them. As for Boozer, I think we're stuck with him. No one is going to trade for him. The Lakers are not going to trade Gasol, he just helped the team into the 2nd round. Not sure how you'd go about getting Perkins, he's not an unrestricted free agent until 2015. Deng would have to be the focal point of any trade we make, and the bench. If that's to happen, the only likely time is during the draft (June 28, 2012).


----------

