# Reality Check



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Let's consider that Curry, Chandler, Crawford, and Rose play as well for the whole season as they did at the end of the season last year. 

From Feb. 1 to the end of the season, we went 13-23. Project that over 82 games and we are just a 27 win team. That 13-23 was also with JWill playing the best basketball of his shortened career.

From March 1 to the end of the season, we went 9-13. Project that over 82 games and we are just a 33 win team.

The Bulls were just a 30 win team overall. Other teams that made the jump from 30 wins to playoffs in one season didn't bring in guys like Newble or Pippen. They brought in guys like Kidd and Mutumbo.

When the Bulls drafted Michael Jordan, he came in and averaged 28PPG as a rookie. The Bulls' record improved by just 11 wins.

An 11 win improvement over last season makes us 41-41. Maybe the last playoff spot.

With this in mind, I really suggest we have to set our sights much higher when looking for any off-season acquisition(s).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

With the above in mind...

IF we want to make the playoffs this season, here's one suggestion:

1) Sign Juwan Howard. We're going to have to start him and let him play as much as possible. He's proven to be the real deal.

2) Trade Crawford and Marshall plus filler to Boston for Walker.

This gives us this lineup:

Hinrich
Rose
Chandler or Curry 
Walker
Howard

This would give us a bench of:
Chandler or Curry
Fizer
Baxter
Hassell
Mason Jr.
Smith
ERob

It doesn't have to be Walker and Howard. It could be either AND someone like Finley. But we need to add one MVP candidate or two guys as good as Walker/Howard.


----------



## DaFuture (Nov 5, 2002)

*Instant gratification*

Long Term Failure that would just make us the Nets or the Pistons I want an NBA championship.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

We still have Curry, Chandler, Fizer, and Hinrich. All very young. All lottery picks with great upside. Our future is still very strong.

The lineup suggestion I made reminds me more of the Rockets team that we traded Pippen to. On the older side, but not just hoping for playoffs, but looking (and contending) for a championship.


----------



## AstheFranchiz2K2 (May 24, 2003)

great posts but aquiring Walker would be a bad move. His percentages and shot attempts wou;d [plague the team causing egos to form. to many guys would want the ball. You can find a better player than Walker.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I picked Howard and Walker because they're both Chicago boys and they're both unselfish. It doesn't have to be Walker, though. I do think we can get Howard for MLE and without giving up anyone (as in a trade). I hate to think about trading Crawford, but to get something great you have to give up something great.

Howard played 82 games, 37 min/game, shot 45%, 7.6 reb, 3.0 ast, 18.4 ppg.

Walker played 78 games, 41.5 min/game, shot just 38.8%, but with 7.2 reb and <B>4.8 ast</B> and scored 20.1.

If it isn't walker, we should be exploring a similar trade for a similar quality player (20+PPG, good passer, good defender).


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> 1) Sign Juwan Howard. We're going to have to start him and let him play as much as possible. He's proven to be the real deal.


I like this idea.


> 2) Trade Crawford and Marshall plus filler to Boston for Walker.


 I would never do this. Ever.


----------



## LoaKhoet (Aug 20, 2002)

Who said that we had to make the Playoffs next year? Making the playoffs is just one of our goals and it happens to be the highest one. No one said that we had to accomplish all of our goals. 

A goal that i want us to accomplish next year is being competitive in games. Another one is fighting for a playoff spot. Fighting and making are two different things. I, personally, would be satisfied with fighting. 

I really don't like the idea of bringing Howard and Walker in just to make the playoffs. Nothing is guaranteed. Even if it was, it isn't worth it for just a playoff spot. We want long term - not short term.


----------



## BULLS23 (Apr 13, 2003)

*Howard and Walker*



> Originally posted by <b>LoaKhoet</b>!
> Who said that we had to make the Playoffs next year? Making the playoffs is just one of our goals and it happens to be the highest one. No one said that we had to accomplish all of our goals.
> 
> A goal that i want us to accomplish next year is being competitive in games. Another one is fighting for a playoff spot. Fighting and making are two different things. I, personally, would be satisfied with fighting.
> ...


I have to agree here . . . I don't really want to play next year just to make the playoffs next year. I do think a step in the right direction would be to try and sign Howard, he'd give us a guy who's ready to work. walker, not so much . . . I think he's a good player, but he just doesn't fit on the Bulls. He's not a good defender, he shoots way too many threes for this team. I also don't want to give up Crawford without getting a legit point with some experience . . . I know Crawford is young too, but I'd rather not have a rookie starting at the point. But, that's why I'm not GM and Pax is . . . So we shall see.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

Walker, Unselfish? Howard and Walker MVP type players? 
:uhoh: 

I think Howard would be a great fit if a trade of Marshall could net a small forward. Howard fits alot better backing up at Center and Powerfoward than an undersized 4 trying to guard 5's. 

I think Marshall has the most trade value and could get a quality swingman in return. Howard would be an upgrade in my opinion.He might even be enough to get them to the playoffs. I like his size and demeanor on the court. Hell he might even reprimand Jalen after one of his tantrums.  

Please no Walker. I already have to deal with Rose's whiny mug, I don't think I could take Toine's shakey shoulders.


----------



## azswami (Mar 26, 2003)

*I'm not really a Bulls fan, but....*

An 11 win improvement and the playoffs is reasonable for you guys.

Young players maturing and having played together for 3 seasons - the maturing of young players comes along at a decent rate. 

You'll get a few games there.

Increased teamwork, due to familiarity - another few games.

If Fizer is healthy all year - add a couple more.

J-Will hurt, lose a few. Heinrich drafted - get at least half of them back. 

J-Will gone, but PG is settled. No more mind games and team disruption - add a couple more wins.

Add Scottie Pippen - maybe, just MAYBE he'll settle the youngsters down in a couple games.

You're right, he won't do much for you.

Just my 2 cents.

P.S. If I'm talking about the Clippers? Maturity, added talent, and experience together would only make you worse.


----------



## 7thwatch (Jul 18, 2002)

*Re: I'm not really a Bulls fan, but....*



> Originally posted by <b>azswami</b>!
> 
> P.S. If I'm talking about the Clippers? Maturity, added talent, and experience together would only make you worse.


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: 

so sad, yet so true . . .


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

We're not a team comprised of players who have peaked performance-wise. Chandler, Curry, Crawford and Fizer will continue to get better and develop consistency. That needs to be factored into anyone's projections. Chandler, Curry and Hinrich are loaded with upside that has yet to be realized. Crawford and Fizer are both entering their 4th professional season. So while their upside may not be as limitless as the other three, it still exists.

The question is not how many points or rebounds or assists players like Pippin, Grant, Leonard and/or Newble will generate. In my mind, the big question is whether these seasoned vets will provide the catilist that will accelerate our young players development quickly enough to challenge in the East this season or next.

If we stay young and relatively inexperienced, we'll continue to improve, but probably at a much slower pace than if we had a select group of vets added to the mix as accelerants to our core group's development.

You may not be able to measure the crusty ones' contributions in a box score necessarily, but without a doubt you'll see it in the way our kids respond to pressure and adversity. And you'll see how they overcome the other guy's home court advantage with experience, composure and focus as we post a much better road record than before.

In this case, the only statistic that'll matter will be the significantly higher number of wins we post this year. Chalk it up to experience.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>L.O.B</b>!
> Walker, Unselfish? Howard and Walker MVP type players?
> :uhoh:
> 
> ...


I said trade for ONE MVP or we need TWO Howard/Walker type players.

If it isn't walker, fine. <SARCASM>We can win without having all-star talent.</SARCASM>

I really don't care if it is walker. His name has been mentioned as a possible trade for us. Any all-star who can play PF for us will do.

We went 9-13 with Curry scoring 20 pts in 10 of those games and 30 in two of them. He scored 15 or more 6 more times.

We went 9-13 with Chandler putting up 7 double-doubles in those games (just missing by 1 point in an 8th). 

We went 9-13 with Crawford scoring 20 pts in 10 of those games, 30+ in two of them, and 15 or more in 6 more of those games.

9-13 is a 41% winning pct. Over 82 games we win 33 games at 41%. 

Just where do you see us improving to win ~41 games to make the playoffs?


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Let's consider that Curry, Chandler, Crawford, and Rose play as well for the whole season as they did at the end of the season last year.


If Curry and Chandler are playing like they did at the end of last season, I won't be very happy. Chandler missed defensive rotations, Curry never really learned how to defend in general. BC didn't really put them in a lot at the same time, even to the very end of the season, because of the defensive liability in Curry and the offensive weakness in Chandler. 



> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> We're not a team comprised of players who have peaked performance-wise. Chandler, Curry, Crawford and Fizer will continue to get better and develop consistency. That needs to be factored into anyone's projections. Chandler, Curry and Hinrich are loaded with upside that has yet to be realized. Crawford and Fizer are both entering their 4th professional season. So while their upside may not be as limitless as the other three, it still exists.


This is key. There is a lot more yet to come. The addition of Hinrich will help, since it's less likely that there will be actual PG battles like there were when Jay started at the beginning of last season. Crawford will walk into the season knowing that he is the man. Curry and Chandler should make an even bigger jump into their third season, known to many as the CRITICAL season, than they did from the first to the second. Why? Because it's their second TRUE NBA offseason. They know what to do now. They don't need a so-called tutor to push them in the weight room or drill them.

They just have to show up and practice hard, to be motivated to be true NBA starters. They need to know that if they bring top quality game into next season, the entire team will be better off. They can be the reason that the Bulls become a GOOD TEAM.

It isn't unreasonable to expect Curry to be a 14/8/1 bpg player, and for Chandler to be getting 11/9/1.7 bpg. Craw, as a starter, was getting 16 ppg, 6 apg, 3.2 rpg, 1 spg, shooting 38% from the arc. This guy should still be getting better too, especially in the defense department.

A good free agent or two is important, but let's not look to sacrifice potentially important parts of a young core for a short-term vet scramble just to make a playoff run.

More important than a really great free agent is the RIGHT free agent. Corey Maggette is a dream come true, as everyone has been saying. But guys like Adrian Griffin or Jumaine Jones might do the job well enough. Combine that with a Juwan Howard signing, which I can handle if it's cost-efficient, and we've probably bolstered the roster enough.

We KNOW that Paxson is pursuing the SF market, as he's openly said so himself. I think we'll be okay.


----------



## MyBallsStillHurt (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> We're not a team comprised of players who have peaked performance-wise. Chandler, Curry, Crawford and Fizer will continue to get better and develop consistency. That needs to be factored into anyone's projections. Chandler, Curry and Hinrich are loaded with upside that has yet to be realized. Crawford and Fizer are both entering their 4th professional season. So while their upside may not be as limitless as the other three, it still exists.
> 
> The question is not how many points or rebounds or assists players like Pippin, Grant, Leonard and/or Newble will generate. In my mind, the big question is whether these seasoned vets will provide the catilist that will accelerate our young players development quickly enough to challenge in the East this season or next.
> ...


Right on Kis! Pax himself couldn't have said it better!
:yes: :clap:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> 
> 
> It isn't unreasonable to expect Curry to be a 14/8/1 bpg player, and for Chandler to be getting 11/9/1.7 bpg. Craw, as a starter, was getting 16 ppg, 6 apg, 3.2 rpg, 1 spg, shooting 38% from the arc. This guy should still be getting better too, especially in the defense department.


Chandler 11/9/1.7
vs.
Jerome Williams 10/9/.5

Curry 14/8/1
vs.
Antonio Davis 14/8/1.2

Crawford 16/6/3
vs.
Alvin Williams 13/5.3/3

Rose 22/4/5
vs.
Vince Carter 21/4/3

Hinrich 14/3/2
vs.
Vashon Lenard 14/3/2

Fizer 14/6/3
vs.
Morris Peterson 14/4/2.5

= TORONTO RAPTORS
24 wins, 58 losses

Peace!


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Let's consider that Curry, Chandler, Crawford, and Rose play as well for the whole season as they did at the end of the season last year.
> 
> From Feb. 1 to the end of the season, we went 13-23. Project that over 82 games and we are just a 27 win team. That 13-23 was also with JWill playing the best basketball of his shortened career.
> ...


Since you're looking at trends, consider this: The Bulls were 4-4 in the month of April, _without_ the services of Tyson Chandler all month, _without_ the services of Marcus Fizer all month, and _without_ the services of Donyell Marshall for the final three games. Also, please consider the fact that 7 of their 8 opponents were playoff teams.

In fact, from the moment Curry was re-inserted into the starting lineup on 2/24, the Bulls were an 11-14 team. I guess the point I'm making is that as time wore on, the Bulls seemed to get better and better. One could say that had the season continued they may have actually started playing _better than_ .500 ball.

That's the great thing about rooting for such a young team. You don't simply look at season long numbers as much as you look for trends because a team this young is constantly evolving.

Paxson appears to be of the belief that adding the right kind of veterans to the mix with the same basic group that finished last season _plus a healthy Chandler, Marshall and Fizer_ will only speed that evolutionary process along. From all indications Hinrich appears to be a satisfactory replacement for Williams as well. Note that I say _satisfactory_, not perfect. I expect he'll probably outperform JWill in some areas, but not all areas.

Lets also consider how much deeper this team could become with the proper additions. Players like Hoiberg, Blount, Hassell and even Baxter could find themselves looking for work. Adding Hinrich and lets say, Voshon Leonard to a guard group comprised already of Crawford, Rose and Mason eliminates Hoiberg and Hassell. Grant could prove to be a more than adiquate replacement for Blount. Fizer's return to health is certainly an upgrade over Baxter in terms of quality depth. And the addition of Pippin and/or Newble upgrades the SF position significantly where unfortunately both Hoiberg and Hassell were forced to fill in last season.

Individually, each of the player additions I've mentioned may not be viewed as a jaw-dropping blockbuster addition. But collectively and in combination with the continued evolution of players like Crawford, Hinrich, Fizer, Chandler and Curry, you could see this team take a quantum leap in the standings.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Chandler 11/9/1.7
> ...


And collectively, it looks like the Toronto players you mentioned missed a total of 102 man games last season. Ouch!


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Let's consider that Curry, Chandler, Crawford, and Rose play as well for the whole season as they did at the end of the season last year.
> 
> From Feb. 1 to the end of the season, we went 13-23. Project that over 82 games and we are just a 27 win team. That 13-23 was also with JWill playing the best basketball of his shortened career.
> ...


you have to remember they were 9-13 from 3/1 but after 2 games JC's good play and williams bad play forced a change so if you take it from JC's 1st start they were 9-11 with 2 of those losses in OT a ball bounces our way 1ce or twice and the bulls could have been 11-9 no problem 

but that aside i believe the bulls will be better because they were growing into their roles of which there are more players doing what is expected of them( EC playing more defense, TC being more active on ofense) ,to start next year regardless of anything else donyell who was very important wont be a shell of himself as he was at the end of last season to start next season and fizer will be back which he wasn't playing during the time you mentioned 

more than any trade or FA aquisitions i am more exited about the growth of the younger players and how they played at the end of the season which i believe will be enhanced by this offseason and next year with more playing time so while 50 wins is very much out of the question unless something big happens this offseason ,40-42 wins is reasonable especially as the season goes on they should show growth as they get more playing time together (TC ,EC rose and JC have started maybe 20 games together in their careers) and as they grow as players individually


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

Interesting stats:

........ HS...... ......Fr..... ......So. ..... Jr.... .........Sr. 

Year 1 6.9 ppg 9.8 ppg 11.9 ppg 11.8 ppg 10.2 ppg 
Year 2 9.2 ppg 12.1 ppg 14.6 ppg 13 ppg 10.1 ppg 
Year 3 12.5 ppg 16.1 ppg 13.6 ppg 13.5 ppg 11.3 ppg 
Year 5 25.6 ppg 16.8 ppg 17.1 ppg 11.1 ppg 9.1 ppg 


players drafted out of high school have the greatest ppg increase over five years while players drafted after 3 and four yrs of college experience see pretty much no increase in ppg averages.

1. Chandler, Curry and Craw's production will all increase 

2. Chandler, Curry, and Craw's defense will also all improve

3. Chandler, Curry, and Craw, as they get older in the league and more established, will also start getting calls from refs.

The key to seeing an overall improvement in the win-loss record will be winning on the road. Items 1, 2 and esp. 3 above will help contribute to winning on the road

Bulls will be an improved team w/o any more off-season additions just do to the maturation of their current players.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*its all about the road*

Once the Bulls figure out how to win on the road, they will be in the playoffs. The only thing keeping this team back from making a playoff run LAST season, was their abysmal road record.

At home, they were one of the best in the east.

Teams overcome hurdles to winning as they mature. The Bulls are now confident that they can beat anyone at home. They were involved in many close road games last season that they came up short on. Once this team has the poise to close out those road games, they will be a force in the east.

The question is.... why where the Bulls so horrible on the road last season and is there any reason to believe they will be better this season? If not, what should be done to remedy this?

I think this team is ready to blow up.... there is one last hurdle they need to overcome and that is consistent road play. If they were only bad on the road last season instead of awful... they would have been fighting for the playoffs. Maturity wins road games. Let's hope that Jamal and one of either Chandler or Curry matures enough this year to be able to reliably close out road games.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

The original reality check on this thread was completely fair. If you're looking for hard statistical evidence from last season to support a Bulls' playoff berth this coming season, you're kidding yourself.

Then again, if you were looking for hard statistical evidence of the future greatness of players like Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Dirk Nowitzki, Tracy McGrady or Jermaine O'Neal, you would have come up just as empty. In fact, if you just looked at the stats, you might have concluded that McGrady would be nothing more than a journeyman and O'Neal would be a flat-out bust.

One of the fun things about this Bulls team is that, as a fan, you need to don your rose-colored glasses because their future depends on whether potential is realized. Through these I can see Curry as the best offensive center in the East and Chandler as a defensive force of nature and an all-around matchup nightmare for opposing coaches. I see Jamal Crawford as one of the better scoring points in the league and Marcus Fizer as 6th Man of the Year.

Why should we project the Bulls into the playoffs this season? Because the championship this year is probably out of the question.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

Look at it a different way.

We were 3-38 on the road.
We were 27-14 at home.

.659 at home
.073 on road


What does this mean? We have a good home team. When we are at home, we can play with the rest of the league. We get in trouble on the road, bec. of lack of experience for one(reason). 

All we have to do is win a few more road games. We still will remain competitive and good at home. If we can improve our road win percentage to .341, which still isn't very good, we are 41-41, and looking at the playoffs. 

To improve, we need to add vets, such as Howard, or Pippen, for example. Someone who can be reliable in crunch time, and help calm down the youngsters. We aren't that far off from yeilding a potential playoff team. It might take one more year of experience.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> One of the fun things about this Bulls team is that, as a fan, you need to don your rose-colored glasses


Jalen?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I LOVE the optimism. I'm as optimistic about our core players' futures as anyone.

But this whole thread is about REALITY.

Every team in the NBA got better this offseason, except the Bulls. And maybe Washington. The Bulls lost JWill, Wiz lost MJ, and everyone (including the Bulls) got draft picks.

If we look at trends, Curry, Chandler, and Crawford all had phenominal 20-30 game stretches at the end of the last two seasons. Their momentum did not carry over to the start of the next season.

If the Bulls don't make moves similar to the ones I suggested, and they don't come out and win half their first 20 games, it is going to be a LONG LONG season. They will have to reload, once again, in the lottery. There is no plan B that's going to make us happy. Plan B is to play guys like Hassell and Blount and Hoiberg.

If the Bulls do make moves similar to the ones I suggested... There are 96 minutes at the PF and C positions. If Howard played 36, that would leave 30 minutes each for Curry and Chandler. That's 10 more for Curry than last year and 6 more for Chandler. They're going to get their time to improve, but alongside three all-star caliber players. If they do put up numbers (improve) like Showtyme projects, we're going to be awesome, and not something like the Raptors.

Perhaps the idea of Antoine Walker (a perennial all-star) isn't appealing to you. There are other guys who could solve the SF problem: Finley, Rashard Lewis, Mashburn, Stojakovic, etc. All a huge cut above Ira Newble.

I've been as big a supporter of Crawford as anyone on these boards (and JWill, too). Paxson was being called by other GMs asking for one of our PGs before JWill went down. We replaced JWill with Hinrich (I also like him a lot), so we're still in a position to deal.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I LOVE the optimism. I'm as optimistic about our core players' futures as anyone.
> 
> But this whole thread is about REALITY.
> ...


not exactly .... nearly every team in the league made moves they believe will help them next year either by pick or will do something in FA 

not every move will be helpful and more than a few will be counterproductive some will simply amount to busts (draft picks) or will amount to the players drafted needing more time in which their developmental minutes will hurt their teams initially 

the bulls are a surer bet than just about every other team to improve because their players are already showing they can step up for a substantial amount of time unless you are counting on a regression which they didn't exactly do between the 2001-02 and the 2002-03 seasons as much as they played well at the end but weren't ready for full time starters min. at the beginning of last year which i believe they are now

as far as hinrich and JC goes i doubt very much kirk will come in and outplay him although I expect him to do better than williams did last year , but not so well that a handful of games in summer league will make pax or anyone else think that the bulls would be better off plcing their playoff hopes in the hands of a rookie


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> not exactly .... nearly every team in the league made moves they believe will help them next year either by pick or will do something in FA


The key is the Bulls LOST JWill, a #2 pick who'd be a 2nd year player. I'm not sure if it has registered with people just how GIANT a setback for the team JWill's accident really is.



> not every move will be helpful and more than a few will be counterproductive some will simply amount to busts (draft picks) or will amount to the players drafted needing more time in which their developmental minutes will hurt their teams initially


The same is true for the Bulls, except they lost the #2 pick in last year's draft, who got 30 minutes a game of development time. The Bulls are starting out in something of a hole.



> the bulls are a surer bet than just about every other team to improve because their players are already showing they can step up for a substantial amount of time unless you are counting on a regression which they didn't exactly do between the 2001-02 and the 2002-03 seasons as much as they played well at the end but weren't ready for full time starters min. at the beginning of last year which i believe they are now


You make two points. 

1) I agree with the first. It's a surer bet that all of the Bulls' "potential" players will improve. The key is HOW MUCH? As I see it, the kind of numbers we need from the three C's is: Crawford 18/8 ast, Curry 25/10, Chandler 15/12, for us to be real contenders.

2) What you suggest is nothing more than a huge gamble (that they're ready for big minutes now). What if only Chandler is ready for big starter minutes? Or just Crawford, or Crawford+Curry? There's no insurance policy here. My suggestion is both insurance (add two all-stars) AND gives the guys starter-type minutes (30/game).



> as far as hinrich and JC goes i doubt very much kirk will come in and outplay him although I expect him to do better than williams did last year , but not so well that a handful of games in summer league will make pax or anyone else think that the bulls would be better off plcing their playoff hopes in the hands of a rookie


The beauty of the insurance policy is that Hinrich doesn't have to do much for the team to be hugely successful (realtively). If he just plays OK defense and dishes out 5 APG, the team as a whole will be a thing of beauty to watch in action. The amount of pressure on him to perform will be minimal. And he too would get to develop alongside 3 all-star types.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

Don't forget that Carmelo Anthony's NBA comparison has been either Glenn Robinson or Antoine Walker, so Walker would be the SF that the Bulls are looking for, since DaBullz wants to go in that direction. Walker's penchant for 3's makes it even more intriguing, and his willingness to play second fiddle, if not co-leader is even better. Oh, and Walker is a good ballhandler for a small/power forward.


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> The key is the Bulls LOST JWill, a #2 pick who'd be a 2nd year player. I'm not sure if it has registered with people just how GIANT a setback for the team JWill's accident really is.
> ...


Those scoring numbers for the three C's are quite inflated, especially since Jalen is still on the team. At most, there will be three players averaging over 15ppg. It's a sure bet that Rose will get his 20, but who else will step up, no one knows yet.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Not every team got better.

I think the Nets might get a lot worse, if Kidd leaves.

I think the Celtics are going to get worse. 

I think the Heat might strike out in the FA market. If so, then they will be getting quite a bit worse too.

The Hornets aren't going to get considerably better. Baron Davis might leave. Pink Floyd is their new coach and the boring David West was their solid, but unspectacular pick.

Grant Hill, a starting SF that contributed about 30 games of 14 ppg, 7 rbs, figures to be out for the entire season. Reece Gaines will make an impact, but they don't have much money to throw at anyone in the FA market. The Magic didn't get much better, then.

The Wizards had a good draft, but getting rid of MJ probably won't end up being better for the team's winning next season. Juan Dixon and Jared Jeffries are going to turn out to be further behind in development than most hoped. Jarvis Hayes will be a nice injection of youth, but the team doesn't seem any better off than last seasons Bulls, pending the breakout of Kwame Brown. I don't see them as struggling to be as good as they were last season.

The Hawks are about the same. Depending on what kind of trades they might pull.

The Sixers are going to be about the same. Larry Brown wasn't the real stabilizing factor with AI, it was AI who stabilized himself. The team will come back healthy and make its perennial rugged run at the playoffs.

Teams that will be significantly improved: Knicks (simply because of McDyess's return), Cleveland (obviously), and Detroit (could it get better than the best in the East?). 

I see the Bulls being the most improved team in the East. 40-42 wins is feasible, although I think 37-39 is probably more like it, just missing the playoffs by a few games. 

But they will make it exciting, and heartbreaking, and it'll be the real deal in the contract years of the kids. Hopefully Crawford (and Fizer) will be around to see it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TwinkieTowers</b>!
> 
> 
> Those scoring numbers for the three C's are quite inflated, especially since Jalen is still on the team. At most, there will be three players averaging over 15ppg. It's a sure bet that Rose will get his 20, but who else will step up, no one knows yet.


Sacramento:
Webber 23/10.5/5.5
Stojakovic 19/5.5/2
Bibby 16/3/5
B. Jackson 15/4/3

Dallas:
Nowitzki 25/10/3
Finley 19/6/3
Nash 18/3/7
Van Excel 13/3/4

Golden State:
Jamison 22/7/2
Arenas 18/5/6
Richardson 16/5/3
Murphy 12/10/1.5

Bulls:
Curry 25/10
Rose 20/4/4
Crawford 18/8
Chandler 15/12

I think the numbers are pretty close to what's possible.

Peace!


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

Funny that you say that when you started the thread on this "reality check." I can envision that Hinrich will put up pretty decent numbers as well, since he is a four-year college player (like Battier).

In order for the Bulls to even have Rose and the three C's average that many points per game, there would have to be two reasons why they are:

1. The Bulls are a 50+ win team. I don't see that happening next season, based on the tangibles. Chandler and Curry still overcommit on defense when one shouldn't and are still turnover-prone, Rose has no thorns, Crawford is still a baby despite all that he's been through, and J-Will is honing his sociology skills. 45 wins is a max that I predict.

2. Rose and CCC are just like bits in the digital world: each are either on or off. The standard deviations of each of these players would therefore be unfavorably high. I can see Chandler keeping the rebounding numbers consistent, but balls will have to bounce his way in order for him to score high numbers. Crawford will either score 25 or 5 on any given night, depending on how he performs in the first quarter of any given game. Curry's numbers largely depend on his first half performances; stay out of foul trouble, and he can easily score 30 points, but he has a tendency to fade in the second half. Rose is most likely going to have the most consistent numbers as far as scoring concerns. Like Iverson, Rose shoots the ball no matter what; whether Rose shoots 45% or 35%, he will still get his 20.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TT,

I don't disagree with you. Not in the least. I do NOT expect the three C's to put up those numbers. Those numbers are what they NEED to put up for the Bulls to overcome the kinds of deficiencies you describe.

That is the REALITY CHECK in action ;-)


----------



## Sicky Dimpkins (May 28, 2002)

*Walker reality check*

*Unselfish good passing* Antoine is a top 15 performer under the big top.

#13(582) in 3PTA @ a .323 clip.  

#9 in TO's/game @ 3.48(Rose #10 @ 3.33. What a nice dynamic duo to think about :hurl: .)

#7(1554) in FGA @ a .388 clip. (Rose #6 @ 1583) 

He's a "Bull" at the FT line too: 61.5%.

This clown is a bargain at any price but can be had for a mere $13,500,000 next season. 

Miss Bozo? Come see Antoine! Come see Walker make passes to the audience(sorry children this isn't baseball you don't get to keep the ball  ). Come see Walker flop like Vlade on "D". 

Now if we can only get Pax to see the blight er I mean light of trading for Miles too! 

What's a shimmy shake without a double forehead tap?

Nice to see we're talking about getting some serious ballers around here.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Walker reality check*



> Originally posted by <b>Sicky Dimpkins</b>!
> *Unselfish good passing* Antoine is a top 15 performer under the big top.
> 
> #13(582) in 3PTA @ a .323 clip.
> ...


Allen Iverson

#1 in NBA in FGA at a .414 clip
#6 in the NBA in turnovers
He only took 303 3Pt attempts at a .277 clip

#6 in the voting for MVP


----------



## Sicky Dimpkins (May 28, 2002)

*Re: Re: Walker reality check*



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Allen Iverson
> ...


Not a fan but thanks.  I only need 2 more to complete a starting 5.

1. Iverson
2. ?
3. Miles
4. Walker
5. ?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> Not every team got better.
> 
> I think the Nets might get a lot worse, if Kidd leaves.
> ...


:yes: 

Thanks for someone posting this and saving me the trouble of saying it for the 4th time and being ignored for the 4th time.

You haven't factored in the rest of the east even once in your Naysaying Dabullz. And your statistics in the later part of this thread have been highly manipulative.

First you compare our guys to Toronto's guys and project our wins to be the same since the numbers are the same. But Toronto was sacked by injuries, not bad numbers. Some nights they only suited up 7/8 players and not even all of those guys where healthy.

And then you compared our offensive point distribution to Sactown and Dallas and Golden State. Three of the highest octane offenses in the league with some of the best point distribution. Golden State, if they played even a lick of Defense would have made the playoffs in the West, let alone the East. So I fail to see how it's valid to bring up that comparison as a reason we won't win more than 30 games.

The reality is that the Bulls as Showtyme stated have the most to be excited about of any team this side of Detriot/Cleveland in the East.

As far as getting Howard and Walker.

We don't need Howard. Marshall gives us pretty much what we could expect from Howard.

Getting rid of Crawford for Walker seems doomed in the short and long term.

Why not just sign Pippen, who is there to be had, and will play better D than both of these players and will fit into our system the best out of either of those, and allow us to keep our young talent in tact?

The fact of the matter is, that arguably Pippen was a better player for the Blazers than either Howard or Walker were for their respective teams. The Calming effect he had on the floor, and his ability to manage the floor was amazing. I had written him off going into this season, but he was clearly the MVP for Portland.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> :yes:
> ...


If you think the Bulls are going to make it to the 8th seed in the East, feel free to indicate which teams the Bulls are going to beat out for that spot. It will be a good exercise for you.



> First you compare our guys to Toronto's guys and project our wins to be the same since the numbers are the same. But Toronto was sacked by injuries, not bad numbers. Some nights they only suited up 7/8 players and not even all of those guys where healthy.


I left it up to you to figure out why Toronto won only 24 wins. So if they're not sacked by injuries, I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS A 16 WIN DIFFERENCE. The Bulls weren't exactly injury free last season, either. JWill spent time on IR and missed games. Fizer went down after 37 games. Chandler missed the end of the season.



> And then you compared our offensive point distribution to Sactown and Dallas and Golden State. Three of the highest octane offenses in the league with some of the best point distribution. Golden State, if they played even a lick of Defense would have made the playoffs in the West, let alone the East. So I fail to see how it's valid to bring up that comparison as a reason we won't win more than 30 games.


The question was raised about whether a team could have a 25 pt scorer, two 20 pt scorers, and a 15 pt scorer. Sactown, Dallas, and GSW all had pretty close to that. If you think the Bulls can't, then we're clearly not going to be as good as any of them, not even GSW. You are supporting what I said, not refuting it.

The kinds of numbers I believe Crawford, Curry, and Chandler need to put up are in fact numbers I think they may evenutally put up. But not this season. Likely not next season. 

I would suggest that if we want to be a real contender, there's nothing wrong with looking at how the real contenders' players fill out the stats sheets. If you want the Bulls to be as successful, there's no harm in using that as a goal.

As for GSW... If the Bulls add Ira Newble or Jumain Jones, they're not going to play a lick of defense better than GSW. And GSW may need a replacement for Arenas. Crawford to GSW as part of a deal to get us a guy like Antawn Jamison would make me every bit as happy as trading for Walker.



> The reality is that the Bulls as Showtyme stated have the most to be excited about of any team this side of Detriot/Cleveland in the East.


Maybe three or four years from now. I'll buy into that argument. Only 10 years of rebuilding at that point.

Right now, New Jersey, Philly, Detroit, and Indiana are all young and talented and aren't in any decline. Miami unexpectedly finds itself with $9M in cap room to bring them a player or two who will immediately be better than all but one of the Bulls' players.

And REALITY CHECK time... It really doesn't matter how good the East is or becomes. We're going to have to go through the BEST team in the West to become champions again, and the West is quite deep.



> As far as getting Howard and Walker.
> 
> We don't need Howard. Marshall gives us pretty much what we could expect from Howard.


Marshall is a tweener. He's too slow to play SF, where we could REALLY use him, and he's not a strong defender, or in reality, rebounder, to play PF. And I happen to like the guy and think we got a great bargain when we signed him. He'll never be an all-star, either, nor will he be. I think he works hard and really works the boards, though his rebounding numbers are better than they should be because he played on a team with FOUR wing players who shot ~40%.

Marshall is a career 12PPG scorer, and just 13.4 last season. Howard is a career 18PPG scorer, and 18.4 last season. They're the same age.



> Getting rid of Crawford for Walker seems doomed in the short and long term.


Like I said, I don't care if it's walker or some other all-star caliber SF type. I've offered a list of other options, including guys like Rashard Lewis, Finley, etc. Any one of them, including Walker, is a GIANT improvement over an Ira Newble or Jumain Jones.

And I happen to be as big a fan of Crawford as the next guy. I fully realize the cost of trading him.



> Why not just sign Pippen, who is there to be had, and will play better D than both of these players and will fit into our system the best out of either of those, and allow us to keep our young talent in tact?


So you make me repeat myself... We are keeping our young talent intact. That would be Fizer, Chandler, Curry, and Hinrich. FOUR lottery picks, all with a chance to develop in a winning environment alongside THREE all-star caliber players.

Pippen is far more likely to come join the team IF we were to get Walker (or whoever) and Howard. I'd welcome him back in a heartbeat. But I don't think adding him to what we have is going to help anywhere near what adding him to Rose+Howard+Walker/all-star would.



> The fact of the matter is, that arguably Pippen was a better player for the Blazers than either Howard or Walker were for their respective teams. The Calming effect he had on the floor, and his ability to manage the floor was amazing. I had written him off going into this season, but he was clearly the MVP for Portland.


Who was Denver's MVP?

Speaking of Denver, watch what they do this offseason and learn. They're going to go from worst team in the NBA to one that's better than the Bulls, and with room to grow. In far less time than it is taking the Bulls to progress.


----------



## Sicky Dimpkins (May 28, 2002)

DaBullz: Why does it have to be a 3?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Sicky,

Though we can play Rose at the 3, he's absolutely a much better player at the 2. I went through the entire season's box scores and the difference is noticable.

And, even though I like Rose, I absolutely would consider trading him if we could get back another all-star caliber player. But before we do a Rose trade, we need (IMHO) to get our ducks in a row (Howard+SF).

What I noticed about the games last season was that our opponents always seemed to have one more scorer than we did. And that when Rose was playing SF, the opposing guards were having massively better games than their average stats. If we can have one more scorer than our opponents, I'm convinced that the game results will be reverse. The close games we lost, we win. The games we get blown out, we are in.

Perhaps most importantly, we can't fall behind in Q1 consistently like we did last season (with Curry+Chandler starting). The circus trip is a daunting sequence of games so early in the season. I think we have a much better chance to take some of those games and set a good tone for the season if we do it with vets.

I cannot stress this enough. The ONLY reason I'm even talking about Walker (besides him being an all-star) is that we were supposedly going to trade JWill+Marshall for him before JWill's injury. It's just a deal that appears to be on the table, low hanging fruit, whatever. The deal appeared to die when JWill got hurt, but I believe drafting Hinrich now puts us back in the position to make that trade. We've also seen reports that it was really Crawford that was being shopped. If there's any truth to the Finley trade rumors, and we could still do that deal, I'd do that one in a heartbeat and wouldn't consider the Walker deal.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

trade rose for walker!
rose will neverrrrrrrrrrrrrrr reach the level of walkers last year(not t his one)playoffs!!!! never ever!!!
problem is the celtics will not take rose.i wouldn't.


----------



## Sicky Dimpkins (May 28, 2002)

The trade I wanted before J imploded was to send JC home with Fizer & ER for Ray Allen(perhaps with some draft picks being exchanged too). Even though Hinrich is here, I don't see that happening because of who Seattle drafted.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sicky Dimpkins</b>!
> The trade I wanted before J imploded was to send JC home with Fizer & ER for Ray Allen(perhaps with some draft picks being exchanged too). Even though Hinrich is here, I don't see that happening because of who Seattle drafted.


I like your line of reasoning. 

Allen is an all-star, and a class act.

FWIW, and IMHO, Fizer has been the best player the Bulls have drafted (and kept) since the rebuilding started. I thought he was better than Marshall last year, though he didn't get the minutes he should have. And the knee injury was a huge shock to the Bulls, who were actually winning at a decent clip right before he went down. 13-17 in December and January with him getting 20+ minutes/game and putting up 5 double-doubles. He was placed in IR on Feb. 1, and the Bulls lost their next 6 straight, and 9 of their next 11. 13-17 is a 35.5 win pace over 82 games.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Sicky,
> 
> Though we can play Rose at the 3, he's absolutely a much better player at the 2. I went through the entire season's box scores and the difference is noticable....
> ...


Sometimes Hassel took the SG and sometimes the SF. Same with many of our other guys like Fred and eRob. How could you tell from the boxscores that Rose was playing SG?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Sometimes Hassel took the SG and sometimes the SF. Same with many of our other guys like Fred and eRob. How could you tell from the boxscores that Rose was playing SG?


When the starting lineup was Rose, Crawford, Marshall, Chandler, and Curry, which position was Rose playing? When you see that starting lineup for about 20 games in a row, then do you think they were playing Rose at SG? Rose is listed in the box scores for those games as SG.

Sure, Rose played some SF, too, in those games. But the majority of minutes at SG.

But in the remaining games, Rose clearly was the SF almost all the time, even though Hassell may have guarded the SF on defense. He's listed in the box scores for those games as the starting SF.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Bulls:
> Curry 25/10
> Rose 20/4/4
> Crawford 18/8
> Chandler 15/12


I think those #'s are very attainable for our guys, but it's not gonna happen this season. Anyone who thinks it is, IMHO, is kidding themselves.

I very much like the idea of acquiring Howard. Like you said, DaBullz, he is proven to be the real deal and can play the 4 and 5 effectively. He also would allow us to trade Fizer for a SF (Shane Battier, anyone?).

However, I do not want any part of Antoine Walker, especially not when it becomes necessary to give up JC to get him. Antoine is a highly skilled player with good leadership qualities who truly wants to win. However, considering that our cornerstones are both 20 years old, why should we trade a 22 year old who will most likely be at or near star-level ability for the next 5-9 seasons for a 26 year old with 2 years left on a max deal who, IMO, is a poor fit anyways? For all the talk of Walker being a PF, he is essentially a tweener that, in most matchups, is more effective creating shots for himself on the perimeter than in the post. If we bring him here, he's going to shoot the ball. Alot. He is what you would call a high volume, low % shooter. Having one guy on your team like that is fine, but when you have two guys like that (say, Walker and Rose), you start to have problems. The Celts can make it work pretty well, mainly because Pierce>Rose, the team is well-coached, and they really don't have anyone else that can score anyway. But do you really want to be the Boston Celtics? Mired in mediocrity with no real shot at a title in the visible future is not how i want the Bulls to end up. 

I guess what I'm worried about is that Walker and Rose's shot-happy ways will take away too many oppurtunities from our high % guys (Curry, Howard, and to a lesser extent Chandler and Marshall) and cause dissention within the team. If Curry and/or Chandler do not feel that they are being used properly or that they are being held back, what is their motivation to stay?

Adding a star-caliber player like Walker is always a great idea in theory, but it may not work so well in practice. If I was somehow guaranteed that Rose and Walker both would mold their game to accomodate Curry and Chandler, I would sign up for this deal in a second. But you said yourself that this thread is all about reality- you know as well as I do that, in the real world, players want shots and want to put up #'s. Especially players that are approaching the end of their current deal, like Walker is. If Walker is added to this team, i question whether there will be enough shots to make everyone happy.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> If you think the Bulls are going to make it to the 8th seed in the East, feel free to indicate which teams the Bulls are going to beat out for that spot. It will be a good exercise for you.


These 3 teams are lottery bound next year--the only one who might not is Boston:

New Orleans(Losing all of their front court depth, losing great coach, gaining league's worst coach, attendence will be dropping through the floor boards)
Boston(The trades they've been thinking about with Walker will make them a lot worse. Sprewell and Pierce will going no where)
Milwaukee(Losing Cassell, Lost Allen, Losing Payton, Trade E. Johnson. Their best players: Mason and Redd--Play the same position. This is a recipe for disaster. This team was never mentally tough to begin with.)
----------------------
Washington(Their younger players are behind the bulls development wise. Stackhouse is only marginally better than Rose. They have no point guard.)
New York(Stil have a bunch of short power forwards. I doubt McDyses comes back, and even then what kind of player will he be, after sitting out that long?)
Atlanta(They are selling their team)

Basically there are two/ possibly 3 playoff spots up for grabs for certain, and of the lottery teams in the east, the bulls have the best chance, without knowing what Miami is going to do.



> I left it up to you to figure out why Toronto won only 24 wins. So if they're not sacked by injuries, I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS A 16 WIN DIFFERENCE. The Bulls weren't exactly injury free last season, either. JWill spent time on IR and missed games. Fizer went down after 37 games. Chandler missed the end of the season.


It's more than a 16 win diffrence. Without the Injuries Toronto was in the playoffs playing against Iverson, one shot away from the eastern conference finals(and probably the NBA finals, as weak as the Bucks were).




> As for GSW... If the Bulls add Ira Newble or Jumain Jones, they're not going to play a lick of defense better than GSW. And GSW may need a replacement for Arenas. Crawford to GSW as part of a deal to get us a guy like Antawn Jamison would make me every bit as happy as trading for Walker.


Why trade for Jamison? He's never even been in the playoffs. He doesn't bring any experience to the table, and we have to start a rookie at point when we do that. Jamison and Rose will probably fight over the ball while Eddy Curry looks on.



> Right now, New Jersey, Philly, Detroit, and Indiana are all young and talented and aren't in any decline. Miami unexpectedly finds itself with $9M in cap room to bring them a player or two who will immediately be better than all but one of the Bulls' players.


If New Jersey loses Kidd they are facing a HUGE setback. Especially if he signs outright with the spurs and them not getting anything in return. They also lost the brains of their team in Eddie Jordan. They will be taking a nosedive for the playoffs once again, if they lose Kidd. You're basically looking at Kenyon Martin and a bunch of players who can't create their own shots.
The Bulls would abuse this team. Chandler and Curry contain Martin and everyone else stays at home.

Philly is going to need Iverson to play his best season ever just to get home court advantage again. Mckie is on the downslide of his career. Coleman is leaving. Van Horn is unreliable. If Kenny Thomas leaves, they have nothing in the front court, especially with Todd McCoulough gone. This team literally has Allen Iverson and Eric Snow. And I say this as a HUGE Sixers fan. I'm more than a little worried.

Indiana might be alright, but if they lose O'Neal and Miller they are also dead in the front court. And Isiah is a terrible coach. If they get O'Neal and Miller and trade Artest for Terrell Brandon to make those signings that also hurts them. Even though he was responsible for their downfall, Artest was also responsible for the Pacers being the number 1 team in the east for a stretch. So they are not invincible either. They look as shaky as they have ever looked.

Detriot. Detriot looks great.



> And REALITY CHECK time... It really doesn't matter how good the East is or becomes. We're going to have to go through the BEST team in the West to become champions again, and the West is quite deep.


Whoa--Let's not put the cart before the horse. You're not even talking about this team making the playoffs this year.



> And I happen to be as big a fan of Crawford as the next guy. I fully realize the cost of trading him.


No I don't think so. Most of the next guys don't want to trade Crawford for Antoine Walker or Jamison. Trading for Rashard Lewis might be better because of his upside. But really the 3 is the weakest position league-wide. We don't need an all-star at that spot.



> So you make me repeat myself... We are keeping our young talent intact. That would be Fizer, Chandler, Curry, and Hinrich. FOUR lottery picks, all with a chance to develop in a winning environment alongside THREE all-star caliber players.


No not really. Crawford is better than Hinrich. And why not try and trade Fizer instead of Crawford? Considering we have a glut at that position. Fizer for Walker or Jamison would be fine by me. (Of course, Jamison and Walker also make an ungodly amount of money, which is something to consider if we plan on resigning Chandler or Curry in a few years).



> Pippen is far more likely to come join the team IF we were to get Walker (or whoever) and Howard. I'd welcome him back in a heartbeat. But I don't think adding him to what we have is going to help anywhere near what adding him to Rose+Howard+Walker/all-star would.


Why would pippen be more likely to join the team if we got a starting small forward ahead of him?

And are you planning on starting Rose+Howard + Walker/All-star?
I guess you're not too keen on playing Chandler at 4? Or do we start him at 5 and play Curry off the bench?




> Who was Denver's MVP?


Can you really have an MVP when you win less than 20 games?



> Speaking of Denver, watch what they do this offseason and learn. They're going to go from worst team in the NBA to one that's better than the Bulls, and with room to grow. In far less time than it is taking the Bulls to progress.


Maybe it's less that you're a realistic bulls fan, then that you're a fantastic Nuggets fan.

A team of:
Arenas
????(who plays here for the nuggets again? My mind just went blank)
Anthony
Nene
Olwakhandi

With little or no depth on the bench, they will be far from making the playoffs in the west. They have to beat out the Sonics, Houston, GS, LAC, just to get to the level of contending for the 8th spot. They will be back in the lottery.

Arenas could be better than Crawford(maybe).
Anthony will not put up better numbers than Rose his rookie year.
Whoever plays shooting guard won't have much of an impact compared to if we get Pippen.
Nene/Khandi vs. Tyson & Eddy--advantage Bulls.

And like I said, The East is going to get a lot easier to move up in for the Bulls this year. If they were in the west, there would be no chance for the playoffs for them either. But the east is a totally diffrent story next year.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Why trade for Jamison? He's never even been in the playoffs. He doesn't bring any experience to the table, and we have to start a rookie at point when we do that. Jamison and Rose will probably fight over the ball while Eddy Curry looks on.


I agree- trading for Jamison as opposed to Walker would not be a better solution. Actually, it would be worse if anything- Walker has at least shown that he wants to win and has good leadership qualities. And Walker can play at least _some_ defense....


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> blah blah blah <snip>


I'll start with Denver.

Arenas or Andre Miller or both
Maggette
Olawakandi
Melo
Nene

Kandi may not be a very good player, but he'll do for them what Luc Longley did for us. You can talk down the other guys in that lineup all you want. It won't make our lineup any better. I'm not a Nuggets fan, just observing what they're doing, which is putting together what looks to be a better team than we're going to have next season, plus upside.

Your views of the East are wild speculation. If all those things you predict happen, the West will have amassed a lot more talent by robbing the East of its better players (J. O'Neal, Kidd, etc.). Meanwhile, you propose the Bulls take a giant step backwards and try to somehow compete against those teams. Remember, we could be talking about JWill, Crawford, and Hinrich; losing JWill is that big step backwards.

Regarding Jamison. His team was tied with the Bulls for worst record in the league two years ago and improved by 17 wins playing 4 games against each of the West conference powerhouse teams. Are you sure he had nothing to do with that? Frankly, I want a piece of that action.

You say I'm not talking about this team making the playoffs. Quite the opposite. I'm talking about this team, with the three all-star caliber players and four developing lottery picks, making the playoffs and then some.



> (DaBullz rearranged these statements in a sensible order).
> 
> Crawford is better than Hinrich.
> 
> ...


Pippen and Hinrich would man the point. Pippen is better than Crawford. Crawford has more upside, of course. Nobody knows how good Hinrich really is. If he's better than Hassel, we're going to be a better team. If he's as good as Magic Johnson or MJ, Crawford's not going to be the starting PG anyway. We won't know until we see him in the lineup. 

It would be stupid to start anyone but Rose+Howard+Walker/All-star. They're actual professional all-star caliber NBA players. You don't bring them here to have them watch guys who haven't proven they're ready to be NBA players.

It may make no difference whether Curry or Chandler starts at the 5. We're horribly weak at the backup C position, and I would much rather see Chandler get those minutes than someone like Blount or Grant. 

Here's the math. C 48 minutes + PF 48 minutes = 96 minutes. Howard gets 36 of those minutes, leaving 60 for Curry and Chandler. 30 minutes each is more than either of them played last season. 

Chandler at the 4 is still our future. The future just isn't going to be now. Curry and Chandler lack something we saw in Kobe and Garnett. Those guys came into the league with real skills, offensive and defensive. They looked ready to play from day 1, and the coaches had to fight the urge to play them too much too soon. Curry and Chandler look like they need a lot of work on their fundamentals. Still.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I respect your analysis. Even though I disagree with much of what you've said, the way in which you expressed it gets a lot of my respect.

I think the basic issue is I probably overrate our talent, where you probably underrate it(except in the case of Hinrich, where I sense you think he could be a very good player, where I thought he was overrated at Kansas). Let's hope for the bulls sake that I'm right in this one(about next season, not hinrich, hopefully he is a lot better than what I've seen). I don't know how much more patient bulls fans can be.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Future,

I think Bulls fans have reason to be optimistic, but are unwilling to be objective about the CURRENT level of play from our VERY talented players.

Eddie Curry and Tyson Chandler have two things in common that gives them the chance to be amazing basketball players. Height and agility. These are two things that can't be taught. They have another thing in common... They were both so huge and dominant in high school that the did not have to develop skills beyond jumping high enough to catch passes and dunk the ball. 

The NBA is not the best situation to learn how to play the game, but it can be done. The more HS players are drafted, the more the NBA is going to have to focus on teaching these guys to play. But some of the HSers do have a lot of skill when they come into the league and their development time is less than for others.

What I observe of Curry in live NBA action is that he has a lot to learn about how to rebound against guys who are a lot better skilled than the HSers he played against. He has a good offensive game, but he isn't a great passer, he's not good at all as a defender, rebounder, or shot blocker. He needs a lot of work on getting himself in position to receive passes, and once he gets the ball, protecting it. These are things he can (and will) learn. I don't think it's something he'll learn over the summer, though, and it may take a couple or more years.

What I observe of Chandler in live NBA action is that he is already a pretty good center who's got a lot to learn about being a PF. He is better at receiving passes, but he doesn't protect the ball well, either. He is so quick (and fast, foot speed) for a man his size that it is obvious what Krause saw in him to trade Brand to get him. He's only slightly better than Curry at defense, but his shot blocking ability, leaping ability, and height mask his fundamental flaws. He's got the ideal physical skills to be the man to shut down KG, but when he was the man put on KG to defend him, KG drew 4 quick fouls on Chandler and sent him to the bench. That should speak volumes to anyone who is willing to be objective about it.

If both had just one year of college experience, it'd have made a huge difference. College programs are designed to take HSers and develop their fundamentals. They play far fewer games and have much more time between games to work as a team on fundamentals. The coaches are there to elevate the level of play of the players. The competition is below the level of NBA play where entire teams are made up of all-stars at the college level.

The good news is the Bulls have the IDEAL coach to help develop the two. A consumate gentleman, a former player at both PF and C positions who excelled (before injury), patient, smart, a leader, articulate, and he's been around the game for most of his life. We do have a great future to look forward to.

It doesn't happen in every draft class, but there are players who are drafted that everyone knows ahead of time are going to be NBA superstars. Duncan is one example, Francis is another. There are other players drafted who far exceed their predraft expectations. These guys make immediate impact on their teams and the league in their first years. 

The Bulls, in spite of having a boatload of lottery picks, have only found one of these guys, Brand, and they traded him away after a phenominal rookie season. What the remaining lottery picks represent is a number of players with a lot of potential to become good or even excellent NBA players, given enough time. Time being the key factor. 

What is clear is that the kinds of players the Bulls drafted do develop well on other teams. I believe it is because these teams add these rookies to an existing lineup of veterans or established young players. The Bulls proved it is suicide (for the season's sake) to try to develop three guys in the starting lineup while bringing in others as subs.

Another aspect of training these kinds of players is that they often do not blossom until they've been in the league a few years AND are traded to another team. Like how Indiana rebuilt itself by trading Rose for Artest and Miller and signing J. O'Neal.

Krause's original rebuilding plan was to sign veteran star FA types to go along with lottery picks. I think he had the right idea, but he had fomented a terrible image for himself and the team in his misdealings with our championship players (and coach). None wanted to come to the Bulls as long as he was at the job. His plan B actually worked, though. Use the cap space to sign lesser FAs and more draft picks, develop them, and then consolidate them via trade for established stars. Hence Jalen Rose, who cost us two young and mostly trained players and a veteran FA we signed, in exchange for a near all-star level player with years of productivity left from a winning situation. 

We're now at a point where we don't have the cap space to sign a top FA, but we have a guy in Paxson who top FAs would be more willing to sign with. Consolidating just one of our young guys with a veteran FA gets us an all-star like Walker. And we can recruit a guy in Howard as FA who is just a cut below the very top tier FAs. It does cost us our most skilled and NBA ready lottery pick with the most upside. And we will have buyer's remorse down the road, because Crawford is clearly going to be a great player. 

The alternative is to remain a minor league team. A team that is designed to do nothing more than develop not-ready-for-NBA players into NBA players. Players who won't want to stay because they get sick of the constant losing (like Brand did).


ESPN ranks the Bulls 104th out of 121 professional sports franchises in their "Ultimate Standings." I think they're right on the money. Here's their commentary and rankings:



> The Jerrys have done nothing right since dissing MJ, Scottie and Phil, turning off fans (the sellout streak ended at 610 in the 2000-01 season) and destroying what was certainly the best brand in Chicago and possibly in sports. Clearing cap space backfired when no one would take their money. Stockpiling draft picks has left coach Bill Cartwright playing nursemaid to confused teenagers. All of which leads to the question: How come Bulls ownership isn't ranked dead last?
> 
> Overall 104th
> Bang for the Buck 117th
> ...


Brutal? Honest? OBJECTIVE. It's not coming from some Bulls fanatics who see things with rose colored glasses.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

DaBullz,

Good post.... I disagree with the following point.



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> If both had just one year of college experience, it'd have made a huge difference. College programs are designed to take HSers and develop their fundamentals. They play far fewer games and have much more time between games to work as a team on fundamentals. The coaches are there to elevate the level of play of the players. The competition is below the level of NBA play where entire teams are made up of all-stars at the college level.


Curry and Chandler would be dominating college ball due to their physicall skills in a very similar fashion to HS ball. These guys are freaks. And Chandler would be playing C. 

Garnett has said that going directly to the pros really helped his game. And college players are restricted to how much organized practice that they can have.

If a kid has the talent and the mind-set, the NBA is the best place to grow.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> DaBullz,
> 
> Good post.... I disagree with the following point.
> ...


I mostly agree. However, the difference between Chandler and Garnett is that Garnett had strong fundamentals coming into the league, whereas Chandler did not.

In NCAA basketball, teams play about 28 games in the season before the tournament. That would be from November to March. Over the same period of time, NBA teams play more than 2x the games, and with long road trips and often back-to-back games or 8 games in 10 days. The time between games in the NBA is spent travelling or resting far more than it can be used to have a college-style team practice.

I am not so sure that they would have been dominant college players right away. Though certainly promising freshmen returning as sophomores. 

I'd point to Shaq's college and pro career as the counterpoint. See Shaq's stats in the NBA at the same age as Curry with just one year in college. If there is a correlation between how good Shaq was as a rookie with 1 year of experience and his year of college ball, then I'm not sure you could project either Curry or Chandler as that dominant a player.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

All of this would have been avoided had we taken Caron Butler instead of Jay Williams in the draft(like some wanted. And for the record, I wanted Jay......)

Crawford/Rose/Butler/Chandler/Curry
Hinrich/Mason/Hassell/Robinson/Marshall/Fizer/Blount

Or, had we traded Marshall/7 for Murray/4(which would have gotten us Wade, and the outside shooting we needed).

Crawford/Wade/Rose/Chandler/Curry
Mason/Hassell/Murray/Robinson/Fizer/Blount

But thats neither here nor now.

I think a major concern many have about Walker(and yes, I know you were just using him as an example bec. of the rumored trade) is that we already have someone who shoots a lot, and sometimes at a bad clip(Rose). Walker launches 3's like no other. Doing that will take our offense to the perimter, instead of inside to Curry. Im not saying there wont be enough shots for Curry........its just a concern.....and one I think that should be looked at a bit.

Plus, Walker has never been known for stellar D. 

3's Id love to see in Chi:
Rashard Lewis
Andrei Kirilenko
Stephen Jackson

All would be significant upgrades over Hassell. 

The question is whether or not any of them are available.(using Crawford as bait, since it has been suggested) The Sonics spent a mid 1st on Ridnour. They obviously believe he is going to be their PG. Him, Ray, Rashard, Nick should form a good team. So I think we get to scratch of Rashard.

[strike]Rashard[/strike]

Kirilenko is a possibility, if Utah doesn't sign Andre Miller. Miller went to college at Utah, and obviously has ties there. It has long been speculated that Utah would sign Miller, which takes care of Utah's need for a PG. Which means we scratch Kirilenko off the list as well. 

[strike]Andrei[/strike]

So that leaves us to the defending champs, Spurs. Would they honestly part with Jackson after he made some nice plays in the playoffs? I dunno. Maybe, maybe not.

Crawford isn't our only trade bait either. We could use Fizer/Marshall/future picks, etc.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

Good post, DaBullz. I disagree with a few points though...



> Eddie Curry and Tyson Chandler have two things in common that gives them the chance to be amazing basketball players. Height and agility. These are two things that can't be taught. They have another thing in common... They were both so huge and dominant in high school that the did not have to develop skills beyond jumping high enough to catch passes and dunk the ball.


You're right 100% about Chandler, but have you been watching the same Curry that i have? The Eddy I've seen has a very sophisticated offensive skill set. You are right that he needs alot of work on his fundamentals, but to say that he has never developed any skill other than catching passes and dunking is simply not true. He is nowhere near where he needs to be in terms if rebounding, defense and passing, but he scores with as much ease as any player in the league (or at least most of them). He's not the league leader in FG% for nothing.




> We're now at a point where we don't have the cap space to sign a top FA, but we have a guy in Paxson who top FAs would be more willing to sign with. Consolidating just one of our young guys with a veteran FA gets us an all-star like Walker. And we can recruit a guy in Howard as FA who is just a cut below the very top tier FAs. It does cost us our most skilled and NBA ready lottery pick with the most upside. And we will have buyer's remorse down the road, because Crawford is clearly going to be a great player.


This is where i fail to understand your logic- if you are convinced that Crawford will be a great player and that we will have buyer's remorse down the road, then why trade him? Especially considering that the guy we'd be getting in return is much older than Chandler and Curry, has only 2 years left on a max deal, and may cause chemistry problems, I really cannot understand why we would want to do this. Walker is a fine player, but not the answer for this team- I don't care how proven a commodity he is.




> The alternative is to remain a minor league team. A team that is designed to do nothing more than develop not-ready-for-NBA players into NBA players. Players who won't want to stay because they get sick of the constant losing (like Brand did).


I really don't believe that this the only alternative to trading for Walker/allstar. Why not give this young team a little time to grow and learn how to play together so that we can learn what we have before trading it away? I see no reason why this team cannot grow into a very, very good team on it's own, without the help of another proven allstar. 

To use a rather hackneyed phrase, Rome was not built in a day. I know that our guys cannot use age as a crutch forever, but Chandler and Curry are 20 years old for pete's sake, and JC is not much older. I know it's necessarily what Bulls fans want to hear after 6 years of losing, but we really do have to patient or we could throw away something potentially great for instant gratification.



> ESPN ranks the Bulls 104th out of 121 professional sports franchises in their "Ultimate Standings." I think they're right on the money.


I think they're way off the mark. The rebuilding has been painful for everyone, but if nothing else the Bulls have proven themselves an organization committed to trying to win championships as opposed to one that just tries to make the playoffs and sell tickets. I would much rather be a Bulls fan than a Knicks, Celtics, Raptors, Sixers, or Hornets fan, to name only a few. Without a complete overhaul, those teams will never win a title. The Bulls are obviously nowhere near championship level yet, but they have certainly put together an impressive young nucleus that is fast becoming the envy of theEastern conference.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> I think a major concern many have about Walker(and yes, I know you were just using him as an example bec. of the rumored trade) is that we already have someone who shoots a lot, and sometimes at a bad clip(Rose). Walker launches 3's like no other. Doing that will take our offense to the perimter, instead of inside to Curry. Im not saying there wont be enough shots for Curry........its just a concern.....and one I think that should be looked at a bit.


Exactly.:yes:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

This is in reply to Vintage.

In the scheme I suggested, Walker would be the SF. As SF, you do want him to shoot 3Pters. Maybe not as many as he has for the past three seasons though. There's no reason to expect him to just continue doing so on a different team with different teammates.

He's on a team with just one other good player and a bunch of bums (IMO). None if his teammates are expected to develop into a third star. If he played in the post more, as he did in his first three seasons, his game would clash with Pierce's. Pierce is a ferocious penetrator, so standing out by the 3 pt line, and shooting if unguarded, and making 33% of those 3's as he has for his career, makes a big man come out of the lane to guard him. Unclogging the lane for Pierce.

He's an experienced vet with enough of a game to do whatever he's asked of by the Bulls if we acquired him. 

His 5.5,5.0, and 4.8 assists per game (over the last 3 seasons) as a PF are superb for a PF and an indication he's also willing to pass. And he is a good passer. His 1.7, 1.5, and 1.5 steals per game are also great for a PF and at least some kind of indication he plays defense.

As I see him, he's a point power forward (to pippen's point forward).

It really doesn't matter to me if he shoots 3's or 2's. It does matter that he is easily a good enough perimiter player to punish the defense if they use his man to double team our post players or if they stay in a zone, or if they choose to double team Rose.

One of the other veterans we discussed trading for last season is Eddie Jones. Jones took 3 less 3Pt attempts per game, shot 3% higher FG% over all, rebounded ~3 less per game and had ~2 less assists per game. Roughly the same steals per game. And scored about 1.5 pts less per game. Jones is 5 years older than Walker. Jones, too, is an all-star. I'd absolutely consider a trade for him if there was one possible.

I agree Crawford isn't our only trade bait. If we could trade Fizer and other players for an all-star and keep Crawford, then by all means do so. At this stage in both players's careers (Fizer, Crawford), Fizer is the much better player. At least was before his injury. But in the spirit of "REALITY CHECK" we need to keep in mind that it takes quality to receive quality in return.

Lastly, if I do remember right, the trade talk for Walker was JWill and (Fizer OR Marshall) plus filler. I don't think Boston would want both Marshall and Fizer in return for Walker, since they both play the same position (basically).


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

do we want our team to develope while rose is the one getting the kids respect .
no D.
does not care.
walker cares.
and rose should be bait.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

This is in reply to Louie.

I stated in my post that Curry has a good offensive game. He's good around the basket, but certainly has no outside game, like Hakeem did or like Ewing did, or even like Luc Longley did.

Without rose colored, bulls fanatical, glasses on, Curry playing the best ball of his career (so far) wasn't as good a player as Ilgauskas in any statistical category (but FG%) or on the court. 

I'm also not overly impressed with Curry leading the league in FG %. FG% isn't a meaningful number, unless you take a LOT of shots, or you're a PF who takes very few. The meaning of Curry's FG%, compared to ERob, is that Curry would basically make just one basket more per game than ERob, if they both took as many shots as Rose does.

Regarding Crawford. If you have two players at the same position, and you have a real need somewhere else, and you're going to trade one of the two, you trade the BETTER of the two. You get more in return. 

We have two PG prospects in Crawford and Hinrich. Crawford, if he reaches his full potential, will be a player like Tim Hardaway. Hinrich, if he reaches his full potential, will be a player like John Stockton. Probably neither will be as good as the guys I compare them to, but the styles of game are what I see in them.

Trading Crawford also alleviates some of our salary cap issues by deferring the bigger PG contract out until the end of Hinrich's rookie contract.

I also think that "chemistry" problems are an urban legend. Teams can have guys (superstars) that hate each other and still win championships. Plus you really don't know if, say trading for Walker, would cause any problems at all. The evidence is to the contrary. It is also an emotional argument vs. a logical one, and simply doesn't have much merit.

The Lakers rebuilt their team and won back-to-back-to-back championships. They didn't do it entirely through the draft. Most of their key players, starting and role, came through trades or FA: Horry, Shaq, Fox, Samaki Walker, and Brian Shaw. Past teams had Horace Grant, Ron Harper, and Glenn Rice (all three former all-stars or near all-stars, btw).

The Spurs and Lakers won the last 5 championships. The Spurs did it with Stephen Jackson, Bruce Bowen, Steve Smith, Speedy Claxton, Kevin Willis, Steve Kerr, and Danny Ferry. None of those were drafted by the Spurs (or traded for as a draftee).

The Mavericks might have won it all this year if Nowitzky didn't get hurt in the playoffs. They had a great young nucleus of players in Kidd, Mashburn, and Jim Jackson at one point. All draftees, and all had advanced to much better players than the Bulls' youngsters CURRENTLY are. None of those guys are with the team, right? Look at their roster: Finley (from Phoenix), Nash (from Phoenix), Van Exel (from Denver), LaFrentz (from Denver), Bradley (from NJN), Walt Williams (from Houston), &c.

Sacramento is the only other real championship contender in the league. Webber (from Wizards), Bibby (from Vancouver), Bobby Jackson (from Minny), Divac (from Charlotte), Christie (from Toronto), Jim Jackson (FA), Keon Clark (from Toronto).

Even the old Bulls weren't home grown. Harper, Rodman, Kerr, Longley, and Cartwright are obvious examples of guys from other teams we brought in, and who contributed in big ways to our championships.

So, we have the proven way to build a winner, and the way you propose. The proven way is more compelling.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

DaBullz-

I wasn't saying the trade would be Fizer and Marshall. I was just listing other possible trade bait. As in Fizer could be had, as could Marshall(either/or), and future picks. I wasn't merely just talking about trading just with Boston for Walker. I was listing other possible trade "assets." Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

What I got against Walker is sometimes he continues to shoot 3's despite a 1/9 start. Great, so he is trying to shoot himself out of it. Thats fine if you can manage to do it. But not with 3's. Take midrange shots, then come back out. Instead, he launches them like the US was dropping bombs on Iraq. 

And his spg is impressive for a PF. But that doesn't translate to great defense(and I know you are already well aware of that). IMO, he is a decent defender at PF. The question will be can he stick with NBA 3's? Maybe if he drops a few pounds? Or maybe he already can? I dunno.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> In NCAA basketball, teams play about 28 games in the season before the tournament. That would be from November to March. Over the same period of time, NBA teams play more than 2x the games, and with long road trips and often back-to-back games or 8 games in 10 days. The time between games in the NBA is spent travelling or resting far more than it can be used to have a college-style team practice.


I don't buy this argument. NCAA players have to go to class and do some amount of studing as well. The Bulls have done everything possible to get C&C upto speed. Clearly, the Bulls are comfortable with the amount of time that C&C spend learning the fundamentals. If not, they could get more instructors b/c both C&C are putting in the time and effort.



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I'd point to Shaq's college and pro career as the counterpoint. See Shaq's stats in the NBA at the same age as Curry with just one year in college. If there is a correlation between how good Shaq was as a rookie with 1 year of experience and his year of college ball, then I'm not sure you could project either Curry or Chandler as that dominant a player.


http://cbs.sportsline.com/u/fans/celebrity/shaq/gym/lsu_yrbyyr.html

Shaq played college ball for 3 years. 

-------------------

Curry and Chandler are both on a tragetory to be dominant. Certainly, the Bulls are opperating under the assumption that they are going to get there.


----------



## Zeos (Jun 4, 2003)

More facts.

The Bulls were 1-8 in OT.

The Bulls don't have to very far at all to be a 38 win team.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't buy this argument. NCAA players have to go to class and do some amount of studing as well. The Bulls have done everything possible to get C&C upto speed. Clearly, the Bulls are comfortable with the amount of time that C&C spend learning the fundamentals. If not, they could get more instructors b/c both C&C are putting in the time and effort.
> ...


Right. My bad. Shaq did go for 3 years. 

As a freshman, he played 32 games and had a 13.9PPG scoring average. I'm sure that is a good indication that Curry and Chandler would have dominated as freshmen.

http://cbs.sportsline.com/u/fans/celebrity/shaq/gym/1989-90_lsu.html

Shaq was born Mar. 6, 1972. So at the age of 20, it would have been 1992.

Shaq played for Orlando in 1992-93. Rookie season.

37 minutes/game, 56% FG, 13.8 reb/game, 23.4 ppg

Curry was born Dec. 5, 1982. He was 20 last season. 2nd season.

19.4 minutes/game, 58.5% FG, 4.4 reb/game, 10.5 ppg

So clearly playing in the NBA helps those big strong guys develop faster, as you say.


----------



## 2cool4skool (Mar 30, 2003)

*my 2 cents*

Our home record was 27-14. Project that over 82 games and .... well I couldn't figure it out -- but it's good. 

For some reason I get 52-28, but that only equals 80 games. WTF?! 

1) If you multiply both columns by 2 you get 52-28.

2) If you do it the hard way and find the win%, you get 53-29.

Does anyone know what is wrong with equation 1?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: my 2 cents*



> Originally posted by <b>2cool4skool</b>!
> Our home record was 27-14. Project that over 82 games and .... well I couldn't figure it out -- but it's good.
> 
> For some reason I get 52-28, but that only equals 80 games. WTF?!
> ...


27 * 2 = 54

I could take a jab at your moniker, but I’ll resist.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vintage</b>!
> DaBullz-
> 
> I wasn't saying the trade would be Fizer and Marshall. I was just listing other possible trade bait. As in Fizer could be had, as could Marshall(either/or), and future picks. I wasn't merely just talking about trading just with Boston for Walker. I was listing other possible trade "assets." Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
> ...


You were clear. FWIW, I've only proposed one trade my whole time posting here in this past year. The Walker trade isn't my idea, it's one that was reported to have been in the works until JWill's injury killed it. It rings true, as this "rumor" isn't about some trade that is supposed to happen, but one that got scuttled.

FWIW, that trade I suggested was during last season:
Crawford and Fizer to Milwaukee for Cassell and Kukoc.

For the most part, talking about trades that 100% of the time aren't going to happen doesn't accomplish anything. 

What this thread is about is a bold leap forward, like the one the Nets made when they traded for Kidd, or the Bulls did when they traded for Cartwright, vs. extending our rebuliding program into yet another year.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Right. My bad. Shaq did go for 3 years.
> ...


Maybe Shaq was just a better prospect no matter if he had gone to college or went straight to the Pros.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Score!


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> I stated in my post that Curry has a good offensive game. He's good around the basket, but certainly has no outside game, like Hakeem did or like Ewing did, or even like Luc Longley did.


Curry has shown a nice J out to about 10-13 ft., but he doesn't seem to trust it yet. Anyway, why shoot J's when you can take it closer to the basket and get a better shot off.



> Without rose colored, bulls fanatical, glasses on, Curry playing the best ball of his career (so far) wasn't as good a player as Ilgauskas in any statistical category (but FG%) or on the court.


Absolutely- i was never trying to argue otherwise. But it doesn't take "rose colored, bulls fanatical glasses" to see that talent that is there in Eddy, how he just makes scoring look relatively effortless. Other GM's and basketball experts have acknowledged it is well, so it's not as if this is my observation alone.



> Regarding Crawford. If you have two players at the same position, and you have a real need somewhere else, and you're going to trade one of the two, you trade the BETTER of the two. You get more in return.


True, and I would be all for it *if* I thought we were getting something in return that is worth the sacrifice.



> We have two PG prospects in Crawford and Hinrich. Crawford, if he reaches his full potential, will be a player like Tim Hardaway. Hinrich, if he reaches his full potential, will be a player like John Stockton. Probably neither will be as good as the guys I compare them to, but the styles of game are what I see in them.


Crawford has comparable quickness, shooting, and ballhandling ability to Timbug, though the Hardaway I remember was a more controlled ballhandler than JC. But Crawford is a good 3-4 inches taller and has a 6'10 wingspan, and lacks Timmy's physical strength- I don't think that is very good comparison. But if you are speaking just in terms of the impact they can have on a game, I agree with you that Crawford should reach Hardaway-level effectiveness.:yes: 
And as far as Hinrich, I will eat my hat if he amounts to even half the player John Stockton is. John Stockton is a future hall of famer and one of the greatest pg's ever.



> I also think that "chemistry" problems are an urban legend. Teams can have guys (superstars) that hate each other and still win championships. Plus you really don't know if, say trading for Walker, would cause any problems at all. The evidence is to the contrary. It is also an emotional argument vs. a logical one, and simply doesn't have much merit.


Chemistry problems an urban legend? Tell that to the Portland Trailblazers or the Indiana Pacers or the Milwaukee Bucks of a few years ago- all teams picked by experts to reach the Finals at some point, all teams that self-destructed becasue of chemistry issues. Even the pre-Phil Lakers, a team that won 67 regular season games, couldn't get past the teamwork of the Jazz because of internal issues. Without Phil's master touch at handling big egos, that team couldn't get past a much less talented team in the WCF.
Of course I don't _know_ if adding Walker would cause problems, but i can do the math. Walker and Rose are both high volume, low % shooters, and I am worried that they will make Curry, Chandler or both reconsider whether they really want to re-up with this team when it is time. Like i said, if a player feels that they are not being used enough or that they are being held back, what is their motivation to stay?



> Even the old Bulls weren't home grown. Harper, Rodman, Kerr, Longley, and Cartwright are obvious examples of guys from other teams we brought in, and who contributed in big ways to our championships.


You are naming the fringe players, the guys that come and go. The core of the team- Jordan, Pippen, and early on Grant- was drafted or acquired on draft day. Same with Kobe for the Lakers, Tim D and D-Rob for the SPurs, and Hakeem for the Rockets.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Hardaway had a sick crossover move, was a good outside shooter, especially the 3, and dished assists. In those respects, I think Crawford can be a similar player.

Stockton is one of the best PGs ever, sure. His game was penetration, great passing, and quality shot selection. In those areas, I think Hinrich will be similar. 

Rodman, Harper, Longley, and Cartwright were anything but fringe players. Rodman was an all-star. I don't remember if Harper was, but he easily could have been. Cartwright was the missing piece to the first championship (a real center), and Longley can at least say something that Patrick Ewing can't ("I was starting center on three championship teams.")

In spite of any chemistry problems you perceive, Portland was (and still is) a rock solid team, strong at every position, and playoff bound every year. If they had chemistry problems, so did EVERY team that failed to win a championship in the years the Lakers and Bulls did. That doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Hardaway had a sick crossover move, was a good outside shooter, especially the 3, and dished assists. In those respects, I think Crawford can be a similar player.


In those respects, I agree with you.




> Stockton is one of the best PGs ever, sure. His game was penetration, great passing, and quality shot selection. In those areas, I think Hinrich will be similar.


Stockton was also the greatest pure passer the game has ever seen, and had a basketball I.Q. superior to some head coaches. I could be wrong, but I don't think Hinrich has anywhere near Stocton-level ability.




> Rodman, Harper, Longley, and Cartwright were anything but fringe players. Rodman was an all-star. I don't remember if Harper was, but he easily could have been. Cartwright was the missing piece to the first championship (a real center), and Longley can at least say something that Patrick Ewing can't ("I was starting center on three championship teams.")


You're focusing on details and not the point of what i was trying to say. Rodman and Cartwright were not fringe players, but they were not the driving forces behind the team either. Everyone knows that Pippen and Jordan, both of whom were drafted (indirectly in Pip's case) by the Bulls, were the reason the Bulls won titles. Everyone else was nothing more than a role player, even if they were superb role players. 



> In spite of any chemistry problems you perceive, Portland was (and still is) a rock solid team, strong at every position, and playoff bound every year. If they had chemistry problems, so did EVERY team that failed to win a championship in the years the Lakers and Bulls did. That doesn't make any sense.


Potland is the league's most talented team by far- like you said, strong at every position. Yet when the league's most talented team can't even get past the first round of the playoffs, something is obbviously wrong. Success is not defined by just making the playoffs- you have to do something while you're there.


----------



## Zeos (Jun 4, 2003)

> Shaq was born Mar. 6, 1972. So at the age of 20, it would have been 1992.
> 
> Shaq played for Orlando in 1992-93. Rookie season.
> 
> ...


Sarcasm, isn't it wonderful? :uhoh:

One little detail there, Eddy was born at the very end of 1982, and Shaq was born near the beginning of 1972. It would be fairer to compare Eddy's season stats this coming season with Shaq's rookie year. I still think Shaq'll have better stats, but the difference won't be as big.



> In spite of any chemistry problems you perceive, Portland was (and still is) a rock solid team, strong at every position, and playoff bound every year. If they had chemistry problems, so did EVERY team that failed to win a championship in the years the Lakers and Bulls did. That doesn't make any sense.


No, Portland is different. They're a textbook example of what happens when you assemble a team based on talent but not chemistry. A good, well integrated team like LA could beat a superior, more talented, deeper team like Portland, and usually does. Basketball's like that.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Hinrich is touted for exactly the qualities you mention about Stockton. Particularly basketball IQ. For these reasons, it's fair to project him as a stockton-style of player.

Do I think he's going to be AS GOOD as Stockton? Not likely. Do I think Crawford is going to be AS GOOD as Hardaway? Not likely, either. Their games merely have those similar characteristics I mentioned.

BTW, only 7 times in history has a PG scored 20+PPG with 10+APG, and Hardaway did it twice. Crawford has barely approached half that kind of production so far.

Adding a Rodman and Harper to MJ and Pippen is equivalent to adding a Ben Wallace and a Rip Hamilton. That is how good those guys were.

I'm not suggesting we trade ALL our young talent for aging veterans like Portland did. To the contrary, I suggest a quite appropriate mix. One that can win now, and will have guys like Curry, Chandler, and Fizer to step in when those vets pass on the torch. Compared to the championship bulls whose youth to take over the mantle were guys like Blount and Caffey.

And for all the raving and reminiscing about MJ and DaPip, we don't have ANYONE remotely close to their talent, aside from Rose (who is remotely close). Or anyone resembling Shaq and Kobe. Or anyone resembling Duncan and the Admiral. So adding a role player like an Ira Newble isn't going to put us over the top.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> Stockton was also the greatest pure passer the game has ever seen, and had a basketball I.Q. superior to some head coaches. I could be wrong, but I don't think Hinrich has anywhere near Stocton-level ability.


No. You're not wrong. Unless Hinrich get's lightyears better than what he was in college I don't even see how this guy is every going to be a starting point guard, let alone an all-time great.

I don't see Hinrich breaking down a defense. I don't know that he is so spiffy running the half-court--frankly he looked out of control for much of his kansas career. Supposedly he plays defense. But in my judgement he's too small to stop big guards, and too slow to really be effective against smaller guards.

I remember watching Hinrich in college and thinking "boy you better enjoy this, because once you get to the league this level of play isn't going to cut it." I was looking forward to seeing him get abused by NBA points.

Unfortunately he got drafted by the Bulls, so I have to pretend that he might be good.

I truthfully don't know who you'd compare Hinrich's game to. But it wouldn't be arguably the best point guard of all-time.

I think Marcus Banks is going to be a better Point out of this draft. Hell. I think TJ Ford is going to be better, and I don't like TJ Ford either.

Also. I wonder how well Hinrich is going to get along with this team. I get the feeling that most of the leaders on the team are friends of Jamal's. And because of this last year that contributed to them turning on JWill. I think while the chemistry between Management and Crawford might be questioned, I think Crawford gets along very well with the team. And trading him would be a huge blow to team chemistry.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Hinrich is touted for exactly the qualities you mention about Stockton. Particularly basketball IQ. For these reasons, it's fair to project him as a stockton-style of player.
> 
> Do I think he's going to be AS GOOD as Stockton? Not likely. Do I think Crawford is going to be AS GOOD as Hardaway? Not likely, either. Their games merely have those similar characteristics I mentioned.
> ...


Why are we keeping Fizer over Crawford? He duplicates a position. And of the two he is least likely to resign with us. We are holding back his development at this point. He needs playing time, but his minutes are just going to go down the longer he is here.

Crawford is arguably one of the best young point guards in the league. It's hard to find great point guards, especially with his size and skills. If we trade him, we are likely never to replace him.

And he hasn't had the season yet to bring back the type of talent that you are asking. Walker is not going to turn our team around.

Why not bring in Pippen who we can get without giving up Crawford? He's a vet. He's still got plenty of run in him.

And since we aren't going to use Fizer, why not trade him for whoever else you think we need.

With Crawford, Chandler, and Curry we have a wonderful nucleus of 3 players. Why not keep that intact and move the pieces around them, similiar to how you keep Pippen and Jordan, but you change the players around them.

We have plenty of trade bait outside of the 3 of those. We can move Rose, Marshall, Fizer or Hinrich(he probably has his highest trade value right now, sadly) and try and get something back.

The 3 C's are untouchable unless you're talking a trade for an MVP type player like KG, Shaq, Kobe range. Otherwise you bite the bullet and say no thanks.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

A trade for an all-star caliber player may require BOTH Fizer and Crawford. Or Marshall and Crawford. Nobody is going to want both Marshall and Fizer, for the reasons you state. Nobody's going to want two PFs in trade. 

Our core twin tower players are just as likely to foul out in 14 minutes as they are to make it to 30 minutes in any game. We're going to need either Fizer or Marshall more than you want to believe.

Fizer may well have been our best player on the whole team last season, before his injury and considering his lack of minutes. A guy who puts up double-doubles (with over 20 points a lot of those times) in 20 or 24 minutes is phenominal. Fizer also came up big in clutch Q4 stretches for us. He's one of our lottery pick draftees who we've already spent the time developing to the point of a near-breakout season. Some were touting him as 6th man award material, even.

We have an indication that we can get an all-star, and we have an indication of what it'd cost us.

1) A JWill plus Marshall (plus) for Walker deal was reported/rumored to have fallen through because of JWill's untimely injury. Unlike the typical rumor, this was reported AFTER it appeared to be dead, rather than before it was supposed to happn.
2) A later report said that it was Crawford who was on the block, not JWill (in general). From sources outside the Bulls, but inside the NBA.
3) 1)+2) implies that it was either JWill+Marshall (if 1 above is true), or Craw+Marshall (if 2 above is true), or more likely Boston's choice of JWill or JCraw. Maybe even Boston's choice of Fizer or Marshall.
4) Paxson surprises everyone here by drafting Hinrich. Makes real sense if Paxson decided nobody in the draft could help us as much as putting us in position to make a Crawford+Fizer/Marshall trade again.
5) Crawford+Fizer trades have long been rumored. Going back to before last season, and continued thru the trading deadline. If there were discussions that didn't turn into deals, then maybe we were waiting until the offseason to actually pull the trigger.
6) The financial impact of Hinrich's rookie contract vs. Crawford's resigning or RFA deal is a factor that may be under consideration.

http://www.bulls4ever.com/rumors.php

The Bulls and Heat are having serious discussions about a deal that could send Jones to the Bulls. The two teams have several possible scenarios. The most likely deal would send either Marcus Fizer or Jamal Crawford to the Heat, along with Eddie Robinson and two other fillers. 

The word is Jamal Crawford and Marcus Fizer could be "packing their bags soon". The two could be packaged in a deal for a defensive small forward. Although he is not known for his defense, one player that is being thrown around is Milwaukee Bucks Forward Tim Thomas. 

http://www.twolvescentral.com/frame_main.cfm?twcentral=story&storyid=506

Citing an anonymous league source, the Daily Southtown reported that Wolves Vice President Kevin McHale and Bulls General Manager Jerry Krause have discussed the deal. No one from either team would confirm the possible trade, but the story included comments from two Bulls players. 

Past trade talks between the teams -- fueled by Krause's appreciation of Szczerbiak's game and Saunders' similar thoughts about Fizer and Crawford -- lend weight to the rumor. 

http://cbs.sportsline.com/nba/story/5829098

The Chicago Tribune reports that the Bulls are reportedly shopping Marcus Fizer, Jay Williams and Jamal Crawford. (6/18)
The Sun-Times reports that John Paxson will be shopping the No. 7 pick and possibly Williams at this week's pre-draft camp at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago.

http://www.sonicscentral.com/drafthistory.html

By that point, the hot rumor was already Jamal Crawford and Marcus Fizer from Chicago for Payton. Things would get hotter throughout the day, but I was no more stunned than during the party as I was going to get some food and KJR's David Locke announced the Sonics were close to a deal which would bring in Crawford, Fizer, and the Bulls' fourth pick. (2001)


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

So what are your thoughts about making a play for Ray Allen up in Seattle?

Surely if we can get Walker with just Crawford, we could get Allen by giving up Fizer and Crawford.

And if we signed Pippen we can play Rose at the "point"
and start

Pippen
Allen
Rose
Chandler
Curry

You seem to think Fizer is more valuable than Curry or Chandler, so what do you think we could get by packaging Chandler and Crawford? There was that deal for KG. KG + Curry and Rose would make the playoffs. And we'd still only be paying max money to KG and Curry as opposed to Chandler and Curry?

And what do you think the odds are of us resigning Fizer? I would think we have less of a chance of resigning him than we do of Crawford, thus I would see that there is more urgency in getting him traded. Clearly he isn't getting the minutes he needs on our team, I can't imagine him staying with us.

If we're going to get rid of Crawford, let's get someone who puts us at the top of the east. We don't need to trade our future for the 5th seed in the east and a first round exit.

So far none of the proposed trades involving Crawford have been all that exciting. Getting rid of Jwill was diffrent because he didn't fit on this team, people valued him higher in the rest of the league, and I didn't like his attitude and I don't think anyone else on the team cared to much for it either.

I'm very skeptical of that report that Crawford was in the walker deal instead of Jwill. Because all the trades that we were hearing about before the wreck were involving JWill. And then after the draft, it comes out that it was JC that we were trying to trade? And if that deal was so close to being done, why isn't it done yet? Pax drafted his point guard already. Why not pull the trigger on the deal if it was SOOOO close to being done.

I think it's because the deal actually was for JWill and Boston doesn't want Crawford, or we don't want to give Crawford up


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> So what are your thoughts about making a play for Ray Allen up in Seattle?


An awesome move, if they're interested. Have you seen any rumor at all about Seattle wanting to trade Allen, or anything about talks between Seattle and the Bulls? I'm all ears.



> Surely if we can get Walker with just Crawford, we could get Allen by giving up Fizer and Crawford.


The deal was JWill (or Crawford) PLUS Marshall PLUS filler (or draft pick) for Walker. It wasn't Walker with "just Crawford."



> And if we signed Pippen we can play Rose at the "point"
> and start
> 
> Pippen
> ...


I think you mean Pippen at the point. Or at least it would be Pippen at the point. The problem is that Pippen is on his last legs, and he just had arthroscopic surgery on his knee in March. I'm not sure we're going to get 30+ minutes for 82 games out of him. But if/when he's healthy, on our team, he's probably going to start at PG, IMO. That's even if we keep Crawford and Hinrich.




> You seem to think Fizer is more valuable than Curry or Chandler, so what do you think we could get by packaging Chandler and Crawford? There was that deal for KG. KG + Curry and Rose would make the playoffs. And we'd still only be paying max money to KG and Curry as opposed to Chandler and Curry?



Right now, it is known that Fizer is a better player than Curry. It's hard to quantify exactly if Fizer is better than Chandler. Two or three years from now, Fizer is going to be an even better player, and so are Curry and Chandler. Curry should be the better of the two, but we can't possibly know that for sure. Fizer was the better player last season, too. 

There's one caveat. Fizer had a pretty serious injury, and he hasn't proven he's come back from it, or all the way back from it. We'll know soon enough.




> And what do you think the odds are of us resigning Fizer? I would think we have less of a chance of resigning him than we do of Crawford, thus I would see that there is more urgency in getting him traded. Clearly he isn't getting the minutes he needs on our team, I can't imagine him staying with us.


If we make no trades, it is clear that signing Fizer will be a huge priority.



> If we're going to get rid of Crawford, let's get someone who puts us at the top of the east. We don't need to trade our future for the 5th seed in the east and a first round exit.


This is the premise of this whole thread! There's at least three strategies that I see at this time. 1) Stay put, and lose. 2) Bring in an MVP candidate to go along with Rose and have a shot at 50+ wins. 3) Bring in TWO guys a cut below MVP candidates and it may be the same thing as one MVP candidate.

Other possibilities that I see as slim and none: 4) Stay put and make the playoffs. 5) Stay put and win the championship.



> So far none of the proposed trades involving Crawford have been all that exciting. Getting rid of Jwill was diffrent because he didn't fit on this team, people valued him higher in the rest of the league, and I didn't like his attitude and I don't think anyone else on the team cared to much for it either.


It is unclear which of JWill and Crawford had the most upside before the injury. There's been speculation by some smart guys here on either's behalf. I happen to prefer Crawford only because he's taller; that being something that can't be taught or learned. JWill was far more likely to get the big shoe contract (star power).

However, neither have proven to be an Isaiah Thomas type PG, who as a rookie put up 18/8 numbers and the team's record changed from 21-61 (like Bulls last season) to 39-43. Neither has put up Andre Miller type numbers, quite a bit less than Isaiah's and with no impact on the team's W/L. And even if they do put up Baron Davis numbers (as people like to Davis as a reason why we should wait for one of our PGs), it's not all that impressive. There's a LOT of PGs who put up similar or numbers, like Kidd, Payton, Marbury, Terry, Nash, Arenas, Francis, Cassell, etc. There's a bunch of guys a cut below, too. Like Bibby, Parker, Van Exel, the other Jason Williams, etc.

Go look at Howard Eisley's stats and you'll see the kind of player that either JWill or Crawford actually are right now. Or Tinsley.



> I'm very skeptical of that report that Crawford was in the walker deal instead of Jwill. Because all the trades that we were hearing about before the wreck were involving JWill. And then after the draft, it comes out that it was JC that we were trying to trade? And if that deal was so close to being done, why isn't it done yet? Pax drafted his point guard already. Why not pull the trigger on the deal if it was SOOOO close to being done.


I can think of at least two reasons why the deal isn't done yet.

1) Paxson gets to see Hinrich in RMR games soon enough. 
2) Boston is considering other offers now, for sure.
3) In 10 days, the FA season starts, and it would be good to know if we have a shot at a guy like Howard.



> I think it's because the deal actually was for JWill and Boston doesn't want Crawford, or we don't want to give Crawford up


You may be right on either/both. Though the deal makes a ton of sense for both teams. Boston gets a ~15 PPG scorer who can play PF AND a young player to make up for their inability to get good draft picks of their own.

There is an FA who's reportedly going to sign an MLE contract that would be a real score for us to get. GARY PAYTON. 

Why Pippen if you could have Payton? Payton's a guy who scored 20.4 PPG, shot 45.4%, grabbed 4.2 rebounds, and dished 8.3 assists last season. In 40.1 minutes (rose-like) and in 80 games. Talk about a STUDLY defender, too.

Now, why would Payton come here? To be mentor to a bunch of rookies? No. He's likely to sign with the Lakers to have a chance to win. We'd have to convince him we havea real chance to win if we'd want him to be that mentor (WHILE PLAYING AS MUCH AS HE CAN). That's not going to happen unless we do make a move for someone like Walker, too.

THis is worthy of a whole new thread.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Hinrich is touted for exactly the qualities you mention about Stockton. Particularly basketball IQ. For these reasons, it's fair to project him as a stockton-style of player.
> 
> Do I think he's going to be AS GOOD as Stockton? Not likely. Do I think Crawford is going to be AS GOOD as Hardaway? Not likely, either. Their games merely have those similar characteristics I mentioned.]


The problem that i have with those comparisons (other than the fact that they compare Kirk to one of the greatest pgs ever) is that the suggest that we have two pgs of comparable ability. From what i have seen of Hinrich and Crawford, the big difference between them, IMO, is that Crawford actually has the ability to reach Tim Hardaway-level production, whereas I don't believe that Hinrich has any chance to become as good as Stockton. Hinrich is a smart player, but Stockton knows more about the game than his own head coach (Sloan himself has admitted to this). Hinrich is a good passer, but certainly not Stockton-good and probably not even Andre Miller-good. Hinrich is a good shooter, but his track record (4 points in the NCAA title game) suggests that he is not the clutch shooter that Stockton was. Maybe Hinrich will turn out better than I give him credit for, but I really don't think it is fair to compare an average NBA prospect to a HOFer.



> Adding a Rodman and Harper to MJ and Pippen is equivalent to adding a Ben Wallace and a Rip Hamilton. That is how good those guys were.


Once again, you are focusing on the details and not the point i was trying to make. Of course Rodman and Harp were good, but were they the driving force behind the team? Of course not, Michael and Scottie were. My point was that teams have typically drafted their greatest players and acquired everyone else through trades/free agency. Bulls drafted (through Seattle, in Pippen's case) Jordan and Pippen, Spurs drafted Duncan, Lakers drafted Kobe(through Charlotte), Rockets drafted Hakeem, Pistons drafted Isaiah, Lakers drafted Magic and Worthy, Celtics drafted Bird and McHale.



> And for all the raving and reminiscing about MJ and DaPip, we don't have ANYONE remotely close to their talent, aside from Rose (who is remotely close). Or anyone resembling Shaq and Kobe. Or anyone resembling Duncan and the Admiral. So adding a role player like an Ira Newble isn't going to put us over the top.


If Rose fits your definition of "remotely close", then Crawford and Curry are easily "remotely close" as well. Chandler is not far off either- the comparison i use for him is Dikembe Mutumbo. So we have 4 guys on this team with a very high ability level. IMO, adding Newble would, in the long run, be *much* more beneficial than trading Marshall and Crawford for Toine, IMO.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> http://www.bulls4ever.com/rumors.php
> 
> The Bulls and Heat are having serious discussions about a deal that could send Jones to the Bulls. The two teams have several possible scenarios. The most likely deal would send either Marcus Fizer or Jamal Crawford to the Heat, along with Eddie Robinson and two other fillers.
> 
> The word is Jamal Crawford and Marcus Fizer could be "packing their bags soon". The two could be packaged in a deal for a defensive small forward. Although he is not known for his defense, one player that is being thrown around is Milwaukee Bucks Forward Tim Thomas.


Just a minor note- this article was written in February- long before Crawford displayed the kind of ability he showed at the end of the season, and long enough ago that i think we can consider it no longer valid. Tim Thomas sucks anyway- I wouldn't trade Fizer for him straight up (if that were even possible).



> This is the premise of this whole thread! There's at least three strategies that I see at this time. 1) Stay put, and lose. 2) Bring in an MVP candidate to go along with Rose and have a shot at 50+ wins. 3) Bring in TWO guys a cut below MVP candidates and it may be the same thing as one MVP candidate.
> 
> Other possibilities that I see as slim and none: 4) Stay put and make the playoffs. 5) Stay put and win the championship.


See, I don't understand this logic at all. Young teams, especially ones whose cornerstones are 20, 20, and 22 respectively, can improve on their own just by maturing and learning to playe together. We don't have to add an MVP candidate or two guys a gut below MVP candidate to become a good team- it's just not gonna happen as soon if we don't. I don't believe that trading for Toine would make us a 50 win team anyway, even if we bring in Howard as well. It'd make us much better initially, no doubt, but in the long run I really believe that we'd regret it.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I LOVE the optimism. I'm as optimistic about our core players' futures as anyone.
> 
> But this whole thread is about REALITY.
> ...


Okay everyone, this thread got me hooked 

DaBullz, strangely enough, I agree with most of what you said here in this thread. As I've said before, the team as it is currently assembled will not make the playoffs next season. I believe many fans overvalue and overestimate the potential of our young players contributing at a high level throughout next season. We are fans and we are optimists. We remember only the good games our young players had: Jamal's 15 game stretch to end the season, Eddy's FG%, Tyson's double doubles, etc. But I wonder if any fans outside of Chicago fear Jamal, Kirk, Jalen, Donyell, Tyson and Eddy... as playoff contenders in the East next year. Probably not many.

I will post a further analysis as to the state of the Bulls in a few minutes. Peace all.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*STATE OF THE BULLS ADDRESS by VD*

<b>IDEA #1:</b> The Bulls were 27-14 at home last year, if they only won more road games.... they'd be a playoff team.
<b>REALITY:</b> Every team could make a similar argument. The most definitive analysis I've done to date on the 2003 Bulls is found here:

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=415245#post415245



> <i>[disclaimer: I am a Bulls fan, this will be an unpopular response, thanks!! ]</i>
> 
> Sicky, the Bulls lost so many road games b/c they were a bad basketball team. They are a young and relatively inexperienced team with a rookie head coach. They have no All-Stars. Before the Bulls posse comes after me, let me provide this argument. <b>I believe the most consistent statistical argument for an NBA team's strength is judging ROAD wins versus HOME losses.</b> This is not a new idea. Its been said many a time on TV and repeated by couch commentators everywhere. Last season here is where all NBA teams stood:
> 
> ...


<b>IDEA #2:</b> Curry will become as good or better than Shaq
<b>REALITY:</b> Please stop thinking this. Shaq's rookie year, at age 21, read this line: 23ppg, 14reb, 2ast, 3.5blks. Eddy is a very good offensive player. Someone please tell me if he'll ever average more than 10 boards or 3 blocks a game (during his career). Great defensive players are rarely developed in this league. Truth is, we don't even know if EC can pass out of a double team yet... and believe me he'll see plenty of those next season.

<b>IDEA #3:</b> Crawford, Chandler or Curry will become All-Stars next year or sometime soon.
<b>REALITY:</b> This is certainly possible, though not probable. The roster, as it is, has zero All-Stars. Jalen has never been an All-Star, neither has Donyell. I view both of these guys as finished products. Even if Crawford puts up 15/6/5 all year, he still ISN'T an All-Star (b/c neither was Arenas). Arenas is the superior defender at this point too. Sorry to keep comparing the two, but Arenas has set the bar for young PGs in the NBA, period.

<b>IDEA #4:</b> Kirk Hinrich will contribute right away
<b>REALITY:</b> Not so sure. I saw Jay Williams dominate the college game for 2 years, being a top 2 prospect for 2 consecutive draft classes. He was universally acclaimed as the 'most ready to contibute' from the 2002 draft class. I saw probably the quickest end to end PG in the NBA struggle for much of the year. The PG position takes time folks. Let's not expect Hinrich to light it up or shut anyone down for that matter. It takes time.

<b>IDEA #5:</b> The Bulls will make the playoffs next year
<b>REALITY:</b> I don't know. If you're telling me the Bulls will make the playoffs... you're also assuming 1-2 players will be All-Stars. Can you name a team that made the playoffs w/o an All-Star on their team? The only one that comes to mind is the '99-'00 Magic team, which either finished #8 or #9 (can't remember). They had 41 wins... though also having the Coach of the Year in Rivers and a certain Ben Wallace as well.

These are my opinions everyone. As Sicky would say, comments questions corrections welcome. Its JMO after all. Peace and Go Bulls.


----------



## Zeos (Jun 4, 2003)

> Hinrich is a good shooter, but his track record (4 points in the NCAA title game) suggests that he is not the clutch shooter that Stockton was. Maybe Hinrich will turn out better than I give him credit for, but I really don't think it is fair to compare an average NBA prospect to a HOFer.


First, I think you will be surprised by Hinrich's game. Sure, he didn't have a great NCAA title game, but the fact that he put the team on his back and a bad ankle and got them there says a whole lot about him, and about his poise and "cluchness."

As for comparing him toa HOFer, no, it isn't fair, but it's done all the time anyway. Anthony has been compared to Pippen, is that fair? Pietrus has been compared to Jordan (Euro Jordan), which is just a joke. Eddy Curry gets the "Baby Shaq" label, comparing him to Shaq, is that fair? I've compared Tyson to David Robinson, is that fair? Heck, even Fizer has been compared to Charles Barlkey; fair?

No, none of them are fair comparisons, because none of them have proven a darn thing.

What people are trying to do is find a guy with a similar skill set that has been very successful with that skill set. In that sense, those comparisons are valid.

Hinrich has a lot of the skills that John Stockton has. People probably make the comparison more because they're both white. Will Hinrich be as good as Stockton? Probably not. But he does have the ability to be an excellent passer, as shown by his sophomore stats, when he actually played point guard.

I think another comparison that doesn't get mentioned very often is Jason Kidd. They both have similar size, and they're both very good open court players. Does that mean Hinrich's going to be an MVP candidate some day? Unlikely. The comparison is there to state that Hinrich has similar skills and the potential to be as dangerous as Jason Kidd in the open court. And as good of a defender.

I was skeptical about Hinrich last year, but I watched a lot of Kansas games, and I've become a believer. He's going to surprise a lot of people.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> IDEA #1: The Bulls were 27-14 at home last year, if they only won more road games.... they'd be a playoff team.
> REALITY: Every team could make a similar argument. The most definitive analysis I've done to date on the 2003 Bulls is found here:
> 
> http://www.basketballboards.net/for...5245#post415245
> ...


Vin, I completely agree with everything you said- nice post!:yes: 

I fully do not expect the Bulls to make the playoffs next season or for us to have any allstars this season (though Curry has a chance in the center-starved East). I think the main issue here, however, is whether the Bulls need to make a trade along the lines of Walker-for-Crawford+Marshall in order to ever become a real contender. DaBullz seems to think that we do, while i contend that we'd be better off letting our guys grow and mature together before we write them off. Right now, we still suck, but 3 or 4 years down the line, I think this team really could become something special if we keep our current core intact. I also think that Walker and Rose together, two guys who shoot alot but a low fg% and are not good defenders, would be harmful to the developement of our young guys, and quite possibly deter them from wanting to re-up when their contracts expire. Remember that Walker has only 2 years remaining on a max deal, and say what you will about the type of team player he is, i find it hard to believe that he would sacrifice stats for the good of the team as much as we would like to believe with a new contract so near on the horizon. What are your thoughts?


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> As for comparing him toa HOFer, no, it isn't fair, but it's done all the time anyway. Anthony has been compared to Pippen, is that fair? Pietrus has been compared to Jordan (Euro Jordan), which is just a joke. Eddy Curry gets the "Baby Shaq" label, comparing him to Shaq, is that fair? I've compared Tyson to David Robinson, is that fair? Heck, even Fizer has been compared to Charles Barlkey; fair?


Comparisons are made all the time- some fair, some unfair. There is a difference between, say, comparing Melo to Pip and comparing Hinrich to Stockton. Melo actually has a chance to become as good as Pippen was- he's not as good of a run-jump athlete, but he's got skills now that Pippen never had until much later in his developement, including a sweet outside shot. Hinrich is basically nowhere near Stockton in any aspect of the game other than size and athleticism. This is just my opinion and I could easily be wrong, but I doubt that Hinrich will ever be worthy of being mentioned in the same sentence as Stockton.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Since we are talking reality check i will comment on crawford who i am a huge fan of, thro i think he is better suited as a two guard. I just think if you are a shoot first PG that means a sg, but whatever. 

Crawford has had two good months of bball for the bulls, period. While i like his game and upside lets be serious. People talk like he will avergae 15 points and 8 assisnts next year. I think that very unlikely. Last year he was really up and down and lets not forget if he had stayed in college he would have been drafted this year. He is still a very young player.

Now i am not saying trade crawford i think we should let all the young players mature and develop and not make to many changes because stability really helps young players. 

But this team will not make the playoffs next year and chandler and curry will have an up and down season because their minutes will be higher and they will have to deal with a long season starting every game.

Look for the biggest improvement of this team to be the 2004/2005 season when chandler and curry will be 22 and crawford will be starting for his second season in and row. Just IMHO.

david


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> Vin, I completely agree with everything you said- nice post!:yes:
> 
> I fully do not expect the Bulls to make the playoffs next season or for us to have any allstars this season (though Curry has a chance in the center-starved East). I think the main issue here, however, is whether the Bulls need to make a trade along the lines of Walker-for-Crawford+Marshall in order to ever become a real contender. DaBullz seems to think that we do, while i contend that we'd be better off letting our guys grow and mature together before we write them off. Right now, we still suck, but 3 or 4 years down the line, I think this team really could become something special if we keep our current core intact. I also think that Walker and Rose together, two guys who shoot alot but a low fg% and are not good defenders, would be harmful to the developement of our young guys, and quite possibly deter them from wanting to re-up when their contracts expire. Remember that Walker has only 2 years remaining on a max deal, and say what you will about the type of team player he is, i find it hard to believe that he would sacrifice stats for the good of the team as much as we would like to believe with a new contract so near on the horizon. What are your thoughts?


Louie, I would seriously consider a Crawford/Marshall/fiiller for 'Toine Walker swap. Why you ask? 'Toine is a three time All-Star and would be the best player on the Bulls. He's 27, signed for two more seasons, and would give the Bulls another reliable option on offense. Plus he is in the best shape of his career. Mark my words, this will be a career year for him.

I watched game after game last year and it became painfully apparent that Jalen Rose is option 1 and 2 on offense. HE created opportunities for Crawford while initiating the offense. He set up Eddy C off the pick and roll and in the post. He repeatedly took the 'bailout' shot time and time again. Do you know what opponent's game plan was against us?! Stop Jalen Rose. Play physical. Make someone else beat you. We had no other viable consistent offensive option, night-in and night-out. So we watched Jalen have a productive season, but the Battiers/Richardsons/Bowens of the NBA held him to a career low 40% FGp. Yuck.

Harmful to the development of the young guys? Why? Because he's an All-Star who actually knows how to play the NBA game? Is Ira Newble going to make Eddy and Tyson better? How does 5 assists a game sound? or 8-9 boards? or 2 steals?

Louie, I'm not willing to wait 3 or 4 more years... and neither is Paxson or Uncle Jerry. Before the motorcycle incident w/ Jay, the goal was crystal clear: make the playoffs in '04. What did the Bulls do? Draft another PG to put them into the same exact position (in terms of roster) as before the accident. I hope the Bulls make a move b/c the roster as it is, isn't making the dance. This is absolutely an important year for the Bulls. No playoffs? Jamal and Fizer won't be getting the benjamins... and I would guess that everyone minus Tyson and Eddy would be shopped.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> 
> If Rose fits your definition of "remotely close", then Crawford and Curry are easily "remotely close" as well. Chandler is not far off either- the comparison i use for him is Dikembe Mutumbo. So we have 4 guys on this team with a very high ability level. IMO, adding Newble would, in the long run, be *much* more beneficial than trading Marshall and Crawford for Toine, IMO.


Reality check.

A 20/4/5 guy is ][ <- this close to being an all-star. Rose almost was an all-star, not chosen by the fans, but by the coach(es). He didn't make it, granted, but he was certainly on the short list of guys who'd sub if anyone on the team couldn't make it.

Chandler and Curry weren't even considered. Not even for a nanosecond.

Chandler and Curry do not have a very high ability level. They have POTENTIAL to have a high ability level. This is the kind of statement that makes me want to say "reality check" in the first place.

Regarding the hardaway/stockton comparisons, I'm not suggesting that Crawford and Hinrich will ever be AS GOOD as those two. You even quote me saying that, so I'm not sure why you are fixated on thinking I suggested otherwise. All I was doing was looking at guys we've seen play whose GAMES are very different, yet successful. In Crawford and Hinrich, I see two very different styles, yet both can be successful. If you don't like the Stockton comparison, then think of Paxson's brother Jim's game.

IF we traded Crawford, I am convinced that Hinrich could replace him and that we wouldn't be disappointed. And my expectations for Hinrich are reasonable: 5 buckets a game and 5 assists.

My point about Newble isn't a slap at him. In our case, adding him is adding a fringe player to a fringe team. In the right circumstances, you can add a Newble to a very good team, and his contribution would make a difference. He's not going to make a single W difference to us.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> Louie, I would seriously consider a Crawford/Marshall/fiiller for 'Toine Walker swap. Why you ask? 'Toine is a three time All-Star and would be the best player on the Bulls. He's 27, signed for two more seasons, and would give the Bulls another reliable option on offense. Plus he is in the best shape of his career. Mark my words, this will be a career year for him.
> ...


TRULY BRILLIANT.

The only thing I would add to this is that losing JWill to his injury was a MAJOR setback. We had to spend a draft pick to replace him. And we lost the year of development time we spent on him. We're essentially where we were at the end of the season, but with a rookie PG instead of one with 30min/game of experience in the NBA.

The key word in your first paragraph is RELIABLE. 

Peace!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> Crawford has had two good months of bball for the bulls, period. While i like his game and upside lets be serious. People talk like he will avergae 15 points and 8 assisnts next year. I think that very unlikely. Last year he was really up and down and lets not forget if he had stayed in college he would have been drafted this year. He is still a very young player.
> david


Not to quibble, but Crawford's two good months was really four good months, if you consider the same end-of-season period from the previous season, too. I agree 100% with what you have to say.

15 points and 8 assists. There are THREE PGs that are FA right now that have actually put up those numbers. Arenas, Miller, Payton. You don't have to develop Crawford to that level over 2 years to have that kind of production. Those kinds of guys are fairly plentiful, if you look around the league.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I think you're going to be very disapointed when you actually see Hinrich play.

When I think of John Stockton I think about his passing and his basketball IQ.

I think Hinrich is an average passer. And I think he has a very low basketball IQ.

There is no way on a team with Toine Walker and Jalen Rose that Hinrich gets 5 baskets and 5 assists. Walker and Rose will both eat up the shots and the assists. Any leftovers will be going into the post.

Sure Walker WAS an all-star. But he was a very undeserving one this year. And I doubt if he ever makes another all-star team after the way Kenyon Martin completely dominated him in the playoffs.

And I disagree that trading for players who are a cut below MVP nessarily makes us instantly better. I think the players suggested here are two, maybe three cuts below MVP. Walker especially. He may be the second best player on Boston, but it's a HUGE gap between him and Paul Pierce.

I also disagree that Fizer is, or will be, a better player than Curry. Curry is younger, but he seems far more polished in the low post, and he's bigger--he showed the ability to dominate games last year, which if it weren't for foul trouble or Jalen going away from Eddie, would have been ungodly numbers from the field.

I'll grant you he doesn't rebound that well. But he's not too shabby on the offensive glass. And I think his rebounding numbers will always be down as long as Chandler is playing there. He seems to let Chandler handle most of that.

I think the Shaq comparison is especially valid here. Shaq, especially now, but throughout his career, has shown a decided disinterest in playing defense and rebounding. Sure he has the ability. And it's not like Eddy Curry doesn't have the ability. But neither of them have the desire to dominate both ends of the floor.

But both of them are monsters on the other side of the floor.

When you brought up Shaq's numbers at the same age--the main thing I noticed was that Curry is about half of what Shaq had then. But Curry was also playing half the minutes that Shaq did. Once Curry started getting the minutes after the All-star break he was playing a lot like Shaq did his rookie year. I think Curry is a better all-around shooter than Shaq ever was as well. He doesn't have to dunk it every time down to keep his field goal percentage up.

It's much more realistic to compare Curry to Shaq than Hinrich to Stockton. IMO.

And just to make this clear again. I think with the talent the bulls have now, the playoffs are a very realistic possibility/goal. I thought the one thing they lacked last year was experience. I think they have the talent. They just needed the experience. Well last year was the experience. The next step is the playoffs. Anything less with the current talent is a failure.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> A 20/4/5 guy is ][ <- this close to being an all-star. Rose almost was an all-star, not chosen by the fans, but by the coach(es). He didn't make it, granted, but he was certainly on the short list of guys who'd sub if anyone on the team couldn't make it.
> 
> Chandler and Curry weren't even considered. Not even for a nanosecond.
> 
> Chandler and Curry do not have a very high ability level. They have POTENTIAL to have a high ability level. This is the kind of statement that makes me want to say "reality check" in the first place.


I was under the impression that "ability" and "potential" were essentially the same thing, and that "production" was what we use to refer to the #'s these guys put up now. It was my fault for not making that clear enough I guess, and you seem to have misunderstood me.

*Of course* Chandler and Curry were never considered for the allstar team- that's not at all the message i was trying to get across. You said yourself that they have the potential to have a high ability level, and that is exactly what i was referring to. What is it that makes you think this potential won't pan out? What have Chandler and Curry done to indicate that they are not on the path to being high quality players?



> Regarding the hardaway/stockton comparisons, I'm not suggesting that Crawford and Hinrich will ever be AS GOOD as those two. You even quote me saying that, so I'm not sure why you are fixated on thinking I suggested otherwise. All I was doing was looking at guys we've seen play whose GAMES are very different, yet successful. In Crawford and Hinrich, I see two very different styles, yet both can be successful. If you don't like the Stockton comparison, then think of Paxson's brother Jim's game.


First off, Jim Paxson was an allstar- still too good for kirk to be compared to. Secondly, like i said, The problem that i have with those comparisons (other than the fact that they compare Kirk to one of the greatest pgs ever) is that the suggest that we have two pgs of comparable ability. From what i have seen of Hinrich and Crawford, the big difference between them, IMO, is that Crawford actually has the ability to reach Tim Hardaway-level production, whereas I don't believe that Hinrich has any chance to become as good as Stockton.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> IF we traded Crawford, I am convinced that Hinrich could replace him and that we wouldn't be disappointed. And my expectations for Hinrich are reasonable: 5 buckets a game and 5 assists.


Well, I guess this is where we disagree. I m going to go out on a limb and say that Crawford is going break out this season. Not that he's going to be an allstar this year or anything, but i think it's safe to say that he will be considerably better than Kirk this year (and for the rest of their careers, IMO).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> And just to make this clear again. I think with the talent the bulls have now, the playoffs are a very realistic possibility/goal. I thought the one thing they lacked last year was experience. I think they have the talent. They just needed the experience. Well last year was the experience. <B>The next step is the playoffs. Anything less with the current talent is a failure. </B>


Be prepared for <B>failure</B>. That's what we saw with pretty much this same team last season. Reality check.

The progress of Curry, Chandler, Crawford, offset by the loss of JWill, is worth 2-3 more victories, at best.

Deducing that other guys who ARE all-stars, somehow aren't, doesn't make our guys better.

Truly.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Be prepared for <B>failure</B>. That's what we saw with pretty much this same team last season. Reality check.
> ...




I'm one of his biggest fans, but Williams was a scrub last year. We probably would have been a better team if he had gotten injured a year ago and Brunson played instead. We lose a lot of our upside by losing JWill, but replacing JWill's contributions of last year is pretty easy.

Therefore, you are saying that the progress of Curry, Chandler and, Crawford is only worth a few extra victories.

Did you watch the end of last season?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I watched the end of last season.

Did you watch the start of last season?

With Curry and Chandler starting, against teams that were actually trying to win (i.e. season not a wash for them yet), we consistently fell behind in Q1, and failed to win games, in spite of furious comeback attempts with Crawford playing.

The start to last season was after a similar period of "success" by Crawford (remember how he shot 49% from 3PT after coming back from his knee injury/surgery?), Chandler, Curry, etc.

Heck, even Bagaric had phenominal performance during those last two months two seasons ago. That should tell you something ;-)


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> With Curry and Chandler starting, against teams that were actually trying to win (i.e. season not a wash for them yet), we consistently fell behind in Q1, and failed to win games, in spite of furious comeback attempts with Crawford playing.


Reality check - We will not be a good team until Chandler and Curry are good players. 

Reality check - You have no idea how much Curry and Chandler will improve upon last year's performance. Could be a little. Could be a lot.

Reality check - Despite your pleas for some uber-star like Walker, all signs indicate that Pax is going to stay the course and try to find some some nice complementory vets like Pippen and Voshon Leonard.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Reality check - We will not be a good team until Chandler and Curry are good players.
> 
> Reality check - You have no idea how much Curry and Chandler will improve upon last year's performance. Could be a little. Could be a lot.
> 
> Reality check - Despite your pleas for some uber-star like Walker, all signs indicate that Pax is going to stay the course and try to find some some nice complementory vets like Pippen and Voshon Leonard.


Amen.:yes: 



> Heck, even Bagaric had phenominal performance during those last two months two seasons ago. That should tell you something ;-)


Huh? That never happened.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by *Vin Diesel*
> Louie, I would seriously consider a Crawford/Marshall/fiiller for 'Toine Walker swap. Why you ask? 'Toine is a three time All-Star and would be the best player on the Bulls. *He's 27, signed for two more seasons* , and would give the Bulls another reliable option on offense. Plus he is in the best shape of his career. Mark my words, this will be a career year for him.


Exactly- he's 27, and only signed for 2 more seasons. This means that:
a.)He's 7 years older than Curry and Chandler, meaning that, like Jalen, he will be on his way out when they are peaking.
b.)By the season after the coming one, he will be in the Final year of his contract, and he is going to want to put up the type of #'s that will get him another max deal, with the Bulls or elsewhere. This should be right around the time that Curry will be demanding more shots and Hinrich and Chandler will be coming into their own offensively as well- with Jalen still in the mix, this is a recipe for disaster, IMO.
I still don't understand the need for Toine- if theres one thing that we can all agree upon, it is that this team does not really have trouble scoring. So why trade for another guy who scores well but is not a quality defender?
All the arguments for Toine- that he is currently better than anyone the Bulls have, that he is unselfish, that he is a superb passer- are all true. And if we could dump Rose, I'd be all for adding Antoine. But i just don't think that two guys who want to be alpha dogs but aren't quite on the level of Pierce, Kobe, TMac, etc., two guys that shoot as much as Toine and Jalen do at such a low fg% can coexist to form a good team, especially when you figure that one of them is playing for a new contract.
Bringing in veterans is the right idea- I would love to see Howard land here, as he would instantly become our best frontcourt player- but you have to find the _right_ veterans. Unless Jalen is moved or is part of the deal, I don't think Toine would help this team in the long run.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Louie, I'm not willing to wait 3 or 4 more years... and neither is Paxson or Uncle Jerry.


The fact that they are pursuing guys like Newble and Pippen would seem to indicate that they are willing to wait.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Trading Crawford for Walker is the type of deal that can ruin a team.That is a desperate trade that cant guarantee victories.I like Toine have met and played with him before but there is NO WAY Id deal Crawford for him to TRY to get a few more victories next season .The growth of our young player will provide those extra victories.


Trade for Walker and who will play pg ?Hinrich get real!! We dont even know whether hes the next Nash or the next Frank Williams.No move should be made involving Crawford until we are sure what Hinrich can do as the last time I checked we dont even know if he can get the ball across halfcourt.


I dont see the young Bulls regressing next season and the argument that they played well at the end of "01" then regressed at the start of last season is not accurate.

In "01 it was more a collection of players playing well that led us to victories Craw,Best,Rose,Fizer,Curry,Rose ,Chandler all scored in double figures in some of those games it was a more a team effort than anything else.

In "02" Curry,Chandler,Crawford DOMINATED AT TIMES with Rose and the others taking a backseat most of the time. Thi wasnt the team coming together and willing a victory more than it was talented players realizing just how good they can be and imposing their wills on the other teams .

Those 3 should not be touched for this season so we can see what they are capable of doing with more leadership and responsibility heading into next season.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> Amen.:yes:
> 
> ...


Re: Bagaric

You can look at the box scores and recaps for the 2001-2002 (two seasons ago) at nba.com.

Some details from the box scores:
3/1/2002 13 minutes, 5 pts, 6 rebounds
3/3/2002 25 minutes, 1 point, 8 rebounds
3/6/2002 19 minutes, 7 points, 7 rebounds
3/9/2002 21 minutes, 3 points, 6 rebounds
3/11/2002 18 minutes, 6 points, 7 rebounds
3/12/2002 24 minutes, 7 points, 4 rebounds
3/14/2002 15 minutes, 4 points, 5 rebounds
&c

LOL, he was a better rebounder then than Curry is now.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Re: Bagaric
> 
> You can look at the box scores and recaps for the 2001-2002 (two seasons ago) at nba.com.
> 
> ...


Well, I guess I was wrong to doubt you, DaBullz. How careless of me to overlook Dalibor's monstrous career game of 7 points and 7 rebounds. Dalibor's dream shake is fast becoming one of the league's most devestating offensive moves.  

What you said was:


> Heck, even Bagaric had phenominal performance during those last two months two seasons ago. That should tell you something ;-)


I don't think anyone would define the phrase "phenomenal performance" as averaging 5 ppg and 6rpg over a stretch of 7 games.
And for the record, there is no conceivable way you can compare Dali's "phenomenal" 7 game stretch to what Eddy did during the 2nd half of the season (about 18 ppg and 7 rpg on 58.5% shooting, I believe).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

In half the minutes, he scored about what Ben Wallace does and about half the rebounds.

Phenominal, indeed.

Especially when you compare it with the rest of his regular season performances. This year and last. That is, prior to March 1.

So, Bagaric should have had the kind of season you think Curry is.

Curry may or may not make it to Q2 due to constant foul trouble. That is his history.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

IMO. if Curry and Chandler, will not produce something special next season, we are back to the square one, regadless what we are going to do during this summer.

In today's NBA world , you can get a VS player (Untouchables) only troughout the draft. 

So, may be we will follow the Clip. steps, seaching (fishing) for that player whatever it takes. 

IMO, there are only five special guys in NBA, you can build a champ. team around :

Shack, Tim, McGr., KG, Kobe


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> In half the minutes, he scored about what Ben Wallace does and about half the rebounds.
> 
> Phenominal, indeed.
> 
> Especially when you compare it with the rest of his regular season performances. This year and last. That is, prior to March 1.


I hope you are not suggesting that Dalibor is or will ever be anymore than a fraction of the player Ben Wallace did. If so, that is the craziest thing I have ever heard. Go post that on the NBA forum (or better yet, the Pistons forum) and see what kind of reaction you get.

Phenomenal indeed?!? I hope you were joking- that was over a course of *7 freakin' games!!!!*. Let me know when Dalibor ovetakes Ben Wallace as the leagues best defensive big man. 



> So, Bagaric should have had the kind of season you think Curry is.


No, no, no.:no: 
What are you talking about?!? Dalibor averaged 5 ppg and 6 rpg over a stretch of 7 games two years ago, and has shown absolutely nothing since. Throughout the months of February, March, and April, Curry averaged 17 ppg and 6 rpg. If you take February out of the equation and just look at March and April, he averaged 19 ppg and 7 rpg. Oh yeah, and he did all of this at a league leading 58.5% shooting clip. _Ohhhh yeahhhh_, and he's 20 years old.

In what conceivable way do those numbers suggest that Bagaric is going to have the kind of season that I think Curry is going to have? 



> Curry may or may not make it to Q2 due to constant foul trouble. That is his history.


I guess you didn't notice the marked improvement in Eddy's foul problems in the latter half of the season. I guess you didn't notice his mpg climb from 10.0 in January to 19.6 in February to 28.6 in March to 31.8 in April. Does the kid have problems with fouls sometimes? Hell yeah, but he's 20, and he's in his 2nd year.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I got bored of looking at those old box scores. Bagaric continued to play similar basketball for the rest of that season. He even scored 16 points twice. And he was ridiculously young at the time. Still is.

~7 points and ~7 boards is better than ERob. It's far better than Bags did last season.

Perpetual rebuilding is what we're experiencing. Year 6, and no end in sight. With all the lottery picks, only Elton Brand was the real deal. And we traded him so we could rebuild longer.

We did the right thing in trading for Rose. We can make similar trades for players who can actually play. Or we can wait and see how foolish waiting is, and then we can make a similar trade to add to an older rose.

Or we can start the "official season is a wash thread" a couple weeks into the season, and be on the mark.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

two words about bagaric and his production: garbage time.
unless of course he pulled any of those numbers as a starter.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> I got bored of looking at those old box scores. Bagaric continued to play similar basketball for the rest of that season. He even scored 16 points twice. And he was ridiculously young at the time. Still is.


You're talking about 2000-2001, right? Bags was 20 years old then- the same age Curry is now. Bags averaged 1.3 ppg and 1.6 rpg for the season.

So i guess being "ridiculously young" is a viable reason for Bags' performance (or lack thereof), but the same argument doesn't work for Curry?



> ~7 points and ~7 boards is better than ERob. It's far better than Bags did last season.


It's far better than Bags has ever done. Lol, I was referring to the _high game_ of the ones u mentioned, not his average for the stretch.



> Perpetual rebuilding is what we're experiencing. Year 6, and no end in sight. With all the lottery picks, only Elton Brand was the real deal. And we traded him so we could rebuild longer.


I don't agree- I think that improvement has been slow but noticeable. With the type of potential our guys showed at theend of last season, I think you have to give them _at least_ one more season before you abandon this rebuilding effort. It's just too early- like i said, other than Rose, our next most valuable commodities are 20, 20, and 22 respectively. I know that "more time" is the last thing Bulls fans want to hear, but I think that if we don't give them at least _some_ time , we could wind up throwing away something potentially special for instant gratification.



> We did the right thing in trading for Rose. We can make similar trades for players who can actually play. Or we can wait and see how foolish waiting is, and then we can make a similar trade to add to an older rose.


I used to agree, but after watching Rose for a full season I m convinced that he is not deserving of a max contract. If he were part of the deal for Walker or if he could be traded subsequently to another team, I'd be all for bringing in Walker. But I do not think that Walker and Rose together are going to bring you anywhere special, and with the way they jack up shots, they might just ruin our team chemistry along the way.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I'll just weigh in here and add that I am against adding Walker. And it is not because I don't like Walker, living in KY I am somewhat of a UK fan and loved watching Walker play for the Cats. However, on the NBA level, Walker's game has never developed correctly for some reason. He could be a very good player if he would play in the post and take the ball to the hole or spot up for a kickout jumper or the OCCASSIONAL three. Instead, Walker has always been more of a jacker, ready and willing to fire the ball up from three point land whether it's a good shot or not. Yes Walker can pass the ball and yes he has good basketball skills. The problem is that he thinks he is Kobe. Trading Crawford or Chandler for Walker would undoubtedly spell disaster for the Buls franchise. In fact, I was very disturbed to hear that the Bulls were even considering trading for Walker at all. 

On this rebuilding vs. trading for prime time guys argument, first the Bulls won 6 championships over the course of the 90's. They basically didn't have a lottery pick until what 99? They had like 10+ years without a lottery pick! Of course it is going to take some time to rebuild, you HAVE to go through a minimum of 5 losing seasons if you want to aquire the draft picks that will land you the talent to get back to prominence. Of course some teams take the approach that they will trade and sign fa's and try to stay competetive. Thats usually when you end up with a team like Boston who can be competetive but in the end can't close the deal. The Bulls could already be there. Would be real easy actually. But, Krause has wisely decided not to sacrifice future dominance for present respectability. Believe me, Chandler, Curry, and Crawford are getting better....much better. I think we will finally see some of the fruits of this 5 year drought beginning next season with the Bulls earning a playoff berth. You guys have to remember that not only did we load through the draft, but we loaded up with guys like Crawford who came out his freshman year, Curry who was a Hs player, ditto with Chandler. These young kids take TIME to develop and every indication is that they are just now starting to find a groove and a comfort level. I would point out that Toronto traded Mcgrady for someone who can "help right now". Portland traded Jermaine O'neal for someone who can "help right now". I assert that we HAVE players that can help right now and next season will be a joy to behold when Chandler, Curry, and Crawford start really playing like they are realizing their potential. Add in solid vets like Rose, Marshall...a maturing and healthy Fizer...a rookie with some fire in Hinrich...a couple of positional free agent vets and the Bulls will have a mighty nice roster. Before declaring the season a wash you guys better wait and see what happens. I have a feeling that this seasons Bulls squad is really going to surprise a lot of people in terms of just how well they play. I think the playoffs are a definite probability next season.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> I'll just weigh in here and add that I am against adding Walker. And it is not because I don't like Walker, living in KY I am somewhat of a UK fan and loved watching Walker play for the Cats. However, on the NBA level, Walker's game has never developed correctly for some reason. He could be a very good player if he would play in the post and take the ball to the hole or spot up for a kickout jumper or the OCCASSIONAL three. Instead, Walker has always been more of a jacker, ready and willing to fire the ball up from three point land whether it's a good shot or not. Yes Walker can pass the ball and yes he has good basketball skills. The problem is that he thinks he is Kobe. Trading Crawford or Chandler for Walker would undoubtedly spell disaster for the Buls franchise. In fact, I was very disturbed to hear that the Bulls were even considering trading for Walker at all.
> 
> On this rebuilding vs. trading for prime time guys argument, first the Bulls won 6 championships over the course of the 90's. They basically didn't have a lottery pick until what 99? They had like 10+ years without a lottery pick! Of course it is going to take some time to rebuild, you HAVE to go through a minimum of 5 losing seasons if you want to aquire the draft picks that will land you the talent to get back to prominence. Of course some teams take the approach that they will trade and sign fa's and try to stay competetive. Thats usually when you end up with a team like Boston who can be competetive but in the end can't close the deal. The Bulls could already be there. Would be real easy actually. But, Krause has wisely decided not to sacrifice future dominance for present respectability. Believe me, Chandler, Curry, and Crawford are getting better....much better. I think we will finally see some of the fruits of this 5 year drought beginning next season with the Bulls earning a playoff berth. You guys have to remember that not only did we load through the draft, but we loaded up with guys like Crawford who came out his freshman year, Curry who was a Hs player, ditto with Chandler. These young kids take TIME to develop and every indication is that they are just now starting to find a groove and a comfort level. I would point out that Toronto traded Mcgrady for someone who can "help right now". Portland traded Jermaine O'neal for someone who can "help right now". I assert that we HAVE players that can help right now and next season will be a joy to behold when Chandler, Curry, and Crawford start really playing like they are realizing their potential. Add in solid vets like Rose, Marshall...a maturing and healthy Fizer...a rookie with some fire in Hinrich...a couple of positional free agent vets and the Bulls will have a mighty nice roster. Before declaring the season a wash you guys better wait and see what happens. I have a feeling that this seasons Bulls squad is really going to surprise a lot of people in terms of just how well they play. I think the playoffs are a definite probability next season.


:clap: That is one of the best posts I have read all year!

The only part I don't agree with is the last line. I would not say that the playoffs are a "definite probability", but I expect the Bulls to make a significant improvement and at least be in the running for a playoff spot.:yes:


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

ok, revisiting reality check. We signed Blount, Gill, and Pippen. We lost, Bargaric, Hoiberg and Jay Williams. 

Are these moves good enough to make the 8th seed of the eastern conference? 

Do we have enough depth should we get major injuries?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Bump.

Just reminiscing.

Was fun to read the thread from the start. Enjoy it.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Bump.
> 
> Just reminiscing.
> ...


I've switched 100% and now gotta say that getting Walker for Crawford, Fizer and Marshall seems like it would have been a heckva move. 

I saw Walker play with Dallas and he sure did rebuild his body and looks like he could play 3.

And what in the world has happened to Marshall?

p.s. I will still say that, at the highest level, we will be just rotating deck chairs on the Titanic until we determine if Curry and Chander are indeed the real deal. Walker or no Walker.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

I guarantee that Walker would come to Chicago and suck 

We already have the requisite talent 

Its just that there is some weird hex from somewhere in the cosmos that has been placed over this franchise

Maybe we have to sacrifice a virgin on MJ's statue to combat the evil strand of Haitian voodoo that permeates this franchise


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

An old post, needs to be reposted for the reality check fellas. The Bulls were the 3rd worst team in the NBA last season.

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=415245#post415245



> Sicky, the Bulls lost so many road games b/c they were a bad basketball team. They are a young and relatively inexperienced team with a rookie head coach. They have no All-Stars. Before the Bulls posse comes after me, let me provide this argument. I believe the most consistent statistical argument for an NBA team's strength is judging ROAD wins versus HOME losses. This is not a new idea. Its been said many a time on TV and repeated by couch commentators everywhere. Last season here is where all NBA teams stood:
> 
> 1) Sacramento Kings / 24-6 / .800
> 2) San Antonio Spurs / 27-8 / .771
> ...


----------

