# How does Krause rate on rebuilding the Bulls?



## THELAKESHOW (Oct 9, 2002)

[strike]Since someone closed my other thread on Krause's Mistakes(for no appartent reason),[/strike] I would like to get some opinions on how he has done in his 5years rebuilding this once great franchise. On a scale of 1-10. I give him a 2. My reasons are in the closed thread. Opinions?

MikeDC: Please stick to the topic. PM me if you have questions.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

In principle I agree with what Krause started out to do, but the timetable has just become unreasonable. In terms of results the team isn't meaningfully better than it was 2 or 4 years ago, and what's worse is I'm not sure he'll be able to keep its core together long enough to reap the benefits of high draft picks.

In other words, Krause's grade for the rebuilding is technically an "incomplete," but I can't keep giving him an incomplete forever. If I had to judge him on the present-day status of the team, I'd have to give him a "1".

Sorry to be so pessimistic.


----------



## THELAKESHOW (Oct 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> In principle I agree with what Krause started out to do, but the timetable has just become unreasonable. In terms of results the team isn't meaningfully better than it was 2 or 4 years ago, and what's worse is I'm not sure he'll be able to keep its core together long enough to reap the benefits of high draft picks.
> 
> In other words, Krause's grade for the rebuilding is technically an "incomplete," but I can't keep giving him an incomplete forever. If I had to judge him on the present-day status of the team, I'd have to give him a "1".
> ...




I agree 100%. Resigning all these guys will be impossible, especially with the finger-pointing, egos, etc. that come with losing. Once these guys (Chandler, Curry, JWill) contracts are up, they are going to think the grass is greener. You can't keep all of them happy by losing. Just look at the Clippers and guys like Jemaine O'Neil. They all feel like they should be stars, and you can't have too many on the same team, it doesnt work, ei. Trailblazers. Thanks for the input.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Just to add a bit of fuel to the fire, anyone notice what the ex-Bulls did this afternoon?

* Artest: 13 points, 12 boards, 5 assists, 4 steals
* Miller: 8 points, 7 boards
* Mercer: 20 points, 4 boards, 4 assists
* Brand: 20 points, 12 boards, 3 assists, 4 blocks

If you add Fizer, Crawford, ERob, Hassell, your choice of Curry, Jason Richardson, Shane Battier, or Eddie Griffin, and whoever you think we might have ended up with in the draft and free agency last year, would we not have an incredibly bright future?

Some will say "but there's no superstars there! Well, if this pace keeps up, Artest and Miller might be on the Eastern Conference All-Star team this year. Brand will likely be making his second appearance for the Western Conference. That's 3 All-Stars, which seems good enough to go all the way to me, especially since we'd still have two high potential players waiting in the wings from this year and last year's draft.

Some have suggested that "the Trade" was made because Brand wouldn't re-sign, but given the rules of the CBA (which are tilted in favor of re-signing) and the fact that we'd show a good amount of improvement (with the team above), I think it's realistic to think that he would be willing to re-sign.

At this point, it really looks to me like Krause panicked and blew up a good team. :dead:

C - Miller, Curry, Dillybar
PF - Brand, Fizer
SF - Artest, ERob
SG - Mercer, Hassell, Hoiberg
PG - Crawford

+ 2002 first and second round picks and free agents.


----------



## LoaKhoet (Aug 20, 2002)

I would give the JKrauz a 6.


----------



## THELAKESHOW (Oct 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Just to add a bit of fuel to the fire, anyone notice what the ex-Bulls did this afternoon?
> 
> * Artest: 13 points, 12 boards, 5 assists, 4 steals
> ...



Exactly. He has single-handedly ran out 3 potential All-stars, which in turn, has cost the team wins. This team could easily look like this:

C-Miller, Dillybar
PF- Brand, Baxter, Fizer
SF- Artest, Marshall
SG-Jason Richardson
PG- Gil Arenas(if Krause had drafted him instead of Hassell)
6th man Crawford 
7th man Amare Stoudamire

This team would compete with any in the league and still be young and talented. Hindsight is 20/20, but this could of easily happened.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

My hope is that the lesson learned from last night's lineup and the trade of all those guys mentioned by others earler will be that you don't rebuild a team by investing draft picks, money, and playing time in young players and then trade them away for even younger players.

Nobody expects this team to be a playoff contender this year. As a fan, I'm OK with that, but the very least I ask of the team in exchange for my support is that they try hard to win every game they can.

I do not believe you can measure progress by the number of minutes that our young players average, but rather how many wins the team gets. I can't say it any simpler than that.

I am convinced this is a competitive team, night in and night out, if we just add one veteran (someone much better than Blount). Perhaps someone like Marshall.

As the team goes from 20 to 30 to 40 and above in victories, the young guys we have will be developed into both stars and winners. In the mean time, a foundation for winning games has to be put in place. This is what has been lacking since the breakup of the championship team.

I agree with ScottMay that Krause's grade is an incomplete. It is impossible to grade the players we have based upon their short tenure in the NBA. Only if you look at a snapshot in time of today, or the first X games of the season, can we make some sort of objective assessment. But there is a bigger picture.

The cost of the players MikeDC and others mention that we could have had is Jalen Rose. I have no doubt we're better with Rose than we were before. I also have no doubt we're one player too topheavy on the potential side. From all accounts, we could have had Rose and kept Artest. Why not look at that scenario and see if we'd be better (and had kept Best, too):

Best, JWill
Rose, Hassell
Chandler, Curry
Marshall, Fizer
Artest, ERob

The team with Miller, Brand, and Artest regularly was blown out in games. This team is rarely blown out. That's improvement, but doesn't translate into W's.

If I were Krause, I'd have two thoughts:

1) It doesn't do any good to give young guys minutes if all it does is develop them into inferior players without skills or a taste of winning.

2) This team can win with the addition of a veteran, preferably a guard to go with Rose and take the pressure of being an everyday veteran PG off of JWill so he can develop at a reasonable pace.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> I agree 100%. Resigning all these guys will be impossible, especially with the finger-pointing, egos, etc. that come with losing. Once these guys (Chandler, Curry, JWill) contracts are up, they are going to think the grass is greener. You can't keep all of them happy by losing.


I bet you'd like to believe that, simply because you hate the Bulls (don't try to deny- it's fairly obvious). Noone expects Krause to keep all his young talent, but there's absolutely no reason why they can't keep the core of Rose, Chandler, Curry and Williams together. Resinsdorf has said that he will pay the luxury tax to put a winner on the floor. As much as you'd like to believe the Bulls will continue losing until the young guys' contracts are up, that's not gonna happen. When you look at the talent this team has, it's hard to believe they won't turn it around once they actually learn how to play together. No team gels overnight, no matter how talented they are. Jordan and Pippen and Grant were together for 4 years before winning a title, and those are three of the most talented players you're gonna find anywhere. Nice try.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> I bet you'd like to believe that, simply because you hate the Bulls (don't try to deny- it's fairly obvious). Noone expects Krause to keep all his young talent, but there's absolutely no reason why they can't keep the core of Rose, Chandler, Curry and Williams together. Resinsdorf has said that he will pay the luxury tax to put a winner on the floor. As much as you'd like to believe the Bulls will continue losing until the young guys' contracts are up, that's not gonna happen. When you look at the talent this team has, it's hard to believe they won't turn it around once they actually learn how to play together. No team gels overnight, no matter how talented they are. Jordan and Pippen and Grant were together for 4 years before winning a title, and those are three of the most talented players you're gonna find anywhere. Nice try.


I agree with your assessment of the talent and signing issues.

I thought I'd point out that the Lakers are going to be in serious trouble in a year or two (or three) as their role players get too old to contribute at their current level and the Lakers are unable to trade any of that for some young blood. The Lakers were brilliant to bring in Samaki Walker, but there's going to be pressure to replace guys like Fox, Horry, and Shaw. Heck, Shaq was born in 1972, is 30, and will only have a small number of years left by then.


----------



## THELAKESHOW (Oct 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> My hope is that the lesson learned from last night's lineup and the trade of all those guys mentioned by others earler will be that you don't rebuild a team by investing draft picks, money, and playing time in young players and then trade them away for even younger players.
> 
> Nobody expects this team to be a playoff contender this year. As a fan, I'm OK with that, but the very least I ask of the team in exchange for my support is that they try hard to win every game they can.
> ...


While that lineup of Miller, Brand, and Artest were blown out on a regular bases, it is not a fair comparison.
It is very apparent that Miller and Artest have since developed into much better players than they were with the Bulls. If they had been given more time, htere is no doubt in my mind that the Bulls would have: More depth, more team oriented, more talented, better chemistry, more hustle, better defense, and have more wins. Period


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBullz,

Respectfully, I think you're missing one big point when you say that the Brand, Miller, Rose lineup was routinely blown out. That point is that the year the three of them played together, Miller was in admittedly awful shape and the other two had only a year of experience under their belts.

The second year Brand was gone, but he looked slimmer and better on D while putting up the same numbers on a batter team he put up with us. In short he was better.

At the same time, Miller came to play his second year. He was in shape, defending well, and scoring well. He was a hell of a lot better.

And Artest's game made a quantum leap last year. In fact, the Bulls played their best stretch of basketball in the time between his return from injury and the trade. His offense improved, although he was still trying to do too much offensively (wouldn't have been as much of a factor if he had Brand, much less a healthy ERob and Mercer playing with him), and his defense was downright sick.

Finally, I'm not sure that we could have consumated the trade for Rose if we hadn't given up Artest. The only rumor I heard about how the trade could have been different was that the Pacers wanted Oakley rather than Mercer. In retrospect, we'd have been better off giving them what they wanted.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

If there's one thing I've learned in all my years watching basketball, it's that you don't win in the playoffs with lots of good players- you win with a couple excellent players surrounded by smart role players. Name one team that has been successful in the past ten years without one or two superstar-caliber scorers. Ron Artest is many things, but he is not a guy who can consistently hit the big shots down the stretch. If we hadn't made the Rose trade we would certainly be a better defensive and rebounding team, but we would have had the same problem as last year- noone to take over down the stretch. Indiana is successful with Ron and Brad cause they've still got Reggie to bail them out. It is almost always best to consolidate talent, even if you give out a bit more than you bring in. I can almost guarantee that we would not have even won 4 games this year had we not done that trade. This team has got problems that need to be addressed, but it's a helluva lot easier to improve your team's rebounding and D than it is to improve their clutch scoring.


----------



## THELAKESHOW (Oct 9, 2002)

*Louie, you need to not believe everthing the Bulls managment says*



> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> I bet you'd like to believe that, simply because you hate the Bulls (don't try to deny- it's fairly obvious). Noone expects Krause to keep all his young talent, but there's absolutely no reason why they can't keep the core of Rose, Chandler, Curry and Williams together. Resinsdorf has said that he will pay the luxury tax to put a winner on the floor. As much as you'd like to believe the Bulls will continue losing until the young guys' contracts are up, that's not gonna happen. When you look at the talent this team has, it's hard to believe they won't turn it around once they actually learn how to play together. No team gels overnight, no matter how talented they are. Jordan and Pippen and Grant were together for 4 years before winning a title, and those are three of the most talented players you're gonna find anywhere. Nice try.



<font color=blue><strike>What is your problem with me dude? You just can't let it go can you? Why do you single me out, when Mikedc and ScottMay share my thoughts to a certain extent? You need to drop the personal attacks, and deal with the issues. </strike></font>(This is something that should be done by pm and NOT on a public forum, cluttering it up with innuendo and speculation at best and "a personal attack" at worst. Please try to see exactly what I'm saying here. Pm me if you have a question. THeRifleman) 

Your favorite word seems to be "potential". There are no guarranttees in this league, and we can only base our opinions on what we have seen. Show me one single model even remotely similar to Krause's that resulted in a title. The game is different than it was when MJ's Bulls made their run. Most players would sacrifice titles in order to be stars. Why wouldnt Chandler, Curry or JWill leave if they could get the same money or more money playing for a team that is more committed to winning? Wake up man, the league has changed, and Krause needs to learn to change too. Ditching that offense would be a start, and trading one of those lazy teens for a vet would be another. Kraus is building the Clippers, not champs IMO.

<font color=blue><strike>You need to get over your obession with attacking me. I do like the TALENT of the Bulls, so don't tell me what I do or don't like, because you simply don't have a clue as to what I like or dislike.</font></strike>(see my above explanation.TRM)


----------



## THELAKESHOW (Oct 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> If there's one thing I've learned in all my years watching basketball, it's that you don't win in the playoffs with lots of good players- you win with a couple excellent players surrounded by smart role players. Name one team that has been successful in the past ten years without one or two superstar-caliber scorers. Ron Artest is many things, but he is not a guy who can consistently hit the big shots down the stretch. If we hadn't made the Rose trade we would certainly be a better defensive and rebounding team, but we would have had the same problem as last year- noone to take over down the stretch. Indiana is successful with Ron and Brad cause they've still got Reggie to bail them out. It is almost always best to consolidate talent, even if you give out a bit more than you bring in. I can almost guarantee that we would not have even won 4 games this year had we not done that trade. This team has got problems that need to be addressed, but it's a helluva lot easier to improve your team's rebounding and D than it is to improve their clutch scoring.



You mean to tell me that a team with all this "talent" as you say, cannot find someone other than a 40% shooter to shoot the ball in the clutch? And besides, a clutch shooter isnt EVER needed if you are getting blown out. Artest and Miller's defense and rebounding and team play would help keep them in more games. How many clutch shots does Rose hit when the Bulls are down by 15?


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Your favorite word seems to be "potential".


Well, if Jerry West hadn't believed in the "potential" of Kobe Bryant and decided to trade the proven vet Vlade Divac for him, the Lakers wouldn't be winning titles, would they?


> What is your problem with me dude? You just can't let it go can you? Why do you single me out, when Mikedc and ScottMay share my thoughts to a certain extent? You need to drop the personal attacks, and deal with the issues


I didn't mean for it to be a personal attack, just what i feel is true. Sorry about the mix up- didn't mean to offend u.


> Most players would sacrifice titles in order to be stars. Wake up man, the league has changed, and Krause needs to learn to change too.


This is an opinion of yours. Just cause "Most players would sacrifice titles in order to be stars", does that mean that these particular players will? And why can't they be stars in Chicago? It seems to me that Jay is in a perfect situation, playing for an talented, improving team in the nation's third biggest market. Curry and Chndler are playing for a franchise that has made their developement its greatest priority and built an entire team around them.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> You mean to tell me that a team with all this "talent" as you say, cannot find someone other than a 40% shooter to shoot the ball in the clutch? And besides, a clutch shooter isnt EVER needed if you are getting blown out. Artest and Miller's defense and rebounding and team play would help keep them in more games. How many clutch shots does Rose hit when the Bulls are down by 15


This team certainly has issues that need to be ironed out, and finding another scorer to keep them in games for the first three quarters is at the top of that list. But when they have stayed in games, Jalen has proved to be more than capable of taking over down the stretch-something Brand, Miller, Artest and Mercer all failed to do.


----------



## THELAKESHOW (Oct 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> Well, if Jerry West hadn't believed in the "potential" of Kobe Bryant and decided to trade the proven vet Vlade Divac for him, the Lakers wouldn't be winning titles, would they?
> 
> ...



First of all, the comparisons between Kobe and Curry/Chandler end with all of them jumping straight from HS to the NBA. Neither of those lazy teens play with 1% of the heart and desire Kobe does. And Krause will never be confused with Jerry West as far as a talent evaluator. 
Curry/Chandler its greatest priority? They play 20 mins a game? Half of the Bulls problem is that they give these kids too much credit, they havent had to earn much. Now, if these teens will make their improvement a priority, then they may get somewhere. The Bulls worst lineup has both of them in at the same time.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*i give him a 9 maybe a 9.5*

the gm's job is to make money and to make winner 

the bulls the last 17 years have been the most profitable in basketball and that includes the time since the they were champs

the other team wasn't going to win the next year 

scottie suffered a serious back injury in the 98 finals and hasn't been the same since

rodman was fading also as evidenced by how he played the next year 

that team wasn't going to win 

so he rebuilt people have to get over it and live if not now at least more recently than 98

as far as the rebuilding effort goes superstars dont grow on trees

and i'm talking a true superstar not a psuedo star or a helper star

someone who people can say is the best in the league one day 

they dont come around often

people say that about Shaq its been mentioned with bryant MJ for long stretch of time, duncan for a year Pippen got that kind of recognition for a couple of seasons with MJ in retirement olajuwon during that same stretch as pip in 93-95 KG gets thrown into that argument as well as Mcgrady and Iverson

and thats it since 1990 or so 8 guys in 12 years and thats it 

and since mcgrady and duncan were drafted the bulls have been in position to draft such players and since the 99 draft how many of those players have been available?

brand odom francis Baron davis a. miller and shawn marion darius miles kenyon martin all very good players and most are allstars 

but does anyone think they will sway the balance of the nba like Shaq can or Duncan?


the only talent with a chance of that are Curry, Kwame brown, chandler and yao ming and its by no means a sure thing with any of them 

and the bulls have secured 2 out of four

and the only reason the bulls dont have Mcgrady now is because Duncan choose to stay in S.A. and it was a calculated move by Krause that if he couldn't be T-mac's 1st choice (which he wasn't and he knew it) he would still benefit and get him due to the fact everyone thought both Duncan and grant hill were on the 1st plane to orl.

that was a mistake on his part and he got it wrong

so now its the long way to rebuilding and due to the way the nba is it means getting them and developing early

i accept that so i'm not worried about losing becase any team based on a 19 and 20 year old is going to lose there is no getting around it. as long as the players are playing hard and improving at a decent pace . i'm cool with the rebuilding effort and have faith in the GM. and that faith has been backed up by sound decision after sound decision

the people who doubt are the ones who think their team is suppose to win despite the fact their GM and team are just 1 of 30 hoping and going for the same goal often the only thing that separates the champs from the also rans is a clear plan to secure the guy who can dominate a league when things get rough . which is why ultamately the lakers are champs and the kings aren't because when it came down to it Kobe and shaq are better than c-webb and his band of standout players but are not star players


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> And Krause will never be confused with Jerry West as far as a talent evaluator. They play 20 mins a game? Half of the Bulls problem is that they give these kids too much credit, they havent had to earn much. Now, if these teens will make their improvement a priority, then they may get somewhere. The Bulls worst lineup has both of them in at the same time. Do you even watch the games?


Yes, I have watched all the games this year, just as I have done (whenever possible) for as long as I can remember. Just cause Bill C is bringing the kids along slow (too slow IMO) doesn't mean they're not still the top priority. 


> First of all, the comparisons between Kobe and Curry/Chandler end with all of them jumping straight from HS to the NBA. Neither of those lazy teens play with 1% of the heart and desire Kobe does.


How can you say that so positively? How do you know how determined Tyson Chandler is? I've heard nothing but good things about his work ethic, and from the looks of things he's improved his touch around the basket immeasurably. Kobe's an extremely driven player and we'd be very lucky if our kids have his determination, but there's no way that you can say definitively that they are "lazy".


----------



## THELAKESHOW (Oct 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> This team certainly has issues that need to be ironed out, and finding another scorer to keep them in games for the first three quarters is at the top of that list. But when they have stayed in games, Jalen has proved to be more than capable of taking over down the stretch-something Brand, Miller, Artest and Mercer all failed to do.


How many clutch situations were those guys put in on that team? Ron Artest has hit some big shots this year, most necently a few games back when his 3pt play in the last seconds won the game. Mercer is sorry, as a starter anyways. But the rest never were given the oppurtunity. But at least they play defense and rebound. I would take Artest over Jalen straight up, much less if you throw in Miller. Those guys just never got to play meaningful games in Chicago. Peace out untiil tommorow.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> DaBullz,
> 
> Respectfully, I think you're missing one big point when you say that the Brand, Miller, Rose lineup was routinely blown out. That point is that the year the three of them played together, Miller was in admittedly awful shape and the other two had only a year of experience under their belts.


I didn't make myself clear. The team got blown out with Brand. They got blown out with Miller. Etc. Sometimes you have to look at your team and say, "we can lose with (player X) or lose without him" and at least take the chance to improve...

And respectfully, I didn't realize that the three ever played together. I thought we traded Brand before we got Rose...



> The second year Brand was gone, but he looked slimmer and better on D while putting up the same numbers on a batter team he put up with us. In short he was better.


I was shocked that Brand was traded, when it happened. I still think it was a foolish move. I watched him score 12 of the team's first 16 points against Sacto a couple of days ago, and he had like 10 rebounds in the 1st quarter.

How you can trade a guaranteed 20/10 for an unknown is something I haven't truly figured out yet.

However, I understand the logic of trying to have a team that is overall, and individually, better than what we gave up. Like I said, it's hard to give a grade on this score, because we can't really compare this year's players with 3rd and 4th year vets we traded away last year (or earlier).

Here come the IFs... ;-)

IF Chandler develops into the player we hope he does, we may forget about how bad the Brand trade currently looks. 

IF JWill develops into the next Isaiah Thomas, none of us are going to complain about how good Artest is.

IF Curry develops into a baby-Shaq...

And so on.




> At the same time, Miller came to play his second year. He was in shape, defending well, and scoring well. He was a hell of a lot better.


I like(d) Miller just fine. Is he going to be a 20/10 career player? I don't think so. Is Curry? I think/hope so.



> And Artest's game made a quantum leap last year. In fact, the Bulls played their best stretch of basketball in the time between his return from injury and the trade. His offense improved, although he was still trying to do too much offensively (wouldn't have been as much of a factor if he had Brand, much less a healthy ERob and Mercer playing with him), and his defense was downright sick.


Yeah, I think Artest has turned into a better player than anyone expected.

The three main players we gave up were each averaging 15+ ppg. I think Krause knew what he was giving up. I'm no Krause defender, by any stretch, but I think I'd rather have a serious go-to guy like Rose vs. those three.



> Finally, I'm not sure that we could have consumated the trade for Rose if we hadn't given up Artest. The only rumor I heard about how the trade could have been different was that the Pacers wanted Oakley rather than Mercer. In retrospect, we'd have been better off giving them what they wanted.


You're right on this point, about Mercer, Artest, and Oakley. My bad.

And, FWIW, we'd be a lot better with Mercer on this team, as-is, IMO.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> I didn't make myself clear. The team got blown out with Brand. They got blown out with Miller. Etc. Sometimes you have to look at your team and say, "we can lose with (player X) or lose without him" and at least take the chance to improve...
> 
> And respectfully, I didn't realize that the three ever played together. I thought we traded Brand before we got Rose...


D'oh!
That was I typo when I said "the Brand, Miller, Rose lineup was routinely blown out.". What I meant was "Brand, Miller, Artest".


----------



## laso (Jul 24, 2002)

Last year, when we first made the Rose trade, I was uneasy with sending away one of the only guys in the league who night in night out would guard the Kobes, TMacs, Vince Carter, etc., and did a good job at it. Then, with the hype that surrounded Rose's begining, I started thinking that maybe the Bulls organization knew what it was doing. Seing how Artest is doing I'm flip flopping again and returning to my original thought. Right now, I would prefer to have Artest than Rose in the lineup. The fact that we have jay in there, makes it less necessary to have a scorer/creator like Rose in the lineup and we sure could use a stud defensive 3. Of course, we probably would not have Jay if it weren't for the trade...

Anyway, Artest's trade was a bad trade. I still like the Brand trade and I think Chandler will have a greater impact than Elton in the long run. As of now, I give Krause a 4. However, it is unfair to grade him so early. We might all change our minds in a couple of years.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>laso</b>!
> Last year, when we first made the Rose trade, I was uneasy with sending away one of the only guys in the league who night in night out would guard the Kobes, TMacs, Vince Carter, etc., and did a good job at it. Then, with the hype that surrounded Rose's begining, I started thinking that maybe the Bulls organization knew what it was doing. Seing how Artest is doing I'm flip flopping again and returning to my original thought. Right now, I would prefer to have Artest than Rose in the lineup. The fact that we have jay in there, makes it less necessary to have a scorer/creator like Rose in the lineup and we sure could use a stud defensive 3. Of course, we probably would not have Jay if it weren't for the trade...
> 
> Anyway, Artest's trade was a bad trade. I still like the Brand trade and I think Chandler will have a greater impact than Elton in the long run. As of now, I give Krause a 4. However, it is unfair to grade him so early. We might all change our minds in a couple of years.


You can't evaluate talent until it's peaked. We traded for Rose based on what a team with two premier big men would need. Our 'Bigs' aren't premier yet. When they develop into difference makers, I think, if he has the potency he has now, we'll all be very happy with where Rose can take us. Put another way---L.A. would love to have him as a third option behind Shaq and Kobe...

Artest wasn't happy losing, and he wasn't happy here. Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and move on.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>THELAKESHOW</b>!
> 
> Peace...untiil tommorow.


You can say that again...

WMIB!


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>gettinbranded</b>!
> 
> 
> You can't evaluate talent until it's peaked. We traded for Rose based on what a team with two premier big men would need. Our 'Bigs' aren't premier yet. When they develop into difference makers, I think, if he has the potency he has now, we'll all be very happy with where Rose can take us. Put another way---L.A. would love to have him as a third option behind Shaq and Kobe...
> ...



Can't you turn that around and say that we traded away Brand, Miller, and Artest before they peaked?


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>laso</b>!
> As of now, I give Krause a 4. However, it is unfair to grade him so early. We might all change our minds in a couple of years.


How long we have to wait? Five years is already gone!


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

It continues to amaze me the rebuilding expectations that some people have. Building (or rebuilding) a championship team is a complicated process that hardly ever proceeds straight from point A to point B as some here seem to be expecting. It's not at all unusual for players to be acquired and then traded (as Brand was) as part of the building process.

Since the Lakers are commonly held up as the "gold standard" for rebuilding, let's compare the progress of the two franchises. For comparison's sake, I'll assume that the Lakers officially started rebuilding with the retirement of Magic Johnson and the Bulls with the retirement of Michael Jordan. These are the key moves made by each franchise:

<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2"> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Year</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Lakers</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Bulls</font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1"></font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">11/91 - Magic Johnson retires</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">1/99 - Michael Jordan retires</font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">1</font></td> <td> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Drafted Anthony Jones</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Traded 3 second round picks for Sedale Threatt</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Signed Chucky Brown</font></p> </td> <td> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Drafted Elton Brand, Ron Artest, Michael Ruffin, and </font><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Lari Ketner</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Traded Brent Barry for Hersey Hawkins and James Cotton</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Traded second round pick for Chris Anstey</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Traded Toni Kukoc for Bruce Bowen, John Starks, and 2000 first round pick </font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Signed Will Perdue, B.J. Armstrong, Fred Hoiberg, Dedric Willoughby, Matt Maloney, and Chris Carr</font></p> </td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">2</font></td> <td> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Drafted Anthony Peeler and </font><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Duane Cooper</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Traded Sam Perkins for Doug Christie and Benoit Benjamin</font></p> </td> <td> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Drafted Marcus Fizer, Chris Mihm, A.J. Guyton, Khalid El-Amin, Jake Voskuhl, and Dalibor Bagaric</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Traded Mihm for Jamal Crawford</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Traded for Bryce Drew</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Signed Dragan Tarlac, </font><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Ron Mercer, and </font><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Brad Miller</font></p> </td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">3</font></td> <td> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Drafted George Lynch and </font><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Nick Van Exel</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Traded Benjamin for Sam Bowie and second round pick</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Traded second round pick for Danny Schayes</font></p> </td> <td> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Drafted Eddy Curry, </font><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Trenton Hassell, and </font><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Sean Lampley</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Traded Elton Brand for Tyson Chandler and Brian Skinner</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Traded Skinner for Charles Oakley</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Traded second round pick for Greg Anthony</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Traded Voskuhl for Soumalia Samake and second round pick</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Traded Artest, Miller, Mercer, and Ollie for Jalen Rose, Travis Best, Norm Richardson, and second round pick</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Signed Eddie Robinson and </font><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Kevin Ollie</font></p> </td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">4</font></td> <td> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Drafted Eddie Jones</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Traded 1995 first round pick for Cedric Ceballos</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Traded Doug Christie for two second round picks</font></p> </td> <td> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Drafted Jay Williams, </font><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Roger Mason, </font><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Lonny Baxter</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Signed Corey Blount and </font><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Donyell Marshall</font></p> </td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">5</font></td> <td> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Drafted Frankie King</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Traded for Corey Blount</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Signed Derek Strong</font></p> </td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1"></font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">6</font></td> <td> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Drafted Derek Fisher</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Traded Vlade Divac for Kobe Bryant</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Traded Lynch and Peeler for garbage (to clear cap room for Shaq)</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Traded Ceballos and Robinson for Robert Horry and Joe Kleine</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Traded Kleine, 1997 first round pick, and conditional second round pick for George McCloud</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Signed Shaquille O'Neal, Sean Rooks, Travis Knight, Rumeal Robinson, Jerome Kersey, David Booth, and Byron Scott</font></p> </td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1"></font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">7</font></td> <td> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Drafted DeJuan Wheat and </font><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Paul Rogers</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Signed Jon Barry and </font><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Rick Rox</font></p> </td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1"></font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">8</font></td> <td> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Drafted Sam Jacobson, </font><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Ruben Patterson, and </font><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Toby Bailey</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Traded Nick Van Exel for Tyronn Lue and Tony Battie</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Traded Battie for Travis Knight</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Traded Eddie Jones and Elden Campbell for Glen Rice, J.R. Reid, and B.J. Armstrong </font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Signed Derek Harper</font></p> </td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1"></font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">9</font></td> <td> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Drafted Devean George and </font><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">John Celestand</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Traded Rooks and second round pick for A.C. Green</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Traded Derek Harper for Melvin Levett</font></p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Signed Ron Harper and </font><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Brian Shaw</font></p> </td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1"></font></td> </tr></table>

As you can see, at the point at which the Bulls are currently in their rebuilding, the Lakers had yet to acquire the two key pieces of their championship teams. In addition, key role players Rick Rox, Derek Fisher, and Robert Horry had yet to be acquired.

In my opinion, there is no way Jerry Krause can be given any "grade" other than incomplete at this point. He has clearly banked the future of the franchise on key young players who have yet to show if they will develop into (super)stars, or if they will be busts. Furthermore, he has clearly rolled the dice and taken a "championship or bust" attitude.

So, it stand to reason if the Bulls young players turn into super(stars), the Bulls should be a very good team indeed for a long period of time, and the rebuilding will be considered a success. If they turn into busts, the Bulls will never achieve championship level, and the rebuilding will be considered a failure.

The question, obviously, remains... which will it be?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Excellent post! :rbanana: :wbanana: 



> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> In my opinion, there is no way Jerry Krause can be given any "grade" other than incomplete at this point. He has clearly banked the future of the franchise on key young players who have yet to show if they will develop into (super)stars, or if they will be busts.


However, I disagree with your statements above. *Krause can be evaluated.* We were able to evaluate Floyd and the Grizzles were able to evaluate Lowe under the same or more troubling conditions. Granted, it is tougher to evaluate a GM than a coach.

However, Krause can be evalauted on these types of measures:

1. Does he have the right systems ( coaching staff, scouting scheme, conditioning program) in place?

2. Is he fiscally prudent?

3. Giving the rebuilding envirnoment, is the team bought into the program?

4. Have reasonable goals been set for each year and have they been reached?

The above are only examples and not intended to be all inclusive. I will leave it for another post to discuss my personal evaluation of Krause.


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> It continues to amaze me the rebuilding expectations that some people have. Building (or rebuilding) a championship team is a complicated process that hardly ever proceeds straight from point A to point B as some here seem to be expecting.
> 
> 
> > Jeezzz…I’m not asking for a championship team! I just want to see my Bulls in the playoff contest…I want to see, how they are playing with the spirit! I want to see their pains. And finally I want to see a desire to win! This is what I want from the Bulls, Krause and the whole organization. Is this too much? Then maybe tickets should be free…maybe Bulls jerseys should cost only one dollar (plus sales tax).


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Can't you turn that around and say that we traded away Brand, Miller, and Artest before they peaked?


Yup.

But I think Krause forecasted that: A. The best they could ever be was a really good team, and not an elite one. (I agree) and that B. The losing was having such an effect on the organization that it was unlikely that they would ever have a chance to get there.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

I think folks have a short memory.

First of all, we are just 1/4 of the way into "year 5" of the rebuilding phase yet it seems like many treat this as a full 5 years having past. Technically, we are 4.25 years into "rebuilding" - not 5 years.

Next, depending on who you talk to and what your definition of "rebuilding" is, this is Krauses' second, thrid or even fourth rebuilding effort within the last 4 yrears. The first two seasons after "The Breakup", this team was intentionally put together to be bad, for the sole purpose of clearing cap space and garnering high draft picks. We got a high draft pick after that first bad year and acquired Elton Brand and Ron Artest. The whole target for Krause was the free agent class of 2000. He figured with all the cash the Bulls had, he could land at least one top-tier FA. Well, he was wrong. Krause completely misjudged the impact the CBA would have on player movement and decision-making and he struck out big-time. Now he's stuck with a team with one very good player (Brand) and a lot of "potential" and quite a few scrubs also. The team still has a boatload of cap space but it's apparant that cash isn't enough anymore. He takes a huge gamble on the 2001 draft and trades his only valuable asset for a HS kid with tremendous upside and drafts another HS kid. So we start the 2001-02 season with no real solid players and a couple of HS kids. Crawford blows his knee. Our only FA sigining of the summer plays sporadically. Artest is hurt to begin the season also. Krause trades what real players we have left (Miller, Artest, Mercer and Ollie) for basically Rose. So now we have a "superstar" in Rose, a couple of HS kids, a PG with a bad knee, a SF with a bad toe and a bunch of role players. What do people expect? Krause drafts the only player that makes sense with the #2 pick of the draft, signs a veteran "big" who can play the 3,4 and possibly the 5 against certain teams and this is the team we have today.

When I look at the Bulls, at least to me, this is the beginning of year 3 of the rebuilding process. The first two years don't even count because everybody knew, and bought into, the fact that we were intentionally bad so that we could land McGrady and possibly another top flight FA. I think after that point in time, Krause realized that he wasn't getting the top FA's with his cash and the only way he was going to get his prized "superstar" was thru a trade. It was after the summer of 2000 the Krause switched gears and moved brand and traded for Rose. That's when this current rebuild started. I also think he's going to stick with what he's got now. The man will live or die with his choices - right or wrong.

As for his grade, I'd give him about a 7 (out of 10). He's done alright. Hindsight being 20-20, it's easy to question his moves of the past but I'll give him some credit for realizing his assesment of the FA mindset was waaayyy off and he changed his strategy to reflect that.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Without getting into this deeply. I want to add, anyone can go back with any GM the last four years and if they wanted to questioned all kinds of moves, "should of could of" But then will that change anything? People bring up points about the past about JK. some i agree with, some i dont. But what possible purpose does the topic have? I mean, one could argue either way all the time but doesn't change a thing. JK has JRs support. AS long as JR is in control, JK will be here and fans will follow the Bulls. As do fans of other teams whose GMs also make mistakes. They too, "could have, should have"

Some of you bulls fans and non bulls fans do bring up good points. But i bet if we win two or three games this week, the topic will ease up for a while. We are not the only team out there with a 6 game losing streak.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> First of all, we are just 1/4 of the way into "year 5" of the rebuilding phase yet it seems like many treat this as a full 5 years having past. Technically, we are 4.25 years into "rebuilding" - not 5 years.
> ....
> 
> When I look at the Bulls, at least to me, this is the beginning of year 3 of the rebuilding process. The first two years don't even count because everybody knew, and bought into, the fact that we were intentionally bad so that we could land McGrady and possibly another top flight FA.


Man, I wish I was evaluated like this at my place of work. *In charge of everything for years, Krause has inflicted 4.25 years of terrible bball on the city* But you would only like to count it as 2.25 b/c why? I didn't sign up for tearing apart the Championship team for this.....

*Krause controlled the team from top to bottom. He has had 5 offseasons to restructure the roster. He had the opportunity to find players like Michael Finley prior to these 5 offseasons. *

I understand the need to find some studs to carry a team, but please explain AJ Guyton, Bags, Drew Bryce (or was it Byce Drew?, etc? 

I realize the potential of Curry and Chandler, but does it make sense to having players like Fizer and Bags trying to learn how to be NBA post players at the same time?

We have had just too much youth.

*My rating: Incomplete. But unless this team is turned around by the end of the year: F. And bring in a new management team.*


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I would like to respond to Kneepad's most excellent post.

I would point out that it was the Celtics demise, not the Lakers, that was pointed to by Krause as a reason for the kind of rebuilding program the Bulls embarked upon.

In that light, I would like to make the following observations.

First, I'd like to point out the Celtics' record from 1984-85 (Jordan's rookie season) forward: 63-19, 67-15, 59-23, 57-25, 42-40, 52-30, 56-26, 51-31, 48-34, 32-50 (1993-94), 35-47, 33-49, 15-67 (1996-97).

Second, I'd like to point out that the Celtics were hit with two major tragic losses of star players, Len Bias and Reggie Lewis. Lewis died between the 1992-93 and 1993-94 seasons, and the records above reflect this loss. There's no telling how great the celtics would have been all along, had these two players lived and played to the level they were expected to (Bias never played a game).

Third, the Celtics appeared to have an orderly process of phasing out their previously great superstar players and replacing them with a new stable of players who would have kept the team performing at a near-championship caliber/level. For example, Reggie Lewis played alongside Bird, McHale, and Parrish for several seasons before those three retired (first Bird, then McHale, then Parrish, not in the same season).

Fourth, the Celtics were able to sign capable free agents, trade for players, and draft high quality picks in spite of their winning record. The 33-49 Celtics in 1995-96 were able to land Antoine Walker, for example. Or guys like Sherman Douglas and Pervis Ellison, who were highly regarded college stars.

All that said, it is questionable that Krause chose to entirely dismantle the championship team, even though Jordan retired and Pippen forced a trade. I would submit that the Bulls could have followed the Celtics model, without the untimely deaths, and both kept a winning tradition (if not championship, at least near .500 and competitive, playoff team) AND developed young players to replace aging stars. For this, you can give Krause an F (I do) or an incomplete (the rebuilding isn't done, but isn't productive yet, either).

I would add one further observation about the Lakers rebuilding scheme. Had they gotten PJ as a coach a year or two earlier, I do not think they would have traded for Glenn Rice, giving up guys like Eddie Jones and Van Exel, etc. 

Finally, you make a statement about the young bulls players turning into (super)stars. Winning ballgames, making great/big plays in big games, etc., makes superstars out of some pretty overrated guys, IMO. If the Bulls continue the kind of losing they have been under the rebuilding program, none of the players will be stars, except those we trade for (Rose) who've been established on winning teams. If we gel into a championship caliber team, ALL the high draft picks we have will be stars. 

Consider how more highly rated Luc Longley became just because he was on the Bulls, vs. how he would have been perceived by us had he remained a Timberwolf.

Regards.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> However, Krause can be evalauted on these types of measures:
> 
> 1. Does he have the right systems ( coaching staff, scouting scheme, conditioning program) in place?
> ...


I think you make things too complicated. 

Here's an easy way to evaluate Krause, in my opinion. Take the other 28 teams in the league, and ask yourself if you would wave a magic wand and swap each of those franchises into Chicago in place of the Bulls, would you do so?

Here's my answers:

<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2"> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Team</font></td> <td align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Swap Positions?</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Comments</font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Blazers</font></td> <td align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">no</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">reasons obvious</font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Bucks</font></td> <td align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">no</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">going nowhere</font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Cavaliers</font></td> <td align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">no</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">interesting mix of young talent, maybe if they get James</font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Celtics</font></td> <td align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">no</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">will not win championship with current players</font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Clippers</font></td> <td align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">maybe</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">lots of young talent with potential</font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Grizzlies</font></td> <td align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">maybe</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">will have multiple future lottery picks</font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Hawks</font></td> <td align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">no</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">not enough</font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Heat</font></td> <td align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">no</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">rebuilding starts now</font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Hornets</font></td> <td align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">no</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">might win east, but no match for west</font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Jazz</font></td> <td align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">no</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">rebuilding time</font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Kings</font></td> <td align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">yes</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">class of the league</font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Knicks</font></td> <td align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">no</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">big trouble</font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Lakers</font></td> <td align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">no</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">on the downslope</font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Magic</font></td> <td align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">no</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">see Hornets</font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Mavericks</font></td> <td align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">yes</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">just one more step to climb</font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Nets</font></td> <td align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">no</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">see Magic</font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Nuggets</font></td> <td align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">no</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">square one of rebuilding, two pieces in place</font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Pacers</font></td> <td align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">maybe</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">good possibilities</font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Pistons</font></td> <td align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">no</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">see Nets</font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Raptors</font></td> <td align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">no</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">cap hell</font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Rockets</font></td> <td align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">maybe</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">inside/outside threat</font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">76ers</font></td> <td align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">no</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">AI can't do it alone</font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Sonics</font></td> <td align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">maybe</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">interesting young mix</font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Spurs</font></td> <td align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">maybe</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">have Duncan and cap space</font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Suns</font></td> <td align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">no</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">what's the plan? </font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Timberwolves</font></td> <td align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">no</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">back up the truck</font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Warriors</font></td> <td align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">maybe</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">more draft picks to come</font></td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">Wizards</font></td> <td align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">no</font></td> <td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="-1">no inside game, MJ done, Stack may be one and done</font></td> </tr></table>


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

kneepad I would put a YES not a maybe for the Pacers


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>HAWK23</b>!
> kneepad I would put a YES not a maybe for the Pacers


I almost did, but didn't mainly because I have not seen them play yet this year. But I guess with their defeat of the Mavs I would have to agree they should be a YES. Good point.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

Personally, I'd put "no" for the Pacers. Sure I'd love to be as good as them this season, (and if they advance to the finals I'll change to a "yes") but a huge part of their success, Reggie Miller, is in the twilight of his career. Who's gonna hit the big shots for them once he's gone? There is no other player on that team who has proven (yet) that has proven capable of taking over down the stretch. They've done the right thing by amassing alot of talent so that they can hopefully trade for a go-to guy once Reggie retires, but until that trade happens I'm witholding judgment.


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

I think the reason Krause is taking a long time to put together a playoff contender b/c he doesn't want to stop there. He wants to win championships. This isn't the Knicks where he goes for the quick fix to get immediate wins that won't help in the long run. He's trying to put together a team that will win a title. I have no reason to believe otherwise. I'd rather rot at the bottom of the league for a few more seasons than end up like the Jazz. Jalen Rose has been quoted many times saying that the young guys are going to take time to develop and that he's just hopes he's there to reap the benefits. 

The process has been slowed b/c he didn't get the young guys he wanted in previous drafts. Had he pulled off the Fizer/O'Neal trade and signed McGrady it would have been one of the quickest rebuilding efforts ever. Brand, McGrady and Jermaine O'Neal? That's what it sounds like he wanted and had it happened he'd be lauded as one of the best GMs in sports. It didn't work so the changes continue.

If Krause trades the young guys that aren't part of the future for a solid vet or two and then lets the team grow then I would give him a 9. As it stands he's trying to develop way too many players at the same time and it's causing too much tension to be healthy so I give him a 6.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

Well said Lizzy! Great post




> How many clutch situations were those guys put in on that team? Ron Artest has hit some big shots this year, most necently a few games back when his 3pt play in the last seconds won the game. Mercer is sorry, as a starter anyways. But the rest never were given the oppurtunity. But at least they play defense and rebound. I would take Artest over Jalen straight up, much less if you throw in Miller. Those guys just never got to play meaningful games in Chicago.


Also, as much as I love Artests game, theres no way I'd take him over Rose. I'd still do the Rose trade today if I were Krause. I can't remember Artest ever doing anything offensively to try to keep us in games or carry us down the stretch; in fact, the team's problem when he was on the team is that we'd stay competetive the whole game until the end, when the other team would pull away and everyone on the Bulls would forget how to shoot. As great as his D and hustle are, he's not half the clutch player Rose is. I wouldn't even say that he's as good a clutch player as Mercer.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> I think you make things too complicated.
> 
> ...


Kneepad, I like this kind of thinking, but according to this logic, all a team has to do to be promising is draft a couple guys with potential and clear cap room. Granted, a lot of teams can't do that, but it is hardly a convincing measure of the value of a GM.

We may have a better shot a championship than most teams, but we also have a much, much better chance of being in the lottery for the next decade than all but a handful of these teams.

The Bulls are by far and away the most profitable franchise in the NBA, but another two or three seasons without tasting the playoffs, and that profitability could start becoming a thing of the past.

I am not sure it is right to place no value on being a good, but not championship-level team, like the 1990s Knicks and Jazz. There is a huge difference between being a team like Atlanta last year or a team like New Jersey.

That said, I disagree with a few of your assessments, even assuming that championships are the only thing that matters.

I agree that the Pacers, as effective as they have been without Reggie, has to be a "yes". And those of you complaining about a post-Reggie go-to guy, who is our post-Jalen go-to guy? We don't have one either.

I think the Lakers and Spurs are also definite "yesses". The Lakers still are the odds-on favorites to win this year and next year, and even if they did decide to rebuild right now, do you think Jerry West would turn down a trade of Shaq for Gasol, Gooden and change. And do you think a team of Kobe/Gasol/Gooden is less promising than our group?

I would rate the Spurs my top team, except that Duncan is playing very poorly to start the season. I expect Spurs to add Jermaine O'Neal, Brad Miller, or Elton Brand this summer. A Duncan/Miller/Parker/Bowen/Ginnobli/Rose foundation is better than what we have, and is a team that can win multiple NBA championships.

I would rate Houston a "yes" as well. Francis is a proven star, and Yao has shown glimpes of being a force in this league. Griffen, Nachbar, Mobley fill out a nice roster. Ming also is more of a box office draw than any of our young guys.

Also, the Magic will be able to add players with the mid-level exception. Hill has been effective when he has played. Suppose they added PJ Brown next year and Hill was healthy. I think they could be competitive with a Dallas or Sacramento in the Finals with such a group. Even this year if Horace comes back and Kemp plays a bit better, I think they could win the East and make the Finals into a series if Hill can stay healthy for the playoffs. Of course, that is a lot of "ifs," but we have a lot "ifs" as well.

I think reasonable arguments could be made for including Denver, Cleveland, and Washington in the "maybe" group.

Thus, only focusing on championship-winning potential, I would trade our squad (ignoring my preferences for particular players) for six teams, would be have to think twice about trading for another six teams or so.

But again, this is only focusing on championship-winning potential. Considering other things, the calculus becomes much more difficult and I think I would put us closer to middle of the pack.


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

I want to add something to my original post. 

I think how Krause is able to handle intense media pressure is another sign that he's rebuilding how he wants to.

I have this horrible, horrible fear that the Bulls will luck out and get the #1 pick. The fear comes from the fact that any idiot would draft LeBron James. You have to. I'm afraid Smith and Company will write countless articles about how Krause would be ruining everything if he drafted another HS kid. I would imagine that Krause would ignore it and draft King James but the pressure would be insane. You know they'd write articles about trading James for Jamison and Richardson or James for Butler and Grant and try and convince the people of Chicago that Krause was being ignorant by taking his 3rd HS kid in 3 years.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> Kneepad, I like this kind of thinking, but according to this logic, all a team has to do to be promising is draft a couple guys with potential and clear cap room. Granted, a lot of teams can't do that, but it is hardly a convincing measure of the value of a GM.


In posting this list, it wasn't my intention to evaulate other GM's around the league. I was just trying to point out that Krause has managed to position the Bulls as one of the few teams I see with a reasonable chance at wining an NBA championship within, say, the next 5 years. But as you correctly point out, the Bulls have just as big a chance of ending up in the lottery for the next decade as well. Hence the reason I have to give Krause an "incomplete" grade at this time.

I agree there is some value to being a serious title contender even if a title is never ultimately won. However, even though the Nets went to the Finals last year, because of the imbalance between east and west in my opinion they never really had a serious chance to beat the best of the west. In my opinion, they were built "on the quick" in order to put fannies in the seats as quickly as possible and return the franchise to profitability. I don't see the Nets ever winning a title with the core players they have now (and that's assuming they even manage to keep Kidd). I don't want the Bulls to go down this path. If they reach the level of the Kings or Mavericks and fall just short, that would be acceptable as I believe those teams were built to make a serious run at a championship.

The teams you would add to the "yes" column are all legitimate and well thought-out, and I considered all of them for my yes column as well. I'm not as high on the Spurs as I feel DRob is contributing nearly as much as Miller would, so there's not that much of an incremental gain there. I have not seen Ginobli play yet, but in any case he is still unproven. The Lakers I think may be on the verge of imploding. Kobe is *****ing about the triangle and his "supporting cast", and Shaq needs to stay healthy or they're toast. Phil will have to muster all the zen powers he can this season to keep the team focused. For the future, Kobe/Gooden/Gasol would be tough, but I don't know that Jerry West makes that trade for Shaq (although another GM very likely would pony up for him). I think Shaq wants a 4th ring and that may be it for him.

Houston is another tough call. Much as I have always liked Ming, I can't make them a definite "yes" though.

The Magic are too dependant on a fragile Hill. He goes down, and they're done. You would really trade the Bulls for the Magic right now, straight up?

Appreciate your thoughts, as always.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> It continues to amaze me the rebuilding expectations that some people have. Building (or rebuilding) a championship team is a complicated process that hardly ever proceeds straight from point A to point B as some here seem to be expecting. It's not at all unusual for players to be acquired and then traded (as Brand was) as part of the building process.
> 
> Since the Lakers are commonly held up as the "gold standard" for rebuilding, let's compare the progress of the two franchises. For comparison's sake, I'll assume that the Lakers officially started rebuilding with the retirement of Magic Johnson and the Bulls with the retirement of Michael Jordan. These are the key moves made by each franchise:
> ...




great post kneepad, but how many years did laker fans have to endure at the bottom of the league? were they ever at the bottom? the bulls were at the bottom of the league for 5 years now, jerry west didnt force his fans to watch bottom feeding basketball for 5 years, 

right now we have our foundation in place, its time to win games, unfortunately we arent

and im not even asking for playoffs, i just want some competiveness, is that so hard to ask? _we have our franchise players_, there is no reason why we should be cashing in the season as bad as we are right now, its time to win now, unless were after lebron james :sigh:


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

My mistake, I was not very clear on the Magic. I would put them in the "maybe" category. With a young player as good McGrady around (and Miller not being too shabby either), this could be a team that will always be competitive and could be really good in the present (if Hill gets healthy and a big guy steps forward) and in the future (if they get lucky with some mid-level free agents). McGrady is one very good player that is worth the price of admission all by himself.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> Personally, I'd put "no" for the Pacers. Sure I'd love to be as good as them this season, (and if they advance to the finals I'll change to a "yes") but a huge part of their success, Reggie Miller, is in the twilight of his career. Who's gonna hit the big shots for them once he's gone? There is no other player on that team who has proven (yet) that has proven capable of taking over down the stretch. They've done the right thing by amassing alot of talent so that they can hopefully trade for a go-to guy once Reggie retires, but until that trade happens I'm witholding judgment.


reggie miller hasnt played much all season because he was out with an ankle injury, he just came back last week against the wizards


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> I agree that the Pacers, as effective as they have been without Reggie, has to be a "yes". And those of you complaining about a post-Reggie go-to guy, who is our post-Jalen go-to guy? We don't have one either.


1.) We do actually- Jay was always the Man in college, and I see no reason why he can't be in the NBA once he gets some more experience under his belt.
2.) Jalen is several years younger than Reggie anyway
I wouldn't trade places with Indy right now, just as I wouldn't trade places w/ any team other than L.A. (Lakers, not Clippers), Sacto, Dallas and probably San Antonio. Houston is my only maybe.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> 1.) We do actually- Jay was always the Man in college, and I see no reason why he can't be in the NBA once he gets some more experience under his belt.
> 2.) Jalen is several years younger than Reggie anyway
> I wouldn't trade places with Indy right now, just as I wouldn't trade places w/ any team other than L.A. (Lakers, not Clippers), Sacto, Dallas and probably San Antonio. Houston is my only maybe.


right now jermaine oneal is more proven in those situations in the NBA and he isnt really proven, jermaine could very well develope into that guy


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> reggie miller hasnt played much all season because he was out with an ankle injury, he just came back last week against the wizards


I know that, but winning in the regular season and winning in the playoffs are completely different. Remember how heavily they leaned on him in last year's series of Indy vs. NJ? Without Reggie, they wouldn't even have been in that series.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> I know that, but winning in the regular season and winning in the playoffs are completely different. Remember how heavily they leaned on him in last year's series of Indy vs. NJ? Without Reggie, they wouldn't even have been in that series.


my point was that he was more proven in the NBA then jay is, he had dominating preformances in the playoffs last year, he was just too inexpirienced to take over at crunch time, this season reggie had no impact whatsoever in their win colum


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> right now jermaine oneal is more proven in those situations in the NBA and he isnt really proven, jermaine could very well develope into that guy


Unless you have a special big man like a Hakeem or a Kareem on your team, you usually do not want a big man as your fourth quarter go-to guy. Not only is it easier to double down on them, they tend to be worse free throw shooters and ballhandlers. The Lakers are a perfect example of this- Kobe gets the ball when they need a big shot because they don't want to rely on Shaq to make Ft's. The Spurs went down in five to them because of their lack of a Kobe-type player and their reliance on Duncan to carry them down the stretch. That's why Minny never advances past round one, that's why NY never won the big one- their go-to guys are/were post players.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> Unless you have a special big man like a Hakeem or a Kareem on your team, you usually do not want a big man as your fourth quarter go-to guy. Not only is it easier to double down on them, they tend to be worse free throw shooters and ballhandlers. The Lakers are a perfect example of this- Kobe gets the ball when they need a big shot because they don't want to rely on Shaq to make Ft's. The Spurs went down in five to them because of their lack of a Kobe-type player and their reliance on Duncan to carry them down the stretch. That's why Minny never advances past round one, that's why NY never won the big one- their go-to guys are/were post players.


so true, good point 

its usually the jermaine oneals that help get you to the playoffs and finals, but in the end you still need that clutch preformer to win games when it counts which is why the spurs may not win a title for a while without that clutch preformer, GO GINIOBILI!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Great sequence of posts, guys!

What if Shaq shot 95% free throws? Why wouldn't a guy like that be just fine as the go-to guy in the playoffs (in 4th Q)?


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

About the trade for Jalen Rose. Rose is not that young and IMO is not a "star." Is he even one of the top 5 at his position?

Also if they traded for a young star, under 25, like 24 or 23 or so it'd be understandable. But by the time, the others peak, Rose will be on the decline. Even worse, a declining player that's a scorer that will eat up shot opportunities for the younger players.

As for building a team to win championships. As the old saying goes, defence wins championships. Look at past champions: Lakers, Spurs, Bulls... all great defensively with some great defensive role players.

Even if Artest didn't develop his current offensive game, he still was a great D player already who worked hard in his game, Miller was scoring decent #'s and already emerging a little the year they traded him, in an age where there are not many centers.

As for not "forseeing" in general, it's hard to foresee when you trade your players after they only have 2 yrs in the league.... 

IMO Krause is only using rebuilding as an excuse. You can't just kept rebuilding every 2 or 3 yrs and use that as an excuse as why you are not succeeding.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KennethTo</b>!
> About the trade for Jalen Rose. Rose is not that young and IMO is not a "star." Is he even one of the top 5 at his position?
> 
> Also if they traded for a young star, under 25, like 24 or 23 or so it'd be understandable. But by the time, the others peak, Rose will be on the decline. Even worse, a declining player that's a scorer that will eat up shot opportunities for the younger players.
> ...



agreed, the reason i was and am still against the rose trade is because jalen just isnt that special of a player that he was hyped up to be, artest is a special player defensively, you cant find another player like artest in every draft, its easi_er_ to find a jalen rose


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> What if Shaq shot 95% free throws? Why wouldn't a guy like that be just fine as the go-to guy in the playoffs (in 4th Q)?


Yes, he would- that's why Olajuwaon and Kareem were able to defy the stereotype and be their teams' go-to guys. The problem is, big men like that are so rare that as a general rule it's best not to feed them when the game's on the line. Jermaine being a particulaurly bad ft shooter even for a big man, I would not want him as my fourth quarter go-to guy.



> About the trade for Jalen Rose. Rose is not that young and IMO is not a "star." Is he even one of the top 5 at his position?





> you cant find another player like artest in every draft, its easier to find a jalen rose


I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with both of these. Last year, despite having been benched during the 4th quarter in Indy, Rose was among the top 5 in the whole league in 4th quarter scoring, and is easily a "star". Offensively, there are few players in this league who can match his all around game. I challenge you to name five SF's that are as good as or better than Rose. Players like that who are capable of averaging 23-5-5 are quite a bit harder to find than defensive hustle players like Artest. Granted, nobody plays D as well as Ron in the league today (I'll be the first to tell you that), but there are players available for much less than what we gave up to get Rose who are capable of having an Artest-like impact on a game. Al Harrington is reportedly available, and I'm sure guys like Posey, Kirilenko, and Jerome Williams could be had if the right deal came along.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> ...how many years did laker fans have to endure at the bottom of the league? were they ever at the bottom? the bulls were at the bottom of the league for 5 years now, jerry west didnt force his fans to watch bottom feeding basketball for 5 years,


That's a valid point, Johnny. Each fan has to weigh the pain of being really bad for a relatively short period of time vs. being mediocre-to-good for a very long period of time (like so many other teams in the league have done).

However, consider this:

In the 94-95 season, the Lakers finished 48-34, good for the 5th playoff seed in the Western Conference. Their roster included guys like Cederic Ceballos (age 25), Nick Van Exel (23), Vlade Divac (27), Eddie Jones (23), Elden Campbell (26), Anthony Peeler (25), and George Lynch (24). In other words, they had what any other GM in the league would have considered a good young nucleus full of potential.

So what did Jerry West do? He blew up that team. He systematically got rid of every single player on that team in exchange for the players who comprised the first championship team in 99-00. Can you imagine the flak Krause would have taken if it were he who decided to do that after year 5 of rebuilding?

So all I'm attempting to point out is that while many here seem to be dissatisfied with the time it is taking the Bulls to rebuild, when viewed in an historical context, Krause may very well have the Bulls on an _accelerated_ rebulding path.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Enjoying the thread!  



> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> So all I'm attempting to point out is that while many here seem to be dissatisfied with the time it is taking the Bulls to rebuild, when viewed in an historical context, Krause may very well have the Bulls on an _accelerated_ rebulding path.


I agree with all 6 teams that NC had in the 'yes' column. I think there are more than 6 'maybe' teams as well. If I could assume the GM post of any team, I think that New Orleans (http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/new_orleans.htm)
might be a better roster to start with as well. 

Therefore, if 12 or more teams in the league have nearly as good prospect for the future or better, if I was the owner, I would not necessarily need to give Krause the benifit of the doubt for 8 years or more of rebuilding.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> Yes, he would- that's why Olajuwaon and Kareem were able to defy the stereotype and be their teams' go-to guys. The problem is, big men like that are so rare that as a general rule it's best not to feed them when the game's on the line. Jermaine being a particulaurly bad ft shooter even for a big man, I would not want him as my fourth quarter go-to guy.


actually i dont think theres a problem with big guys like oneal being their teams goto guys in the 4th, tim duncan is the goto guy in the 4th for the spurs, rasheed wallace ditto for the blazers, jermaine oneal is improving as we speak as well

the real problem is last second shots/plays, because duncan, wallace etc.. have no problem being their teams 4th quarter goto guys, the only area they have trouble with is in last second situations where they need true playmakers to make things happen within a timeframe of 4.5 seconds or so, jamal tinsley can easily develope into that guy 





> I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with both of these. Last year, despite having been benched during the 4th quarter in Indy, Rose was among the top 5 in the whole league in 4th quarter scoring, and is easily a "star". Offensively, there are few players in this league who can match his all around game. I challenge you to name five SF's that are as good as or better than Rose. Players like that who are capable of averaging 23-5-5 are quite a bit harder to find than defensive hustle players like Artest. Granted, nobody plays D as well as Ron in the league today (I'll be the first to tell you that), but there are players available for much less than what we gave up to get Rose who are capable of having an Artest-like impact on a game. Al Harrington is reportedly available, and I'm sure guys like Posey, Kirilenko, and Jerome Williams could be had if the right deal came along.



these guys arent neccesarily better then rose, but they are swingman who could easily replace jalen on the bulls and not miss a beat, they dont neccesarily have to be playmakers becuase when you have jwil, the need for a playmaking swingman isnt as urgent

latrell spreewell
tracy mcgrady
glen robinson
jamal mashburn
paul pierce
jerry stackhouse
hedo turkoglu(yes)
peja
rashard lewis(dude keeps getting better)
shawn marion
ray allen
lamar odom(talent-wise)
eddie jones
kobe
michael finley


and im not even counting KG and Diggler


jalen's defense and consistancy hurt him in favor of guys who play tough defense AND are great scorers because as much as you need 4th quarter scoring, you also need 4th quarter defense

jalen just isnt that very a special player, sure he can score in the 4th, but he wont make game breaking defensive plays

sure there are other guys who are defensive scrappers like artest, but artest is head-and-shoulders above all of them, artest the cream of the crop


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> That's a valid point, Johnny. Each fan has to weigh the pain of being really bad for a relatively short period of time vs. being mediocre-to-good for a very long period of time (like so many other teams in the league have done).
> 
> ...




i dont think Jerry West neccesarily _blew up_ the lakers, he just traded players in favor of the future but they stayed in the playoff race and didnt miss a beat, just like Donny Walsch is doing in indiana, the way these guys rebuilt their teams took pure genious and common sense as well


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> However, consider this:
> 
> ...


I think JOHNNY_BRAVisim0 made the point that the Lakers and Pacers rebuilt from top-caliber teams without records of 20-62 (for several years) along the way...

Two years ago, the Pacers were in the NBA finals with a lineup of Rose, Miller, Dale Davis, Rick Smits, and Mark Jackson. Only Miller remains, and the team is 14-2, with 8 or 9 guys aged 22-27.

Though the Lakers are currently enjoying their threepeat, I believe West made a huge mistake breaking up the team. He had brought in a slew of coaches, and none could win. If they had PJ as their coach sooner, I think there's no way they would have traded away Eddie Jones, or many of the others.

The Lakers are losing a lot this year, as their role players are aging. They have nobody to trade for anyone of value, short of Kobe and Shaq.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> actually i dont think theres a problem with big guys like oneal being their teams goto guys in the 4th, tim duncan is the goto guy in the 4th for the spurs, rasheed wallace ditto for the blazers, jermaine oneal is improving as we speak as well


True, but that's why the Spurs and Blazers bowed out fairly easily to the Lakers, who have a guard as their go-to guy. Of all the go-to guy big men in the league, Duncan is probably the best, and even he didn't average as many fourth quarter points as Jalen last year.


> jamal tinsley can easily develope into that guy


From what I've seen of Tinsley, he seems to have no shooting touch at all- would you really want a guy like that as your go-to guy?

Of the list of guys you named to be as valuable as Rose, I disagree with many of them:
latrell spreewell-no way
tracy mcgrady-yes
glen robinson-no (choke artist)
jamal mashburn-almost, but not quite
paul pierce-yes
jerry stackhouse-no- had 4 points in Detroit's final plyoff game last year
hedo turkoglu-no way
peja-almost, but not quite
rashard lewis(dude keeps getting better)-no
shawn marion-no
ray allen-about even w/ Rose
lamar odom(talent-wise)-no
eddie jones-no
kobe-yes
michael finley-no

Alot of the players you named are not close to Rose's level as far as taking over down the stretch. Guys like Marion and Finley would be great for different needs, but as go-to guys don't approach Rose's level


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>gettinbranded</b>!
> 
> 
> Yup.
> ...


Actually, the more I think about it, the more I'm sure that Krause panicked and blew up a team that could one day have contended for a title. 

Here's a little alternate history for you:

Let's re-examine the moves Krause made and what he might have done had he not panicked. Before the 2001 draft, Krause concluded, as he's said himself, that Brand and Curry were incompatible players. This was part of the impetus of the trade.

Krause would have done better to keep Brand, who is quite likely to be as good as Curry ever will be, and draft the next guy on the board... Jason Richardson.

With JRich on board to provide a SG, the next pick in the second round is... Gilbert Arenas, who's turning into an absolutely sick player, and was at our position of greatest need (PG).

A 2001-2002 lineup featuring Brand, Richardson and Arenas would certainly have won us more games games than we actually won, and give us a very bright future. In the immediate term, however, it probably wouldn't have gotten us out of the lottery. It might, however, have put us in position to actually win the lottery. Houston's 28 win season seems plausible, so maybe we take their position in the lottery and end up with... Yao Ming.

That doesn't look like a bad pick right now, does it?

Consider if we hadn't made those two trades what we might have today:

C - Yao Ming, Brad Miller, Dillybar
PF- Elton Brand, Fizer, Baxter
SF- Ron Artest, Eddie Robinson
SG- Jason Richardson, Ron Mercer, Fred Hoiberg
PG- Gil Arenas, Jamal Crawford

That team would absolutely, positively be in the playoffs this year, case closed, and be competing for championships in the near future.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually, the more I think about it, the more I'm sure that Krause panicked and blew up a team that could one day have contended for a title.
> ...



nice post Mike, but anything short of scrapping the triangle would not change our fortunes IMO, yao would be the perfect player to center the triangle around, but the team would still be underachievers as long as jerry insists on the offense IMHO


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Unfortunately, I'm starting to agree. I don't have a problem with the triangle itself (or even how our key players fit in it) but *Mike McGraw's comment* the other day that the players *ALL* seem to hate it was startling.

No system is going to succeed in the NBA if the players don't buy into it. In some cases, a good coach can get the players to buy in, but with most of these guys Cartwright has had half a season and last year to do it. Rose is 30 years old, and he's a pretty smart guy. If he's made up his mind, it ain't gonna change. Most of the other guys don't have the experience that Rose does to be able to make a truly sound decision about it, but I have to think that after the amount of time these guys have played with it, if they were going to accept it, they would have by now.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

MikeDC,

You may very well be right. Here's another view:

http://www.sportingnews.com/voices/sean_deveney/20020825.html


With a lineup that probably will feature starters PG Jay Williams, SG Jalen Rose, SF Donyell Marshall, PF Tyson Chandler and C Eddy Curry, the Bulls' choice to stick with the triangle offense seems odd. This is a young, athletic team that can run and play uptempo basketball, but the rigidity of the triangle does not allow for much creativity on the break. 

Williams spent most of July learning the triangle with his new teammates. “It can be great because it gets the ball in the hands of everybody,” Williams says. “But at the same time, it can be frustrating because I feel like maybe our personnel is a little different. It's not my decision, of course. But sometimes as a point guard, when you are in the middle of a fast break, you want everyone to be moving around. That makes it easy to find people. But in a triangle, people go to set spots. Defenders know you are going to go there. That slows down the break.” . . .


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

Coach stinks, players stink, GM really stinks, owner really, REALLY stinks.

With that organizational chart you end up with what we have.

GARBAGE.

And Krause is excused for this assemblance of garbage?

He wanted to prove he could do it without Michael. The dope HASN'T EVEN GOTTEN 22 WINS IN A SEASON WITHOUT HIM.

Anyone who rates his rebuilding process higher than a zero needs to think again.

Some people rave about our young players. What is so good about these guys? Every one of them could end up flops. Not one has shown yet he will become star caliber. 

The starting line up doesn't matter. The use of the triangle doesn't. The guys on this team have no heart. THEY STINK. 

I don't want these guys. I want players who we can win with. Not players we HOPE we can win with IF they develop into stars.

And for those who say Krause doesn't want to be stuck in the middle and is going for championships, I say that is a lame excuse from Krause's mouth to try and justify his lousy drafting and awful trades. Wait until next year. Wait until the children grow up. All excuses to cover up his ineptitude.

I see only 16,000 showed up at the game last night. Until that number drops to 10 or 8 thousand Krause will still be around. And until then we will end up with moves like a 20/10 established star for a high schooler, drafting power forwards to play small forward to foil Orlando from picking who they wanted, trading 3 younger, solid players for a veteran who plays no D and has no leadership, signing a bench player to a 31 million dollar contract, a bench player who started last night and until the 4th quarter had no points, no rebounds, and no assists. Yeah, Robinson. Your whining was correct. You are one heck of a player and deserve to start. Pfft.

Krause is past it. He is driving the wheel with blinders on ,and a 1000 lb boat anchor strapped to his neck. He must go before we can again gain respect and at least have hope to attract decent, proven players to our team.

Go Krause. And take Reinsdork, Jauron, Shoop, the McCaskeys, the tribune company, and Bill Wirtz with you. Chicago deserves teams who will do what it takes to pay back the fans for their support.

Does Mark Cuban have a brother?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

LOL!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Post of the century!

;-)


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Or at least of the week....


----------

