# Bulls a sleeper candidate for Dwight Howard



## mvP to the Wee

> Several NBA executives believe the Bulls are a sleeper candidate for Dwight Howard.
> 
> “Chicago may tell Orlando to take any two players – or three – besides [Derrick] Rose,” one GM said.
> 
> Howard is known to prefer warm weather climates, but he would have the opportunity to form one of the best center/point guard combinations in decades.
> 
> If the Bulls give up Joakim Noah in a trade, they can replace him with Omer Asik.


Via Adrian Wojnarowski/Yahoo! Sports


Read more: http://basketball.realgm.com/wireta...ed_Sleeper_Candidate_For_Howard#ixzz1fkj0JVy7


----------



## King Joseus

Sleeper aka let's not get our hopes up.


----------



## mvP to the Wee

My dream scenario(meaning highly unlikely to happen):

Bulls trade Noah, Asik, Brewer, Deng, several 1st rounders(including Charlotte pick) for Howard and Turkoglu.

Bulls sign Caron Butler to full MLE.

Bulls sign Vince Carter to minimum(Rumorpress states he would accept such a deal to be on the Bulls)

Bulls also sign TJ Ford and Kurt Thomas(or Jeff Foster or any other veteran C) for minimum

PG-Rose(38)/Watson(10)/Ford(0)
SG-Carter(32)/Korver(16)/J.Butler(0)
SF-C.Butler(34)/Turkoglu(14)/Korver(0)
PF-Boozer(34)/Gibson(14)/Turkoglu(0)
C-Howard(38)/Gibson(10)/Veteran C(0)


----------



## Pay Ton

Let me kindly take a piss in everybody's coffee this morning...

...Dwight Howard is not coming here, nor does he want to.


----------



## thebizkit69u

Executives know what team has the best pieces to offer the Magic, the Bulls. Yet this league continues to be run by the players and sadly The Lakers will snatch Howard for Pau Gasol or Andrew Bynum plus Lamar Odom. The Bulls have so much more to offer, Deng, Florida boy Noah and multiple draft picks one of which holds more value than any Lakers pick.

The Magic will hope that Dwight is open to a Chicago trade but I doubt he wants to play here so the Lakers will get a game changing big man AGAIN for peanuts. 

On a side note the Lakers have said that they will trade ANYONE not named Kobe for Dwight AND Chris Paul. So if you think about it they can get Howard for Bynum and filler and Chris Paul for Pau Gasol and fillers... Any team would laugh those trades off but Dwight and Paul will hold their teams hostage just like Lebron and Melo did.


----------



## taco_daddy

Pay Ton said:


> Let me kindly take a piss in everybody's coffee this morning...
> 
> ...Dwight Howard is not coming here, nor does he want to.


Damn, my coffee tasting a little extra bitter this morning for some reason. Ugghhh....


----------



## Floods

I would actually love to see this happen, should the Celtics not be an option. Paul/Melo/Amare in New York, Wade/LeBron/Bosh in Miami, and Rose/Dwight in Chicago. Talk about some epic in-conference playoff battles. It could be the early decade west all over again.

_That's_ the NBA I want to see. Screw parity.


----------



## R-Star

Not even 1% chance of this happening.


----------



## thebizkit69u

Nick Fridel also feels like there is a 0 chance of this happening. He thinks Dwight wants to be a Laker and that Otis Smith would not trade Dwight in Conference.


----------



## garnett

He won't be coming here because apparently weather is more important than titles. 

I say that half jokingly.


----------



## Pay Ton

garnett said:


> He won't be coming here because apparently weather is more important than titles.
> 
> I say that half jokingly.


I agree with this so much.

Basketball is my favorite sport to watch, but the NBA athlete is by far the worst athlete in any of the major sports, when it comes to "divaness".

It's amusing how important weather is in factoring where they play. For baseball, it's understandably a non-factor because practically the entire season is during the summer, but you don't see football players saying (at least as commonly as NBA players), "I want to play in warm weather climates". And football players don't play indoors, like NBA players do.

NBA players are such bitches.


----------



## Pinball

thebizkit69u said:


> Executives know what team has the best pieces to offer the Magic, the Bulls. Yet this league continues to be run by the players and sadly The Lakers will snatch Howard for Pau Gasol or Andrew Bynum plus Lamar Odom. The Bulls have so much more to offer, Deng, Florida boy Noah and multiple draft picks one of which holds more value than any Lakers pick.
> 
> The Magic will hope that Dwight is open to a Chicago trade but I doubt he wants to play here so the Lakers will get a game changing big man AGAIN for peanuts.
> 
> On a side note the Lakers have said that they will trade ANYONE not named Kobe for Dwight AND Chris Paul. So if you think about it they can get Howard for Bynum and filler and Chris Paul for Pau Gasol and fillers... Any team would laugh those trades off but Dwight and Paul will hold their teams hostage just like Lebron and Melo did.


I think the draft picks are the key difference between what the Bulls can offer vs. the Lakers. Deng is alot like Odom in the sense that he's a good player but people view him as a mild disappointment because they expected him to be much better. He's obviously younger than Odom so he's more attractive in that sense. I think Noah is a solid big man and brings a great deal to the table in terms of defense, rebounding, and intensity. Bynum is injury-prone but you have to admit that his size, strength, and athletic ability is tempting. Plus, he's a very good offensive player and still has alot of years ahead of him. I think he's a bit more valuable than Noah in a trade. I think the draft picks are the biggest difference. The Lakers haven't had or used a #1 pick in quite some time. I don't even know if they have one for next year. I'm sure you guys do.


----------



## Firefight

Pinball said:


> I think the draft picks are the key difference between what the Bulls can offer vs. the Lakers. Deng is alot like Odom in the sense that he's a good player but people view him as a mild disappointment because they expected him to be much better. He's obviously younger than Odom so he's more attractive in that sense. I think Noah is a solid big man and brings a great deal to the table in terms of defense, rebounding, and intensity. Bynum is injury-prone but you have to admit that his size, strength, and athletic ability is tempting. Plus, he's a very good offensive player and still has alot of years ahead of him. I think he's a bit more valuable than Noah in a trade. I think the draft picks are the biggest difference. The Lakers haven't had or used a #1 pick in quite some time. I don't even know if they have one for next year. I'm sure you guys do.


I'm torn on the whole thing. I don't see the Lakers having much to offer outside of Bynum... If we consider Noah/Bynum a near wash, then you look at the other factors. Deng/Odom... depends on what Otis is looking for...both have positives/negatives. But, in addition to the picks that the Bulls can offer, they also have some enticing young players in Taj and Asik, along with maybe Brewer and Korver. I don't see those options coming from L.A.
When it's all said and done, I think the contracts of Noah/Deng will deter Orlando from making this deal because I think shedding $$ is priority... Unless of course we somehow take Hedu in the deal... 
It'll definitely be interesting.


----------



## thebizkit69u

Its going to come down to what Dwight want's and for whatever reason he prefers to play his *IN DOOR SPORT* in a warmer city. Hes doing what many other high profile NBA players have done many times and that's use Chicago as leverage. T mac did it, Grant did it, Melo did it, Lebron did it, Amare, Bosh, Wade etc have all done it, why not Howard?

For whatever reason The Bulls are just not attractive to young and good free agents... I have no idea why but when you got guys choosing a crap pro sports town like Miami over a title primed Bulls team in a more relevant city I honestly stopped wondering. 

I can understand Melo wanting to play for his hometown Knicks but what he did, it opened the flood doors for every other NBA diva out there to have their cake and eat it too. The league needs more true professionals like Derrick and Durant, these guys are willing to stick it out. 

Nick Friedel also said that this Bulls team is going to be it for the foreseeable future, don't expect any major changes anytime soon.


----------



## Dornado

R-Star said:


> Not even 1% chance of this happening.


----------



## Pay Ton

thebizkit69u said:


> Nick Friedel also said that this Bulls team is going to be it for the foreseeable future, don't expect any major changes anytime soon.


This really annoys me, if true.

Does anybody really think the core of this current team, as constructed, can win a championship? Because I don't.

Obviously the revolving parts will change from season to season, but I'm talking about the core.

It feels to me like we're going the way of the Pacer and Knick teams of the 90's and King and Blazer teams of the 00's...we're just a stepping stone for the real championship teams to get by.

Frustrating, to say the least.


----------



## R-Star

You replace Boozer with an actual star quality big man and I see them as an actual contender. But with Boozer himself? No. Hes a chump. He isn't going to be a key part of any championship team.

I remember him going out against the Pacers last year and when he'd make a good play he'd be running up and down screaming "**** yea! No one can stop me" then the next play someone would make a fool out of him and he'd go "Ahhhhhhh! I'm so injured! I shouldn't even be out here but I'm a warrior! I can hardly move"

Guy is a joke.


----------



## thebizkit69u

Pay Ton said:


> This really annoys me, if true.
> 
> Does anybody really think the core of this current team, as constructed, can win a championship? Because I don't.
> 
> Obviously the revolving parts will changer from season to season, but I'm talking about the core.
> 
> It feels to me like we're going the way of the Pacer and Knick teams of the 90's and King and Blazer teams of the 00's...we're just a stepping stone for the real championship teams to get by.
> 
> Frustrating, to say the least.


John Paxson has really hancuffed this team pay roll wise and unless we become one of those teams that actually pays the tax, THIS TEAM IS IT. This team as constructed will not win a title unless Boozer and Deng elevate their games but the reality is Miami is not going anywhere, the Knicks are priming themselves to bring in Chris Paul, The Nets will become huge spenders and lets not forget that there are some very young and potentially great teams out west. 

The Blazers, Thunder and even the Clippers have pieces that are legit. Blake Griffin has all the talent in the world to be the best and most dominating big man in the game, Durant has the size and skill set to be the most unstoppable scorer in the game and the Blazers have legit size that can give us problems. 

As great as Derrick Rose is and can be, we have to remember that he is a 6'3 PG with no real sidekick.


----------



## SWIFTSLICK

I love when they say things like this. It's just another way for the media to draw attention and traffic to websites (i.e. ESPN, Yahoo, MSN, SI). The more buzz there is the better the "rumor mill" feels duping those slack jawed yokels (us) with interest. Dwight Howard isn't an option for this team. He doesn't like being yelled at. And the Lakers have a brand new enabler at Head Coach.


----------



## Firefight

If the Heat weren't the Heat, I do believe this team could contend. The Bulls are one Heat injury away from playing in the finals. I'm going to give Boozer a 2nd chance. He's reported to be in great shape and hopefully last year woeful performance can ignite a spark. When healthy, Boozer is one of the more dominant low-post scorers. I think the defensive make-up of this squad can still win with a Boozers lack of D.
Let's assume the Bulls get Butler... not the ideal 2-guard, but when healthy, he's someone that can score when Rose is getting doubled. IF, they get Butler (or any other upgrade at the SG) the Bulls will by far have the best squad in the NBA 1-10 depth wise. Rose/Watson Butler/Brewer Deng/Korver Boozer/Gibson Noah/Asik To me that is a solid, solid core... Would I like a change, sure, I think every NBA team can benefit from a change... but this team reminds me of the Bulls in the late 80's... For those old enough to remember watching the Bulls struggle with Cleveland and Detroit, people then also said that the team was good, but not great...


----------



## DaBabyBullz

Trade Deng, Boozer, Noah and 1st rounders for Howard. Sign Vince Carter to play SG and play Korver at SF unless one can be had in FA or in a trade.

PG Rose
SG Carter
SF Korver or a new guy
PF Howard
C Asik

That'd be like a wet dream. That team's appeal would be right up there with the Jordan/Pippen Bulls.


----------



## Pinball

Boozer's biggest problem is that he's small and he tends to shy away from the paint against bigger defenders. He can shoot the ball well but when he has difficulty scoring, it affects the rest of his game and he's not a particularly good defender to begin with.


----------



## PD

Here is what I want to see happening.

Trade Deng, Noah, draft picks, and fillers (not Gibson) for Howard and Turk.
Trade Boozer to the Hawks for Joe Johnson.

Sign Grant Hill
Resign Thomas, and sign a few bench fillers

Rose
Johnson
Hill
Gibson
Howard

Bench Thomas, Turk, Asik, and whoever

Thats a championship team.


----------



## R-Star

If Howard basically says "I don't want to play there" why on earth are you guys still coming up with hypotheticals?


----------



## PD

R-Star said:


> If Howard basically says "I don't want to play there" why on earth are you guys still coming up with hypotheticals?


cuz we are fans and human beings. People have wishes. and it's Christmas.


----------



## thebizkit69u

Rumors now have dwight asking orlando top trade him to the nets today or in a couple of days. I guess this puts to rest his desire to play somewhere warm.

Williams and Howard makes a hell of a combo but I don't feel like it gets Dwight closer to a title.


----------



## PD

thebizkit69u said:


> Rumors now have dwight asking orlando top trade him to the nets today or in a couple of days. I guess this puts to rest his desire to play somewhere warm.
> 
> Williams and Howard makes a hell of a combo but I don't feel like it gets Dwight closer to a title.


Rumors are that the Nets and Dwight violated the tampering policy by meeting together without the Magic permission. Orlando and the league may prevent D12 getting traded to the Nets. Heavy fines are coming soon. D12 may have to pick else where to play. Chicago? 

I don't know what Howard is thinking, but this line up is good.

Howard
Boozer
Turk or brewer
FA SG
Rose

Bench: Turk or Brewer, Watson, Gibson, and fillers.

Howard along with Rose will compete for years to come.


----------



## SWIFTSLICK

We need to remember that this team's management has never done what we believed they would. Rumors never pan out in the long run. Just look back at the "great" summer of Lebron. What was the result? Carlos Boozer. We"re all just hoping they make a move. But truthfully I expect the Bulls will do nothing. They'll stand pat (not even signing an adequate SG) and we'll all be fuming for the next few weeks.


----------



## PD

SWIFTSLICK said:


> We need to remember that this team's management has never done what we believed they would. Rumors never pan out in the long run. Just look back at the "great" summer of Lebron. What was the result? Carlos Boozer. We"re all just hoping they make a move. But truthfully I expect the Bulls will do nothing. They'll stand pat (not even signing an adequate SG) and we'll all be fuming for the next few weeks.


It is painful to agree with you. Historically, Chicago is always behind the a-game. We lucked out with Rose, Noah, and Deng draft picks. They always say that they do their diligence but lets give Orlando a call. They are pissed at the Nets and Howard. Offer them a package around Noah, Deng, and 2 draft picks. I would throw in Gibson or Asik. I think Howard and Boozer are a good combo with Rose and Turk on the wing. Sign a guy like Richardson or Crawford to complete our starting 5.


----------



## SWIFTSLICK

I just can't see them pulling that off. The Bulls aren't the desired destination at this point. I'm thinking Howard would prefer Los Angeles. Of course, all Bulls fans want Howard on the team. 29 other NBA teams want him on their team. But making that trade just doesn't seem like something Reinsdorf would pull off. It would be a major coup but very unlikely. It's nice to dream about the Bulls doing that, but, it's just something you'll have to try on Playstation 3 instead.


----------



## Firefight

The more I look at this, the more I'm backing off the idea of getting Dwight (depending on price.) Rumor has Nets offering Lopez and picks for Howard and a bad contract... If thats the case, fine...Offer Noah and some picks and I'm in... but when we add in Deng and Gibson and Asik and whatever else, when is it enough?? I believe having Deng/Gibson/Noah/Asik is better than Howard/Turk...


----------



## yodurk

I would like to know how the hell the Lakers think they are getting D-Howard AFTER they sort out this CP3 trade. 

The Lakers will be CP3, Kobe, Bynum, and a whole lot of crap. 

Tell me what Orlando's incentive would be to gift wrap them Howard for Bynum + crap...because Bynum is not even close to Howard's league, an annual injury risk, and on a pricey contract. 

Am I missing something? I just keep seeing the Lakers being mentioned here...what can they offer that 28 other teams couldn't top?


----------



## SWIFTSLICK

The Lakers think they can do anything since they basically sent garbage to the Grizzlies for Pau Gasol. It's the leagues fault for creating and enabling that monster. But i'm fairly certain their time has come to pass. Dr. Buss is in poor health and Jim Buss is not even the best executive in their family (that honor belongs to Phil Jackson's chick).


----------



## SWIFTSLICK

yodurk said:


> I would like to know how the hell the Lakers think they are getting D-Howard AFTER they sort out this CP3 trade.
> 
> The Lakers will be CP3, Kobe, Bynum, and a whole lot of crap.
> 
> Tell me what Orlando's incentive would be to gift wrap them Howard for Bynum + crap...because Bynum is not even close to Howard's league, an annual injury risk, and on a pricey contract.
> 
> Am I missing something? I just keep seeing the Lakers being mentioned here...what can they offer that 28 other teams couldn't top?


And as soon as you say that they drop out of the Paul trade. Bet they're focusing on Dwight Howard entirely now. Great. Kobe and D12. This season's going to be a wash.


----------



## yodurk

SWIFTSLICK said:


> And as soon as you say that they drop out of the Paul trade. Bet they're focusing on Dwight Howard entirely now. Great. Kobe and D12. This season's going to be a wash.


I do think there is a way for the Lakers to fairly get Howard (or CP3 for that matter, but that opp has passed it would seem). My confusion was how exactly they intended to get both. I am more peeved at the Magic for letting Howard dictate the terms. Why wouldn't the Magic entertain a Bulls offer of virtually anything on the team sans Rose? For instance, Noah, Mirotic rights (kid is looking like the real deal), Charlotte pick, Deng, Boozer...whatever, I think we have a team this year, and there are worse places than the Lakers as they are in the Western Conference; keeps Dwight out of our way until a Finals match happens, and really we need to be worrying about Miami first.


----------



## thebizkit69u

> However, with agent Dan Fegan making clear Howard will sign a long-term extension only with the Lakers, Nets or Mavericks, the market will be limited.


Why? That would be my only damn question. Why would Dwight not consider Chicago a place worth signing a multi year contract? 

Can't be the market since Dallas and the Nets are smaller, heck even when the Nets move they will NEVER be as popular as the Knicks.
Is it the weather? Well I can't say that NJ has better weather.
IT CANT BE THE TEAM, The Bulls as is are better than all of those teams especially with Dallas losing half its team. 
I can't imagine its Dwight wanting to be the MAN, hes not going to be the man in LA until Kobe retires and in Dallas its Dirks team. 

My only guess would be that its our front office, something about Jerry Reinsdorf and Garpax seems to turn off superstar players. 

Its like Chicago is the Winterfell of the NBA world.


----------



## jnrjr79

thebizkit69u said:


> Why? That would be my only damn question. Why would Dwight not consider Chicago a place worth signing a multi year contract?
> 
> Can't be the market since Dallas and the Nets are smaller, heck even when the Nets move they will NEVER be as popular as the Knicks.
> Is it the weather? Well I can't say that NJ has better weather.
> IT CANT BE THE TEAM, The Bulls as is are better than all of those teams especially with Dallas losing half its team.
> I can't imagine its Dwight wanting to be the MAN, hes not going to be the man in LA until Kobe retires and in Dallas its Dirks team.
> 
> My only guess would be that its our front office, something about Jerry Reinsdorf and Garpax seems to turn off superstar players.
> 
> Its like Chicago is the Winterfell of the NBA world.


NJ involves playing for the billionaire owner, playing in Brooklyn, biggest market in the country, blah blah. Dallas and L.A. give you nice weather and a chance to win. Chicago has the worst weather of all (though not by a significant margin over NY/NJ). Maybe it's being "the man"? As you said, he'd have to defer to Kobe and Dirk in the short-run, but in the long term, those would become "his" team in a way that presumably Chicago would not.


----------



## thebizkit69u

jnrjr79 said:


> NJ involves playing for the billionaire owner, playing in Brooklyn, biggest market in the country, blah blah. Dallas and L.A. give you nice weather and a chance to win. Chicago has the worst weather of all (though not by a significant margin over NY/NJ). Maybe it's being "the man"? As you said, he'd have to defer to Kobe and Dirk in the short-run, but in the long term, those would become "his" team in a way that presumably Chicago would not.


I don't know why a billionaire owner matters at all, hes still hand cuffed by league rules and has to abide by the salary cap rules. A billionaire owner may not care to pay the salary tax but he still needs to make moves under the cap so to me its a wash. 

This idea that once basketball players go to NY they become bigger is just a myth, I have seen Derrick Rose on more commercials than Amare and Carmelo combined. 

Maybe it is being the man... Even though he is far and AWAY the MAN in Orlando. 

Who knows, maybe it does hurt the Bulls that Derrick Rose stays away from recruiting guys, I don't mind it but I'm pretty damn sure guys like Marc Cuban, Kobe, Carmelo and Derron Williams are talking to Dwight almost daily.


----------



## jnrjr79

thebizkit69u said:


> I don't know why a billionaire owner matters at all, hes still hand cuffed by league rules and has to abide by the salary cap rules. A billionaire owner may not care to pay the salary tax but he still needs to make moves under the cap so to me its a wash.


You can't simultaneously argue that Reinsdorf may have scared Howard away and then one post later argue that a billionaire owner willing to pay luxury tax does not matter. That's just not consistent. 




> This idea that once basketball players go to NY they become bigger is just a myth, I have seen Derrick Rose on more commercials than Amare and Carmelo combined.


It may be a myth, but clearly some people buy into this myth, rightly or wrongly.




> Maybe it is being the man... Even though he is far and AWAY the MAN in Orlando.


Yeah, he is where he needs to be if he wants to be "the man." Maybe he wants to be the #1 guy but also compete for a title? It's tough to say, honestly, and I can't quite discern why he's picked these three teams as the only ones he'd agree to sign an extension with.



> Who knows, maybe it does hurt the Bulls that Derrick Rose stays away from recruiting guys, I don't mind it but I'm pretty damn sure guys like Marc Cuban, Kobe, Carmelo and Derron Williams are talking to Dwight almost daily.


I do agree that long-term I would like to see Derrick recruit if needed. I have a feeling he stays out of it in order to maintain loyalty to the players who are actually on the team. Also, just like the LeBron situation, I tend to wonder whether Derrick is hesitant to recruit Howard because Derrick (rightly) views himself as "the man" and wonders whether Howard wouldn't fit in. Derrick seems to have no interest in building a super-team of elite stars from around the league, as we saw during the whole LBJ situation last summer.


----------



## thebizkit69u

jnrjr79 said:


> You can't simultaneously argue that Reinsdorf may have scared Howard away and then one post later argue that a billionaire owner willing to pay luxury tax does not matter. That's just not consistent.


I said maybe Reinsdorf and Garpax scare away superstars but not once did it say its because they are cheap. I honestly don't know why players give us a wide berth, I don't know what it is about our franchise that they seem to avoid us. Maybe someone can shed some light on it.


----------



## jnrjr79

thebizkit69u said:


> I said maybe Reinsdorf and Garpax scare away superstars but not once did it say its because they are cheap. I honestly don't know why players give us a wide berth, I don't know what it is about our franchise that they seem to avoid us. Maybe someone can shed some light on it.


Gotcha. I just inferred that you meant Reinsdorf scared them off due to cheapness, as that seems like the general critique. If it's not that, what then?

Frankly, just like you, I'm just not exactly sure why Howard prefers the teams he prefers.


----------



## thebizkit69u

jnrjr79 said:


> Gotcha. I just inferred that you meant Reinsdorf scared them off due to cheapness, as that seems like the general critique. If it's not that, what then?
> 
> Frankly, just like you, I'm just not exactly sure why Howard prefers the teams he prefers.


I was NEVER a big believer in the rumors that Michael Jordan's critique of the front office held much weight with other players, but if you look at the history of our Free Agent chasing since his retirement, its been pretty pathetic in terms of striking out on our #1 and #2 targets. 

I still doubt that's case but like many, I'm lost for why we are being avoided. 

All these strikeouts do is make me more complacent towards management BUT it also makes me want the Bulls to win a title as is even more, I want Derrick Rose to win us a title with NO HELP from any of these so called superstars, and I want him to just rub it in their faces that while they may chose to play elsewhere, in warmer weather or for a bit more money, but that BULLS are the NBA champion and not them.


----------



## jnrjr79

thebizkit69u said:


> I was NEVER a big believer in the rumors that Michael Jordan's critique of the front office held much weight with other players, but if you look at the history of our Free Agent chasing since his retirement, its been pretty pathetic in terms of striking out on our #1 and #2 targets.
> 
> I still doubt that's case but like many, I'm lost for why we are being avoided.
> 
> All these strikeouts do is make me more complacent towards management BUT it also makes me want the Bulls to win a title as is even more, I want Derrick Rose to win us a title with NO HELP from any of these so called superstars, and I want him to just rub it in their faces that while they may chose to play elsewhere, in warmer weather or for a bit more money, but that BULLS are the NBA champion and not them.



I'd take Howard if the Bulls could get him, obviously. A championship would be a bit sweeter without him, though.

Anyway, it's interesting now in the past day to see how re-signing in Orlando is becoming an increasing possibility. This has been one weird free agency period, so far.


----------



## Dornado

thebizkit69u said:


> All these strikeouts do is make me more complacent towards management BUT it also makes me want the Bulls to win a title as is even more, I want Derrick Rose to win us a title with NO HELP from any of these so called superstars, and I want him to just rub it in their faces that while they may chose to play elsewhere, in warmer weather or for a bit more money, but that BULLS are the NBA champion and not them.


This is where I am too... I don't understand why D12 doesn't like the thought of coming to Chicago... maybe it is ego, maybe it is the weather, maybe it is our management, I don't know... I do know that I really want us to kick the shit out of whatever team he ends up on now... just like I really want us to win a title before the Heat do.


----------



## Pay Ton

> There has been speculation that the Chicago Bulls might be a possible destination for Howard because the Bulls offer a big-city environment, a superstar in Derrick Rose, and plenty of talent to send back to Orlando. But Howard's refusal to sign there ends that possibility.


I mean, it's not surprising, but I just wanted to post it for others to see it.


----------



## DaBabyBullz

Do you guys really think that he wouldn't resign with Chicago if he were to come here and win a title with Rose? I highly doubt that garbage is concrete and has any real substance. He's simply trying to pick where he goes. The only reason I could see why he wouldn't want to go to Chicago is the coach being too "aggressive" or "demanding" possibly, since he's so easy going. That's also the only reason I could see him not resigning if he were to come to Chicago and have success...if he couldn't stand playing for the coach. 

To me, the title would be sweeter WITH Dwight than without. He and Rose are 2 of my favorite players, so having 2 on the team instead of just 1 (and a bunch of players I don't care for that much) would be a low sweeter. I've never liked Deng, not a big fan of Noah, loathe Boozer, Brewer and Korver I like but are 1-dimensional, etc.


----------



## thebizkit69u

DaBabyBullz said:


> Do you guys really think that he wouldn't resign with Chicago if he were to come here and win a title with Rose? I highly doubt that garbage is concrete and has any real substance. He's simply trying to pick where he goes. The only reason I could see why he wouldn't want to go to Chicago is the coach being too "aggressive" or "demanding" possibly, since he's so easy going. That's also the only reason I could see him not resigning if he were to come to Chicago and have success...if he couldn't stand playing for the coach.
> 
> To me, the title would be sweeter WITH Dwight than without. He and Rose are 2 of my favorite players, so having 2 on the team instead of just 1 (and a bunch of players I don't care for that much) would be a low sweeter. I've never liked Deng, not a big fan of Noah, loathe Boozer, Brewer and Korver I like but are 1-dimensional, etc.


I don't know about the coaching issue since Rick Carlisle and Avery Johnson aren't particularly known as player coaches.

Today's NBA player cares less about winning a title, at least it feels like it. Dwights request to be traded to only 3 teams hampers his chances of winning a title, it makes sense for him to want to play in Chicago but obviously he want certain things.


----------



## Spikeaji

Since Dwight Howard is too much of a sissy to come play for the Bulls, why not swing a 3-way trade that lands Howard in LA, and Bynum in Chicago?


----------



## PD

Spikeaji said:


> Since Dwight Howard is too much of a sissy to come play for the Bulls, why not swing a 3-way trade that lands Howard in LA, and Bynum in Chicago?


What is the damage for Bynum? I would give up Noah, Deng, Asik or Gibson, picks, and fillers for Howard. However, I would not want to sacrifice too much of our front-line (Noah, Gibson, Asik, Deng, and Boozer) for Bynum. I am sorry but Bynum is ways overrated, as a player. Would the Lakers consider Gibson, Noah, and a filler for Bynum? I would consider that.


----------



## Hoodey

Pay Ton said:


> I agree with this so much.
> 
> Basketball is my favorite sport to watch, but the NBA athlete is by far the worst athlete in any of the major sports, when it comes to "divaness".
> 
> It's amusing how important weather is in factoring where they play. For baseball, it's understandably a non-factor because practically the entire season is during the summer, but you don't see football players saying (at least as commonly as NBA players), "I want to play in warm weather climates". And football players don't play indoors, like NBA players do.
> 
> NBA players are such bitches.


I think that sort of thing is cyclical. If you read Simmons book and read about the late 70s, when Russell, West, Chamberlain and others had built a better lifestyle for NBA players, their priorities became less about winning and more about just getting the "life" as a result of being a player. Then the nation tuned the NBA out until Magic and Bird made it about winning again.

Right now your best players are more concerned about being on a beach or being the next Puff Daddy international mogul and what's sad is that the guys who come after Lebron and Howard will have to regenerate the competitiveness for less money than they would have made if Howard wanted to win.

As to you saying "Howard won't come here," it's all about the GM. A GM has worth in two regards. As a player personnel draft guy and as a salesman. You make the sale just like Riley made the sale to Lebron and just like West made the sale to Shaq. If you can't sell the Chicago Bulls and Derrick Rose to Dwight ringless Howard, then you suck, period - and you should quit.

Anybody could draft a bunch of third options and then overpay to retain them. Who couldn't do that if they were the GM?? 

With that said I don't personally want Howard because that's too easy. I'd much rather see Rose win with Gasol or someone like that than have to have Howard.


----------



## thebizkit69u

Publicly at least, Dwight Howard has softened up his stance on being traded to the Bulls.

From the Tribune



> Approached Friday night in New Orleans after a 26-point loss to the Hornets, Howard shared his thoughts on a long-shot trade to the Bulls.
> 
> "If I could play with Derrick right now and God wanted that to happen, it will happen," Howard told the Tribune. "It has nothing to do with me not wanting to play with Derrick Rose. I love him. That's my brother.''





> Howard disputed the notion that marketing issues factored into his leaving the Bulls off his initial trade wish list. Both Howard and Rose have contracts with Adidas, and some believe the company doesn't want two signature players on the same team.
> 
> "It has nothing to do with Adidas," Howard said. "In fact, Adidas would love that because me and Derrick have the same guy."


----------



## PD

thebizkit69u said:


> Publicly at least, Dwight Howard has softened up his stance on being traded to the Bulls.
> 
> From the Tribune


The question now is what Orlando wants from us. I would assume Noah and 2 Draft Picks including the one from Charlotte are must. They probably would want Gibson. Can we avoid giving them Deng? It is highly unlikely. 

So it is likely Noah, Gibson, Deng, and Draft picks for Howard and Turk? Can Brewer slow down James or Anthony at SF? 

Howard
Boozer
Brewer
Hamilton
Rose

With Turk, Watson, Omer, Kutcher, Butler, Lucas, and whoever on the bench. We would become extremely week at the PF position. what about adding Kmart?


----------



## Diable

Hell I don't know why you are acting as though Orlando has a lot of leverage. If they could get Deng by himself that is as good as getting Bynum straight up, at least on a basketball court. Deng is as good of a player, the only difference being that he does not provide any potential to get better. Of course Bynum has a lot of potential to become another perpetually injured big man with a big contract. You don't have to give Orlando what they want, you just have to give them something they want more than the crappy offers they are getting from the Lakers and the Nets. 

Of course Howard still does not want to play for the Bulls from all appearances and it appears that he is being less than truthful about his willingness to play with Rose.


----------



## DaBabyBullz

The dream is revived! I think that since we have to deal with the Heat to get to the Finals every year, losing Deng would really hurt, unless we were able to pick up another defensive SF. I like Brewer just fine, but he's a big undersized there. In some ways I prefer him to Deng even, but LeBron is a whole nother animal. Ideally, this would be the roster after the trade:

Rose, Watson
Hamilton, Brewer, Butler
Deng, Korver
Howard, Turkoglu
Asik

(Give up Boozer, Noah, Gibson, and a 1st....works on trade checker. The only loss there, would be the Bobcat's pick, and Gibson. In this scenario, you'd have no choice but to play Howard at the 4, which he's perfectly suited for too, unless you put Turk as the starting 4 and Dwight at the 5 and bring Asik off the bench. I'd almost prefer to have Gibson at the 4 and Howard at the 5, but whichever works to get the trade done works for me just fine) 

But I suspect, if it's a possibility at all, that Deng would have to be included, and your trade/roster would look more like this:

Rose, Watson
Hamilton, Butler
Brewer, Korver
Boozer, Turkoglu
Howard, Asik

With the trade being Deng, Noah, Gibson for Howard and Turkoglu. I like the first team better, due to being better defensively. Losing Gibson would suck, but I'd gladly give him up if it meant getting rid of Boozer and getting Howard. In a couple years when Mirotic gets here, the team would be pretty stacked, and everyone of note would still be 28 or younger. Assuming that Brewer takes over at SG, Brewer amnestied, Turkoglu gone, etc:

Rose, Watson
Brewer, Butler
Deng, Korver
Mirotic
Howard, Asik

If Mirotic is really Dirk-like (I have NO idea), pairing a stud PF like that with the best PG and C in my lifetime, along with good defenders at the 2 and 3, that's a dominating team for a good 5 years. Yeah it's a pipedream, but oh well. Fun to dream. It's especially enticing considering that the Heat are going downhill in a couple years when Wade's body finally gives out on him completely (he's already 30, and seems to always be beat up....undersized, all-athleticism, and flinging your body into defenders to let the refs bail you out = short career, but not short enough).


----------



## PD

Diable said:


> Hell I don't know why you are acting as though Orlando has a lot of leverage. If they could get Deng by himself that is as good as getting Bynum straight up, at least on a basketball court. Deng is as good of a player, the only difference being that he does not provide any potential to get better. Of course Bynum has a lot of potential to become another perpetually injured big man with a big contract. You don't have to give Orlando what they want, you just have to give them something they want more than the crappy offers they are getting from the Lakers and the Nets.
> 
> Of course Howard still does not want to play for the Bulls from all appearances and it appears that he is being less than truthful about his willingness to play with Rose.


Unless we can get a commitment from him, it is hard to give up Noah, Gibson, and other young talent to get him. If they were willing to do the deal around Noah, Boozer, and draft picks, we would scare the heck out of Miami and other teams with Howard, Gibson, and Deng as our frontline and Rose in the backcourt.


----------



## thebizkit69u

He din't say anything about re signing with the Bulls if traded here, so while hes open to a trade there is still uncertainty about whether he would sign. That being said, its going to take Noah, Gibson and Deng or Boozer to get a re signed Howard... its worth it.


----------



## DunkMaster

I just don't like the way he's handled himself. Whats the point if we trade away half the team and see who can stack up the most assets? I would rather see this team the Bulls have now succeed. I can definetely see other's point of view who want Howard, but Noah and Deng have become favorite players of mine and I would love to see them win.


----------



## thebizkit69u

DunkMaster said:


> I just don't like the way he's handled himself. Whats the point if we trade away half the team and see who can stack up the most assets? I would rather see this team the Bulls have now succeed. I can definetely see other's point of view who want Howard, but Noah and Deng have become favorite players of mine and I would love to see them win.


But the reality is that we won't win with this core as long as Miami is still together. Maybe in 3 years when Lebron wears down a bit and Wade is done as player but right now, we need a guy like Howard. Any other year the Bulls would be a title favorite as is, but the Miami thing just came together at a totally inconvenient time for us.


----------



## PD

thebizkit69u said:


> But the reality is that we won't win with this core as long as Miami is still together. Maybe in 3 years when Lebron wears down a bit and Wade is done as player but right now, we need a guy like Howard. Any other year the Bulls would be a title favorite as is, but the Miami thing just came together at a totally inconvenient time for us.


Bingo. To be the Eastern favorite, we have to bring another star player. Otherwise, we would have to play close to a perfect game to beat Miami.


----------



## Fergus

There is no way the Bulls pull the trigger on a trade for Howard unless they are convinced they can sign him to a long term deal.

That being said, I think Mirotic may be a key part of the deal. I think Orlando is looking for promising young players, along with draft pics and players like Noah and Gibson / Deng.

I do think Noah will be a part of any deal for Howard. They will not give up a "big" without getting a "big". However, I would instantly deal Noah and the rest for Howard. I would like to keep Deng, but he may have to go as well.


----------



## DaBabyBullz

Mirotic expressly said he wanted to go to the Bulls though, so if they trade his rights he's a lot less likely to come over, especially to a pathetic Magic team, which is exactly what they'll be. They'll be the old Bulls, pre-Rose, without a coach and without the high draft picks. Deng and Noah are decent as 3rd and 4th players on a good team, but they're nothing more than that, and never will be. 

As for preferring to win with this current team than one with Howard, not me. Howard has been in my top 3 favorite players for years. No Bull is even in the top 10 aside from Rose. Rose and Howard on the same team would be just as appealing to me as the old Jordan/Pippen Bulls, as they're my 1b and 3rd favorite players right now. (Kevin Love is 1a)


----------



## King Joseus

I don't really believe the Magic are going to trade him. They're that dumb. I guess we'll see, but I'd expect to see him on the Lakers before seeing him here.


----------



## Hoodey

PD said:


> What is the damage for Bynum? I would give up Noah, Deng, Asik or Gibson, picks, and fillers for Howard. However, I would not want to sacrifice too much of our front-line (Noah, Gibson, Asik, Deng, and Boozer) for Bynum. I am sorry but Bynum is ways overrated, as a player. Would the Lakers consider Gibson, Noah, and a filler for Bynum? I would consider that.


I don't see how Bynum is overrated at all. It depends on how you're rating him. He's easily swung two titles in favor of the Lakers. Does he do it the way that most players do it? No. He and Kendrick Perkins affect the game more like a big football lineman type. You can't look at Bynum in terms of stats or fundamentals. The officials let him stand in front of the rim and it literally takes more than one body to keep him from just leaning on the rim. 

Bynum's real magic is that he sucks the defense or the potential offensive rebounders to him. This spaces the floor better for shooters, allows dribble penetrators to have more freedom and gives more mobility to whomever is playing next to him at PF. 

As much as I rip Boozer and Noah, both of them could play next to Bynum on a championship level front line. There's just no way you keep Noah off the boards if Bynum is there. If Boozer was to stay with Bynum (more likely), the opposition would have a hard time getting a body on him. You can guard Boozer if you can seal him off and keep him out of the paint. If he's allowed to have space to operate and a lane to the basket, he's pretty good even when the jumper isn't falling.

All you have to do is watch the 08 finals and then the 10 finals and you'll realize that Bynum's magic has been the freedom he's afforded Pau Gasol and Kobe Bryant. 

The Lakers problem is that they just have no quality NBA players, even role players, other than Bynum, Gasol and Bryant. Fisher is done and Artest just isn't much of an impact guy anymore. 

If LA could get Noah, Deng and Korver and picks for Bynum and whatever salary we needed to take, the Lakers would have plenty of depth and we'd still be able to start Bynum, Boozer, Brewer, Hamilton and Rose. If you have that kind of team you can pretty much pick up whatever scraps you need at backup SF and SG to make it work. At that point you're dominating the paint and you'd still have Asik, Gibson and Watson off the bench.

*The most important point is probably that while there are a bunch of less than ideal options where we acquire someone, we have to acquire someone who will change the game in the frontcourt for us. Separate Miami being riddled by injury we're not going to beat them with our current frontcourt over the course of seven games.*


----------



## Hoodey

King Joseus said:


> I don't really believe the Magic are going to trade him. They're that dumb. I guess we'll see, but I'd expect to see him on the Lakers before seeing him here.


If LA and Orlando needed a third team in that scenario, I think we could end up with Bynum or Gasol for cheaper than we would in a two team trade.


----------



## thebizkit69u

Hoodey said:


> If LA and Orlando needed a third team in that scenario, I think we could end up with Bynum or Gasol for cheaper than we would in a two team trade.


Is Gasol that much of an upgrade over Boozer? 

I like Gasol but at best I see it as a slight upgrade, not a major one.


----------



## Hoodey

thebizkit69u said:


> Is Gasol that much of an upgrade over Boozer?
> 
> I like Gasol but at best I see it as a slight upgrade, not a major one.


Well you're thinking like a Bulls fan. Bulls fans think of everyone from Andrew Bynum to Taj Gibson as part of one all-encompassing group called "bigs." 

Is Gasol an upgrade over Boozer? 

Gasol this season - 16.6 PPG 9.5 RPG 3.0 APG 51.8% FG
Boozer this season - 15.0 PPG 8.0 RPG 1.5 APG 51.9% FG

So as a Bulls fan I expect you to look at this, and since most Bulls fans only can see things in terms of the regular season, because they buy into the fallacy that the playoffs are REMOTELY like the regular season, and I expect you to say "slight upgrade." 

However, let's take a look at this. What happens to Pau Gasol and Carlos Boozer when they go from regular season to playoffs.

*Boozer career regular season - 17.2 PPG 10.0 RPG 2.4 APG 1.0 SPG 0.5 BPG 53.6% FG 72.5% FT*
Pretty nice right? Wow. What a guy. 17.2 and 10.0. I mean 0.5 BPG is god awful for a "big", but if Elton Brand taught us one thing about Bulls fans it's that 17.2 and 10.0 makes you a god for the ages lol.

What happens to Boozer in the playoffs though?

*Boozer career playoffs - 18.2 PPG 11.8 RPG 2.5 APG 0.8 SPG 0.4 BPG 48.9% FG 72.7% FT*

Boozer has very few games playing late in the playoffs like Gasol, so the stats stay pretty similar. But the 48.9% FG is a big dropoff. It just shows you that Carlos Boozer is a regular season player, period. He's not going to excel in the physical half court grind of the playoffs.

Now Gasol.

*Pau Gasol career regular season - 18.7 PPG 9.1 RPG 3.2 APG 0.5 SPG 1.7 BPG 52.2% FG 75.1% FT*

Notice that BPG number. Gasol more than triples Boozer in BPG. Gasol alters shots and is a much better man defender than Boozer for one. 

But what about the playoff difference.

*Pau Gasol career playoffs - 17.9 PPG 9.6 RPG 3.3 APG 0.7 SPG 1.8 BPG 52.7% FG 73.7% FT*

Also the same player. He's played against better competition, but notice that FG%. It goes UP. He responds better in the halfcourt. Pau Gasol is a playoff guy. Not last year, when he had a playoff that was an abberation (sp). 

Gasol is not going to get pushed around by Udonis Haslem and Joel Anthony and he's not going to allow his defender to play a step toward Derrick Rose. 

He's a huge upgrade in the playoffs.


----------



## DunkMaster

thebizkit69u said:


> But the reality is that we won't win with this core as long as Miami is still together. Maybe in 3 years when Lebron wears down a bit and Wade is done as player but right now, we need a guy like Howard. Any other year the Bulls would be a title favorite as is, but the Miami thing just came together at a totally inconvenient time for us.


Well if you believe in that, then we should just assign players 1 thru 10 ratings, see who has the highest total, and that team wins the championchip. Personally, I think there are a few important factors like "will", "effort", and "determination." If this country went by stats when we were outnumbered 240 years ago we might not be standing here. I'm pretty sure if we alligned Rose with Lebron or Rose with Howard, we could conceive a championchip, but whats the damn point...


----------



## DunkMaster

Hoodey said:


> Well you're thinking like a Bulls fan. Bulls fans think of everyone from Andrew Bynum to Taj Gibson as part of one all-encompassing group called "bigs."
> 
> Is Gasol an upgrade over Boozer?
> 
> Gasol this season - 16.6 PPG 9.5 RPG 3.0 APG 51.8% FG
> Boozer this season - 15.0 PPG 8.0 RPG 1.5 APG 51.9% FG
> 
> So as a Bulls fan I expect you to look at this, and since most Bulls fans only can see things in terms of the regular season, because they buy into the fallacy that the playoffs are REMOTELY like the regular season, and I expect you to say "slight upgrade."
> 
> However, let's take a look at this. What happens to Pau Gasol and Carlos Boozer when they go from regular season to playoffs.
> 
> *Boozer career regular season - 17.2 PPG 10.0 RPG 2.4 APG 1.0 SPG 0.5 BPG 53.6% FG 72.5% FT*
> Pretty nice right? Wow. What a guy. 17.2 and 10.0. I mean 0.5 BPG is god awful for a "big", but if Elton Brand taught us one thing about Bulls fans it's that 17.2 and 10.0 makes you a god for the ages lol.
> 
> What happens to Boozer in the playoffs though?
> 
> *Boozer career playoffs - 18.2 PPG 11.8 RPG 2.5 APG 0.8 SPG 0.4 BPG 48.9% FG 72.7% FT*
> 
> Boozer has very few games playing late in the playoffs like Gasol, so the stats stay pretty similar. But the 48.9% FG is a big dropoff. It just shows you that Carlos Boozer is a regular season player, period. He's not going to excel in the physical half court grind of the playoffs.
> 
> Now Gasol.
> 
> *Pau Gasol career regular season - 18.7 PPG 9.1 RPG 3.2 APG 0.5 SPG 1.7 BPG 52.2% FG 75.1% FT*
> 
> Notice that BPG number. Gasol more than triples Boozer in BPG. Gasol alters shots and is a much better man defender than Boozer for one.
> 
> But what about the playoff difference.
> 
> *Pau Gasol career playoffs - 17.9 PPG 9.6 RPG 3.3 APG 0.7 SPG 1.8 BPG 52.7% FG 73.7% FT*
> 
> Also the same player. He's played against better competition, but notice that FG%. It goes UP. He responds better in the halfcourt. Pau Gasol is a playoff guy. Not last year, when he had a playoff that was an abberation (sp).
> 
> Gasol is not going to get pushed around by Udonis Haslem and Joel Anthony and he's not going to allow his defender to play a step toward Derrick Rose.
> 
> He's a huge upgrade in the playoffs.


So you aren't considering the fact that Boozer played for a much lower seed than Gasol on average. I'm not a big defender of the Booz Cruze, but you're defense is WEAK. What do you think their %'s would be if they switched spots?? Besides that, considering all else equal, you take field goal % way too seriously. 48% vs 53% has so many other factors that the %'s themselves don't mean much. You were talking about Rose's % going down after the first year or two and thats expected sinced his 3 point attempts went way up, and his points per shot went slightly up.


----------



## garnett

thebizkit69u said:


> Is Gasol that much of an upgrade over Boozer?
> 
> I like Gasol but at best I see it as a slight upgrade, not a major one.


Dd you not watch the Heat game? Boozer is useless against good teams and at least Gasol has some moves down low which he can actually use because he's 7 foot. Boozer can't do anything under the rim without being blocked.


----------



## King Joseus

Gasol has been good in the playoffs and shrunk in the playoffs, same as Boozer. The size would be helpful, certainly. I don't think a move where we get Gasol happens, though.


----------



## garnett

King Joseus said:


> Gasol has been good in the playoffs and shrunk in the playoffs, same as Boozer. The size would be helpful, certainly. I don't think a move where we get Gasol happens, though.


I don't see it happening either but to say it wouldn't be much of an upgrade is silly. A move to get him would put us over the top because we would finally have an inside-outside combo. 

Pretty pointless to talk about it though because it's not going to happen.


----------



## thebizkit69u

garnett said:


> I don't see it happening either but to say it wouldn't be much of an upgrade is silly. A move to get him would put us over the top because we would finally have an inside-outside combo.
> 
> Pretty pointless to talk about it though because it's not going to happen.


I said its a slight upgrade, honestly the numbers are very similar and both have the soft label attached. I like what Gasol brings in the skills department and has flourished playing in Phil Jackson's offense but is he worth giving up a lot, to get?


----------



## Rhyder

Hoodey said:


> Well you're thinking like a Bulls fan. Bulls fans think of everyone from Andrew Bynum to Taj Gibson as part of one all-encompassing group called "bigs."


Are you a Bulls fan? If you are, you realize you are insulting yourself everytime you lump ALL Bulls fans together. If you are not, it appears that all you are trying to do is get a rise out of people.

Your sense of "I am the only one who is right, and everyone else is some sort of lemming" is ridiculous.




Hoodey said:


> *Boozer career regular season - 17.2 PPG 10.0 RPG 2.4 APG 1.0 SPG 0.5 BPG 53.6% FG 72.5% FT*
> Pretty nice right? Wow. What a guy. 17.2 and 10.0. I mean 0.5 BPG is god awful for a "big", but if Elton Brand taught us one thing about Bulls fans it's that 17.2 and 10.0 makes you a god for the ages lol.
> 
> What happens to Boozer in the playoffs though?
> 
> *Boozer career playoffs - 18.2 PPG 11.8 RPG 2.5 APG 0.8 SPG 0.4 BPG 48.9% FG 72.7% FT*
> 
> Boozer has very few games playing late in the playoffs like Gasol, so the stats stay pretty similar. But the 48.9% FG is a big dropoff. It just shows you that Carlos Boozer is a regular season player, period. He's not going to excel in the physical half court grind of the playoffs.
> 
> Now Gasol.
> 
> *Pau Gasol career regular season - 18.7 PPG 9.1 RPG 3.2 APG 0.5 SPG 1.7 BPG 52.2% FG 75.1% FT*
> 
> Notice that BPG number. Gasol more than triples Boozer in BPG. Gasol alters shots and is a much better man defender than Boozer for one.
> 
> But what about the playoff difference.
> 
> *Pau Gasol career playoffs - 17.9 PPG 9.6 RPG 3.3 APG 0.7 SPG 1.8 BPG 52.7% FG 73.7% FT*
> 
> Also the same player. He's played against better competition, but notice that FG%. It goes UP. He responds better in the halfcourt. Pau Gasol is a playoff guy. Not last year, when he had a playoff that was an abberation (sp).
> 
> Gasol is not going to get pushed around by Udonis Haslem and Joel Anthony and he's not going to allow his defender to play a step toward Derrick Rose.
> 
> He's a huge upgrade in the playoffs.


You say that Gasol responds better in the playoffs than the regular season. It's 0.5% on much fewer attempts. That's 1 more make every 200 shots. That's negligable.

Similarly, he is only 3.9% better than Boozer in the playoffs. That's 1 more basket every 25 shots, probably a couple of baskets better efficiency wise in a series.

Offensively, they are pretty similar. Rebounding, Boozer has the edge. While not a stellar defender, Pau has a clear edge over Boozer here.

Overall, I feel that Pau is a definite upgrade over Boozer, just not on the offensive end.


----------



## Hoodey

DunkMaster said:


> So you aren't considering the fact that Boozer played for a much lower seed than Gasol on average. I'm not a big defender of the Booz Cruze, but you're defense is WEAK. What do you think their %'s would be if they switched spots?? Besides that, considering all else equal, you take field goal % way too seriously. 48% vs 53% has so many other factors that the %'s themselves don't mean much. You were talking about Rose's % going down after the first year or two and thats expected sinced his 3 point attempts went way up, and his points per shot went slightly up.


I don't take playoff FG% too seriously at all. It's huge. In the playoffs games and series turn into halfcourt slugfests where the margin for error can be as little as one shot. How many series have been turned on a victory where one made or missed shot was the difference, and instead of a team leading 3-1 and winning a series, they were 2-2 and lost? You really can't minimize a 5% drop in the playoffs. Besides, as has been chronicled, Boozer's FG% looks like this:

Regular season career - 53.6
Playoff career - 48.9
Career FG% in games v. eventual NBA Finals teams - 44.4%
FG% v. Miami in the 2011 ECF - 40.6%

So is a drop of say 9.2% bad? How big of a drop do we need to be talking about before it is really, really bad? How about the 13.0% drop from his career regular season FG% to his series v. the Heat?

Your argument that 5% is inconsequential, no offense, is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard regarding NBA basketball. There's no way you could have actually critically watched NBA Finals basketball, or even hotly contested Conference Finals basketball and come to the conclusion that "5% doesn't matter." 

5% is a huge deal. Wanna go back and watch the 93 Eastern Conference Finals, particularly game 5 and tell me that 5 whole percentage points by a guy who shoots 12 shots a game isn't a huge deal?

*Your "But Gasol plays on a higher seed" argument*

Boozer's career FG% v. eventual Finals teams is 44.4%. Let's check out Gasol's FG% against the best teams he's faced in the playoffs.

Gasol against eventual NBA CHAMPIONS & runners up

2008 v. Boston Celtics
Game 1: 6-11 54.5%
Game 2: 8-12 66.7%
Game 3: 3-9 33.3%
Game 4: 6-13 46.2%
Game 5: 6-10 60.0%
Game 6: 4-7 57.1%
*Series FG%: 33-62, 53.2%*

2009 v. Orlando Magic 
Game 1: 7-12 58.3%
Game 2: 7-14 50.0%
Game 3: 9-11 81.8%
Game 4: 7-14 50.0%
Game 5: 6-9 66.7%
*Series FG%: 36-60, 60.0%*

2010 v. Boston Celtics
Game 1: 8-14 57.1%
Game 2: 7-10 70.0%
Game 3: 5-11 45.5%
Game 4: 6-13 46.2%
Game 5: 5-12 41.7%
Game 6: 6-14 42.9%
Game 7: 6-16 37.5%
*Series FG%: 43-90, 47.7%*

2011 v. Dallas Mavericks
Game 1: 5-10 50.0%
Game 2: 5-12 41.7%
Game 3: 5-13 38.5%
Game 4: 4-10 40.0%
Series FG%: 19-45, 42.2%

Career totals v. eventual NBA Finals teams: 131-257, 50.9%

So the real split here is 44.4% v. 50.9% against the very best. Mind you, 3 of Boozer's 4 series where he played eventual finalists were with Gasol guarding him. Where Gasol stays at 50.9% against the very best, Boozer is awful at 44.4%, which isn't even good for a 6'6" guard.

Bulls fans are easily atop the list of "playoff dumb" fan bases in terms of historically significant NBA teams.


----------



## Rhyder

Hoodey said:


> Bulls fans are easily atop the list of "playoff dumb" fan bases in terms of historically significant NBA teams.


So we do have a troll. I bet he likes to be poked.


----------



## Hoodey

Rhyder said:


> Are you a Bulls fan? If you are, you realize you are insulting yourself everytime you lump ALL Bulls fans together. If you are not, it appears that all you are trying to do is get a rise out of people.
> 
> Your sense of "I am the only one who is right, and everyone else is some sort of lemming" is ridiculous.


I am a huge Bulls fan, but not a fan of the Paxson administration whatsoever. Just because I like the team doesn't mean I think other Bulls fans are very smart. By and large you'll find that a Celtics or long-time, non-bandwagon Laker fan is much smarter about winning playoff basketball. This is for two reasons.

1) Jordan was the rare guard who could dominate the paint. Even Magic or Kobe had to rely on older Kareem or Pau Gasol. Jordan did it with Bill Cartwright. This has made Bulls fans think that you can do it without having a frontcourt that not only keeps from having problems posed to them by the opposition, but actually causes mismatches. "Hey Jordan did it, so if we have a great guard like Rose, we can do it too." This is just not the case. There are frontcourt dominant teams where both players are very good like Chandler/Dirk or Wallace/Wallace or committee teams with 3 or more hall of famers (89, 90 Pistons and 08 Celtics). 

But in a setup around a superstar guard, you find out that Jordan was really one of a kind. Even Kobe had to toss the ball down to Shaq or Gasol when the Lakers needed to go tit for tat late in the playoffs. Magic couldn't take Bill Cartwright and win a bunch of rings. 

2) A combination of a Cubs fan "hey, competitive is good enough, let's just get in the playoffs where 'anything can happen'" mentality + the extreme anger that the Krause, post-Jordan 99-04 Bulls created. This anger made mere competitiveness something that fans like jnrjr could justify as "great." 

The fact that I don't buy into either belief system, and therefore don't view Deng like he's Scottie Pippen or Joakim Noah like he's Bill Laimbeer probably results in a belief system that you see as a slap in the face. 

I'll give you an example of a belief system by Mully and Hanley today where I just diverge completely. One of them today said that you can't trade for Howard if you include Deng because Howard might leave and now you've just lost Luol Deng for nothing. Uh, Luol Deng is a guy who averages what like 15.9 PPG, 7.7 RPG and around 3.0 APG on 43.0% FG. He's not even a passing SF lol. That 43% makes the 15.9 PPG remarkably not special, especially when you consider Rose creates open shots, Deng is a jumpshooter and not a driver and we could probably get a player in the style of Bruce Bowen to spot up and take open shots. So what is the "hype" over? 7.7 RPG? 

That's why you'd be afraid if Howard walked away and you had to "gasp" build anew around Derrick freaking Rose, the youngest MVP ever? In that scenario you could amnesty Boozer, and if Noah was included in the trade with Deng you'd have like 30+ mill in cap space to rebuild the team around Rose. 

But we can't do that because people in this town view Deng as some kind of precious all star Dalai Pippen figure. It's really sad to watch. 

Now, does THAT mean I won't root for the Bulls? No. I always want them to win. But there is just a drastic disconnect between Bulls fans and myself. Was there always? No. But the more I actually got to know Championship teams the less I was really impressed by Luol freaking Deng my man. 



> You say that Gasol responds better in the playoffs than the regular season. It's 0.5% on much fewer attempts. That's 1 more make every 200 shots. That's negligable.


But Boozer drops from 53.6% to 44.4% against the best playoff teams. Gasol drops as well, but only to 50.9%. That's not negligable. See, there you go being a typical Bulls fan who ignores the realities of how playoff basketball is drastically different from games v. the freaking Milwaukee Bucks in January. You live in this imaginery world where Boozer can pause a game where he is getting killed by the Heat and say "timeout! I'd like to insert 3 minutes of 'Bucks game'" right here. When you're playing the Heat you can't bring your big bad achievements v. the Wizards to the arena with you. NOBODY CARES. Even Dan Bernstein has been going on this rant lately. 

Gasol has thorougly dominated two NBA Finals in a Pippenesque role. Boozer turns into a frog in the playoffs. That you don't get this, and further that you are talking as if you're on the knowledgeable side is suspect. 

It's not 52.2 (Gasol regular season) v. 52.7% (Gasol playoffs). The difference in the two is actually 50.9% (Gasol v. the very best teams he's played in the playoffs) v. 44.4% (Boozer shrinking and becoming a nobody when he's guarded by either GASOL or Udonis Haslem/Chris Bosh). That's 6.5%. That's huge in the PLAYOFF style of basketball. 



> Similarly, he is only 3.9% better than Boozer in the playoffs. That's 1 more basket every 25 shots, probably a couple of baskets better efficiency wise in a series.


Take out the first round and the second round against teams that don't matter and now you're at 44.4% v. 50.9%. That's more than a couple of buckets in a series.

At the end of the day, Boozer shot 40.6% against the Heat and Gasol has shot 60.0% in a Finals where his team became NBA champs. 



> Offensively, they are pretty similar. Rebounding, Boozer has the edge. While not a stellar defender, Pau has a clear edge over Boozer here.
> 
> Overall, I feel that Pau is a definite upgrade over Boozer, just not on the offensive end.


Again you want to know why I talk about Bulls fans. I'm able to say "okay Boozer is good in the regular season and dies as the playoffs go on on offense." Gasol is similarly good in the regular season and then v. the Magic and Celtics in 2010 he's just killing the opposition.

To you it's all the same. Boozer "just ran into some tough luck but could easily 'get hot'" v. the Heat if he had six more games. To me it's not an accident and they're not similar.

One of them is made for the first 90-96 games of the year. The other is pretty similar in those games and then just diverges completely as he is made for games 91-110...


----------



## Hoodey

Rhyder said:


> So we do have a troll. I bet he likes to be poked.


Not really. I'm not saying any of these things purely to get a rise out of you. They're true. Bulls fans by-and-large are very ignorant of the differences between the regular season and early playoffs and the later, more competitive, more halfcourt oriented playoffs. This would be similar to fans of Nash's Suns. They still think that they never made it anywhere because of "a few bad breaks."

I'm saying the things I'm saying because they're true. 

But I'm not really concerned with how morally just you find my internet message board personna to be. I'm here to talk hoops. If you're here to have friends I feel for you. Just keep it to hoops. I have no desire to be the moral all-star of this board. 

You can't honestly tell me that Bulls fans aren't extremely playoff dumb.


----------



## thebizkit69u

Hoodey said:


> I am a huge Bulls fan, but not a fan of the Paxson administration whatsoever. Just because I like the team doesn't mean I think other Bulls fans are very smart. By and large you'll find that a Celtics or long-time, non-bandwagon Laker fan is much smarter about winning playoff basketball. This is for two reasons.


**** You give guys like me a bad name, I'm not a fan of the Paxon administration and while most Bulls fans on here are optimistic to a fault, I don't consider them dumb, just naive. You have no evidence to even back up such a dumb statement, the idea that Boston and Lakers fan's are smarter just because YOU think they understand the value of a big man is lame.



> 1) Jordan was the rare guard who could dominate the paint. Even Magic or Kobe had to rely on older Kareem or Pau Gasol. Jordan did it with Bill Cartwright. This has made Bulls fans think that you can do it without having a frontcourt that not only keeps from having problems posed to them by the opposition, but actually causes mismatches. "Hey Jordan did it, so if we have a great guard like Rose, we can do it too." This is just not the case. There are frontcourt dominant teams where both players are very good like Chandler/Dirk or Wallace/Wallace or committee teams with 3 or more hall of famers (89, 90 Pistons and 08 Celtics).


Who in their right mind thinks that Rose's name can be uttered in the same breath as Jordan's? 

If your point is that we won't win a title without a good to great big man then I tend to agree, but if you think for one second that the missing piece to this title is Pau Gasol at the expense of trading 3 front court players, well thats just crazy talk.



> But in a setup around a superstar guard, you find out that Jordan was really one of a kind. Even Kobe had to toss the ball down to Shaq or Gasol when the Lakers needed to go tit for tat late in the playoffs. Magic couldn't take Bill Cartwright and win a bunch of rings.


Duh. 



> 2) A combination of a Cubs fan "hey, competitive is good enough, let's just get in the playoffs where 'anything can happen'" mentality + the extreme anger that the Krause, post-Jordan 99-04 Bulls created. This anger made mere competitiveness something that fans like jnrjr could justify as "great."
> 
> The fact that I don't buy into either belief system, and therefore don't view Deng like he's Scottie Pippen or Joakim Noah like he's Bill Laimbeer probably results in a belief system that you see as a slap in the face.


Your problem is that you are lumping a section of fandom with the rest, there are PLENTY of Bulls fan's who don't feel like competitive is good enough, heck Rose and Thibs don't just wan't to be competitive either, they want to win a freaking NBA title! 

My fear is not that our fan's will settle for good enough, my fear is that management is contempt with "Good enough". 

Also, the Cubs comparison might have worked a few years ago but the growing expectations, bringing in Theo and the collective WEVE HAD ENOUGH fanbase is quickly pushing out the old CUBBIE!!! fan's. 



> I'll give you an example of a belief system by Mully and Hanley today where I just diverge completely. One of them today said that you can't trade for Howard if you include Deng because Howard might leave and now you've just lost Luol Deng for nothing. Uh, Luol Deng is a guy who averages what like 15.9 PPG, 7.7 RPG and around 3.0 APG on 43.0% FG. He's not even a passing SF lol. That 43% makes the 15.9 PPG remarkably not special, especially when you consider Rose creates open shots, Deng is a jumpshooter and not a driver and we could probably get a player in the style of Bruce Bowen to spot up and take open shots. So what is the "hype" over? 7.7 RPG?


So let me get this straight, one opinion on a hypothetical trade, makes it ok to come to the conclusion that ALL BULLS FANS feel this way?



> That's why you'd be afraid if Howard walked away and you had to "gasp" build anew around Derrick freaking Rose, the youngest MVP ever? In that scenario you could amnesty Boozer, and if Noah was included in the trade with Deng you'd have like 30+ mill in cap space to rebuild the team around Rose.


If the Worst outcome of a Howard trade is winning one title, losing him via FA or trade and losing Noah, Boozer and gaining a huge amount of cap space... I'm cool with that. 



> But we can't do that because people in this town view Deng as some kind of precious all star Dalai Pippen figure. It's really sad to watch.


Again, you are just buying into this idea that all of Chicago would go nuts if they lost Deng in a Howard trade.



> Gasol has thorougly dominated two NBA Finals in a Pippenesque role. Boozer turns into a frog in the playoffs. That you don't get this, and further that you are talking as if you're on the knowledgeable side is suspect.


I'm still not trading 3 bigs for Gasol, Howard yes but not Gasol. He is just not SIGNIFICANTLY better than Boozer, better yes but I'm looking for a complete no doubt in your face improvement. OBVIOUSLY Boozer for Gasol straight up is a huge upgrade but I'm taking into consideration how much it would actually take to get Gasol.




> You can't honestly tell me that Bulls fans aren't extremely playoff dumb.


Some are, but not all and you need to make that clear.


----------



## Hoodey

thebizkit69u said:


> You give guys like me a bad name, I'm not a fan of the Paxon administration and while most Bulls fans on here are optimistic to a fault, I don't consider them dumb, just naive. You have no evidence to even back up such a dumb statement, the idea that Boston and Lakers fan's are smarter just because YOU think they understand the value of a big man is lame.


But they do. I don't think they do. They do. I was talking to a bunch of them when Perkins went down in 2010 and they fully understood that it wasn't that Perkins was any good compared to guys like Russell, Cowens or Parrish. They knew that he was able to keep Bynum from clogging the paint on both ends, and they knew that without Perkins, Boston would have to pick their poison between Bynum and Gasol.

Contrast this with Bulls fans. Mully and Hanley actually said that the Bulls have had an advantage v. Miami at center. Noah shot like 35% v. Joel Anthony in the ECF last year. Why does he give them an advantage? The Heat aren't trying to score at center because they understand that you don't need every guy to be a scorer. They're just trying to bully you at the position and that's exactly what Anthony did to Noah. 

Chicago Bulls fans don't understand the frontcourt like other fan bases. They think you can put a bunch of guys with good YMCA games together and if nobody can get their own offense and the starting frontcourt shoots 37% in the ECF, then that must have just been "bad luck." 

I'm allegedly an idiot but you think that a guy who played a Scottie Pippen role on two title teams, who shut Boozer down in three series and who is in the top 30 in career PER EVER is only a minor upgrade over Carlos Boozer. THAT opinion is crystal clear evidence that Bulls fans just don't get it when it comes to C and PF. 



> Who in their right mind thinks that Rose's name can be uttered in the same breath as Jordan's?
> 
> If your point is that we won't win a title without a good to great big man then I tend to agree, but if you think for one second that the missing piece to this title is Pau Gasol at the expense of trading 3 front court players, well thats just crazy talk.


Why is that crazy talk? Rose is no Jordan but it would be a stretch to say that Rose in his prime is not as good as Kobe Bryant was in 09 when he was Batman and Pau Gasol was Robin. 

You're kind of talking like 09 and 2010 never happened and like Pau Gasol is Rik Smits; you understand that right?

If Gasol and his excellent post SKILL (he's probably one of the most skilled players his size since Kevin McHale and Hakeem Olajuwon in terms of post moves) is on this team, now you can't play team defense on Derrick Rose. If Rose has defenders creeping to him and Gasol rotates over he's gonna be able to swing under the basket and catch the ball in the LOW post with his defender sealed. If you've ever WATCHED Gasol, when this happens it's over. 

So now Miami can't even guard Rose like they did in the ECF. 

Additionally, Joel Anthony isn't going to muscle Pau Gasol, who is an inch taller and 20 lbs. heavier than Joakim Noah. What this means is that Miami would have a choice. Allow Rose to have easy driving lanes to the basket all day OR collapse with perimeter defenders which will allow Rose to dish to Hamilton and Brewer wide open all day. Hamilton and Brewer wide open are way better than Joakim Noah going back up with a rebound where Anthony has pushed him to 6 feet out or Luol Deng with a hand in his face. 

Players like Pau Gasol make everybody better because of how they space the floor. Now, you just couldn't space the floor against Dallas last year, thus the terrible series. 



> Duh.


You say duh like I haven't heard this from Bulls fans a million times. "Hey, you don't need a center, Jordan won without one." This implies that if you get a superstar guard that you can do the same thing and win without Cartwright. Where this line of thinking falls short is that it fails to account for how decisively and clearly better Jordan was than EVEN other superstar guards. 




> Your problem is that you are lumping a section of fandom with the rest, there are PLENTY of Bulls fan's who don't feel like competitive is good enough, heck Rose and Thibs don't just wan't to be competitive either, they want to win a freaking NBA title!
> 
> My fear is not that our fan's will settle for good enough, my fear is that management is contempt with "Good enough".
> 
> Also, the Cubs comparison might have worked a few years ago but the growing expectations, bringing in Theo and the collective WEVE HAD ENOUGH fanbase is quickly pushing out the old CUBBIE!!! fan's.


Okay well why don't you try seeing where I'm coming from before you just jump the gun. 

I'd even call losing decisively in the ECF being merely "competitive." A true contender has to be able to take their ECF foe, especially one who loses in the Finals, deep into the series. 

There's this assumption that "well, ECF losers at X age means that if you just extrapolate that out two years later, obviously they'll win a ring." 

Not all young teams who get to X point will go farther. Some, like the 89 Bulls, have immense untapped talent that they can convert into greater results. Other teams like the young Cavs of the early 90s are mostly peaked. Luol Deng isn't missing some fundamental skill that's going to make him as much better as Pippen got between 88 and 90. He can't drive because he doesn't have great footspeed. 

Joakim Noah isn't some ridiculous athlete who is just going to add a go to move and tap his Tyson Chandler-esque hops. He's got a rail-thin shoulder structure and he's more raw in terms of go to offensive moves than Anthony Bonner.

When I say merely competitive, I mean that they'll say "hey wow, we were in the ECF!" We could be in a few more but never really have a chance to win and no one will ask "what personnel changes do we need to make to do what we couldn't do last year." 

This Deng/Noah/Boozer deal is pretty peaked out. This isn't 1988 Pippen and Grant here. 



> So let me get this straight, one opinion on a hypothetical trade, makes it ok to come to the conclusion that ALL BULLS FANS feel this way?


I gave an example. I've heard a million. 



> If the Worst outcome of a Howard trade is winning one title, losing him via FA or trade and losing Noah, Boozer and gaining a huge amount of cap space... I'm cool with that.


I am too. Ask around. We're in the minority my man. 



> Again, you are just buying into this idea that all of Chicago would go nuts if they lost Deng in a Howard trade.


Start a poll and if everyone is cool with losing Deng along with Noah in a trade for Howard, even if we lost Howard, I'd be highly surprised and I'd definitely listen to those who were okay with that. I'm okay with that lol..



> I'm still not trading 3 bigs for Gasol, Howard yes but not Gasol. He is just not SIGNIFICANTLY better than Boozer, better yes but I'm looking for a complete no doubt in your face improvement. OBVIOUSLY Boozer for Gasol straight up is a huge upgrade but I'm taking into consideration how much it would actually take to get Gasol.


Wait, did I say I'd trade 3 PF/Cs for him? I thought I was for Noah and Deng going in the deal. I didn't think I said I'd trade our whole frontcourt. But I'll refresh my memory. 

But it would depend. If Rasheed Wallace was ready to play and was willing to sign, and if we could sign another role player who would give us a decent game as a backup, I might consider it. It would depend on what we could do. 



> Some are, but not all and you need to make that clear.


I've rarely seen Bulls fans sing the tune that Bernstein is now singing. Most think that we don't need to get greatly better in the frontcourt to beat Miami.


----------



## thebizkit69u

Hoodey said:


> But they do. I don't think they do. They do. I was talking to a bunch of them when Perkins went down in 2010 and they fully understood that it wasn't that Perkins was any good compared to guys like Russell, Cowens or Parrish. They knew that he was able to keep Bynum from clogging the paint on both ends, and they knew that without Perkins, Boston would have to pick their poison between Bynum and Gasol.


By that thinking you might as well say that the Lakers and Boston organization doesn't value big men, so does that make the Lakers and Boston's front office dumb? Why not just let the fan's run those organizations then. The Lakers where willing to get rid of size for a PG and Boston got rid of their big for a skilled 4. 



> Contrast this with Bulls fans. Mully and Hanley actually said that the Bulls have had an advantage v. Miami at center. Noah shot like 35% v. Joel Anthony in the ECF last year. Why does he give them an advantage? The Heat aren't trying to score at center because they understand that you don't need every guy to be a scorer. They're just trying to bully you at the position and that's exactly what Anthony did to Noah.


Then you have an issue with Mully and Hanley. 



> Chicago Bulls fans don't understand the frontcourt like other fan bases. They think you can put a bunch of guys with good YMCA games together and if nobody can get their own offense and the starting frontcourt shoots 37% in the ECF, then that must have just been "bad luck."


Who the hell feels this way lol. Ive been saying for years that we should upgrade the 5, and I know I wasn't the only one. The truth is every franchise and their fan bases yearn for a true 5, the fact is the NBA is very weak at 5 now. 




> Why is that crazy talk? Rose is no Jordan but it would be a stretch to say that Rose in his prime is not as good as Kobe Bryant was in 09 when he was Batman and Pau Gasol was Robin.


For one, Rose is a 6'3 PG, Kobe is 6'7+ and is one of the greatest scorers of all time. Depending on what you give up, Rose and Pau is not enough to win a title, heck Kobe, Pau and Bynun together NOW aren't even considered title contenders. 



> You're kind of talking like 09 and 2010 never happened and like Pau Gasol is Rik Smits; you understand that right?
> 
> If Gasol and his excellent post SKILL (he's probably one of the most skilled players his size since Kevin McHale and Hakeem Olajuwon in terms of post moves) is on this team, now you can't play team defense on Derrick Rose. If Rose has defenders creeping to him and Gasol rotates over he's gonna be able to swing under the basket and catch the ball in the LOW post with his defender sealed. If you've ever WATCHED Gasol, when this happens it's over.
> 
> So now Miami can't even guard Rose like they did in the ECF.
> 
> Additionally, Joel Anthony isn't going to muscle Pau Gasol, who is an inch taller and 20 lbs. heavier than Joakim Noah. What this means is that Miami would have a choice. Allow Rose to have easy driving lanes to the basket all day OR collapse with perimeter defenders which will allow Rose to dish to Hamilton and Brewer wide open all day. Hamilton and Brewer wide open are way better than Joakim Noah going back up with a rebound where Anthony has pushed him to 6 feet out or Luol Deng with a hand in his face.


I value Pau's skills 100% and I AGREE that Pau puts us over the top, BUT NOT at the cost of trading away our starting front court! You lose Boozer, Deng and Noah, Pau doesn't make up for it alone. You lose too much offense, if we can get Pau for Boozer and filler then I'm all for it. 



> Players like Pau Gasol make everybody better because of how they space the floor. Now, you just couldn't space the floor against Dallas last year, thus the terrible series.


Yet, the Lakers could not wait to get rid of him for a 6'2 PG. 



> You say duh like I haven't heard this from Bulls fans a million times. "Hey, you don't need a center, Jordan won without one." This implies that if you get a superstar guard that you can do the same thing and win without Cartwright. Where this line of thinking falls short is that it fails to account for how decisively and clearly better Jordan was than EVEN other superstar guards.


While I'm not a huge Noah fan, the idea that the Bulls DON'T have a legit 5 is incorrect. Noah is a HIGHLY flawed player, a HORRENDOUS offensive player but that being said hes still better than half of the centers in the NBA. This is not the 90's, Dwight Howard is by far the most dominant big man in the NBA, mostly because hes got no challengers. If Miami din't exist the Bulls would be the title favorites, even with NOAH. Requiring a great center isn't a must to beat Miami... Bringing in another GREAT PLAYER PERIOD is a MUST. 



> This Deng/Noah/Boozer deal is pretty peaked out. This isn't 1988 Pippen and Grant here.


Yeah it is, which is why I'm all for getting Howard. There are TON'S of Bulls fan's who feel the same way. 



> I gave an example. I've heard a million.


Quit talking to the same people.



> Start a poll and if everyone is cool with losing Deng along with Noah in a trade for Howard, even if we lost Howard, I'd be highly surprised and I'd definitely listen to those who were okay with that. I'm okay with that lol..


I would say polling people on this board is not a true measuring stick since the most vocal on here are die hard uber optimistic Bulls fan's who slam the pessimistic kind, most of them moderators so the majority of the so called pessimistic fan keep quiet, at least on here. 



> Wait, did I say I'd trade 3 PF/Cs for him? I thought I was for Noah and Deng going in the deal. I didn't think I said I'd trade our whole frontcourt. But I'll refresh my memory.


I'm under the impression that the Lakers will ask for a lot for Pau. I'm not going to give up both Deng and Noah for an aging Pau, mostly because we need Deng to play some defense on Lebron.. any other year I would gladly send Deng packing for Pau. 



> I've rarely seen Bulls fans sing the tune that Bernstein is now singing. Most think that we don't need to get greatly better in the frontcourt to beat Miami.


I listen to B&B everyday, I don't ever recall Bernstein saying we need to improve the front court to beat Miami. What he DID say was we needed another great player, not one specific position. Trading the farm away for Dwight Howard is a completely different animal from trading for Pau Gasol.


----------



## mvP to the Wee

Don't know if this was mentioned, but if Orlando really wants to just blow it up and not take back Deng, then:

Howard, Duhon, Turkoglu for Noah, Asik, Watson, Brewer, Korver, and a shit ton of draft picks. They get Noah and Asik basically and fully non guaranteed deals.

Bulls:

PG-Rose/Duhon/Lolucas
SG-Hamilton/Butler/Hoodey
SF-Deng/Turkoglu/Hoodey
PF-Boozer/Gibson/Scalabrine
C-Howard/Gibson/Hoodey


----------



## Hoodey

mvP to the Wee said:


> Don't know if this was mentioned, but if Orlando really wants to just blow it up and not take back Deng, then:
> 
> Howard, Duhon, Turkoglu for Noah, Asik, Watson, Brewer, Korver, and a shit ton of draft picks. They get Noah and Asik basically and fully non guaranteed deals.
> 
> Bulls:
> 
> PG-Rose/Duhon/Lolucas
> SG-Hamilton/Butler/Hoodey
> SF-Deng/Turkoglu/Hoodey
> PF-Boozer/Gibson/Scalabrine
> C-Howard/Gibson/Hoodey


Honestly I can't see why you'd want Luol Deng in this deal if you're Orlando. Like you seem to be implying, the Magic would be smart to get a bunch of picks, role players and cap freedom from guys like Turkoglu. That way they can suck for a couple or few years, so their own picks will be high and then they can have trade assets (our picks) and fall back on selling Orlando as a free agent destination to superstars in the 2015-2018 time period (once they've grown their own draft picks).

The smart thing to do would be to get not only say 3 picks from us in 2013, 2015 and 2017, but also another two first rounders after Rose has grown older by say.. demanding picks in 2022 and 2024 in addition...

Considering Howard's very public desire to leave Orlando this summer, I like your deal for both sides. The one player I'd really want to keep if we could throw something else in though is Ronnie Brewer. I think he's going to turn into a much better player over the next 2-3 years.


----------



## Firefight

mvP to the Wee said:


> Don't know if this was mentioned, but if Orlando really wants to just blow it up and not take back Deng, then:
> 
> Howard, Duhon, Turkoglu for Noah, Asik, Watson, Brewer, Korver, and a shit ton of draft picks. They get Noah and Asik basically and fully non guaranteed deals.
> 
> Bulls:
> 
> PG-Rose/Duhon/Lolucas
> SG-Hamilton/Butler/Hoodey
> SF-Deng/Turkoglu/Hoodey
> PF-Boozer/Gibson/Scalabrine
> C-Howard/Gibson/Hoodey


I'd love it if we could keep Deng. Not because I think he is the next Pippen, but his value is higher to this team than to another team. With that said, if Orlando agrees to take Noah/Asik/Brewer OR Korver... I can't see them taking it unless Gibson is involved. I would offer Gibson OR Asik/Noah/Brewer OR Korver and the picks including Charlottes...


----------



## thebizkit69u

If I'm orlando I don't wan't a contract like Deng's back in a trade, sure hes a solid player but his role on a rebuilding team is not worth what he makes. Deng would be a disaster for Orlando minus Howard, Deng is not a #1 scorer, he would struggle to score without Rose or heck ANYONE on that Orlando squad, fan's would turn against him etc. Not a good situation for both Deng and Orlando.


----------



## Firefight

thebizkit69u said:


> If I'm orlando I don't wan't a contract like Deng's back in a trade, sure hes a solid player but his role on a rebuilding team is not worth what he makes. Deng would be a disaster for Orlando minus Howard, Deng is not a #1 scorer, he would struggle to score without Rose or heck ANYONE on that Orlando squad, fan's would turn against him etc. Not a good situation for both Deng and Orlando.


I agree. Orlando is going to want 2 of 3 things. Cap relief. A significant player in return. Draft picks.

Out of those 3, the Bulls can't deliver solid on any one of the three...but can help a little in each. Giving Noah and Gibson (along with other role players) is a nice start in player return. Noah, even with his offensive limitations, is a top center in the league. Not giving to much credit to Noah, but rather pointing out the lack of centers in the NBA. Gibson has a favorable contract and is the best young piece the Bulls have to offer. 
The Bulls would be able to absorb Hedu's contract, although Orlando would also be taking on Noahs...
The Bulls have 1st round picks to offer, but all of their picks will be low 1st rounders. The only valuable pick they have is the Bobcats pick...which will be very high, but not until down the road.

Looking at the other teams that are in the mix, I believe the Bulls have as much to offer as anyone. The Lakers have the best players to offer in Bynum/Gasol, but I doubt they give both players. Do the Magic trade for Bynum and not much else? Maybe.
The Nets would center the trade around Lopez, who is also a nice young center, and could also throw in draft picks. Cap relief can also be offered by the Nets.
I still think Otis is going to do everything possible to keep Dwight, but eventually, his hand will be forced. I wouldn't be surprised to see Dwight expand his "list" down the road. He will eventually be able to force the Magic's hand on where he goes. No team will take the gamble of trading for Dwight without a long term contract in place.


----------



## R-Star

Dwight Howard doesn't want to go to the Bulls. Why is there 85 posts?


----------



## DaBabyBullz

mvP to the Wee said:


> Don't know if this was mentioned, but if Orlando really wants to just blow it up and not take back Deng, then:
> 
> Howard, Duhon, Turkoglu for Noah, Asik, Watson, Brewer, Korver, and a shit ton of draft picks. They get Noah and Asik basically and fully non guaranteed deals.
> 
> Bulls:
> 
> PG-Rose/Duhon/Lolucas
> SG-Hamilton/Butler/Hoodey
> SF-Deng/Turkoglu/Hoodey
> PF-Boozer/Gibson/Scalabrine
> C-Howard/Gibson/*Hoodey*


Nice touch.


----------



## thebizkit69u

I just don't see many options for Orlando. Its either Bynum and fillers, injured Lopez and space or Florida Boy Noah, Brewer, Mirotic and Draft picks... the wild card IMO is Golden State who is willing to trade either Ellis or Curry. 

If I'm the Bull's I'm not putting the whole farm up until another team out there does the same. Why the hell should we trade half our team when the Nets and Lakers are willing to build a trade around 1 player... Screw that, I would be like the Bulls have the best package to offer a rebuilding team. Noah is popular guy in Florida and a decent center, you get a huge ton of cap space at the end of the season to rebuild as you see fit without worrying about Bynum or Lopez health, you get the chance to groom Mirotic who has sky rocketed his stock in Europe and you get a potential lottery pick in Charlotte depending on how long you want to wait.

I don't think the Bulls should have to give more than any other team out there, we are a team close to title contention, if we need to give up half a damn team just to be blessed by Howard's presence then I say fk him. Play with the big boy's and be open to trading anyone not named Rose but don't trade half a team to get him, when we all know the Lakers or Nets aren't going to give up much to get him.


----------



## bullsger

I believe it when I see Howard as a Bulls playing with Rose. No second earlier.


----------



## Good Hope

bullsger said:


> I believe it when I see Howard as a Bulls playing with Rose. No second earlier.


Ich auch.


----------



## mvP to the Wee

R-Star said:


> Dwight Howard doesn't want to go to the Bulls. Why is there 85 posts?


Because we're sick of winning all the time and need something else to discuss


----------



## Hoodey

thebizkit69u said:


> By that thinking you might as well say that the Lakers and Boston organization doesn't value big men, so does that make the Lakers and Boston's front office dumb? Why not just let the fan's run those organizations then. The Lakers where willing to get rid of size for a PG and Boston got rid of their big for a skilled 4.


It's not "a PG." It's Chris Paul. Chris Paul is a guy who you can build around when Kobe departs. Pau Gasol and Andrew Bynum are fine with Kobe or a Derrick Rose. If Kobe falls off a ledge then Gasol and Bynum aren't going to do much without the presence of a guard. So the Lakers were likely thinking "why not?" You seem to be forgetting that LA has signed Shaq and had Kareem and Wilt demand lopsided trades, so it's not like they wouldn't be able to acquire another big time center.

As for Boston, trading Perkins for Green was very dumb and a lot of their fans aren't happy with it. But that doesn't change that the heritage in Boston has been very center-oriented over the course of 50+ years. 

I don't recall where I said that because Boston and Laker die-hards understand how you win in the playoffs regarding the type of frontcourt players you want - that means that those fans should launch a coup de tat against the organization? I guess that has me kind of confused. Maybe you could clarify?



> Then you have an issue with Mully and Hanley.


Who were talking the same fan boy nonsense that a lot of Bulls fans talk regarding Joakim Noah. Noah is a non-offensive threat at center. He's also not some kind of Tyson Chandler-esque athletic presense. Nor is he some ridiculous combo of size and athleticism who is going to control the paint with his sheer mass a la Bynum or Perkins. 



> Who the hell feels this way lol. Ive been saying for years that we should upgrade the 5, and I know I wasn't the only one. The truth is every franchise and their fan bases yearn for a true 5, the fact is the NBA is very weak at 5 now.


So you don't think that a lot of fans are fine with Noah at the 5? If you listen to talk radio or read posts on message boards, you'll see a lot of defense of Noah. 

As far as the cop out of "everyone wants a 5, but the NBA is weak at the 5." That's why you HAVE to have a good one. And by good I mean one who poses some serious problems for the opposition, whether it's a scorer (very rare), an athletic-defensive specimen like Chandler or a massive offensive line type like Bynum or Perkins. 

The fact is you look at the center or 6'11" 260 lb. "power forward" for title teams and it goes like this:

2011 - Chandler
2010, 09 - Bynum
2008 - Perkins
2007, 05, 03, 99 - Duncan
2006, 02, 01, 00 - Shaq
2004 - Wallace

Six centers, all of whom dictate terms to the opposition. Even if it's just "hey, I'm gonna go clog things up and make two guys body me so that Garnett or Gasol can roam free" like Bynum or Perkins - you better have a center who can dictate terms, or a 6'11" 260 lb. "power forward" like Duncan (if Boozer was 6'11" 260 there's no way he'd need to fade away so much). 

You referenced Boston's screw up in trading Perkins for Green. Why couldn't WE get Perkins? OKC showed it isn't impossible. So "well there aren't many centers." Okay, but the teams that win have them - or in some way dictate terms with their overall frontcourt. So you better make sure you get one of the few good ones or you're going to get stomped in the playoffs. 



> For one, Rose is a 6'3 PG, Kobe is 6'7+ and is one of the greatest scorers of all time. Depending on what you give up, Rose and Pau is not enough to win a title, heck Kobe, Pau and Bynun together NOW aren't even considered title contenders.


Well, I wasn't talking about the 2012 Lakers. The current Lakers have no depth, Derrick Fisher is OLD and Kobe isn't the player he was in 09 either. 

I also never said we should trade our whole frontcourt for Gasol. I think we have enough depth to trade for Gasol and keep enough depth to be deeper than LA is. LA has a good frontcourt, but I never said that that was all you need to do. You can't just "have a good frontcourt" and let the rest of your team rot. 



> I value Pau's skills 100% and I AGREE that Pau puts us over the top, BUT NOT at the cost of trading away our starting front court! You lose Boozer, Deng and Noah, Pau doesn't make up for it alone. You lose too much offense, if we can get Pau for Boozer and filler then I'm all for it.


I don't recall where I said that we should trade Boozer, Deng and Noah. I'd be okay trading Deng and Noah because I don't think you need a very good SF if you're handling biz in the frontcourt and backcourt. I'd be fine trading Deng, Noah, Watson and picks for Gasol and taking back Artest. I wouldn't throw Boozer in there. A front line rotate of Gasol, Asik, Gibson and Boozer would be fine with Brewer and Artest. LA would have the depth they need and Noah is a much different player playing next to Andrew Bynum. 



> the Lakers could not wait to get rid of him for a 6'2 PG.


You say this like you could be talking about Chris Paul, a great PG who may end up as a top 25 player ever at some point OR Jimmer Fredette.

The Lakers were ready to move in a new direction with full knowledge that they are the Lakers and therefore if a top center becomes a free agent and they have cap room, it's not going to be a very tough sell. As you can see they obviously had to kidnap Shaq at gun point in 1995.



> While I'm not a huge Noah fan, the idea that the Bulls DON'T have a legit 5 is incorrect. Noah is a HIGHLY flawed player, a HORRENDOUS offensive player but that being said hes still better than half of the centers in the NBA. This is not the 90's, Dwight Howard is by far the most dominant big man in the NBA, mostly because hes got no challengers. If Miami din't exist the Bulls would be the title favorites, even with NOAH. Requiring a great center isn't a must to beat Miami... Bringing in another GREAT PLAYER PERIOD is a MUST.


Why do you think I knock Noah? Because he doesn't have a great stat line? 

I think we view center differently. Of course Howard is the only generational center, but there are plenty of guys who affect the game and make opposing centers and frontcourts pay in a variety of ways. Bynum and Perkins do it by playing like NFL linemen. 

First, what relevance does "being better than half the centers in the NBA" have in the playoffs? Second, are you talking better in terms of statistical prowess? Because that's not what it's about at center. It's about a physical advantage as much as anything. Joel Anthony, by any empirical grading system, is awful. And yet he mugged Joakim Noah like they were in an alley. 

Noah's problem is that not only isn't he an offensive player (and equally importantly, not only is he not playing NEXT to a dominant offensive presence), he's also not a guy who is going to dictate terms to the more physical presence types of centers late in the playoffs. He's not going to force a physical advantage. If he couldn't score but he was 7'0" 280 and going around and mugging Anthony, things would be different. 

We don't need a gamer, or a pesky agitator or a guy who tries hard and hustles. We need a guy, deep in the playoffs, who is going to dictate terms to the opposition. Or did you think the Thunder acquired Perkins because they think he has tremendous skill and star potential?



> Yeah it is, which is why I'm all for getting Howard. There are TON'S of Bulls fan's who feel the same way.


And yet KC Johnson, most of the Bulls pregame, Mully and Hanley and a lot of their fan boy callers are saying "hey, I'm not gutting the team for Dwight." And by gutting the team they mean getting rid of Deng and Noah. I don't know where these two became so precious. They're "alright." That's about it. 



> Quit talking to the same people.


That's just it. Every time you're listening to sports radio in this town and think that Paxson fan boys can't get any dumber, some stammering fan boy calls up and says that Chicago will beat Miami this year because Deng has experience now (just heard that gem 15 minutes ago and Boers was just ridiculing the guy) or "let's trade for Bargnani." It's not the same people. It's most of the fan base. 



> I would say polling people on this board is not a true measuring stick since the most vocal on here are die hard uber optimistic Bulls fan's who slam the pessimistic kind, most of them moderators so the majority of the so called pessimistic fan keep quiet, at least on here.


Meh, I'd say just about anywhere there are a lot of Bulls fans, even if more and more are becoming realistic, you'll hear some of the dumbest things you've ever heard NBA fans say. 

Only Suns and Warrior fans are guaranteed to be more moronic whether it's a forum or listening to talk radio or even talking hoops at a buddies house. Oh and non-die hard Laker fans because most of them only check in when LA is on a ridiculous streak, so they have years of "dead time" in their NBA memory lol.



> I'm under the impression that the Lakers will ask for a lot for Pau. I'm not going to give up both Deng and Noah for an aging Pau, mostly because we need Deng to play some defense on Lebron.. any other year I would gladly send Deng packing for Pau.


Well Pau is 31, so I'm not sure where you got that he is aging. His PER is still 20.1... Deng's is 16.3 and has never been about 18.7.

Deng is a good defender, but I think a lot of that is team defense. It's not like you just man Deng up on Lebron and trust that he'll make it happen. The Bulls need to play good team defense and if they have Pau they'll have a second scoring option that will take Miami's team defense away from Rose. That's much more important than Deng's good yet overrated defense.




> I listen to B&B everyday, I don't ever recall Bernstein saying we need to improve the front court to beat Miami. What he DID say was we needed another great player, not one specific position. Trading the farm away for Dwight Howard is a completely different animal from trading for Pau Gasol.


You must not have been listening monday then. And if you're saying we need another great PLAYER but not a better frontcourt, what are you saying? We need to upgrade SG or SF?!


----------



## thebizkit69u

Hoodey said:


> As for Boston, trading Perkins for Green was very dumb and a lot of their fans aren't happy with it. But that doesn't change that the heritage in Boston has been very center-oriented over the course of 50+ years.


Who the hell was their center in the 90's and early 2000's when they absolutely sucked?! I find it laughable that you think modern day celtics fan's value a big man because of Parish, Russel and McHale. 



> I don't recall where I said that because Boston and Laker die-hards understand how you win in the playoffs regarding the type of frontcourt players you want - that means that those fans should launch a coup de tat against the organization? I guess that has me kind of confused. Maybe you could clarify?


I said by your thinking, then why not just let the fans run the organization, heck the Lakers and Celtics wanted to move into a different direction by getting rid of their big men. I just don't buy into this idea that these 2 fanbases are any smarter than anyother fan base in the NBA. LA especially is a laughable example, have you seen the type of people who makes up more than half of the people attending Lakers games?




> Who were talking the same fan boy nonsense that a lot of Bulls fans talk regarding Joakim Noah. Noah is a non-offensive threat at center. He's also not some kind of Tyson Chandler-esque athletic presense. Nor is he some ridiculous combo of size and athleticism who is going to control the paint with his sheer mass a la Bynum or Perkins.


I for one think hes a 4, he doesn't have the size or mindset of a big man but thats just my opinion. I would say that Noah fan's who view him as anything more than an energy/hustle guy are in the minority. 



> So you don't think that a lot of fans are fine with Noah at the 5? If you listen to talk radio or read posts on message boards, you'll see a lot of defense of Noah.
> 
> As far as the cop out of "everyone wants a 5, but the NBA is weak at the 5." That's why you HAVE to have a good one. And by good I mean one who poses some serious problems for the opposition, whether it's a scorer (very rare), an athletic-defensive specimen like Chandler or a massive offensive line type like Bynum or Perkins.


Thats a total of 3 centers lol, its not easy finding a good big man. For whatever reason, the 5 has gone the way of the great American Heavy Weight Boxer... VERY RARE.



> The fact is you look at the center or 6'11" 260 lb. "power forward" for title teams and it goes like this:
> 
> 2011 - Chandler
> 2010, 09 - Bynum
> 2008 - Perkins
> 2007, 05, 03, 99 - Duncan
> 2006, 02, 01, 00 - Shaq
> 2004 - Wallace
> 
> Six centers, all of whom dictate terms to the opposition. Even if it's just "hey, I'm gonna go clog things up and make two guys body me so that Garnett or Gasol can roam free" like Bynum or Perkins - you better have a center who can dictate terms, or a 6'11" 260 lb. "power forward" like Duncan (if Boozer was 6'11" 260 there's no way he'd need to fade away so much).
> 
> You referenced Boston's screw up in trading Perkins for Green. Why couldn't WE get Perkins? OKC showed it isn't impossible. So "well there aren't many centers." Okay, but the teams that win have them - or in some way dictate terms with their overall frontcourt. So you better make sure you get one of the few good ones or you're going to get stomped in the playoffs.


Everyone knows the value of a big man, give these fan's some credit lol. You aren't teaching us anything we don't already know. The fact is, Noah is an average to decent center. The problem is not that fan's value him to highly, its that Garpax values him too highly. As of now, we are stuck with what we have, some fan's have grown to accept it and some have not.



> I also never said we should trade our whole frontcourt for Gasol. I think we have enough depth to trade for Gasol and keep enough depth to be deeper than LA is. LA has a good frontcourt, but I never said that that was all you need to do. You can't just "have a good frontcourt" and let the rest of your team rot.


Like I said it depends on what the Lakers will ask for, I'm pretty sure they will ask for a lot if they would trade Gasol. They have to appease Kobe and there is no way hes going to be happy if they trade Gasol for peanuts. 



> You say this like you could be talking about Chris Paul, a great PG who may end up as a top 25 player ever at some point OR Jimmer Fredette.


The point is, if the Laker nation held big men so high, this would not even be a option. 



> Why do you think I knock Noah? Because he doesn't have a great stat line?
> 
> I think we view center differently. Of course Howard is the only generational center, but there are plenty of guys who affect the game and make opposing centers and frontcourts pay in a variety of ways. Bynum and Perkins do it by playing like NFL linemen.


Like I posted earlier, you are only mentioning like 2-3 centers. Perkins is a fantastic defending big man but hes not a Bulls and there is not chance in hell that the Thunder are going to trade him. Perkins to Chicago was never an option and at the time Noah was as good a defender, the truth is hes not anymore. 



> First, what relevance does "being better than half the centers in the NBA" have in the playoffs? Second, are you talking better in terms of statistical prowess? Because that's not what it's about at center. It's about a physical advantage as much as anything. Joel Anthony, by any empirical grading system, is awful. And yet he mugged Joakim Noah like they were in an alley.


You are preaching to the choir but what options do we have?! 




> We don't need a gamer, or a pesky agitator or a guy who tries hard and hustles. We need a guy, deep in the playoffs, who is going to dictate terms to the opposition. Or did you think the Thunder acquired Perkins because they think he has tremendous skill and star potential?


Yeah they did, they would not have traded away a very skilled high ceiling PF if they din't believe in Perkins growth potential. 



> And yet KC Johnson, most of the Bulls pregame, Mully and Hanley and a lot of their fan boy callers are saying "hey, I'm not gutting the team for Dwight." And by gutting the team they mean getting rid of Deng and Noah. I don't know where these two became so precious. They're "alright." That's about it.


I will only talk about Deng, hes a pivotal piece in Toms defense, but if we got Howard that would obviously change and it would make us a much better team. If we could get Howard for only Noah and Deng, I'm pretty damn sure Bulls fan's would do cartwheels. We are all under the assumption that the magic will ask for more. 



> That's just it. Every time you're listening to sports radio in this town and think that Paxson fan boys can't get any dumber, some stammering fan boy calls up and says that Chicago will beat Miami this year because Deng has experience now (just heard that gem 15 minutes ago and Boers was just ridiculing the guy) or "let's trade for Bargnani." It's not the same people. It's most of the fan base.


I don't believe its most of the fanbase, radio listeners who call into that show are basically the same people week in and week out. Don't believe that a few callers represent an entire fan base. 



> Meh, I'd say just about anywhere there are a lot of Bulls fans, even if more and more are becoming realistic, you'll hear some of the dumbest things you've ever heard NBA fans say.
> 
> Only Suns and Warrior fans are guaranteed to be more moronic whether it's a forum or listening to talk radio or even talking hoops at a buddies house. Oh and non-die hard Laker fans because most of them only check in when LA is on a ridiculous streak, so they have years of "dead time" in their NBA memory lol.


You got to get around more then. Have you even seen what these so called Heat fan's sound like, talk about idiots. 



> Well Pau is 31, so I'm not sure where you got that he is aging. His PER is still 20.1... Deng's is 16.3 and has never been about 18.7.


HES OVER 30 lol, thats aging. Gasol is a very good player, I'm not debating against that. 




> You must not have been listening monday then. And if you're saying we need another great PLAYER but not a better frontcourt, what are you saying? We need to upgrade SG or SF?!



I'm asking for a great player period, front court or back court. Giving away half the team for Howard would be a lateral move, depending on how much we give up obviously. 

I'm all for the Howard trade, but like I said before, I'm not gonna give up half a squad when the Lakers and Nets aren't going to do it. Either take Noah and a bunch of young fillers, draft picks and Mirotic or take Noah and Deng and thats it. Its a fair deal, considering the Lakers are only going to give up 1 player and the Nets are going to give up 1 injured 5 plus fillers.


----------



## Hoodey

thebizkit69u said:


> Who the hell was their center in the 90's and early 2000's when they absolutely sucked?! I find it laughable that you think modern day celtics fan's value a big man because of Parish, Russel and McHale.


Eh, I'm not 17. I tend to talk to fans who watched those games. I never said "modern NBA fans." If you talk to a Boston fan who is in their 30s they're going to have a greater understanding than most Bulls fans. Believe me. I just heard more stupid calls on ESPN 1000 on the way to get my kid a pizza.



> I said by your thinking, then why not just let the fans run the organization, heck the Lakers and Celtics wanted to move into a different direction by getting rid of their big men. I just don't buy into this idea that these 2 fanbases are any smarter than anyother fan base in the NBA. LA especially is a laughable example, have you seen the type of people who makes up more than half of the people attending Lakers games?


You're not that bright and not that into logical connections. Where in anything I said did we cross over into "in fact, these fan bases are so smart they're smarter than Danny Ainge and Mitch Kupchak"...? I don't recall saying that just like I don't recall saying I want to trade all four of our frontcourt regulars for Pau Gasol.

And I explicitly said Laker diehards because I am well aware that half of their "fans" are unbearable.

Look, some fan bases, while not necessarily smarter than their GM (because, you know, I never said that), are more in tune with what wins in the playoffs, because if they're 30 or 35 (because I don't talk to teenagers about hoops), they've seen their team win by dominating the paint with frontcourt players. 

Some fan bases, like ours, think that each froncourt player exists in a vacuum and that if each of them is "better than half of the players at their position" then the team must be primed to win the ECF. 



> I for one think hes a 4, he doesn't have the size or mindset of a big man but thats just my opinion. I would say that Noah fan's who view him as anything more than an energy/hustle guy are in the minority.


But that's just it. Our fan base has message board posters, callers to radio shows and people on my facebook who act like if Noah hustles and just rebounds missed jumpers, even if he can't stand up physically to a player like Joel Anthony, we can win a title. 

I agree. He's a 4/5 backup on a title team. That's why I want to know (a) how my team paid him 60 mill, (b) how they're marketing him as a center we can win a title with and (c) how this appears to be okay with a lot of people. 

This whole week was littered with "Noah's back" calls on the Score lol...



> Thats a total of 3 centers lol, its not easy finding a good big man. For whatever reason, the 5 has gone the way of the great American Heavy Weight Boxer... VERY RARE.


Well I named 3. In the "scorer" part, where I didn't name anyone would be guys who can pose problems for the opposition but can also put their back to the basket and score like Gasol (like I said, if Boozer was 7'0" 265 we wouldn't be having this conversation, before this gets turned into a nauseating "Pau Gasol is a Power Forward" discussion that I have no interest in having), Nene or Howard.

There's 6 at least, and like I said, Oklahoma City got a guy who has swung a NBA Finals in his teams favor for Jeff Green. Because their GM was out LOOKING for that guy. I'm convinced Paxson doesn't look. 



> Everyone knows the value of a big man, give these fan's some credit lol. You aren't teaching us anything we don't already know. The fact is, Noah is an average to decent center. The problem is not that fan's value him to highly, its that Garpax values him too highly. As of now, we are stuck with what we have, some fan's have grown to accept it and some have not.


That's not what I hear when I listen to average fans explain why we fail. It's because Boozer doesn't play defense for example. And yeah, he doesn't, but even when he does we're not a team that is going to knock the Heat off because Haslem is going to push him around like a rag doll. Or we fail because Rose isn't aggressive. 

I rarely hear fans say "we fail because Boozer has deficiencies, Noah has deficiencies, both of them could probably be fine next to Pau Gasol, but next to each other, they make up a front court that is too streaky and too average to win in late playoff situations which involve controlling the paint." 

What I hear is a lot of "well, we just failed because we didn't have Rip yet!" As if Rip is still the same age he was in 2004. Just today Chris Sheridan, the biggest idiot I've ever listened to, said that the Bulls will be fine v. the Heat because Rose can pass to Rip on the perimeter for open shots. Rip isn't a spot up shooter!



> Like I said it depends on what the Lakers will ask for, I'm pretty sure they will ask for a lot if they would trade Gasol. They have to appease Kobe and there is no way hes going to be happy if they trade Gasol for peanuts.


Well the good thing for both sides if Paxson pursues it is that what each of us needs won't cost the other team too much. 

We need size. They could never give us Gasol if he was all they had, but they also have Bynum, so they can trade us size and be fine in that department. They need depth and we have about twice as much as they need. So we can trade them Noah, Deng, Korver and Watson and still have Artest (back in a deal), Brewer, Gibson, Asik...

Additionally, Noah would be fine next to Bynum. It would be very hard to keep Noah off the boards with Bynum taking up bodies.



> The point is, if the Laker nation held big men so high, this would not even be a option.


They know the value of a big man. I never said that they jump ship if a big man is not on the team for a few years. 

Laker fan psych is weird. They know they need a good big man, but most of them only want that big man to allow their superstar guard to shine. Kareem was a necessary to allow Magic to be the man. They all knew that Magic wouldn't win rings with Caldwell Jones at center.

In fact, that name sums it up great. Bulls fans would take one look at Caldwell Jones and say "yeah, we can win with him, he tries hard."



> Like I posted earlier, you are only mentioning like 2-3 centers. Perkins is a fantastic defending big man but hes not a Bulls and there is not chance in hell that the Thunder are going to trade him. Perkins to Chicago was never an option and at the time Noah was as good a defender, the truth is hes not anymore.


But Perkins is more than a defender. In anything he does, even if it's just hanging out in front of the rim on OFFENSE, he can move and he's 280. That's way bigger than just having "good defensive footwork." I don't think he's more than an above average technical defender. He just packs the size and wallup into everything he does. He ripped Pau Gasol a new a-hole in the 08 Finals.

Yeah, isn't it funny that you could never get OKC to trade Perkins. But, because they were LOOKING for that kind of player, they got him for irrelevant Jeff Green. 



> You are preaching to the choir but what options do we have?!


Well, you can always call a spade a spade. I love the Bulls and will still root for them. But it will be on record and those who support the current flaws in this organization will run out of excuses like "waaa, you gotta get lucky to get a superstar, and that's how you win titles (the 2007 excuse du jour)."

I can't MAKE Paxson do anything, but any one of us can be smart fans and call it like we see it. 



> Yeah they did, they would not have traded away a very skilled high ceiling PF if they din't believe in Perkins growth potential.


They understood what great GMs have always known. Take a great player at 6'9" 240. For every 15 guys who can do what he does, you might find one who can do the same things at 6'11" 265. 

Guys like Jeff Green are a dime a dozen. 



> I will only talk about Deng, hes a pivotal piece in Toms defense, but if we got Howard that would obviously change and it would make us a much better team. If we could get Howard for only Noah and Deng, I'm pretty damn sure Bulls fan's would do cartwheels. We are all under the assumption that the magic will ask for more.


No! K.C., most of the Bulls pre-game and many fans on the score were referring only to Deng and Noah when they referred to a Howard trade as "gutting the Bulls."

Deng is overrated by this fan base. 



> I don't believe its most of the fanbase, radio listeners who call into that show are basically the same people week in and week out. Don't believe that a few callers represent an entire fan base.


Okay fine... do you want me to redefine "fan base" as only those fans that I seem to have to hear and read in any outlet in which I discuss or hear or read about the Bulls? Including Paxson's talking heads who take his party line and spread it out there? 



> HES OVER 30 lol, thats aging. Gasol is a very good player, I'm not debating against that.


He'll be an expiring contract in what, 110 games? 



> I'm asking for a great player period, front court or back court. Giving away half the team for Howard would be a lateral move, depending on how much we give up obviously.
> 
> I'm all for the Howard trade, but like I said before, I'm not gonna give up half a squad when the Lakers and Nets aren't going to do it. Either take Noah and a bunch of young fillers, draft picks and Mirotic or take Noah and Deng and thats it. Its a fair deal, considering the Lakers are only going to give up 1 player and the Nets are going to give up 1 injured 5 plus fillers.


It would be a lateral move maybe for this year. Take a look at two scenarios after this year.

a) Howard stays - You're telling me we can't build a team around Derrick Rose and Dwight Howard with very little free agent money and draft picks? Come on man. These are two wrecking machines.

This team, with a good GM, should be able to re-add role players even if we have to give the house away for Howard within 1-2 years.

b) Howard leaves - Okay now you have cap room and you can amnesty Turkoglu or Boozer and rebuild around Rose with tons of cap space. If you're not terrible at life, this should be a dream for an NBA GM.

Nice talking hoops with you.


----------



## e-monk

a few things

Noah is a passable starting center in this era, not a back up (because he's better than the starting center of 2/3s of the teams out there so kind of by definition, yeah - keep in mind I said 'this era')

the Lakers aint moving Pau for Boozer and filler because Mitch is smarter than some if not all Bulls or Celtics or Lakers fans (and also he's not going to commit to anything until the Howard situation shakes out)

otherwise, as you were


----------



## thebizkit69u

I'm not going to continue to debate the whole fan base thing, its pointless and has no impact at all on what the Bulls do. 



Hoodey said:


> It would be a lateral move maybe for this year. Take a look at two scenarios after this year.
> 
> a) Howard stays - You're telling me we can't build a team around Derrick Rose and Dwight Howard with very little free agent money and draft picks? Come on man. These are two wrecking machines.
> 
> This team, with a good GM, should be able to re-add role players even if we have to give the house away for Howard within 1-2 years.
> 
> b) Howard leaves - Okay now you have cap room and you can amnesty Turkoglu or Boozer and rebuild around Rose with tons of cap space. If you're not terrible at life, this should be a dream for an NBA GM.
> 
> Nice talking hoops with you.


I believe you can build a team around them but we are already a built team ready for a title run, all we need to do is get one more piece to beat the Heat. I'm not going to give up half a team, mostly because other teams wont have to do it, its a matter of pride and just basketball smarts. If Howard re signed we would have NO money, only the MLE and no draft picks because of the trade. I'm all in for a Dwight trade but we gotta play it smart and not give up twice as much as any other team. 

B. Sounds great in a strong free agent year, but the 2012 offseason is weak. When OJ Mayo, Derron Williams and Michael Beasley head the top of the class, you got a pretty damn weak class.


----------



## jnrjr79

thebizkit69u said:


> I'm not going to continue to debate the whole fan base thing, its pointless and has no impact at all on what the Bulls do.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you can build a team around them but we are already a built team ready for a title run, all we need to do is get one more piece to beat the Heat. I'm not going to give up half a team, mostly because other teams wont have to do it, its a matter of pride and just basketball smarts. If Howard re signed we would have NO money, only the MLE and no draft picks because of the trade. I'm all in for a Dwight trade but we gotta play it smart and not give up twice as much as any other team.
> 
> B. Sounds great in a strong free agent year, but the 2012 offseason is weak. When OJ Mayo, Derron Williams and Michael Beasley head the top of the class, you got a pretty damn weak class.



Moreover, we've seen the cap space movie before. That is not the way to build a basketball team. Blowing up an ECF team that is among the few contenders in the NBA for the notion of cap space is suicide.

I'm all for Dwight, but only if you know he re-signs.


----------



## Hoodey

jnrjr79 said:


> Moreover, we've seen the cap space movie before. That is not the way to build a basketball team. Blowing up an ECF team that is among the few contenders in the NBA for the notion of cap space is suicide.
> 
> I'm all for Dwight, but only if you know he re-signs.


You say "we've seen the cap space movie before." What was wrong with this movie though? The idea that it's an unsuitable way to build around Derrick Rose? Or the idea that if you can't make a SALE no cap space will ever be enough. It's just like not drafting well (Angelo) and then you had a brief period of time when the prevailing idea amongst Bears fans was "draft picks are overrated" after the Cutler trade. Were draft picks overrated, or is BAD evaluation always a recipe for bad drafting?

I can tell you this. This team has a window to compete with Derrick Rose in his prime. The guys Rose has around him aren't going to contend. Contending means you actually have a good chance to win. They are big time contenders to MAKE the ECF. Beyond that they aren't contenders for anything.

I know you view everything through the lens of "well if you're X in the regular season then that has to mean you will be Y in the playoffs." Two different games. This team really needs a center, whether it's a superstar, defensive dominator or combination of size and explosiveness. But really the team is just missing a #2. Your boy Paxson had 15 million and he brought Carlos Boozer back. Unacceptable.

There's nothing wrong with cap space. Especially when I know that we aren't winning a title relying on Noah, Deng and Boozer.


----------



## Hoodey

e-monk said:


> a few things
> 
> Noah is a passable starting center in this era, not a back up (because he's better than the starting center of 2/3s of the teams out there so kind of by definition, yeah - keep in mind I said 'this era')
> 
> the Lakers aint moving Pau for Boozer and filler because Mitch is smarter than some if not all Bulls or Celtics or Lakers fans (and also he's not going to commit to anything until the Howard situation shakes out)
> 
> otherwise, as you were


My contention is that Noah is your backup at the 4 and 5 if you want to win a title. 

I guess I just don't think in terms of "could he be a start for an average team" because a) I don't care about being merely above average, even if we're just talking about being above average in the playoffs and b) I'm not impressed when we beat Cleveland or Washington badly. 

The thing about Noah is that you can't analyze him in a vacuum. Saying "well there's nothing wrong with Boozer" then having a separate conversation where you say "Deng is pretty good" and then saying "well Noah is passable" - these things don't work. They all play together. I'd rather have one guy at center who is an absolute stud and then a couple role players at PF and SF. 

There seems to be this idea that if we just have more guys who are "pretty good" than other teams, we'll win, is a fallacy. 

Cleveland had more guys who were merely GOOD in 1989 than Chicago did. In 92 and 93, the New York Knicks had more "good solid" players than the Bulls. In 02 Sacramento had more good solid players than the Lakers. 

You really want 2-3 guys who are great and then the other guys play roles and do the dirty work. Noah has personality and charisma, and I think that that gets people away from the idea that he's a role player. And that's all he is is a role player. And that's fine next to Pau Gasol, Dwight Howard or Andrew Bynum. Next to Carlos Boozer? Not so much.


----------



## Good Hope

I like watching good basketball. The Bulls are playing good basketball right now, by any reasonable measure. 

They don't have the best front court in the league, yep. 

I'm entertained enough by watching the team as is (when I can) to wait for the right opportunity to improve the team that doesn't involve a drastic drop off in current performance. 

You can point to Cleveland, Utah, Seattle, blah blah and say that they couldn't win because...But, they could have won, all of them. There's no formula. Every situation is unique and beautiful because you never know until it plays out. It's only afterward that the geniuses come out of the woodwork and proclaim that they knew all along things were going to be this way.

Go Bulls!


----------



## thebizkit69u

Good Hope said:


> You can point to Cleveland, Utah, Seattle, blah blah and say that they couldn't win because...But, they could have won, all of them. There's no formula. Every situation is unique and beautiful because you never know until it plays out. It's only afterward that the geniuses come out of the woodwork and proclaim that they knew all along things were going to be this way.
> 
> Go Bulls!


But they din't win... 

Could have, would have, whatever. The point is the teams that did win where just flat out better or more talented. There is a formula to winning a title and that formula is having more talent and or size than the opposing team, the Bulls just don't have more than the Heat, its jut a fact.


----------



## Good Hope

Your judgements are always right, because they are made after the fact. Talent is proved in the doing. Jordan's Bulls din't do it, either, until they did. 

The Bulls are close enough to enjoy what they have and wait for the right opportunity to improve on what they have.

I'm not saying don't trade for Dwight, but i'm not going to despair because he doesn't want to come here. And if he doesn't want to come, there's no reason to throw ourselves at his mercy, just as there wasn't for Lebron.


----------



## thebizkit69u

Good Hope said:


> Your judgements are always right, because they are made after the fact. Talent is proved in the doing. Jordan's Bulls din't do it, either, until they did.
> 
> The Bulls are close enough to enjoy what they have and wait for the right opportunity to improve on what they have.
> 
> I'm not saying don't trade for Dwight, but i'm not going to despair because he doesn't want to come here. And if he doesn't want to come, there's no reason to throw ourselves at his mercy, just as there wasn't for Lebron.


The Bulls lost to the Celtics and Pistons lol, those where flat out better and more talented teams than the Bulls at the time. McHale, Bird, Parish and then you got Thomas, Lambier, Dantley, Johnson, Rodman etc. 

So basically you just wan't this Bulls team to waste prime Derrick Rose years by waiting for the collapse of the Miami Heat or steal a series win because of an injury?

I'm for this team making bold moves and TAKING a title, we don't have the luxury of waiting for the right pieces to gell around the greatest player in the history of the game like we did with Jordan.


----------



## Good Hope

thebizkit69u said:


> The Bulls lost to the Celtics and Pistons lol, those where flat out better and more talented teams than the Bulls at the time. McHale, Bird, Parish and then you got Thomas, Lambier, Dantley, Johnson, Rodman etc.
> 
> So basically you just wan't this Bulls team to waste prime Derrick Rose years by waiting for the collapse of the Miami Heat or steal a series win because of an injury?
> 
> I'm for this team making bold moves and TAKING a title, *we don't have the luxury of waiting * for the right pieces to gell around the greatest player in the history of the game like we did with Jordan.


We don't?


----------



## mvP to the Wee

MagicInsider Brian Schmitz
If rumors true that DHoward will not re-sign with L.A., Magic might let him walk. Magic don't want Brook Lopez, healthy or otherwise
6 minutes ago


----------



## thebizkit69u

Good Hope said:


> We don't?


I love Rose but hes no Jordan.... NOT EVEN CLOSE. 

You can't compare Jordan's years here because we aren't just talking about another skilled guard, this guy was the Babe Ruth of Basketball.

If Lebron was 31, then yeah maybe I could wait a season or 2 but hes not.


----------



## jnrjr79

Hoodey said:


> You say "we've seen the cap space movie before." What was wrong with this movie though?





> Your boy Paxson had 15 million and he brought Carlos Boozer back. Unacceptable.



Cognitive dissonance much?


----------



## jnrjr79

thebizkit69u said:


> But they din't win...
> 
> Could have, would have, whatever. The point is the teams that did win where just flat out better or more talented. There is a formula to winning a title and that formula is having more talent and or size than the opposing team, the Bulls just don't have more than the Heat, its jut a fact.



The Heat were more talented than the Mavs, and yet...


----------



## thebizkit69u

jnrjr79 said:


> The Heat were more talented than the Mavs, and yet...


Yet size won din't they?

They had a 7 foot German who shot the ball like Ray Allen lol and Tyson Chandler actually played pretty damn good.

Like I said, Size and or Talent. I don't think the Bulls really have the size to bully the Heat nor are they as talented, would you disagree with that?


Back to Dwight for a minute, if these Rumors about him now not wanting to go to LA because Kobe said he wanted him to be a 3rd option on a title winning team is true, then do we really want this diva on this team who would CLEARLY be second fiddle to Rose?

The more information that is leaked out about Dwights trade mentality, I'm starting to feel more and more that this guy is a truly immature player who honestly has shown 0 interest in winning first over getting his brand out there. Kobe is the man in LA and for Dwight to be "offended" by what a Hall of Famer who is also one of the top 10-20 players of all time had to say, I then really have to question what this big baby really wants. 

He wants Orlando to give him a monster contract and trade him to NJ so he could play with his friend while still feel like hes the #1 guy... ugh.


----------



## jnrjr79

thebizkit69u said:


> Yet size won din't they?
> 
> They had a 7 foot German who shot the ball like Ray Allen lol and Tyson Chandler actually played pretty damn good.
> 
> Like I said, Size and or Talent. I don't think the Bulls really have the size to bully the Heat nor are they as talented, would you disagree with that?


I don't think the Bulls have any particular size disadvantage against the Heat, but definitely agree they don't have size that would allow them to bully the Heat. I also agree the Bulls are less talented - at the top at least. Much deeper and more talented bench, but the Heat's big 3 vs. the Bulls' (whomever you think that is) is obviously more talented.




> Back to Dwight for a minute, if these Rumors about him now not wanting to go to LA because Kobe said he wanted him to be a 3rd option on a title winning team is true, then do we really want this diva on this team who would CLEARLY be second fiddle to Rose?
> 
> The more information that is leaked out about Dwights trade mentality, I'm starting to feel more and more that this guy is a truly immature player who honestly has shown 0 interest in winning first over getting his brand out there. Kobe is the man in LA and for Dwight to be "offended" by what a Hall of Famer who is also one of the top 10-20 players of all time had to say, I then really have to question what this big baby really wants.
> 
> He wants Orlando to give him a monster contract and trade him to NJ so he could play with his friend while still feel like hes the #1 guy... ugh.



This is why Dwight has always made me apprehensive. I do not think winning championships is his first priority. He does not seem serious-minded. Look at the differences in the approaches to the game taken by Derrick and Dwight. It is night and day.

I think Shaq, though, shows that you can have a guy who is physically dominant, pair him with a harder working elite guard (Kobe, Wade), and win championships. That would have to be the model you thought was replicable if you deal for Dwight.

If he would re-sign here, you probably do need to be willing to part with a lot to get him. Obviously, it's a very high-risk, high-reward move, and if you made it as a GM, you are basically staking your career on that one move.

At this point, though, there's still no indication he would re-sign here, and absent an assurance on that front, you simply can't deal for him.


----------



## thebizkit69u

jnrjr79 said:


> This is why Dwight has always made me apprehensive. I do not think winning championships is his first priority. He does not seem serious-minded. Look at the differences in the approaches to the game taken by Derrick and Dwight. It is night and day.
> 
> I think Shaq, though, shows that you can have a guy who is physically dominant, pair him with a harder working elite guard (Kobe, Wade), and win championships. That would have to be the model you thought was replicable if you deal for Dwight.
> 
> If he would re-sign here, you probably do need to be willing to part with a lot to get him. Obviously, it's a very high-risk, high-reward move, and if you made it as a GM, you are basically staking your career on that one move.
> 
> At this point, though, there's still no indication he would re-sign here, and absent an assurance on that front, you simply can't deal for him.


I feel like I made the mistake of putting Dwight in the same competitive category as Derrick and Durant.

The NBA marketing machine pumped up Howard like he was Shaq minus the drama, in fact hes just as high maintenance and no where near as competitive as they made him out to be. 

I'm very disappointed with Howard, this season has really opened up my eyes to this guy but that being said, hes still the best big man in the game and we would be lucky to have him. I just don't feel a 100% confident with his desire or will to win, its truly a shame.


----------



## Hoodey

Good Hope said:


> I like watching good basketball. The Bulls are playing good basketball right now, by any reasonable measure.
> 
> They don't have the best front court in the league, yep.
> 
> I'm entertained enough by watching the team as is (when I can) to wait for the right opportunity to improve the team that doesn't involve a drastic drop off in current performance.
> 
> You can point to Cleveland, Utah, Seattle, blah blah and say that they couldn't win because...But, they could have won, all of them. There's no formula. Every situation is unique and beautiful because you never know until it plays out. It's only afterward that the geniuses come out of the woodwork and proclaim that they knew all along things were going to be this way.
> 
> Go Bulls!


1. The idea that "good basketball" is enough is how the Cubs got where they are. "Hey, as long as it's good baseball, why risk that?" I don't want to waste Derrick Rose's prime and I don't want to wake up 20 years from now without a ring.

2. Your entire idea of not risking it is problematic. We have DERRICK ROSE. If we move Deng and Noah, even if Howard isn't re-signing, we aren't going to become the 1999 Bulls man.

3. There clearly is a championship formula. Here it is:

a) Offensive oriented center - Typically here you want a guy who is a GOOD enough all-around player, but who can shoot 50.0% or greater. This way you can play the inside outside game. So, if you don't have Michael Jordan, who could penetrate and score on three guys, you can get the defense off of your star guard or forward with the inside threat. 

1967 Philadelphia 76ers - Wilt Chamberlain 68.4%
1970 New York Knicks - Willis Reed 50.7%
1971 Milwaukee Bucks - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 57.7%
1972 Los Angeles Lakers - Wilt Chamberlain 64.9%
1975 Golden State Warriors - Clifford Ray 52.2%
1977 Portland Trailblazers - Bill Walton 52.8%
1978 Washington Bullets - Wes Unseld 52.3% 
1979 Seattle Supersonics - Lonnie Shelton 51.9%
1980 Los Angeles Lakers - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 60.4%
1981 Boston Celtics - Robert Parish 54.5%
1982 Los Angeles Lakers - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 57.9%
1983 Philadelphia 76ers - Moses Malone 50.1%
1984 Boston Celtics - Robert Parish 54.6%, Kevin McHale 55.6%
1985 Los Angeles Lakers - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 59.9%
1986 Boston Celtics - Robert Parish 54.9%, Kevin McHale 57.4
1987 Los Angeles Lakers - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 56.4%
1988 Los Angeles Lakers - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 53.8%
1989 Detroit Pistons - Rick Mahorn 51.7%
1990 Detroit Pistons - James Edwards 49.8%
1994 Houston Rockets - Hakeem Olajuwon 52.8%
1995 Houston Rockets - Hakeem Olajuwon 51.7%
1999 San Antonio Spurs - David Robinson 50.9%
2000 Los Angeles Lakers - Shaquille O'neal 57.4%
2001 Los Angeles Lakers - Shaquille O'neal 57.2%
2002 Los Angeles Lakers - Shaquille O'neal 57.9%
2003 San Antonio Spurs - Tim Duncan 51.3%
2005 San Antonio Spurs - Tim Duncan 49.6%
2006 Miami Heat - Shaquille O'neal 60.0%
2007 San Antonio Spurs - Tim Duncan 54.6%
2008 Boston Celtics - Kendrick Perkins 61.5%, Kevin Garnett 53.9%
2009 Los Angeles Lakers - Andrew Bynum 56.0%, Pau Gasol 56.7%
2010 Los Angeles Lakers - Andrew Bynum 57.0%, Pau Gasol 53.6%
2011 Dallas Mavericks - Tyson Chandler 65.4%, Dirk Nowitzki 51.7%

Notes:

> "But Tim Duncan is a power forward, waaah." Like I said, if Carlos Boozer was 6'11" 260, we wouldn't be having this discussion because we'd BE NBA Champs. If Karl Malone was 6'11" 260 like Duncan or if Charles Barkley was 7'0" 265 like Gasol or 7'0" 245 like Dirk they'd BE Champs.

The entire idea of being a five, or qualifying for all intents and purposes as someone of that reasonable size or make up is that there is NO SIX position. If you're big for a four like Karl Malone, the Bulls can put Bison Dele on you. There is no position bigger than center.

> "But why did you put Kevin McHale and Kevin Garnett on there." Two PFs who don't fit qualify by their sheer size as guys who can play with, or not be physically dominated by centers.. two guys who really WERE as good as all of the hypesters make you THINK or WISH that dime-a-dozen star PFs are. Kevin Love and Blake Griffin are as irrelevant as Barkley and Malone were in terms of discussing CHAMPIONSHIPS. Kevin Garnett and Kevin McHale were elite defenders who could turn around and be very efficient on the offensive end. Kevin McHale, due to his skill, as he wasn't even a very good athletic presence in 1984, would just toy with frontcourt players today.

> Isn't it funny that Bulls fans like to point at the 08 Celtics as an example that things can be done "another way." LOL Kendrick Perkins shot 61.5%. If Carlos Boozer was shooting 61.5% we'd be NBA Champs. Look at Dallas. Chandler 65%, Haywood 57%, Dirk 52%. It's NOT an accident.

b) Elite defender - The idea here is to lock the paint down and or have the ability to shut down a given individual opponent so that even though you need a lot of shots to score, you make your opponents REALLY need a lot of shots. 

1957 Boston Celtics - Bill Russell
1959 Boston Celtics - Bill Russell
1960 Boston Celtics - Bill Russell
1961 Boston Celtics - Bill Russell
1962 Boston Celtics - Bill Russell
1963 Boston Celtics - Bill Russell
1964 Boston Celtics - Bill Russell
1965 Boston Celtics - Bill Russell
1966 Boston Celtics - Bill Russell
1967 Philadelphia 76ers - Wilt Chamberlain
1968 Boston Celtics - Bill Russell
1969 Boston Celtics - Bill Russell
1970 New York Knicks - Dave Debusschere
1972 Los Angeles Lakers - Wilt Chamberlain
1973 New York Knicks - Dave Debusschere
1974 Boston Celtics - Dave Cowens
1976 Boston Celtics - Dave Cowens
1977 Portland Trailblazers - Bill Walton
1980 Los Angeles Lakers - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 
1983 Philadelphia Sixers - Moses Malone
1984 Boston Celtics - Kevin McHale
1986 Boston Celtics - Kevin McHale
1989 Detroit Pistons - Dennis Rodman
1990 Detroit Pistons - Dennis Rodman
1994 Houston Rockets - Hakeem Olajuwon
1995 Houston Rockets - Hakeem Olajuwon
1996 Chicago Bulls - Dennis Rodman
1997 Chicago Bulls - Dennis Rodman
1998 Chicago Bulls - Dennis Rodman
1999 San Antonio Spurs - David Robinson, Tim Duncan
2003 San Antonio Spurs - Tim Duncan
2004 Detroit Pistons - Ben Wallace
2005 San Antonio Spurs - Tim Duncan
2007 San Antonio Spurs - Tim Duncan
2008 Boston Celtics - Kevin Garnett

Notes:

> Bill Russell was REALLY really good. Probably always will be the most underappreciated player in NBA history.

> Goes to show you how far away we are. Even some teams who didn't flat dominate the paint defensively like the 89 Pistons were still much better than us (if you go guy by guy and check percentages), but then dominated defensively in a way in which this team cannot. Joakim Noah is nothing like anybody up there defensively. Not close. 

In the scheme of guys who matter in NBA history Noah, Boozer and Deng are so far beyond inconsequential it's sad.

> You start going through title teams since 1959 and there are three title teams who did not make either of the lists I just proposed. 

c) They all had Michael Jordan - the one guard who could control the paint like a center in his prime...

There is a way. Control the paint. This team just isn't close.


----------



## Hoodey

Good Hope said:


> I like watching good basketball. The Bulls are playing good basketball right now, by any reasonable measure.
> 
> They don't have the best front court in the league, yep.
> 
> I'm entertained enough by watching the team as is (when I can) to wait for the right opportunity to improve the team that doesn't involve a drastic drop off in current performance.
> 
> You can point to Cleveland, Utah, Seattle, blah blah and say that they couldn't win because...But, they could have won, all of them. There's no formula. Every situation is unique and beautiful because you never know until it plays out. It's only afterward that the geniuses come out of the woodwork and proclaim that they knew all along things were going to be this way.
> 
> Go Bulls!


1. The idea that "good basketball" is enough is how the Cubs got where they are. "Hey, as long as it's good baseball, why risk that?" I don't want to waste Derrick Rose's prime and I don't want to wake up 20 years from now without a ring.

2. Your entire idea of not risking it is problematic. We have DERRICK ROSE. If we move Deng and Noah, even if Howard isn't re-signing, we aren't going to become the 1999 Bulls man.

3. There clearly is a championship formula. Here it is:

a) Offensive oriented center - Typically here you want a guy who is a GOOD enough all-around player, but who can shoot 50.0% or greater. This way you can play the inside outside game. So, if you don't have Michael Jordan, who could penetrate and score on three guys, you can get the defense off of your star guard or forward with the inside threat. 

1967 Philadelphia 76ers - Wilt Chamberlain 68.4%
1970 New York Knicks - Willis Reed 50.7%
1971 Milwaukee Bucks - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 57.7%
1972 Los Angeles Lakers - Wilt Chamberlain 64.9%
1975 Golden State Warriors - Clifford Ray 52.2%
1977 Portland Trailblazers - Bill Walton 52.8%
1978 Washington Bullets - Wes Unseld 52.3% 
1979 Seattle Supersonics - Lonnie Shelton 51.9%
1980 Los Angeles Lakers - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 60.4%
1981 Boston Celtics - Robert Parish 54.5%
1982 Los Angeles Lakers - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 57.9%
1983 Philadelphia 76ers - Moses Malone 50.1%
1984 Boston Celtics - Robert Parish 54.6%, Kevin McHale 55.6%
1985 Los Angeles Lakers - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 59.9%
1986 Boston Celtics - Robert Parish 54.9%, Kevin McHale 57.4
1987 Los Angeles Lakers - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 56.4%
1988 Los Angeles Lakers - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 53.8%
1989 Detroit Pistons - Rick Mahorn 51.7%
1990 Detroit Pistons - James Edwards 49.8%
1994 Houston Rockets - Hakeem Olajuwon 52.8%
1995 Houston Rockets - Hakeem Olajuwon 51.7%
1999 San Antonio Spurs - David Robinson 50.9%
2000 Los Angeles Lakers - Shaquille O'neal 57.4%
2001 Los Angeles Lakers - Shaquille O'neal 57.2%
2002 Los Angeles Lakers - Shaquille O'neal 57.9%
2003 San Antonio Spurs - Tim Duncan 51.3%
2005 San Antonio Spurs - Tim Duncan 49.6%
2006 Miami Heat - Shaquille O'neal 60.0%
2007 San Antonio Spurs - Tim Duncan 54.6%
2008 Boston Celtics - Kendrick Perkins 61.5%, Kevin Garnett 53.9%
2009 Los Angeles Lakers - Andrew Bynum 56.0%, Pau Gasol 56.7%
2010 Los Angeles Lakers - Andrew Bynum 57.0%, Pau Gasol 53.6%
2011 Dallas Mavericks - Tyson Chandler 65.4%, Dirk Nowitzki 51.7%

Notes:

> "But Tim Duncan is a power forward, waaah." Like I said, if Carlos Boozer was 6'11" 260, we wouldn't be having this discussion because we'd BE NBA Champs. If Karl Malone was 6'11" 260 like Duncan or if Charles Barkley was 7'0" 265 like Gasol or 7'0" 245 like Dirk they'd BE Champs.

The entire idea of being a five, or qualifying for all intents and purposes as someone of that reasonable size or make up is that there is NO SIX position. If you're big for a four like Karl Malone, the Bulls can put Bison Dele on you. There is no position bigger than center.

> "But why did you put Kevin McHale and Kevin Garnett on there." Two PFs who don't fit qualify by their sheer size as guys who can play with, or not be physically dominated by centers.. two guys who really WERE as good as all of the hypesters make you THINK or WISH that dime-a-dozen star PFs are. Kevin Love and Blake Griffin are as irrelevant as Barkley and Malone were in terms of discussing CHAMPIONSHIPS. Kevin Garnett and Kevin McHale were elite defenders who could turn around and be very efficient on the offensive end. Kevin McHale, due to his skill, as he wasn't even a very good athletic presence in 1984, would just toy with frontcourt players today.

> Isn't it funny that Bulls fans like to point at the 08 Celtics as an example that things can be done "another way." LOL Kendrick Perkins shot 61.5%. If Carlos Boozer was shooting 61.5% we'd be NBA Champs. Look at Dallas. Chandler 65%, Haywood 57%, Dirk 52%. It's NOT an accident.

b) Elite defender - The idea here is to lock the paint down and or have the ability to shut down a given individual opponent so that even though you need a lot of shots to score, you make your opponents REALLY need a lot of shots. 

1957 Boston Celtics - Bill Russell
1959 Boston Celtics - Bill Russell
1960 Boston Celtics - Bill Russell
1961 Boston Celtics - Bill Russell
1962 Boston Celtics - Bill Russell
1963 Boston Celtics - Bill Russell
1964 Boston Celtics - Bill Russell
1965 Boston Celtics - Bill Russell
1966 Boston Celtics - Bill Russell
1967 Philadelphia 76ers - Wilt Chamberlain
1968 Boston Celtics - Bill Russell
1969 Boston Celtics - Bill Russell
1970 New York Knicks - Dave Debusschere
1972 Los Angeles Lakers - Wilt Chamberlain
1973 New York Knicks - Dave Debusschere
1974 Boston Celtics - Dave Cowens
1976 Boston Celtics - Dave Cowens
1977 Portland Trailblazers - Bill Walton
1980 Los Angeles Lakers - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 
1983 Philadelphia Sixers - Moses Malone
1984 Boston Celtics - Kevin McHale
1986 Boston Celtics - Kevin McHale
1989 Detroit Pistons - Dennis Rodman
1990 Detroit Pistons - Dennis Rodman
1994 Houston Rockets - Hakeem Olajuwon
1995 Houston Rockets - Hakeem Olajuwon
1996 Chicago Bulls - Dennis Rodman
1997 Chicago Bulls - Dennis Rodman
1998 Chicago Bulls - Dennis Rodman
1999 San Antonio Spurs - David Robinson, Tim Duncan
2003 San Antonio Spurs - Tim Duncan
2004 Detroit Pistons - Ben Wallace
2005 San Antonio Spurs - Tim Duncan
2007 San Antonio Spurs - Tim Duncan
2008 Boston Celtics - Kevin Garnett

Notes:

> Bill Russell was REALLY really good. Probably always will be the most underappreciated player in NBA history.

> Goes to show you how far away we are. Even some teams who didn't flat dominate the paint defensively like the 89 Pistons were still much better than us (if you go guy by guy and check percentages), but then dominated defensively in a way in which this team cannot. Joakim Noah is nothing like anybody up there defensively. Not close. 

In the scheme of guys who matter in NBA history Noah, Boozer and Deng are so far beyond inconsequential it's sad.

> You start going through title teams since 1959 and there are three title teams who did not make either of the lists I just proposed. 

c) They all had Michael Jordan - the one guard who could control the paint like a center in his prime...

There is a way. Control the paint. This team just isn't close.


----------



## Hoodey

Good Hope said:


> Your judgements are always right, because they are made after the fact. Talent is proved in the doing. Jordan's Bulls din't do it, either, until they did.
> 
> The Bulls are close enough to enjoy what they have and wait for the right opportunity to improve on what they have.
> 
> I'm not saying don't trade for Dwight, but i'm not going to despair because he doesn't want to come here. And if he doesn't want to come, there's no reason to throw ourselves at his mercy, just as there wasn't for Lebron.


Why would you ever cite Michael Jordan's Bulls? That team, the last year they didn't do it (1990), had Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant at age 24. Who on this team has as much surplus talent that they just haven't turned into results on the court as Pippen and Grant? Those guys were perhaps two of the greatest athletes to ever be paired together at the 3 and 4. They had excess talent that just needed experience. They were GREAT athletes who just needed to focus that athleticism into surplus skill. Joakim Noah is not a great athlete. Carlos Boozer and Luol Deng are not young anymore.

Some young teams who are good turn into the 1991 Chicago Bulls. Many more turn into the 1993 Cleveland Cavaliers. This Bulls fan rationale of "well if you're X with a young team, that automatically means you'll be Y when that team is one year older" is tired.

What about the ECF makes you feel like the Bulls are on the verge? Boozer and Noah shot 37%! Boozer, Noah, Gibson and Asik combined to shoot 40%! That's terrible for Kirk Hinrich! Come on man damn. Derrick Rose shot a crappy percentage because although he's a superstar, I've only ever known of one superstar guard who could take the burden of the frontcourt offensively, put it on his shoulders and still win RINGS. Michael Jordan. Rose is not that good. But I'll tell you what I'll do for you man. If Rose suddenly starts dunking on elite frontcourts, over contact, sending them to the floor and screams over them I might change my mind.

One place where I agree with biz is in his response to your previous response. I think what he was getting at is that the team with less talent can overcome that talent with size. The Cavs gave the Bulls a series in 92 because even though the Bulls had much more talent, the Cavs had the size. 

The BULLS are the team that needs to have better size, because the talent is clearly in favor of Wade and James.


----------



## Hoodey

jnrjr79 said:


> Cognitive dissonance much?


Man your condescending posts are so moderating lol. I love the way that as a moderator, you're clearly in the middle and don't take sides.

Uh, you took out the middle of what I said. I asked the question, "what's wrong with the movie though?"

Was cap space the issue? Or was the lack of an ability to make the SALE the issue. 

GMs have two sources of value. Talent evaluation and sales. If you're not a draft wiz and if you're watching Riley sell James and Wade while you get stuck with Boozer, you should just do the right thing and quit, because you suck. 

Go watch the Alec Baldwin scene in Glengarry Glen Ross. Either you sell or you suck. 

And if he couldn't sell Lebron James or Wade, then he should have held the money over and either not spent it or offered up a two year deal. 

"But the cap space would have gone away." Not if he didn't do what he always does. John Paxson drafts guys, decides he loves them and overpays them. Deng and Noah are not special AT ALL (unless someone lives in the world you live in where the NBA started when the Bulls hired John Paxson) and they should be combining to make around 15.5 mill next year. 

The fact that you or anyone would worry about John Paxson having cap space in the house that MJ built with Derrick Rose as the center piece of the team proves my point. He can't sell, he overpays the wrong guys, he sucks and so do his fans. His fans think that stuff that was a big deal in 2005, when we hadn't been competitive for forever is still a big deal.


----------



## Hoodey

jnrjr79 said:


> The Heat were more talented than the Mavs, and yet...


And yet Dallas won with the better frontcourt! 

Tyson Chandler just worked Joel Anthony over because he is the athletic presence that I think Bulls fans think Joakim "hey I'm trying hard, check out the mean faces I make" Noah is. 

Dirk, instead of getting pushed around by Haslem like Boozer did, just took Bosh and Haslem apart.

I will agree that NBA championship frontcourts have started dominating the paint with two guys instead of one. This has been true more often than not since around 1999. So I realize a guy like you looks at Dallas and says "hey they don't have a Hakeem or Shaq" the same way that Spicoli said "hey there's no birthday party for me here!" So you think that's a victory in your obsessive ideology about having a frontcourt of guys who play like rebounding guards. The fact is, Dallas, like Boston in 08 , like Detroit in 04 won by dominating the frontcourt.

Take Bynum in 2009. Was he as good as Howard? No. Were Bynum and Gasol combined better than Howard and whoever else was in the game? Ding, ding, ding. 

Go read about the NBA bro.


----------



## Hoodey

jnrjr79 said:


> The Heat were more talented than the Mavs, and yet...


And yet Dallas won with the better frontcourt! 

Tyson Chandler just worked Joel Anthony over because he is the athletic presence that I think Bulls fans think Joakim "hey I'm trying hard, check out the mean faces I make" Noah is. 

Dirk, instead of getting pushed around by Haslem like Boozer did, just took Bosh and Haslem apart.

I will agree that NBA championship frontcourts have started dominating the paint with two guys instead of one. This has been true more often than not since around 1999. So I realize a guy like you looks at Dallas and says "hey they don't have a Hakeem or Shaq" the same way that Spicoli said "hey there's no birthday party for me here!" So you think that's a victory in your obsessive ideology about having a frontcourt of guys who play like rebounding guards. The fact is, Dallas, like Boston in 08 , like Detroit in 04 won by dominating the frontcourt.

Take Bynum in 2009. Was he as good as Howard? No. Were Bynum and Gasol combined better than Howard and whoever else was in the game? Ding, ding, ding. 

Go read about the NBA bro.


----------



## jnrjr79

Hoodey said:


> Man your condescending posts are so moderating lol. I love the way that as a moderator, you're clearly in the middle and don't take sides.


You misapprehend the job description.



> Uh, you took out the middle of what I said. I asked the question, "what's wrong with the movie though?"
> 
> Was cap space the issue? Or was the lack of an ability to make the SALE the issue.
> 
> GMs have two sources of value. Talent evaluation and sales. If you're not a draft wiz and if you're watching Riley sell James and Wade while you get stuck with Boozer, you should just do the right thing and quit, because you suck.


You can't argue cap space is the answer and then argue that the cap space will be inevitably misused.

In any event, the broader point I was making, which shouldn't need to be spelled out at length (brevity is indeed sometimes a virtue) is that simply having cap space doesn't guarantee a good acquisition, especially considering the strictures of the CBA. Couple that with the fact that the FA class doesn't look too hot when Dwight's plan has come off the books, and a sensible fan realizes pursuing cap space would be folly.



> Go watch the Alec Baldwin scene in Glengarry Glen Ross. Either you sell or you suck.


You probably also think the "Greed is good" line from Wall Street was meant in earnest.




> And if he couldn't sell Lebron James or Wade, then he should have held the money over and either not spent it or offered up a two year deal.


No.



> "But the cap space would have gone away." Not if he didn't do what he always does. John Paxson drafts guys, decides he loves them and overpays them. Deng and Noah are not special AT ALL (unless someone lives in the world you live in where the NBA started when the Bulls hired John Paxson) and they should be combining to make around 15.5 mill next year.


You are probably the same guy who was bemoaning the front office being cheap when it was unwilling to sign Ben Gordon, etc.

Arguing Deng is not special at all (depending on your definition of special) pretty significantly demolishes any credibility you would have as an evaluator of basketball players. Is he a superstar? No. Is he one of the best players at his position in the NBA? Yes.



> The fact that you or anyone would worry about John Paxson having cap space in the house that MJ built with Derrick Rose as the center piece of the team proves my point. He can't sell, he overpays the wrong guys, he sucks and so do his fans. His fans think that stuff that was a big deal in 2005, when we hadn't been competitive for forever is still a big deal.



The CBA is designed to make re-signing with your current team the best option. So, cap space plans should always be regarded with some skepticism. (See: Nets, New Jersey).


----------



## jnrjr79

Hoodey said:


> And yet Dallas won with the better frontcourt!


Yep.



> Tyson Chandler just worked Joel Anthony over because he is the athletic presence that I think Bulls fans think Joakim "hey I'm trying hard, check out the mean faces I make" Noah is.


Noah is a better player than Chandler. Neither one is some scoring dynamo, however.



> Dirk, instead of getting pushed around by Haslem like Boozer did, just took Bosh and Haslem apart.


Yep. Dirk is a much better player than those guys.



> I will agree that NBA championship frontcourts have started dominating the paint with two guys instead of one. This has been true more often than not since around 1999. So I realize a guy like you looks at Dallas and says "hey they don't have a Hakeem or Shaq" the same way that Spicoli said "hey there's no birthday party for me here!" So you think that's a victory in your obsessive ideology about having a frontcourt of guys who play like rebounding guards. The fact is, Dallas, like Boston in 08 , like Detroit in 04 won by dominating the front court.


I have an obsessive ideology about a frontcourt of guys who play like rebounding guards? Weren't you just lauding Dirk a moment ago? What is he if not a big that plays like a guard?



> Take Bynum in 2009. Was he as good as Howard? No. Were Bynum and Gasol combined better than Howard and whoever else was in the game? Ding, ding, ding.


Kobe Bryant probably had little to do with that Lakers team, one assumes.



> Go read about the NBA bro.



K.


----------



## Dornado

Lonnie Shelton? Clifford Ray? Rick Mahorn? And a few missing years on both of those lists... 


I think the formula is mostly superstars and defense... I also think that our defense is being underrated in this thread.


----------



## Good Hope

Hoodey said:


> 1. The idea that "good basketball" is enough is how the Cubs got where they are. "Hey, as long as it's good baseball, why risk that?" I don't want to waste Derrick Rose's prime and I don't want to wake up 20 years from now without a ring.
> 
> 2. Your entire idea of not risking it is problematic. We have DERRICK ROSE. If we move Deng and Noah, even if Howard isn't re-signing, we aren't going to become the 1999 Bulls man.
> 
> 3. There clearly is a championship formula. Here it is:
> 
> a) Offensive oriented center -
> 
> b) Elite defender -
> 
> c) Michael Jordan - the one guard who could control the paint like a center in his prime...
> 
> There is a way. Control the paint. This team just isn't close.


Are you really citing the Cubs as an example of settling for being good enough? If you're including the Hendry years, he invested heavily (unbelievably so) in moderately good players so that he had no flexibility. There was one year when they were 5 outs away. There were two other good years. That doesn't compare very significantly to the Bulls as constructed. 

Hey, if we can get Dwight Howard, let's get him. We'd be better with him. And I don't buy that he's not competitive enough. People said that about Shaq. He just needed the right coach, and I think Thibs can be that coach. But Derrick's attitude is right...if you want to join us, we'll welcome you, but we're not begging, and we'll go to war with who we've got, and may the best team win. 

You made an exception for MJ, you also excluded certain years that don't fit your formula. Derrick is 23 years old. He's younger than Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant in 1990, and we're asking him to be the MJ for our team, and he's not doing too bad, though you can see where he still needs to develop. The amazing thing is that he sees it, too. 

I'm not sure what you want. I think you want me to feel like a stupid asshole for enjoying the current team. Sorry. I'm not going to apologize for liking this team, and being willing to wait for things to grow and come together. 

And since you are surely LMatrix from some time ago, I recall quite clearly how you argued that Eddy Curry was the way for us to dominate the interior, so I don't think you're quite as smart as you would like us to believe. 

But I can't disagree that we'd be better with Dwight than without.


----------



## DunkMaster

Good Hope said:


> I'm not sure what you want. I think you want me to feel like a stupid asshole for enjoying the current team. Sorry. I'm not going to apologize for liking this team, and being willing to wait for things to grow and come together.
> 
> And since you are surely LMatrix from some time ago, I recall quite clearly how you argued that Eddy Curry was the way for us to dominate the interior, so I don't think you're quite as smart as you would like us to believe.
> 
> But I can't disagree that we'd be better with Dwight than without.


Exactly my sentiments, if we get Dwight, then we'll deal with it then. I'm pretty sure Paxson and the rest of the management team will try to make the right decision, and I'm estatic that the Bulls are top contenders in the league and possibly could win the whole thing


----------



## Hoodey

jnrjr79 said:


> You misapprehend the job description.


Yawn.



> You can't argue cap space is the answer and then argue that the cap space will be inevitably misused.
> 
> In any event, the broader point I was making, which shouldn't need to be spelled out at length (brevity is indeed sometimes a virtue) is that simply having cap space doesn't guarantee a good acquisition, especially considering the strictures of the CBA. Couple that with the fact that the FA class doesn't look too hot when Dwight's plan has come off the books, and a sensible fan realizes pursuing cap space would be folly.


Sure I can. Cap space can be a good thing and the GM using it can be a bad thing, which was the exact point. Do I know for a damn fact that Jerry West in his GM prime could come in with Derrick Rose and either sell Dwight Howard on staying here or use the cap space to build a winner? Yes. I do. If your guy falls well short, well that's not my problem. You love him, I don't. There lies the problem.

Simply having cap space doesn't guarantee anything. I haven't argued that. I understand your point. You're not really understanding the response. A very good GM should be able to sell Derrick Rose as a teammate and the city of Chicago to the top players. Paxson is an average GM. Additionally, when you can't sell the top guy that helps you, you do also need to know how to hold money over and not spend it just to spend it. Had Jerry West not signed Shaq, I really don't see him then turning around and saying, "well, let's just pay top dollar for Carlos Boozer."

A sensible fan doesn't overrate Deng and Noah. You make the deal for Howard and you have to know that Red Auerbach could build a new team around Rose with ease. 

Exactly how good do you think Luol Deng and Joakim Noah are. Give me a comparison please.



> You probably also think the "Greed is good" line from Wall Street was meant in earnest


About the 10,000th thing you've posted that has no meaning and less value. 



> No.


I love your compelling rationale as to why the conclusion "no" should be held in such high esteem. 

Carlos Boozer sucks. Ben Wallace's future at the time he was signed sucked. Chandler's contract at the money he was paid when there were no other bidders for his services sucked. Hinrich's contract sucked.

Paxson is kind of 0-5 when it comes to long-term deals. Again, as a laugh test, can someone picture Red Auerbach striking out on Lebron and saying, "Boozer! I have to have him."

Carlos Boozer shot 40.6% in the ECF and has shot 44% against eventual Finals teams. He wasn't worth 15 million. That's a conclusion based on a fact. It's quite a bit more compelling than your "no." 



> You are probably the same guy who was bemoaning the front office being cheap when it was unwilling to sign Ben Gordon, etc.


LMAO not really my man. I never liked Gordon to begin with. He was basically Vinnie Johnson with a bunch of extra muscle that he never converted into extra basketball skill. As a sixth man making like 24 million on a 5 year deal I'd take him. I never really wanted him to be drafted onto the team and I could have yawned for a long time when he left. 

That is actually one time I'll give Paxson a lot of credit, as signing him to a long deal worth big dollars would have been a disaster. He's yet another player who has played on this team who will NEVER matter in the discussion of championship basketball, except maybe as a sixth man one day. 



> Arguing Deng is not special at all (depending on your definition of special) pretty significantly demolishes any credibility you would have as an evaluator of basketball players. Is he a superstar? No. Is he one of the best players at his position in the NBA? Yes.


He's a good basketball player. 

His career PER is 16.2. If you look at other swings in that range here is a list you're coming up with:

16.42 - Jerome Kersey
16.40 - Kiki Vandeweghe
16.39 - Don Nelson
16.31 - Josh Howard
16.14 - Cedric Maxwell

Now if his PER is 16.2 now, it will probably finish around 15 if he plays for a while, so he probably won't even be as high as Jerome Kersey when it's over.

Have you ever watched the 92 Finals and thought to yourself "man, we gotta have Jerome Kersey?" 

He's a non-passing SF. He's not a point forward type. He also isn't a guy who is going to put the ball on the floor and chop a defense up. And he's not some crack shot who is going to nail pressure shot after pressure shot in the playoffs like Rick Fox. 

You may be saying, "he's a great defender." Where is his name on the all-NBA defensive teams? Even the SECOND team? I think you and other Bulls fans like him a lot more than other people outside of your bubble think he's good. 

And say he's the 5th best SF in the game. So what? When has having a SF who is in the top 5 at his position ever been something that has a big influence on championship play? Other than Paul Pierce, what SF on a title team has been something other than a role player for YEARS. Since Scottie Pippen where are these impact SFs? I can think of guys like Rick Fox, Posey, Artest, Marion, Bowen, Jackson, Glen Rice near the end? 

In title play it's been mostly a role player position in the modern era. Other than Pierce you have Pippen, Larry Bird and James Worthy. So the influence of a star SF died in the 80s. 

The way to go is to have this position be a role player, and that's the point. I'll take Deng any day at 8.5 million. At the 13 he's going to make next year? You need an impact player. He's not it. He's a nice role player. He's a nice #3 option. You don't pay #3s 13.3 mill unless you're going with a 3-star team and he's a guy like Paul Pierce. 

I think you think he's closer to Paul Pierce than say Jerome Kersey, which sounds about right for his impact level. 

Again, all of this requires you to step out of the bubble of the fabled Paxson era lol.



> The CBA is designed to make re-signing with your current team the best option. So, cap space plans should always be regarded with some skepticism. (See: Nets, New Jersey).


I don't like the idea of cap space in a vacuum. Usually it's not a good idea. But you have to look at the specifics. This isn't the 2000 Bulls where you're hoping to sign your #1 option. Derrick Rose is already here. Also, this isn't just "throw Deng and Noah away." You have a chance to trade for the best center in the game. On the other side is "well, he might leave." He also might stay. First you get him to stay. But if you can't, the idea of him leaving doesn't leave us in disaster.

It's not just "cap space." It's cap space WITH Derrick Rose, the youngest MVP ever. You're kind of arguing against it like we have nothing and I REALLY hope we land TMAC lol. 

Cap space the way Krause tried to do it was a joke. But there are other factors involved, Rose being one of them.


----------



## Hoodey

Good Hope said:


> You made an exception for MJ, you also excluded certain years that don't fit your formula. Derrick is 23 years old. He's younger than Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant in 1990, and we're asking him to be the MJ for our team, and he's not doing too bad, though you can see where he still needs to develop. The amazing thing is that he sees it, too.


Derrick will get better like Scottie and Horace did. But this idea that those Bulls were not champs until they were champs as related to this team is silly. This team didn't lose because of deficiencies Derrick had. The 90 Bulls lost because Scottie and Horace were too young. This team lost because Noah and Boozer couldn't space the floor and pull the defense to the paint, allowing Miami to play a man defense with Lebron supported by teammates playing off of their guy and onto Derrick. Noah, Boozer and Deng aren't going to get better to the degree that Scottie and Horace did from 90 going forward.



> I'm not sure what you want. I think you want me to feel like a stupid asshole for enjoying the current team. Sorry. I'm not going to apologize for liking this team, and being willing to wait for things to grow and come together.


Liking this team? No. There's no apology to be made there. They're not dogging it like the guy you mention next paragraph. They play hard. 

The problem is you have role players who are overpaid. The fact of the matter is that very few guys in this league have a value in the current CBA above around 10 mill. Deng is a fine player. It's all about whether you're paying him to be a star or a role player. If you're paying Deng and Noah 3rd and 4th guy money in a two-star, ten role player format, they're both very nice compliments to two stars. Neither of them is a star. 

So when you pay them and Boozer a combined 39 million next year, you're really needing to get a Scottie Pippen type of game out of one of them or a Ray Allen + Paul Pierce game out of two of them, and that's just not the kind of players they are.

Do I think you should dislike them or that it's their fault instead of Paxson's that they are overpaid? No way. They remind me of Jerome Kersey and Charles Oakley in terms of impact. Good decent players.

Where I draw the line is the idea that it's a title team. It's not. And a good GM should realize that and move them for someone who can allow Rose to have the inside outside game he needs, because he's not Michael Jordan. He, like Kobe Bryant, Jerry West and a host of other superstar guards needs help down low.



> And since you are surely LMatrix from some time ago, I recall quite clearly how you argued that Eddy Curry was the way for us to dominate the interior, so I don't think you're quite as smart as you would like us to believe.
> 
> But I can't disagree that we'd be better with Dwight than without.


LOL Eddy Curry? I mean if he was good taking 5 mill until he produced fine, but that guy, despite being able to get a good shot on occassion, was just too much like Chris Washburn.

And are you ... talking about the guy ... who put a ... in between every ... two ... words?

Not so much. I don't think you have to be like Matrix to realize that frontcourts rule this game. 

You just have to know about guys like John Wooden and the innovations he made on the game. When a center in the NBA would post up in the 70s and play the inside out game with a guard, opposing players would yell "they're running Wooden!" 

Now the game has change, but not so much the way Sam Smith and the D'Antoni full court nazis thought it would. It has not become a game without positions. It has become a game where the five position can be ruled by athletes like Chandler or big defensive linemen types like Perkins or Bynum. Centers play next to other centers. All of this is in an effort to deal with the fact that the John Woodens of basketball are gone and with the departure of guys who can coach low post play has been a departure of the golden era of centers. That doesn't mean that athleticism and size isn't ruling frontcourts. It's just not going to be in the form of Patrick Ewing v. Hakeem Olajuwon surrounded by goons. 

That doesn't make Joakim Noah a good idea in championship play.


----------



## Hoodey

Dornado said:


> Lonnie Shelton? Clifford Ray? Rick Mahorn? And a few missing years on both of those lists...
> 
> 
> I think the formula is mostly superstars and defense... I also think that our defense is being underrated in this thread.


Clifford Ray may not have been Kareem, but he also didn't shoot 37% when it mattered that year either.

And you completely dismiss the formula because a "few years" are missing on both of those lists. First, the second list has a lot of teams who dealt with the lack of an offensive post threat by completely dominating the paint with guys like Bill Russell. So Boston may not have had anybody on that list offensively in 1965 but they completely dominated the paint defensively. I'm open for an argument that even though Joakim Noah and Carlos Boozer couldn't score on Anthony, Haslem and Bosh, they completely made the other end no man's land.

Also, a "few missing years" leaves us at what? How many teams in NBA title history have been able to win without dominating the paint offensively OR defensively in the frontcourt? 10%?! 

So, because only 90% of teams win that way you can begin your next paragraph with "I dismiss the entire idea, and I think you just win with defense and superstars." And why are you dismissing it? Because only MOST NBA champs have dominated the paint, not every single one of them lol. 

I guess 90% isn't enough to make a convincing argument if someone already decides they like the Paxson way.


----------



## Luke

I just skimmed through this thread but I'm going to have to LOL at mentioning Andrew Bynum as any kind of significant part in the Lakers' two most recent championships. Talk about a reach.

Oh, and I'm not getting the Wade love on the first page either.


----------



## Hoodey

jnrjr79 said:


> Noah is a better player than Chandler. Neither one is some scoring dynamo, however.


The problem with this assertion is that Tyson Chandler shot 59.3% v. Miami in the Finals, not the 35ish that Noah shot in the ECF (wow a 24% difference), the Heat centers didn't push him around.



> I have an obsessive ideology about a frontcourt of guys who play like rebounding guards? Weren't you just lauding Dirk a moment ago? What is he if not a big that plays like a guard?


Quality my man. I remember the "game is changing" revolution of the middle of last decade. It came along with "you don't need true centers to win." "There are no positions." 

And, just like now, guys were using Dirk to justify it. The problem is, of all the big men who play like rebounding guards, how many have been that good? Tell me, how many? They're more likely to be like Andrea Bargnani or Carlos Boozer than Dirk. If that's the case, I'd rather big men play like Wooden envisioned them playing.

Let's see. Wooden v. D'Antoni? Hmmm. Wooden v. Don Nelson? Hmmm.

And let's take a look at Dirk. 

When Dirk was next to Erick Dampier as opposed to a second team all defensive center who can shoot a high percentage on the other end (see: not Noah on the second part), what happened? He lost a series that a guy who could back opposing players down and score would have won.

And what about the evolution of Dirk? Dirk lost in 06 because Wade was getting the high percentage buckets that the Heat couldn't get on the other end, and because the officials sucked. The officials sucked, but Dirk could have done what great players do and minimized their impact by sticking buckets. You don't see Michael Jordan standing around blaming the officials for why he didn't win in 93, because he stuck it to the Knicks in 93 despite suspect officiating.

Dirk showed in 07 why he lost in 06. The book on him was "he can take you outside and if you can guard him outside he can post you up." Matt Barnes showed that this just wasn't true in 07 when he muscled Dirk all over the floor. Dirk had to learn how to play with center principles and how to get down and dirty and use those 7 feet in the low post before he won a title. Had Dirk been the player in 06 that he was last year he might have 3 rings. His entire mistake was playing primarily like a rebounding guard instead of using that 7 feet and having guard skills as a bonus. 



> Kobe Bryant probably had little to do with that Lakers team, one assumes.


Make no mistake. These guys are not often the primary reason their team wins. The reason you want a guy like Bynum and Gasol at minimum is just to pace your offense when you need the surefire buckets that teams need in the conference finals and finals. Does that make them the primary reason their team wins? No way. 

Do you see me arguing that we should give away Derrick Rose for a center? Or am I saying that Derrick just isn't as good as the only guard who didn't need a frontcourt who dominated offensively or defensively to win multiple titles. Derrick can't win with Noah and Boozer just like KOBE BRYANT would not win with Noah and Boozer.

But that doesn't mean I'm saying that Gasol and Bynum would win a title with CJ Watson and JR Smith in the backcourt.

Derrick doesn't need some all world center (it would be nice and I'll take one). He just needs someone who can control the frontcourt just enough. Whether it's someone who is going to turn the tables on Miami and completely push Haslem and Anthony around like a Kendrick Perkins or someone like Gasol who is going to back them down for easy buckets just enough to keep the D off of Derrick. Noah isn't it though. 

The entire argument is that most star guards and guys who bring some kind of frontcourt domination to the table need each other. Obviously if Derrick was 6'6" and coming with a head of steam to decapitate everyone in his way like Michael did, he wouldn't need anything but what we have. But he isn't that good and neither was Kobe, which is why you don't hear stories about the 2007 World Champ Lakers.





> K.


----------



## Hoodey

VanillaPrice said:


> I just skimmed through this thread but I'm going to have to LOL at mentioning Andrew Bynum as any kind of significant part in the Lakers' two most recent championships. Talk about a reach.
> 
> Oh, and I'm not getting the Wade love on the first page either.


So riddle me this. 

Why is it that Boston lost to LA in 2010, but yet that same Boston team beat LA in 2008? What was the big difference?


----------



## jnrjr79

Hoodey said:


> Sure I can. Cap space can be a good thing and the GM using it can be a bad thing, which was the exact point. Do I know for a damn fact that Jerry West in his GM prime could come in with Derrick Rose and either sell Dwight Howard on staying here or use the cap space to build a winner? Yes. I do. If your guy falls well short, well that's not my problem. You love him, I don't. There lies the problem.


Your continued insistence that I love Pax is both humorous and perplexing.

You're advocating going all-in for Dwight, even if he says he won't re-sign. That's terribly unwise for what the expected costs would be. I would assume every GM would agree. In any event, though, if you accept your proposition that the Bulls' front office stinks, and also accept the proposition that Gar and Pax aren't going anywhere, then you should also not be rooting for cap space. You also haven't identified who you would pick up in the event Dwight were to leave. You may have noticed this is a continual theme with you: tons of complaining, no solutions.



> A very good GM should be able to sell Derrick Rose as a teammate and the city of Chicago to the top players.


Most NBA players don't actually care about this (the Derrick stuff). Chicago is a large media market, but IL's tax situation is bad and the weather is cold. It's a mixed bag as a destination city.



> Paxson is an average GM.


I don't disagree particularly, other than to note he's not the GM anymore. But if you want to just look at the GarPax front office as one continuous thing, I think they are slightly above average but not setting the world on fire. Your insistence that I think they are great is laughable, and seemingly just a result of your own projection or something. They've built a team good enough to justify keeping their jobs, but the record is certainly not spotless.



> Additionally, when you can't sell the top guy that helps you, you do also need to know how to hold money over and not spend it just to spend it. Had Jerry West not signed Shaq, I really don't see him then turning around and saying, "well, let's just pay top dollar for Carlos Boozer."


I don't love Carlos Boozer, but that signing doesn't keep me up at night. The team is better for having signed him, even if he is overpaid relative to his production. NBA teams are like this. Focusing too much on how many points/rebounds/assists you get per dollar is fruitless. At any time, you are likely to have players who are overproducing per dollar and players that are underproducing per dollar. It would be rare to look at an NBA roster and think that all contracts are perfectly appropriate. 



> A sensible fan doesn't overrate Deng and Noah.


I agree. Feel free to come join the ranks of sensible fans anytime you like.




> You make the deal for Howard and you have to know that Red Auerbach could build a new team around Rose with ease.



Great! Let's exhume him and and sign him up!



> Exactly how good do you think Luol Deng and Joakim Noah are. Give me a comparison please.



I think both are closer to the best players at their position in the NBA than the worst. Lu is maybe around the 5th best SF and Jo the 8th best center. You seem to think that it is somehow realistic that you can assemble an All-Star team. It doesn't work that way. 




> About the 10,000th thing you've posted that has no meaning and less value.


Stay classy, San Diego.



> I love your compelling rationale as to why the conclusion "no" should be held in such high esteem.


Thanks!



> Carlos Boozer sucks. Ben Wallace's future at the time he was signed sucked. Chandler's contract at the money he was paid when there were no other bidders for his services sucked. Hinrich's contract sucked.


In the order presented: 1. Obviously not true, but it's certainly fair to say people hoped for more. 2. Only if you had a crystal ball. Most lauded the signing, and the Bulls did get one good year out of Wallace before getting a crappy year out of him. 3. This is a fantastic argument on your part as you are arguing Chandler is the guy we need rather than Noah. Consistent much? 4. I guess. It was descending and didn't cause any significant harm to the franchise. So, why should anyone care at this point, exactly?



> Paxson is kind of 0-5 when it comes to long-term deals. Again, as a laugh test, can someone picture Red Auerbach striking out on Lebron and saying, "Boozer! I have to have him."


Ha. I'm sorry you find Derrick's extension so upsetting. The Lu and Noah signings were also good. Nocioni was a good signing. Chandler was so-so. The Kirk signing was so-so. The Wallace singing was bad. The Korver and Brewer signings were good. The jury is out on the Boozer signing. It's been worth it so far, but he's not met expectations, and there is concern about how he'll perform in the next couple of seasons. The Rip Hamilton signing could end up being great, but with all the injuries so far, also could turn out to be a big whiff.

Like most GMs, there are some good decisions and some bad ones.



> Carlos Boozer shot 40.6% in the ECF and has shot 44% against eventual Finals teams. He wasn't worth 15 million. That's a conclusion based on a fact. It's quite a bit more compelling than your "no."


This is an odd metric you keep parroting re: eventual Finals teams. He sucked last year in the ECF while trying to play through injury. It's not enough of a sample size to conclude the signing was a failure. And arguments that are self-described as "compelling" rarely are.



> LMAO not really my man. I never liked Gordon to begin with. He was basically Vinnie Johnson with a bunch of extra muscle that he never converted into extra basketball skill. As a sixth man making like 24 million on a 5 year deal I'd take him. I never really wanted him to be drafted onto the team and I could have yawned for a long time when he left.
> 
> That is actually one time I'll give Paxson a lot of credit, as signing him to a long deal worth big dollars would have been a disaster. He's yet another player who has played on this team who will NEVER matter in the discussion of championship basketball, except maybe as a sixth man one day.


Why, how big of you!




> He's a good basketball player.
> 
> His career PER is 16.2. If you look at other swings in that range here is a list you're coming up with:
> 
> 16.42 - Jerome Kersey
> 16.40 - Kiki Vandeweghe
> 16.39 - Don Nelson
> 16.31 - Josh Howard
> 16.14 - Cedric Maxwell
> 
> Now if his PER is 16.2 now, it will probably finish around 15 if he plays for a while, so he probably won't even be as high as Jerome Kersey when it's over.


PER is a shitty metric. 




> Have you ever watched the 92 Finals and thought to yourself "man, we gotta have Jerome Kersey?"


No. Also, he's pretty old, no?



> He's a non-passing SF. He's not a point forward type. He also isn't a guy who is going to put the ball on the floor and chop a defense up. And he's not some crack shot who is going to nail pressure shot after pressure shot in the playoffs like Rick Fox.


It's true. Luol is a complete player, rather than a specialist role player. That is a good thing.



> You may be saying, "he's a great defender." Where is his name on the all-NBA defensive teams? Even the SECOND team? I think you and other Bulls fans like him a lot more than other people outside of your bubble think he's good.


You believe All-Defense lists are any more accurate a judge of play than All-Star ballots? Come on now...



> And say he's the 5th best SF in the game. So what? When has having a SF who is in the top 5 at his position ever been something that has a big influence on championship play? Other than Paul Pierce, what SF on a title team has been something other than a role player for YEARS. Since Scottie Pippen where are these impact SFs? I can think of guys like Rick Fox, Posey, Artest, Marion, Bowen, Jackson, Glen Rice near the end?
> 
> In title play it's been mostly a role player position in the modern era. Other than Pierce you have Pippen, Larry Bird and James Worthy. So the influence of a star SF died in the 80s.


You would make a bad scientist. You draw sweeping conclusions from insignificant sample sizes, and then even have the temerity to cast aside more recent examples that disprove your position. 



> The way to go is to have this position be a role player, and that's the point.


Why? Because you say so? Ok. Please give me the list of NBA positions where players are allowed to be complete players, and the list of positions where they should be specialist role players. 



> I'll take Deng any day at 8.5 million.


Right. Most people would love to have a massively underpaid top 5 player at his position. What a stand you're taking.



> At the 13 he's going to make next year? You need an impact player. He's not it. He's a nice role player. He's a nice #3 option. You don't pay #3s 13.3 mill unless you're going with a 3-star team and he's a guy like Paul Pierce.



He's not a role player. He's a complete player. He's paid appropriately.



> I think you think he's closer to Paul Pierce than say Jerome Kersey, which sounds about right for his impact level.


The endless player comparison game is tiresome. Luol is Luol.



> Again, all of this requires you to step out of the bubble of the fabled Paxson era lol.


K.



> I don't like the idea of cap space in a vacuum. Usually it's not a good idea. But you have to look at the specifics. This isn't the 2000 Bulls where you're hoping to sign your #1 option. Derrick Rose is already here. Also, this isn't just "throw Deng and Noah away." You have a chance to trade for the best center in the game. On the other side is "well, he might leave." He also might stay. First you get him to stay. But if you can't, the idea of him leaving doesn't leave us in disaster.
> 
> It's not just "cap space." It's cap space WITH Derrick Rose, the youngest MVP ever.


You mean like when LeBron signed here??? That was awweeessooommmee!!!!! Oh wait.



> You're kind of arguing against it like we have nothing and I REALLY hope we land TMAC lol.
> 
> Cap space the way Krause tried to do it was a joke. But there are other factors involved, Rose being one of them.



It's a bad free agent class and there's no guarantee of landing anyone good. Yes, I care about setting the franchise back 10 years. Sue me.


----------



## jnrjr79

Hoodey said:


> The problem with this assertion is that Tyson Chandler shot 59.3% v. Miami in the Finals, not the 35ish that Noah shot in the ECF (wow a 24% difference), the Heat centers didn't push him around.


That's actually not a problem with the assertion. 



> Quality my man.


Got it. So bigs who play like guards are bad unless they are good. 




> Do you see me arguing that we should give away Derrick Rose for a center? Or am I saying that Derrick just isn't as good as the only guard who didn't need a frontcourt who dominated offensively or defensively to win multiple titles. Derrick can't win with Noah and Boozer just like KOBE BRYANT would not win with Noah and Boozer.


Kobe certainly was talented enough in his prime to win with that front
court.



> Derrick doesn't need some all world center (it would be nice and I'll take one).



I'd take one, too. But not one that wouldn't re-sign.



> He just needs someone who can control the frontcourt just enough. Whether it's someone who is going to turn the tables on Miami and completely push Haslem and Anthony around like a Kendrick Perkins or someone like Gasol who is going to back them down for easy buckets just enough to keep the D off of Derrick. Noah isn't it though.


Applying the criteria you seem to like, it would seem that simply starting Asik would satisfy you. Is that he case?


----------



## Dornado

What I like about Hoodey is that he's like a one-man message board argument... he'll state his argument and then decide what your argument is and state it for you.


----------



## Good Hope

Hoodey said:


> Now the game has change, but not so much the way Sam Smith and the D'Antoni full court nazis thought it would. It has not become a game without positions. It has become a game where the five position can be ruled by athletes like Chandler or big defensive linemen types like Perkins or Bynum. Centers play next to other centers. All of this is in an effort to deal with the fact that the John Woodens of basketball are gone and with the departure of guys who can coach low post play has been a departure of the golden era of centers. That doesn't mean that athleticism and size isn't ruling frontcourts. It's just not going to be in the form of Patrick Ewing v. Hakeem Olajuwon surrounded by goons.
> 
> That doesn't make Joakim Noah a good idea in championship play.


I think you compared Boozer to Oakley, and Noah as << Chandler. 

I also think you're ignoring the hole we had at two guard last year. 

If Chandler, after so many years, can become a "championship" center, so can Noah. 

I agree that Boozer and Noah aren't ideal as complementary players, but Boozer is a far better facilitator on offense than Oakley, and he's not a lunatic, either, which is a good thing for the most part. I also think they're learning how to play together and with Derrick, and Derrick is learning how to play with them and, with any luck, with Rip. 

They are a contender, whether you decree them so or not. They are significantly improved by any statistical measure over last year, for internal improvement reasons (Noah, Brewer and Boozer's health, CJ's confidence, Derrick's continued upward trajectory) and for the addition of Rip (fingers crossed) and maybe even Jimmy Butler. 

It's a very good team and it has room to grow. You size up their talent and use whatever formula you want. My claim is that this team can be a champion, if they learn how to be champions as a team. And I'll enjoy the attempts, failures and successes, because I like how this team plays basketball.


----------



## Luke

Hoodey said:


> So riddle me this.
> 
> Why is it that Boston lost to LA in 2010, but yet that same Boston team beat LA in 2008? What was the big difference?


There's plenty of reasons.

1.) Celtics no longer had James Posey, who was the one that would spell Pierce on Kobe (and who did a fantastic job)

2.) Gasol grew up. In 2008 Pau was the same soft Memphis incarnation and was abused by KG and Perkins. In 2010 he played up to his ability and held his own for a good portion of the series.

3.) Age and injuries. The Celtics were old as shit by this point, and all of the big three was clearly past their respective primes.

4.) Injuries. KG blew out his knee in 2009 and was never the same player.

5.) The small forward rotation. In 2008 we had ****ing Radman trying to check the eventual Finals MVP Paul Pierce. In 2010? Former defensive player of the year Ron Artest. I like our odds the second go around a hell of a lot better.

Need I go on?


----------



## e-monk

Hoodey said:


> Take Bynum in 2009. Was he as good as Howard? No. Were Bynum and Gasol combined better than Howard and whoever else was in the game? Ding, ding, ding.
> .


actually Bynum didnt have much at all to do with that series win (coming off injury he averaged 6ppg 4rpg in about 16 minutes per game) 

Pau did most of the heavy lifting and played Howard almost to a draw:

Pau 19ppg 9rpg on 60% shooting
Howard 17ppg 17rpg on 49% shooting


----------



## Hoodey

jnrjr79 said:


> Your continued insistence that I love Pax is both humorous and perplexing.
> 
> You're advocating going all-in for Dwight, even if he says he won't re-sign. That's terribly unwise for what the expected costs would be. I would assume every GM would agree. In any event, though, if you accept your proposition that the Bulls' front office stinks, and also accept the proposition that Gar and Pax aren't going anywhere, then you should also not be rooting for cap space. You also haven't identified who you would pick up in the event Dwight were to leave. You may have noticed this is a continual theme with you: tons of complaining, no solutions.


Well for one, I'm advocating making the sale. Jerry West would. Pat Riley would. Championship GMs tend to make these things happen.

In the event that he doesn't resign, I am simply stating that Noah and Deng are vastly overpaid and neither is a championship #2, or even a really good championship #3 (Ray Allen-ish) anyway. Neither of them are this force that simply can't be moved. 

As for "who would you pick up" you're looking for something to latch onto and attack. That way when your really bad basketball theories like ripping on Horace Grant are torn into a million pieces, you can say "you're the guy who wanted player X." 

I guess do this. Tell me who we'd be getting back and giving up in the trade and I'll start listing guys I want considering the cap. But I'll qualify it by saying two things. First, I'm not impressed by most of the stars in the NBA. Most of them are entertainers like Carmelo more so than guys who really want to pay the price. So I'm not going to be hatching up ideas that potential superstar guards are going to come here and revolutionize things. I think you put Derrick with a frontcourt who poses problems, whether through one player or two and then you fill the roster out with role players.

My stance on whether most players are good is "it depends." Most players people want are good at one salary and really bad at a greater inflated salary. They're good if they'll accept one role and really bad if they want to be a #1 scorer. 

Take Ben Gordon. Really, really good if he's willing to be a sixth man, choose shots wisely and play for 5 years 27 mill. Really bad if he wants to be a #2 option and make 10 per.

*But I will say this. I don't think you need to be all knowing about who will definitely be a free agent (not exercise an option) and who will definitely sign here to know that (a) Noah, Boozer and Deng aren't a title winning 5, 4 and 3 and (b) Kobe Bryant would not take Derrick Rose's place on this team and win a title.




Most NBA players don't actually care about this (the Derrick stuff). Chicago is a large media market, but IL's tax situation is bad and the weather is cold. It's a mixed bag as a destination city.

Click to expand...

Oh please. Rip came here when he could have gone elsewhere. This is all just stuff you're going to theorize in an effort to say "see, nobody wants to come here, let's just stick with the guys who I'm a huge fan boy of." 

This is Chicago, IL, the third largest market in the NBA, the largest market not shared by two teams. It's a city with six titles. It's a city where Scottie Pippen sold tons of Nikes even though Jordan was selling six pairs to every man woman and child in the US (obvious hyperbole alert).

It's a city where a GM who can make the sale can excel. If you can't sell you can't be a great GM period. Unless you rip teams off like Krause did in 87 and 95 (and no I don't think he was a very good GM post 95. He was awful in fact).




I don't disagree particularly, other than to note he's not the GM anymore. But if you want to just look at the GarPax front office as one continuous thing, I think they are slightly above average but not setting the world on fire. Your insistence that I think they are great is laughable, and seemingly just a result of your own projection or something. They've built a team good enough to justify keeping their jobs, but the record is certainly not spotless.

Click to expand...

Yawn. I'm sure that you know that by GM I mean "decision maker." I'm not going to sit here and say "main decision maker" every time I can just say GM. If you want to substitute main decision maker for GM every time I write GM be my guest. Forman is Paxson's puppet just like the guy Theo hired is Theo's puppet. 

As for your appraisal, that's fair, but if you say they're average and yet overvalue the guys that Paxson drafted and GarPax or Paxson overpaid to retain, you're kind of constructively saying they're really good are you not?

Luol Deng at 13 million is not a good value. Consider that with the reluctance to pay luxury tax, if you're paying 13 million, plus Rose, what do you get? 2-3 guys making 13ish before the team will only acquire players at the Korver-Brewer-Hamilton salary range?

If GarPax, previously just Pax, is above average, then why not part with the players their/his legacy is built on? We have Derrick Rose. Superstar guards and really good centers (giving way to good frontcourt combinations where one guy is still a center who poses problems for the other team) win titles. Bernstein and Boers were talking about that today. So can we just stop with the 07 Bulls ball now that we have the superstar guard?

If your answer is no, I ask you this, what would it take for you to say yes? How many years will it take of this team not winning a title before you're willing to part with Deng and or Noah even if the guy we trade them for is not a guarantee to stay here?




I don't love Carlos Boozer, but that signing doesn't keep me up at night. The team is better for having signed him, even if he is overpaid relative to his production. NBA teams are like this. Focusing too much on how many points/rebounds/assists you get per dollar is fruitless. At any time, you are likely to have players who are overproducing per dollar and players that are underproducing per dollar. It would be rare to look at an NBA roster and think that all contracts are perfectly appropriate.

Click to expand...

A lot of NBA teams are like that, but not the really good ones who win rings. The CBA was renegotiated by the owners, and I quote Bucher, "because of the financial problems posed by guys like Carlos Boozer making money that is too close to the superstars in this game." He said that on ESPN1000. He went on to explain that teams who are paying these contracts have a competitive disadvantage when compared to teams that will only pay a Carlos Boozer so much, and therefore are paying their big money only to guys like Kobe, Bynum and Gasol or at least making sure that they have three guys like that before they go over the luxury threshold to pay guys like Artest. 

The point is if Deng and Noah weren't overpaid AND you didn't pay Boozer, you could wait to pay the right guy on the right terms even if that guy didn't become available in the summer of 2010. 




I agree. Feel free to come join the ranks of sensible fans anytime you like.

Click to expand...

Okay you think Noah is better than Chandler. You overrate him because in the playoffs he's clearly not. They're both second team all NBA defenders, but Chandler is much more efficient with the ball and doesnt' get pushed around by Joel Anthony. 




Great! Let's exhume him and and sign him up!

Click to expand...

The point is, it's doable. It's just probably not going to happen if Paxson swings the deal because Paxson can't sell.

Krause couldn't sell and I creamed him for 2000 with his stupid O'hare stunt. Why shouldn't Paxson face the same burden?




I think both are closer to the best players at their position in the NBA than the worst. Lu is maybe around the 5th best SF and Jo the 8th best center. You seem to think that it is somehow realistic that you can assemble an All-Star team. It doesn't work that way.

Click to expand...

No way. I like the 2 star, ten role player format. I'd love to have Kendrick Perkins because then you can physically stand up to anyone at the five and get a second star at another position as opposed to Howard. 

Ten guys, or roughly 5-6 guys in your rotation need to be role players and get paid and play like role players. 

I'm not sure if you know this, but having the most guys who rank 5th to 8th at their position has never really been something that leads to titles. You're better off having two guys who are closer to the top of their position and a bunch of guys whose ranking you don't care about because they just do dirty work and hit open shots all day. 

To be clear I'd love nothing more than to have Rose and Howard and three guys at the 2, 3 and 4 whose games remind you of Derek Fisher, Robert Horry and Rick Fox. Good defenders who aren't creators but his the open shots created for them by the spacing provided by Rose and Howard, forcing teams to choose, leave the Fisher-type guy of today wide open for a shot or single team Howard and/or Rose and let them dice you up.

The problem you and I have is that you pay guys who can do certain things in the playoffs. If a guy can't, even if he's 8th in a subjective evaluation, the pay has to go way down so that you can afford to get what you're also going to need to combat the Heat, Thunder etc. Noah is fine at 7 mill. 

Again, the issue isn't them, it's that you're paying them too much. 




In the order presented: 1. Obviously not true, but it's certainly fair to say people hoped for more.

Click to expand...

Relative to the money he sucks. The signing sucked. The guy's offense is subject to massive swings in effectiveness, and on defense he watches several Sixers score and doesn't rotate. I wouldn't call his help defense Eddy Curry bad, but their are times when he conjures images of Chris Washburn's butterball nephew. 




2. Only if you had a crystal ball. Most lauded the signing, and the Bulls did get one good year out of Wallace before getting a crappy year out of him.

Click to expand...

(a) No you don't get to do that. Every SINGLE time a GM makes a signing, he is putting his stamp on it. He is saying "hey, if I'm good, then that means you will be able to look back at this signing and likewise say that it is good." GM of the Bulls isn't coach of a little league team. It's performance based. You don't get to say "well, if you look back it's easy to say that now."

(b) Ben Wallace was 32 when his first season as a Bull started. This deal CLEARLY paid him for his past. Oh wait, in the season he actually won a title and stifled Shaq he only actually made 5.5 mill; roughly 9.5 less than what he made in Chicago per annum.

He got paid for his past. Good GMs who win titles pay for the performance you receive during the life of the contract. Theo has talked about this at length. 




3. This is a fantastic argument on your part as you are arguing Chandler is the guy we need rather than Noah. Consistent much?

Click to expand...

I like Chandler. In fact, I didn't see why he needed to go. I think the pressures that were put on him at the time were unfair. 

The problem I have is not Tyson the player, just like Noah at 7 mill isn't a problem. The problem is that it is pretty well known that Paxson paid that salary despite the fact that nobody was bidding Chandler up to that point. Chandler had no leverage with which a reasonable GM could have been convinced that he would get that deal from someone else. We could have had Chandler at about 9 per. 




4. I guess. It was descending and didn't cause any significant harm to the franchise. So, why should anyone care at this point, exactly?

Click to expand...

Because it's part of Paxson's record. 

On the other side of plausible deniability as to whether these contracts "weren't that bad" where is the list of Paxson signings where he got a real steal or pulled a coup? I'll wait anxiously .




Ha. I'm sorry you find Derrick's extension so upsetting. The Lu and Noah signings were also good. Nocioni was a good signing. Chandler was so-so. The Kirk signing was so-so. The Wallace singing was bad. The Korver and Brewer signings were good. The jury is out on the Boozer signing. It's been worth it so far, but he's not met expectations, and there is concern about how he'll perform in the next couple of seasons. The Rip Hamilton signing could end up being great, but with all the injuries so far, also could turn out to be a big whiff.

Click to expand...

Derrick's extension isn't something you give credit for. Any moron GM could figure out that that is a good idea. Tim Ruskell could figure that one out. 

Nocioni was alright. His contract was probably the best free agent deal Paxson signed a player too other than Hamilton or Brewer for the price in dollars of the day. None of these guys I'll give Paxson credit for are guys who make the Boozer and Wallace signing better or make it better that Deng and Noah are overpaid for their playoff capabilities. 




Like most GMs, there are some good decisions and some bad ones.

Click to expand...

I guess your requirements say it all. "Better than most GMs" doesn't do it. "Better than the guy who runs the Bucks" just doesn't make me jump up and down. 

The problem here is you're okay with being competitive, winning some and losing some. Vince Lombardi was not okay with that. Phil Jackson was not okay with that. Michael Jordan and Tim Duncan were not okay with that. 

Dude if you want a team that looks like a solid NBA version of an also ran Big Ten team, then just go watch Wisconsin and stop drenching Bulls fandom with your low expectations. 

We have Derrick Rose. We have the guy that 07 Paxson fans said you needed to get "lucky to get." We need to win RINGS with him. 




This is an odd metric you keep parroting re: eventual Finals teams. He sucked last year in the ECF while trying to play through injury. It's not enough of a sample size to conclude the signing was a failure. And arguments that are self-described as "compelling" rarely are.

Click to expand...

It's probably odd to you. You see regular season games and games in the first round of the playoffs or against second round teams that aren't that good and you say "okay, the next two rounds should go the same way right?"

He got worked by Haslem and Bosh and has been worked 3 times by Gasol. 

Now, where are all of the good playoff performances against really good teams? 

Saying "he was bad hurt" is not the same as him being GOOD healthy. 




PER is a shitty metric.

Click to expand...

PER or your opinion? I'll take Hollinger thanks.

Deng just isn't as good as you think he is




No. Also, he's pretty old, no?

Click to expand...

Obviously you know I meant if a player like that were available at his 92 age today. 




It's true. Luol is a complete player, rather than a specialist role player. That is a good thing.

Click to expand...

Actually Deng's game is startlingly like Rick Fox's. He's not the pressure shooter Fox was late in the playoffs, but he's a spot up guy who like Fox couldn't put the ball on the floor. 

In fact, at age 27, before he went to LA and took a much lesser role, his PER the previous 3 seasons was in the 16.0-16.9 range.

Fox was a GOOD defender who, like Deng, wasn't good enough to warrant All-NBA selections. 

I guess you look at role players as specialists and I look at them as guys who could just as easily be complete players but just aren't special in any regard. Jerome Kersey and Buck Williams were no less complete than Deng but they were role players because nothing they brought to the table made things very complicated for guys like Horace Grant or AC Green. 

I know, outside of the Paxson era bubble. Sorry. 




You believe All-Defense lists are any more accurate a judge of play than All-Star ballots? Come on now...

Click to expand...

Umm I believe one is picked by the media and the other is voted on by people in China who make Yao Ming a perennial starter? 

I look at them as pretty accurate. I don't think Ric Bucher is John Wooden but he definitely knows more than you and the rest of Deng's fan boys. 

Are you saying that Kevin McHale, Joe Dumars, Scottie Pippen and others who were selected first many times were really just "okay" and that they were selected due to popularity only?




You would make a bad scientist. You draw sweeping conclusions from insignificant sample sizes, and then even have the temerity to cast aside more recent examples that disprove your position.

Click to expand...

You're just really bad at basketball evaluation. You think Noah > Chandler and I assume you actually watched the ECF and then the Finals.

What more recent examples? Here are your Starting SFs on title teams:

11 Marion - role player; not a star or a player that defined his team - The Mavericks were Dirk and a bunch of guys playing roles around Dirk. Even Kidd wasn't a star anymore. Marion was used more for his athleticism and defense than as a guy you'd look to and say "okay, we're in trouble her Shawn, YOU take the ball and make something happen. He guarded Lebron and generally harassed the Heat just as much as some of the Heat (Haslem) harassed the Bulls.

09, 10 Artest - role player; not a star or a player that defined his team. The Lakers were inside out with Bynum/Gasol and Kobe. Artest was not a star for them. 

08 Pierce - Acknowledged; Deng is nowhere close. If he was I'd be super happy and happy that we paid him.

07 Bruce Bowen - Started 82 games, played defense, hit open threes, was a total role player who made 3.75 million. The IDEAL situation for a SF if you ask me. Since you have to be like Larry Bird/James Worthy/Paul Pierce/Lebron James good to really have an affect late in the playoffs as a star, and since there is a big BIG BIG gap between those guys and Deng, I think you're better off with the approach of Bowen at 3.75 than Deng at 13.3. There is no way on god's green earth that Deng is worth 3 times what Bowen made that year. 

06 James Posey - Starter, role player, 5.9 million. Yet another example of a team winning a title doing it my way (Cheap role player starting at SF rather than expensive star). 

05 Bruce Bowen - 82 starts, role player, 3.0 million. Where are all of these guys making 13.3 million (Deng's salary next year).

04 Tayshaun Prince - 80 starts, and the Pistons got a PER out of him of 15.3 (very similar to Deng). The cost? 988 thousand dollars

03 Bruce Bowen - 82 starts, role player, 3.5 million

You were saying something about more recent examples?




Why? Because you say so? Ok. Please give me the list of NBA positions where players are allowed to be complete players, and the list of positions where they should be specialist role players.

Click to expand...

To me players who are complete but not special at any given thing are role players. Deng is a role player, he's just paid like he's much closer to Paul Pierce than Bruce Bowen. He's NOT. 




Right. Most people would love to have a massively underpaid top 5 player at his position. What a stand you're taking.

Click to expand...

But how are you defining top 5? And you're still not acknowledging that top 5 SFs have almost nothing to do with championship play.




He's not a role player. He's a complete player. He's paid appropriately.

Click to expand...

Horace Grant was a role player. He was a complete player but he wasn't about to start backing down two guys, turning around and buggy-whipping dunks home. 




The endless player comparison game is tiresome. Luol is Luol.

Click to expand...

This is meaningless and has no value.




You mean like when LeBron signed here??? That was awweeessooommmee!!!!! Oh wait.

Click to expand...

Yeah Paxson can't make a sale. Already discussed that.




It's a bad free agent class and there's no guarantee of landing anyone good. Yes, I care about setting the franchise back 10 years. Sue me.

Click to expand...

Ten years? I don't know about that, but I'd wait 3. It's not hard to draft around Rose and wait to sign the right guys on your terms. You just have to be willing to not overpay anyone.*


----------



## Hoodey

e-monk said:


> actually Bynum didnt have much at all to do with that series win (coming off injury he averaged 6ppg 4rpg in about 16 minutes per game)
> 
> Pau did most of the heavy lifting and played Howard almost to a draw:
> 
> Pau 19ppg 9rpg on 60% shooting
> Howard 17ppg 17rpg on 49% shooting


Bynum's mere presence influenced the series. When he was in the game Howard had to guard him or account for him and Gasol just ate up Lewis. 

For the 2.7 mill he was paid that year he provided plenty of value in the Finals. 

I'll take 16 minutes of a guy like Bynum for 2.7 mill v. the Heat. I know that.


----------



## Pay Ton

I honestly don't understand the strong backlash against Hoodey's points.

I do think some of his opinions are a tad radical, but some are also very valid points and he does back his opinions up with decent fact and/or anecdotal evidence.

I mean, I don't agree with all of his points regarding his clear disdain for Paxson (as I think that Reinsdorf is being given a free pass here), I do agree with him that there is a glaring danger in the Bulls becoming the Pacers, Knicks, Kings, and Blazers of years past, a stepping stone for the more talented NBA championship teams before they win their title.

Of course, a lot of posters on here have made valid points, I just think the truth lies somewhere in between both arguments.

I'm not saying Paxson has done a phenomenal job, but he's not horrible either. And the Bulls are obviously a fantastic team, but they do need other pieces to win a championship, because I can't contend that they'll win one with this current construct unless it's due to external factors like injuries to our strongest opponents (the Heat) or unusually abysmal series from not one, but two of the big three (so not just James, like in the NBA finals, or Wade like in the ECF, but James AND Wade/Bosh as well).

Regardless, I don't think this current team can beat the Heat, and it's not blasphemy for me to say so, just my observations based on what I've seen these past few years and what I've generally noted in the NBA as far as deep, disciplined teams versus top heavy talented teams.


----------



## Hoodey

Good Hope said:


> I think you compared Boozer to Oakley, and Noah as << Chandler.


I was pretty sure I was comparing Noah to Oakley, but I'd struggle to take Boozer over Oakley relative to the money. 



> I also think you're ignoring the hole we had at two guard last year.


So Boozer shot 40.6 and Noah shot 35% because of Keith Bogans?



> If Chandler, after so many years, can become a "championship" center, so can Noah.


Not really. Chandler was always a guy who wasn't playing to his massive potential. Where is the potential with Noah? He's not a great athlete where Chandler jumps out of the gym. Tyson Chandler wasn't getting pushed around and then having you say "well, he can't put on any weight because he has the shoulder span of a guard in terms of his bone structure."

Besides. If it's about what he can become, you're still wrong. You don't pay a guy for what he can become in years. You pay him for what he is or what he's likely to be during the life of the contract. 

I get it. You like Noah, a lot, no matter what. I like him too. Just only at a certain price and for a certain role. Noah is about 7 mill off the bench for both the center and PF on a title team. 



> I agree that Boozer and Noah aren't ideal as complementary players, but Boozer is a far better facilitator on offense than Oakley, and he's not a lunatic, either, which is a good thing for the most part. I also think they're learning how to play together and with Derrick, and Derrick is learning how to play with them and, with any luck, with Rip.


Is that what you're looking for out of a PF? A facilitator? Oakley did what PFs who aren't 6'11" 260 and who are not named Barkley, Malone, Garnett or McHale almost always need to be doing - THE DIRTY WORK. I know this flies in the face of those who worship at the church of D'Antoni/Nelson, but it's kinda still how it's done. And Garnett and McHale still did the dirty work despite doing the glamorous stuff too.

I'd hate to break it to you but Charles Oakley would eat Carlos Boozer alive. Haslem and Bosh were all up in his grill and they're not any more physical than Oakley. I would love to see you watch Boozer try the 92 Knicks if that were possible. 

That fact is, you can like Boozer because you like Paxson or whatever, but he's never done a thing against anyone who mattered. 



> They are a contender, whether you decree them so or not. They are significantly improved by any statistical measure over last year, for internal improvement reasons (Noah, Brewer and Boozer's health, CJ's confidence, Derrick's continued upward trajectory) and for the addition of Rip (fingers crossed) and maybe even Jimmy Butler.


but on my side is a convincing 4-1 loss to the Heat that wasn't close and a 37% combined performance by the combined 26 million dollar men. On your side is "well they really haven't done crap, but I want them to and I really like them." Okay super fan. 



> It's a very good team and it has room to grow. You size up their talent and use whatever formula you want. My claim is that this team can be a champion, if they learn how to be champions as a team. And I'll enjoy the attempts, failures and successes, because I like how this team plays basketball.


Well I'm kinda using the formula of the best teams that ever played. You're kind of living in D'Antoni/Nelson fantasy land. 

This team doesn't need to learn just like people who lost to Carl Lewis didn't need to learn to run faster. It needs to match up better physically with the Heat. Ever notice how nobody ever learned how to stop MJ from jumping higher than them? 

It's a very good regular season team that's fundamentally flawed and has done nothing on the biggest stage.


----------



## Hoodey

Pay Ton said:


> I honestly don't understand the strong backlash against Hoodey's points.
> 
> I do think some of his opinions are a tad radical, but some are also very valid points and he does back his opinions up with decent fact and/or anecdotal evidence.
> 
> I mean, I don't agree with all of his points regarding his clear disdain for Paxson (as I think that Reinsdorf is being given a free pass here), I do agree with him that there is a glaring danger in the Bulls becoming the Pacers, Knicks, Kings, and Blazers of years past, a stepping stone for the more talented NBA championship teams before they win their title.
> 
> Of course, a lot of posters on here have made valid points, I just think the truth lies somewhere in between both arguments.
> 
> I'm not saying Paxson has done a phenomenal job, but he's not horrible either. And the Bulls are obviously a fantastic team, but they do need other pieces to win a championship, because I can't contend that they'll win one with this current construct unless it's due to external factors like injuries to our strongest opponents (the Heat) or unusually abysmal series from not one, but two of the big three (so not just James, like in the NBA finals, or Wade like in the ECF, but James AND Wade/Bosh as well).
> 
> Regardless, I don't think this current team can beat the Heat, and it's not blasphemy for me to say so, just my observations based on what I've seen these past few years and what I've generally noted in the NBA as far as deep, disciplined teams versus top heavy talented teams.


I just want to clarify here. First before I do, usually the truth is in between two opposing points, so I applaud you there.

But to clarify so that my stance isn't morphed into something it's not. 

1. Paxson is not terrible to me overall. I'd call him above average. But come on. There are really like 10-15 guys who can't even figure out where to start in today's NBA. I mean it's not like he's bringing in the players the Warriors were bringing in a few years ago.

Where I believe he is bad is in re-signing guys he drafts and falls in love with. He overpays them.

Secondly, I think he's disingenuous. I think you can shoot for being a good regular season team and pick the kind of players who will be much more likely to take you to the second round or ECF, but who have a definite ceiling. I think the Boozer signing could have been one where you had to know we wouldn't win a title, but he's saying "well be competitive and people will THINK we're knocking on the door, even if we never really are." 

Take the 07 Lakers. They could have stayed that way, but you got the impression that they had ants in their pants and knew they had to target that guy who could put them over the top.

2. I don't think Noah, Deng or Boozer are bad, nor do I not like them. I like them all at a particular price.

Look, if this was MLB with no salary cap, I couldn't pick up guys like that fast enough. I would know that I could get them and still pay big fat money to my eventual #2 guy. 

The problem is, with Rose, what do you have? 2-3 contracts like theirs before you're relying on the MLE? 

All I wanted was for Paxson to deal with Deng and Noah a LITTLE more like the Bears dealt with Briggs and Forte. Not a lot more. But I wanted them to have a salary ceiling on those guys and be willing to let them walk if these guys wanted the money that they make now. 

3. The Trailblazers of 92. Perfect comparison. This frontcourt reminds me so much of theirs and it's just not gonna be good enough. How far was Portland gonna go in 90, 91, 92? The answer depended on when they played their first legit team. I mean in 90 I bet their fans sounded the same way ours do about this team. It never happened. There's a lot of Buck Williams and Jerome Kersey in this frontcourt.


----------



## Luke

The 2007 Lakers didn't win the title because the 2007 Lakers ****ing sucked. That team started Smush, Luke Walton, and Kwame Brown, correct? Literally no player in NBA history could have led that team to a championship. No one. Hell, no NBA player in the history of the game could have taken that team to the conference finals.


----------



## Dornado

VanillaPrice said:


> *The 2007 Lakers didn't win the title because the 2007 Lakers ****ing sucked. That team started Smush, Luke Walton, and Kwame Brown, correct?* Literally no player in NBA history could have led that team to a championship. No one. Hell, no NBA player in the history of the game could have taken that team to the conference finals.


You're thinking of earlier... the '07 Lakers had Fisher, Bryant, Gasol, Odom, etc... at least by the end of the year.


----------



## Good Hope

Hoodey said:


> So Boozer shot 40.6 and Noah shot 35% because of Keith Bogans?


Man, I haven't done this stuff since K4E went off the deep end for a while. 

Actually, yes, I'm saying that not having a legitimate threat in the back court with Rose made it too easy for a very good defensive team to trap Rose and keep enough in reserve to mess with our front court. I also said further down in my response that the Bulls have seen a marked improvement in their performance because those two are significantly healthier. 




> Not really. Chandler was always a guy who wasn't playing to his massive potential. Where is the potential with Noah? He's not a great athlete where Chandler jumps out of the gym. Tyson Chandler wasn't getting pushed around and then having you say "well, he can't put on any weight because he has the shoulder span of a guard in terms of his bone structure."
> 
> Besides. If it's about what he can become, you're still wrong. You don't pay a guy for what he can become in years. You pay him for what he is or what he's likely to be during the life of the contract.


Chandler was living off of what he was paid for what he could become. And what is his massive talent doing for the Knicks? But hey, I liked Tyson, and would have preferred not to dump him for Wallace, so, eh. 



> I get it. You like Noah, a lot, no matter what. I like him too. Just only at a certain price and for a certain role. Noah is about 7 mill off the bench for both the center and PF on a title team.


Now here is where you start talking like an asshole. For you to make this assertion, you are pretending that you know me, know who I am, how I think, what I care about. You want to package me up into a "Noah-lovers" box, and then toss me in the intellectual dustbin of your history... And you base this on...the fact that I have a Noah picture for my avatar? What is it that allows you to take my comments questioning your absolute assertion that Chandler is a "massive talent" while Noah is "mediocre talent" and turn it into a trite and quite dismissible "Oh, don't mind him, he loves Noah -- wink, wink." 




> Is that what you're looking for out of a PF? A facilitator? Oakley did what PFs who aren't 6'11" 260 and who are not named Barkley, Malone, Garnett or McHale almost always need to be doing - THE DIRTY WORK. I know this flies in the face of those who worship at the church of D'Antoni/Nelson, but it's kinda still how it's done. And Garnett and McHale still did the dirty work despite doing the glamorous stuff too.
> 
> I'd hate to break it to you but Charles Oakley would eat Carlos Boozer alive. Haslem and Bosh were all up in his grill and they're not any more physical than Oakley. I would love to see you watch Boozer try the 92 Knicks if that were possible.
> 
> That fact is, you can like Boozer because you like Paxson or whatever, *but he's never done a thing against anyone who mattered.*


Well, this is not getting better. The bolded statement is amazing. I've already taken issue with your condescending and hubristic characterization of me. So, I'll just note that is happening here, too, and then ask you to consider what Thibodeau said about Boozer when he was signed, and that it was Boozer's offensive and rebounding performance against Houston in the playoffs that convinced him Boozer was worth getting. 



> but on my side is a convincing 4-1 loss to the Heat that wasn't close and a 37% combined performance by the combined 26 million dollar men. On your side is "well they really haven't done crap, but I want them to and I really like them." Okay super fan.


Boy, when you put it that way, it makes me just love you and want to sit in rapt attention at your feet receiving pearls of wisdom that might elevate me slightly above my degenerate "super fan" state. 

Just to clarify, "Haven't done crap" means best record in the NBA last year, two playoff series victories and a competitive series with Miami, in spite of injuries and a glaring hole at the two guard? And it is fan boyishness in the extreme to point out that they are playing significantly better this year than last, keeping their top defensive performance while moving up from an offensive rating in the middle of the pack to number one in the league in about every measure? 




> Well I'm kinda using the formula of the best teams that ever played. You're kind of living in D'Antoni/Nelson fantasy land.
> 
> This team doesn't need to learn just like people who lost to Carl Lewis didn't need to learn to run faster. It needs to match up better physically with the Heat. Ever notice how nobody ever learned how to stop MJ from jumping higher than them?
> 
> It's a very good regular season team that's fundamentally flawed and has done nothing on the biggest stage.


Funny. Someone did learn how to run faster than Carl Lewis. Quite a few people, actually.

Again, you're a genius because you've identified that those who have won it in the past performed the best in doing so. It's a great technique for always being right. 

That's fine. I'll indulge in a bit of guessing about you and say that is what you enjoy about sports. Being right. Maybe I'm wrong, but like I said, it's a guess.

That's not what I enjoy the most. I like the Bulls as a team, I was a fan when Love and Sloan, etc. were around. I became a "super fan" when MJ came along. And of course, the winning was great. But what I loved to watch the most was poetry of the way they played the game. Of course, it was PR to say that the Bulls' way was the right way, while the Pistons were the bad boys, but I just remember being amazed at the way they performed. And I like what I see in how this team is playing. What Derrick does is beautiful to me. And the way Luol has developed as a player is a great story. I like Noah's approach to the game, his energy and his drive, recognizing that he is not Tim Duncan. I'm not a huge fan of Boozer, but he's doing alright. I'm invested in them as a fan, and I'm happy to watch them and see how far they can go. I like this team. They are near the top. And I'm willing to wait and see history be written, rather than pretend that I can write it. 

Now, if you'd like to analyze me further, go f yourself


----------



## King Joseus




----------



## Luke

Dornado said:


> You're thinking of earlier... the '07 Lakers had Fisher, Bryant, Gasol, Odom, etc... at least by the end of the year.


This is incorrect. The 2006-2007 Lakers team posted a starting lineup of Smush/Kobe/Walton/Odom/Kwame and were the seventh seed in the playoffs. The 2008 Laker team sported a lineup of Fisher/Kobe/Radman/Odom/Gasol(or Bynum/Kwame for the first 30 something games). The 2007 Lakers were pathetic and no player in NBA history could have gone far with that roster. That is a fact.

I know my team big guy. It's going to be a while before Laker fans forget the '05-'07 era.


----------



## jnrjr79

Good Hope said:


> Now, if you'd like to analyze me further, go f yourself



This, really, was enough on its own.


----------



## Hoodey

Good Hope said:


> Man, I haven't done this stuff since K4E went off the deep end for a while.
> 
> Actually, yes, I'm saying that not having a legitimate threat in the back court with Rose made it too easy for a very good defensive team to trap Rose and keep enough in reserve to mess with our front court. I also said further down in my response that the Bulls have seen a marked improvement in their performance because those two are significantly healthier.


See here's the problem. You want to get all condescending, which is fine if you actually know what you're talking about. You don't.

The defense was playing Rose off of Noah just as much as they were off of Bogans. And if Rose or anyone got the ball to Noah as a result, they were getting back to him and checking him just fine. Boozer was double teamed? No he wasn't. They were sticking him just fine with one-on-one defense. 

K4E was a joke. Because yeah, my solutions all involve paying big fat money to overhyped underperformers. RIGHT. OR I'm just talking about Boozer and Noah, who combine to make 26 million, not getting gooned up by Udonis Haslem and Joel Anthony.

How is it that Bogans was on the team during the regular season, and yet, what I say about Boozer not having a playoff game supposedly isn't true, BUT Boozer shot just fine in the season and shot 40.6% v. the Heat? 

LMFAO at you blaming Keith Bogans for Boozer sucking relative to his salary, and then trying to compare me to someone delusional. By the way, guess who was responsible for Bogans being the starting SG! Me? Or JOHN PAXSON? Either way you lose because Paxson acquired Bogans too. 



> Chandler was living off of what he was paid for what he could become. And what is his massive talent doing for the Knicks? But hey, I liked Tyson, and would have preferred not to dump him for Wallace, so, eh.


It was well known in Chicago that nobody was bidding Chandler up to that price. Paxson bid against himself. 

As for the Knicks, who cares? The Knicks are very flawed as an organization. He was good enough for Dallas to win a title. He's not good enough to win a title with NYK because almost no one is. Carmelo Anthony is all hype and all marketing syrup. Carmelo Anthony is the kind of overrated chump that K4E used to desire. Chandler won't win with Anthony because Anthony never will win. 



> Now here is where you start talking like an asshole.


The best part will be when I start calling you an ass hole back, and everyone forgets that you were the one who started busting out "ass hole" and "go f yourself." You're way too involved in who POSTERS are and not enough involved in the mere basketball discussion. I'm here to talk hoops. I don't give a crap who fan boys like you are as people. 



> For you to make this assertion, you are pretending that you know me, know who I am, how I think, what I care about. You want to package me up into a "Noah-lovers" box, and then toss me in the intellectual dustbin of your history... And you base this on...the fact that I have a Noah picture for my avatar? What is it that allows you to take my comments questioning your absolute assertion that Chandler is a "massive talent" while Noah is "mediocre talent" and turn it into a trite and quite dismissible "Oh, don't mind him, he loves Noah -- wink, wink."


No, I base it on you being a Noah fan boy. 

Chandler didn't get pushed around by Joel Anthony. It wasn't because Chandler has some sort of admirable moral trait. He's just a better combination of size, athleticism and explosiveness than Noah, and he doesn't have the shoulder span of Derek Harper. 

Noah is not a great athlete and has maxed out his bone structure. 

He didn't get pushed around because of a lack of effort. He got pushed around because he's just not the athlete Chandler is. Now, if Noah was getting pushed around because he was some great athlete like Scottie Pippen in 1990, but Haslem and Anthony just got in his head and rattled him, then yes, you'd have a point. One could say "well, when his mental maturity catches up with his potential, he'll be able to do what Chandler did." Noah is not some unfundamental guy who gets rattled. He just isn't very explosive for his physical makeup. 

You say he can become Chandler, based on what? You didn't really give an argument. Chandler is a guy who was once trying to be a star because he was a ridiculous athlete, when all along his game was probably as a role playing center who could just make life difficult for other teams with his explosiveness. He never needed to try to do some of the things he tried to do for us. If I had to go back and argue to you that Chandler could do what he did for Dallas one day, I'd say "look at the athleticism. One day he will realize that he doesn't need to be some all around player, because he just doesn't have that kind of skill set, or the bulk to back guys down." Your argument with Noah is "Chandler did it, so can Noah." Okay Rocky. 



> Well, this is not getting better. The bolded statement is amazing. I've already taken issue with your condescending and hubristic characterization of me. So, I'll just note that is happening here, too, and then ask you to consider what Thibodeau said about Boozer when he was signed, and that it was Boozer's offensive and rebounding performance against Houston in the playoffs that convinced him Boozer was worth getting.


Yes, by calling me an ass hole and telling me to go f myself lol. 

This is the problem with you guys, and it's always been the case. If someone has differing opinions, it becomes a race to turn them into a bad guy. Just talk hoops dude. I have called Jnr condescending, but it's only noteworthy in terms of the fact that he's a moderator, and I'm certainly not pissed about it. You guys need to quit with this idea that anyone who flies in the face of Paxson ideologies is a bad guy and it is you who are so just. I don't care about who is a good or bad guy. You seem really involved in it. 

Houston?! That's who matters to you?! Houston. Oh my god. Houston doesn't matter. They'll never win a championship with their current cast. Pau Gasol matters. The Miami Heat matter. Houston!? That's the reason you give Boozer 15 mill. Give me a f-ing break. 

Deng isn't a bad signing because of the money that the Charlotte Bobcats pay people. I learned that on this forum. Now I've learned that Houston matters. And you're criticizing ME for being like K4E? Wow.



> Boy, when you put it that way, it makes me just love you and want to sit in rapt attention at your feet receiving pearls of wisdom that might elevate me slightly above my degenerate "super fan" state.


I have no interest in you loving me. I'm here to talk hoops. Do you want to talk hoops or talk about people you'll never meet on a message board? 



> Just to clarify, "Haven't done crap" means best record in the NBA last year,


I've never once contested that the Bulls are a regular season team. Laurence Holmes was laughing hysterically when I asked him, "wouldn't it be great if Haslem was killing Boozer physically and Boozer could call a time out and say "I want to insert 3 minutes of BUCKS GAME." 

The problem with being a good regular season team is that you can't take a break to play the Wizards in the playoffs.



> two playoff series victories


I've never once contested that this team is built well enough to win the first round and then beat a full court Atlanta team in the second round. 

If Michael Jordan were sitting in front of you and you were to explain to him that "hey, this team has done something, they beat the Hawks and Pacers," how do you think he'd react? Larry Bird? Bill Russell? 



> and a competitive series with Miami, in spite of injuries and a glaring hole at the two guard? And it is fan boyishness in the extreme to point out that they are playing significantly better this year than last, keeping their top defensive performance while moving up from an offensive rating in the middle of the pack to number one in the league in about every measure?


Uh, it wasn't a competitive series. Bernstein interrupts callers all the time. It was 4-1. There are no 4-1 competitive series. So, your argument falls apart at "they beat the Hawks." It doesn't go any farther than that. 

Also, they're 0-1 v. the Heat this year.




> Funny. Someone did learn how to run faster than Carl Lewis. Quite a few people, actually.


No, they didn't. They were good enough ATHLETES to run faster. Speed isn't a learned behavior. Do you think the LSU and Alabama football players started off slow and learned to run fast? 



> Again, you're a genius because you've identified that those who have won it in the past performed the best in doing so. It's a great technique for always being right.
> 
> That's fine. I'll indulge in a bit of guessing about you and say that is what you enjoy about sports. Being right. Maybe I'm wrong, but like I said, it's a guess.
> 
> That's not what I enjoy the most. I like the Bulls as a team, I was a fan when Love and Sloan, etc. were around. I became a "super fan" when MJ came along. And of course, the winning was great. But what I loved to watch the most was poetry of the way they played the game. Of course, it was PR to say that the Bulls' way was the right way, while the Pistons were the bad boys, but I just remember being amazed at the way they performed. And I like what I see in how this team is playing. What Derrick does is beautiful to me. And the way Luol has developed as a player is a great story. I like Noah's approach to the game, his energy and his drive, recognizing that he is not Tim Duncan. I'm not a huge fan of Boozer, but he's doing alright. I'm invested in them as a fan, and I'm happy to watch them and see how far they can go. I like this team. They are near the top. And I'm willing to wait and see history be written, rather than pretend that I can write it.
> 
> Now, if you'd like to analyze me further, go f yourself


There's nothing wrong with liking this team. I liked Chris Duhon and how in an age of PGs who couldn't wait to show you how much of a scorer they were, here was a guy who could distribute the basketball. But I didn't argue with people that Duhon was better than he was. 

I loved Horace Grant but I honestly would have trouble paying him much more than 10 million nowadays. 

I like this team and root for them. I'd love to have everyone on this team at a particular price, and that wasn't always true (Ben Gordon, whose role was as troubling as the money he wanted). But we can do better and we need to do better to win a title.


----------



## DaBabyBullz

Wow this thread sure went to hell. It was pretty interesting when it was actually about DWIGHT HOWARD, but in the rambling, non-stop arguments about other crap I quit reading it. I'll skim it occassionally looking for shorter posts that may actually be about Dwight, but that's about it. This thread is disgusting.


----------



## Good Hope

DaBabyBullz said:


> Wow this thread sure went to hell. It was pretty interesting when it was actually about DWIGHT HOWARD, but in the rambling, non-stop arguments about other crap I quit reading it. I'll skim it occassionally looking for shorter posts that may actually be about Dwight, but that's about it. This thread is disgusting.


Good point. 

Has Dwight Howard changed his mind about coming here? 

If he did, I'd be all for getting him at just about any cost.


----------



## Pay Ton

Actually, although this thread has veered off topic, it is infinitely better than when it was about Dwight Howard.

I'm sick of hearing about Dwight Howard, and I couldn't care less what happens to him, especially since I know he's not coming here.


----------



## DaBabyBullz

Well I personally am all for Dwight. I want him on the Bulls in the worst way. As for the crap in this thread, just one poster posting novel-long messages complaining about other people, and everyone else b!tching back at him, I have no desire to read it.


----------



## someone

Dwight is not coming here. As much as you have to take Dwight if he wants to come here, I would really be concerned about blowing up our team and all the good chemistry. Laugh at me if you want but I could see it hurting us.


----------



## thebizkit69u

DaBabyBullz said:


> Well I personally am all for Dwight. I want him on the Bulls in the worst way. As for the crap in this thread, just one poster posting novel-long messages complaining about other people, and everyone else b!tching back at him, I have no desire to read it.


Hmmm sounds eerily similar.. lol JK. I love ya BabyBullz we keep it real.


----------



## Hoodey

DaBabyBullz said:


> Well I personally am all for Dwight. I want him on the Bulls in the worst way. As for the crap in this thread, just one poster posting novel-long messages complaining about other people, and everyone else b!tching back at him, I have no desire to read it.


Then don't read it.

I'll make you a promise. The next time you see me go into a thread that I find disinteresting, even in part, only to see me post about why someone is posting what they are posting instead of:

a) Disagreeing with their posts
b) Ignoring it and going into a thread I do wanna read about

will be the first time you see that.

I generally find long posts about Andrea Bargnani disinteresting. If someone posts a thread about Bargnani's life history, you won't see "god, why would you guys post about this guy." You might see "Bargnani isn't good for the following reasons," but not "how dare you use up valuable bandwith and FORCE me to read what you write."


----------



## Samurai Swish

*Dwight Howard ... what does he want? Goodbye Noah, Deng, and Gibson*

To be an NBA champion, basketball immortality and legend? Or have fun, live the lifestyle, enjoy warm weather climates?

Because if the answer is the former, the obvious choice he should be willing to go is to the Windy City. It's set up for him beautifully to WIN BIG, and WIN NOW.

If I am the Bulls, I trade Noah, Deng, Gibson for Dwight Howard in a heart beat. 

The Bulls are a quality defensive team due to Thibs. Alone, none of them are very great man defenders. Yes, that includes Noah and Deng. Thibs has great schemes and teaches team defense extremely well. That's why the Celtics have had such a drop off since he left (Ray Allen and Paul Pierce were never considered good man defenders before he got there)

Imagine the Bulls defense with the most impactful defensive player in the league anchoring the defense. His size, and athleticism, covers up for the fact Boozer couldn't guard his mother, and is actually too small and too un athletic for his position.

Howard / Asik
Boozer 
Brewer / Korver
Hamilton / Watson
Rose / Lucas III

That starting lineup is INCREDIBLE defensively, specifically Howard and Brewer and w/ Thibs team defensive approach masks Boozer's defeciences on defense.

They have a scorer and play maker in Rose. And a fellow all-star to finish plays and dominate the post in D12. Rose provides the mental toughness, Howard provides the fun atmosphere. The MJ / Pip good cop, bad cop team philosophy. They have Korver to kick the ball out to when the defense is keying in on Rose or Howard. With Brewer cutting and working the baseline as he's known to do. Hamilton continually moving off the ball.

THAT team, can actually compete and possibly beat the Heat.

If they make a significant upgrade at the SG or SF spot, as well they become even better.

The Bulls should be D12's favored destination if he's actually interested in basketball immortality. I'm wondering how many of you would be willing to part with those three players to obtain Howard.


----------



## Da Grinch

*Re: Dwight Howard ... what does he want? Goodbye Noah, Deng, and Gibson*



Samurai Swish said:


> To be an NBA champion, basketball immortality and legend? Or have fun, live the lifestyle, enjoy warm weather climates?
> 
> Because if the answer is the former, the obvious choice he should be willing to go is to the Windy City. It's set up for him beautifully to WIN BIG, and WIN NOW.
> 
> If I am the Bulls, I trade Noah, Deng, Gibson for Dwight Howard in a heart beat.
> 
> The Bulls are a quality defensive team due to Thibs. Alone, none of them are very great man defenders. Yes, that includes Noah and Deng. Thibs has great schemes and teaches team defense extremely well. That's why the Celtics have had such a drop off since he left (Ray Allen and Paul Pierce were never considered good man defenders before he got there)
> 
> Imagine the Bulls defense with the most impactful defensive player in the league anchoring the defense. His size, and athleticism, covers up for the fact Boozer couldn't guard his mother, and is actually too small and too un athletic for his position.
> 
> Howard / Asik
> Boozer
> Brewer / Korver
> Hamilton / Watson
> Rose / Lucas III
> 
> That starting lineup is INCREDIBLE defensively, specifically Howard and Brewer and w/ Thibs team defensive approach masks Boozer's defeciences on defense.
> 
> They have a scorer and play maker in Rose. And a fellow all-star to finish plays and dominate the post in D12. Rose provides the mental toughness, Howard provides the fun atmosphere. The MJ / Pip good cop, bad cop team philosophy. They have Korver to kick the ball out to when the defense is keying in on Rose or Howard. With Brewer cutting and working the baseline as he's known to do. Hamilton continually moving off the ball.
> 
> THAT team, can actually compete and possibly beat the Heat.
> 
> If they make a significant upgrade at the SG or SF spot, as well they become even better.
> 
> The Bulls should be D12's favored destination if he's actually interested in basketball immortality. I'm wondering how many of you would be willing to part with those three players to obtain Howard.


the bulls were a good defensive team before thibs , they are just better now


----------



## Samurai Swish

*Re: Dwight Howard ... what does he want? Goodbye Noah, Deng, and Gibson*



Da Grinch said:


> the bulls were a good defensive team before thibs , they are just better now


That isn't the point of the post at all, but thanks. They were good for Skiles, okay with Del *****, GREAT for Thibs. But alas, that wasn't the point of the post at all, so thanks.


----------



## thebizkit69u

*Re: Dwight Howard ... what does he want? Goodbye Noah, Deng, and Gibson*



Samurai Swish said:


> That isn't the point of the post at all, but thanks. They were good for Skiles, okay with Del *****, GREAT for Thibs. But alas, that wasn't the point of the post at all, so thanks.


Very True. 

They where mediocre under Vinny but great under Skiles and Thibs. The Bulls are not made out of great individual defenders, they play a great team defense that will not lose a step if we traded Noah and Deng for Howard.


----------



## Da Grinch

*Re: Dwight Howard ... what does he want? Goodbye Noah, Deng, and Gibson*



Samurai Swish said:


> That isn't the point of the post at all, but thanks. They were good for Skiles, okay with Del *****, GREAT for Thibs. But alas, that wasn't the point of the post at all, so thanks.


the point as you seem to be making was the bulls would somehow be better on defense with Howard than they are now ...I dont know the difference would be that noticeable if at all when you trade 3 of a team's best 4 defenders to be coached by a guy who is a master of a certain team defense concept, to expect the same results with lesser defensive players seems illogical , 

the magic already are coached by a guy who leads his team through a team defensive concept but in the sense that they funnel the opposing offense towards Howard...the bulls dont really play the same way but would have to if a trade were made , thus taking the bulls head coach out of his comfort zone and the way he coaches...and force him to do so with mostly weak and avg. defensive players

also with skiles as coach the bulls were about where they are now , the main difference is they are no longer among the league's worst offensively.

I think the bulls would be a better team with howard but the main difference would be on the other side of the ball.

with rose howard and boozer as its main offensive threats the team would be much more dangerous and potent than with deng, noah and rose and boozer


----------



## Da Grinch

*Re: Dwight Howard ... what does he want? Goodbye Noah, Deng, and Gibson*

..


----------



## Firefight

*Re: Dwight Howard ... what does he want? Goodbye Noah, Deng, and Gibson*



Samurai Swish said:


> To be an NBA champion, basketball immortality and legend? Or have fun, live the lifestyle, enjoy warm weather climates?
> 
> Because if the answer is the former, the obvious choice he should be willing to go is to the Windy City. It's set up for him beautifully to WIN BIG, and WIN NOW.
> 
> If I am the Bulls, I trade Noah, Deng, Gibson for Dwight Howard in a heart beat.
> 
> The Bulls are a quality defensive team due to Thibs. Alone, none of them are very great man defenders. Yes, that includes Noah and Deng. Thibs has great schemes and teaches team defense extremely well. That's why the Celtics have had such a drop off since he left (Ray Allen and Paul Pierce were never considered good man defenders before he got there)
> 
> Imagine the Bulls defense with the most impactful defensive player in the league anchoring the defense. His size, and athleticism, covers up for the fact Boozer couldn't guard his mother, and is actually too small and too un athletic for his position.
> 
> *Howard / Asik
> Boozer
> Brewer / Korver
> Hamilton / Watson
> Rose / Lucas III*
> 
> That starting lineup is INCREDIBLE defensively, specifically Howard and Brewer and w/ Thibs team defensive approach masks Boozer's defeciences on defense.
> 
> They have a scorer and play maker in Rose. And a fellow all-star to finish plays and dominate the post in D12. Rose provides the mental toughness, Howard provides the fun atmosphere. The MJ / Pip good cop, bad cop team philosophy. They have Korver to kick the ball out to when the defense is keying in on Rose or Howard. With Brewer cutting and working the baseline as he's known to do. Hamilton continually moving off the ball.
> 
> THAT team, can actually compete and possibly beat the Heat.
> 
> If they make a significant upgrade at the SG or SF spot, as well they become even better.
> 
> The Bulls should be D12's favored destination if he's actually interested in basketball immortality. I'm wondering how many of you would be willing to part with those three players to obtain Howard.


On a quick side note... if that is the deal that lands Dwight in Chicago, Hedu would be coming here from Orlando as well... which would make him the back-up 3, Korver the back-up 2, and Watson going back to the back-up point. John Lucas III's days are numbered here I think...
Also, the lack of a back up for Boozer could be an issue... I know there is talk of the Bulls signing Joel Przybilla, but then you would have 3 centers. And all big centers that would have a hard time with smaller 4's. I guess Hedu could play a little 4 but that would be a nightmare.

With that said, I'm still in favor of the trade... I would do anything and everything to keep Taj out of the deal, but I know that would be unlikely. If maybe we could give Asik instead of Gibson and add a first rounder or 2 (including the Charlotte pick), then I'm loving this deal even more... Also, it would be so important for RIP to get healthy if we do lose Deng in the deal.


----------



## Hoodey

*Re: Dwight Howard ... what does he want? Goodbye Noah, Deng, and Gibson*



Firefight said:


> On a quick side note... if that is the deal that lands Dwight in Chicago, Hedu would be coming here from Orlando as well... which would make him the back-up 3, Korver the back-up 2, and Watson going back to the back-up point. John Lucas III's days are numbered here I think...
> Also, the lack of a back up for Boozer could be an issue... I know there is talk of the Bulls signing Joel Przybilla, but then you would have 3 centers. And all big centers that would have a hard time with smaller 4's. I guess Hedu could play a little 4 but that would be a nightmare.
> 
> With that said, I'm still in favor of the trade... I would do anything and everything to keep Taj out of the deal, but I know that would be unlikely. If maybe we could give Asik instead of Gibson and add a first rounder or 2 (including the Charlotte pick), then I'm loving this deal even more... Also, it would be so important for RIP to get healthy if we do lose Deng in the deal.


I'd also like to keep Taj out of that deal, though if you get Howard, you could get a "good enough" backup 4 off the street.

Do you get the impression that the Magic is just going to let this season run out and make a team and Dwight do a sign and trade with them?


----------



## Da Grinch

*Re: Dwight Howard ... what does he want? Goodbye Noah, Deng, and Gibson*



Hoodey said:


> I'd also like to keep Taj out of that deal, though if you get Howard, you could get a "good enough" backup 4 off the street.
> 
> Do you get the impression that the Magic is just going to let this season run out and make a team and Dwight do a sign and trade with them?


you could just as easily slide howard over next to asik for a few minutes a game


----------



## Ragingbull33

It angers me so much that every trade scenario where the Bulls get Howard involves s giving up far more assets than any other team. It was the same thing with Kobe, Gasol, and Garnett. Just because we have a lot to give doesn't mean we have to give them up. Rumors and suggestions I know, but ridiculous none the less.


----------



## DaBabyBullz

*Re: Dwight Howard ... what does he want? Goodbye Noah, Deng, and Gibson*



Da Grinch said:


> you could just as easily slide howard over next to asik for a few minutes a game


That's what I was going to say but you beat me to it. Dwight is a PF/C, so if Boozer gets into trouble or hurt or w/e, just start Howard and Asik, which would be a better lineup anyway since Boozer sucks a$$. Turk could play the 4 too. He'd just be a finesse stretch 4. My trade offer would be Noah, Boozer and Asik, plus the pick. That'd leave you with:

Rose, Watson
Hamilton, Korver
Deng, Brewer, Turkoglu
Gibson
Howard

Obviously thin in the post, but I suppose you could play Deng there some with Brewer at the 3, or Turk at the 4 as well. You'd have a whole lot of defense out there, especially if you put Brewer in at SG. Rose and Dwight would carry the team offensively easily enough.


----------



## Hoodey

*Re: Dwight Howard ... what does he want? Goodbye Noah, Deng, and Gibson*



DaBabyBullz said:


> That's what I was going to say but you beat me to it. Dwight is a PF/C, so if Boozer gets into trouble or hurt or w/e, just start Howard and Asik, which would be a better lineup anyway since Boozer sucks a$$. Turk could play the 4 too. He'd just be a finesse stretch 4. My trade offer would be Noah, Boozer and Asik, plus the pick. That'd leave you with:
> 
> Rose, Watson
> Hamilton, Korver
> Deng, Brewer, Turkoglu
> Gibson
> Howard
> 
> Obviously thin in the post, but I suppose you could play Deng there some with Brewer at the 3, or Turk at the 4 as well. You'd have a whole lot of defense out there, especially if you put Brewer in at SG. Rose and Dwight would carry the team offensively easily enough.


No way they'd take Boozer. They're adimant about getting Hedo out of there, why take a bad contract back? Orlando likely wants to get a guy like Noah who is semi worth his contract and only makes 11, draft picks, Deng, who is much more worth it than Hedo and Boozer and multiple draft picks. Now, I'd only give them 3+ first rounders IF Howard was going to sign. If not, it would have to be one pick.

I'd trade Deng in the deal and then swing a deal for Demarcus Cousins with Asik, a first and maybe Watson.

Rose, Lucas
Hamilton, Korver
Brewer, Hedo
Boozer, Gibson
Howard, Cousins

I'd love nothing more than to swing a two center lineup.


----------



## Luke

Cousins isn't going anywhere to be a backup.


----------



## Rhyder

*Re: Dwight Howard ... what does he want? Goodbye Noah, Deng, and Gibson*



Hoodey said:


> No way they'd take Boozer. They're adimant about getting Hedo out of there, why take a bad contract back? Orlando likely wants to get a guy like Noah who is semi worth his contract and only makes 11, draft picks, Deng, who is much more worth it than Hedo and Boozer and multiple draft picks. Now, I'd only give them 3+ first rounders IF Howard was going to sign. If not, it would have to be one pick.
> 
> I'd trade Deng in the deal and then swing a deal for Demarcus Cousins with Asik, a first and maybe Watson.
> 
> Rose, Lucas
> Hamilton, Korver
> Brewer, Hedo
> Boozer, Gibson
> Howard, Cousins
> 
> I'd love nothing more than to swing a two center lineup.


You think we could get Cousins for Asik and a late first rounder? I'd say that is nowhere near close enough.

I also would not trade more than Deng + Noah + Charlotte 1st rounder and change for Howard and Turkoglu assuming Howard was going to re-sign.

Rose/Watson
Rip/Korver
Hedo/Korver
Boozer/Gibson
Howard/Asik


----------



## Firefight

*Re: Dwight Howard ... what does he want? Goodbye Noah, Deng, and Gibson*



Rhyder said:


> You think we could get Cousins for Asik and a late first rounder? I'd say that is nowhere near close enough.
> 
> I also would not trade more than Deng + Noah + Charlotte 1st rounder and change for Howard and Turkoglu assuming Howard was going to re-sign.
> 
> Rose/Watson
> Rip/Korver
> Hedo/Korver
> Boozer/Gibson
> Howard/Asik


I wouldn't want Cousins here anyway...between what you'd have to pay him, the fact that he will not want to be a back-up, and the fact that he has already proven to be a problem.

As far as us having to offer more than other teams... I'm not sure that's true. Sure, scenarios have us paying more than say NJ, but nobody is saying that NJ deal is enough to land Howard. In the L.A. trades I read about, it has them giving up the best player in any possible deal in Bynum.

And yes, there is absolutely NO WAY Orlando takes Boozer in the deal. They would insist on Noah/Deng and try and even out picks and Gibson... Hopefully the Bulls would keep Gibson. Also, we all know Rose isn't recruiting anyone (at least publicly)... but one person that could is Boozer, especially a guy like Howard. Dwight and Carlos are friends and talk often...


----------



## Rhyder

According to JOHN on realgm (a guy who does know some NBA insiders) says he heard 3rd party information that Orlando has offered the following trade to Chicago.

Orlando trades:
Dwight Howard
Hedo Turkoglu

Chicago trades:
Luol Deng
Joakim Noah
Kyle Korver
Omer Asik

He does go on to say that he does not know how solid the information is, however.


----------



## Dornado

I think you do what you have to do to get Dwight Howard, but I'm not going to get my hopes up.


----------



## jnrjr79

Rhyder said:


> According to JOHN on realgm (a guy who does know some NBA insiders) says he heard 3rd party information that Orlando has offered the following trade to Chicago.
> 
> Orlando trades:
> Dwight Howard
> Hedo Turkoglu
> 
> Chicago trades:
> Luol Deng
> Joakim Noah
> Kyle Korver
> Omer Asik
> 
> He does go on to say that he does not know how solid the information is, however.



I would do this deal, if Howard will re-sign. You'd really be screwed at the 5 spot for the remainder of the season, though. 


Rose/CJ/Lucas III
Rip/Brewer
Brewer/Hedo/Butler
Boozer/Taj
Dwight/??


That lineup is a lot thinner than we're used to, but in a playoff run with a shortened bench, I sure think it could win a championship, provided Rip is healthy. You'd then need to make a couple of off-season acquisitions to shore up your depth with the bigs.


----------



## Rhyder

jnrjr79 said:


> I would do this deal, if Howard will re-sign. You'd really be screwed at the 5 spot for the remainder of the season, though.
> 
> 
> Rose/CJ/Lucas III
> Rip/Brewer
> Brewer/Hedo/Butler
> Boozer/Taj
> Dwight/??
> 
> 
> That lineup is a lot thinner than we're used to, but in a playoff run with a shortened bench, I sure think it could win a championship, provided Rip is healthy. You'd then need to make a couple of off-season acquisitions to shore up your depth with the bigs.


Boozer is strong enough to play the 5, especially if he is in there against teams backup 5s. We would need another C for regular season depth, however.

I would do that deal in a heartbeat, assuming Dwight will re-sign.


----------



## Diable

That is two or three times what anyone else is offering for Howard though, and those teams believe that he'll sign an extension with them. The deals that Orlando is being offered are total shit compared to that.


----------



## Rhyder

Diable said:


> That is two or three times what anyone else is offering for Howard though, and those teams believe that he'll sign an extension with them. The deals that Orlando is being offered are total shit compared to that.


Why, do you think we can get Howard for Joakim and change? I don't.


----------



## Hoodey

*Re: Dwight Howard ... what does he want? Goodbye Noah, Deng, and Gibson*



Rhyder said:


> You think we could get Cousins for Asik and a late first rounder? I'd say that is nowhere near close enough.
> 
> I also would not trade more than Deng + Noah + Charlotte 1st rounder and change for Howard and Turkoglu assuming Howard was going to re-sign.
> 
> Rose/Watson
> Rip/Korver
> Hedo/Korver
> Boozer/Gibson
> Howard/Asik


Nooooo. I'd be willing to trade the Charlotte pick for Cousins, and I listed him as a second center. I'd happily, happily start Cousins and Howard together. With those two and Rose you'd have to try really hard NOT to dominate.


----------



## Rhyder

> But the team that can make the strongest case for Orlando to depart from its risky strategy of holding onto Howard are the Bulls, who could offer 7-footer Omer Asik, Luol Deng and Carlos Boozer for Howard and Hedo Turkoglu, sources said. The Bulls also could offer a valuable first-round pick from Charlotte -- top-14 protected in this year's draft but but unprotected by 2016.


http://www.cbssports.com/nba/blog/k...t-not-if-the-magic-could-trade-him-to-chicago

Not sure if this is a discussion article, or if the trade talks are starting to have legs.

Curious that Deng and Noah were both sitting out against Utah. Could be coincidence, could be not?

There will be no trade without some verbal commitment for Dwight or his agent, that's for sure.


----------



## Dornado

Rhyder said:


> http://www.cbssports.com/nba/blog/k...t-not-if-the-magic-could-trade-him-to-chicago
> 
> Not sure if this is a discussion article, or if the trade talks are starting to have legs.
> 
> Curious that Deng and Noah were both sitting out against Utah. Could be coincidence, could be not?
> 
> There will be no trade without some verbal commitment for Dwight or his agent, that's for sure.


It is really puzzling that Howard would turn down the opportunity to extend with the Bulls and build a winner with the best PG and the C in the league. 

I'm not quite sure what we'd do at the 3 if we traded Deng, Asik, Boozer and the Charlotte #1 for Dwight Howard, but I don't really care... and I'd start Noah and Howard together in the frontcourt and let their defense and rebounding outweigh whatever offensive limitations they might have.


----------



## DaBabyBullz

That trade would be awesome, aside from losing Asik. No Boozer = +. Big Dwight = huge +. No Deng = slight loss, big loss against the big SFs like LeBeyotch but that's about it. Brewer is right up there with him, except for size. So sure our depth would be hurting, but you'd also have Turk to help with that, for what it's worth. 

Even losing Asik wouldn't be an issue since Taj could play all the backup minutes at the 4, with Noah and Howard taking all the minutes at the 5. Throw in Mirotic and hopefully a high pick in '16 from the Hornets and you would really have a great team.

Rose, Watson
Hamilton, Korver
Brewer, Turkoglu
Howard, Gibson
Noah

Nothing wrong with that team, and that's not even including Mirotic or the pick in '16. That team could easily win a championship this year. We may be lacking a defender on LeBeyotch, but they'd surely be lacking the post play that Howard and Noah would give you, plus the impact player at the 1.


----------



## Marcus13

I lost a lot of respect for Dwight on this issue -- why the hell would you not want to come to Chicago? I guess winning isn't very important to him after al


----------



## Pay Ton

Rhyder said:


> http://www.cbssports.com/nba/blog/k...t-not-if-the-magic-could-trade-him-to-chicago
> 
> *Not sure if this is a discussion article, or if the trade talks are starting to have legs.*
> 
> Curious that Deng and Noah were both sitting out against Utah. Could be coincidence, could be not?
> 
> There will be no trade without some verbal commitment for Dwight or his agent, that's for sure.


I'm 99% sure it's more of the former.

The article merely points out that the Bulls CAN make the strongest case for Howard, and what the Bulls COULD offer in terms of players/picks. Nothing in this article is spoken of in absolutes. Nothing about what the Bulls HAVE offered, or whether they ARE making the strongest case for Howard. It's an opinion article, and when he mentions "sources" it's their opinion as well on the matter.

Based on what I've seen/read, Dwight Howard very clearly doesn't want to come here, he's clearly not going to go ahead with a sign and trade to Chicago, and we clearly aren't willing to take the risk of trading for him without him resigning, and unlike the free agency two summers ago, I could really care less.

Actually, I do care a little. I hope Orlando keeps him and doesn't trade him. That would be spectacular.


----------



## Luke

Marcus13 said:


> I lost a lot of respect for Dwight on this issue -- why the hell would you not want to come to Chicago? I guess winning isn't very important to him after al


I'm with Ray Jr. on this one, dude used to be my favorite non Laker in the league, and now he's one of the more annoying personalities in professional sports. I guess you could always see it coming, Dwight has always been a clown, but I didn't know that he was this much of a child. Really a shame.


----------



## S.jR.

As my friend so eloquently said to me earlier.. "If he doesn't want to come here to go for championships, then go eat cookies."


----------



## mvP to the Wee

**** Dwight. Nothing you can do about it.


----------



## R-Star

Not trying to be a dick, but me and many others told you so.

Dwight went out of his way to show 0 interest in Chicago, and made it clear to anyone not deluded that he wanted nothing to do with them.

Again, not trying to be a dick, but in the future pull your head out of the sand. From every indication that was given, there was never a chance in hell of him going to Chicago, yet we had people arguing on this board acting like anyone who thought otherwise was a hater. Or the classic "They can take Chicago's deal, or lose him to free agency."


----------



## jnrjr79

R-Star said:


> Not trying to be a dick, but me and many others told you so.
> 
> Dwight went out of his way to show 0 interest in Chicago, and made it clear to anyone not deluded that he wanted nothing to do with them.
> 
> Again, not trying to be a dick, but in the future pull your head out of the sand. From every indication that was given, there was never a chance in hell of him going to Chicago, yet we had people arguing on this board acting like anyone who thought otherwise was a hater. Or the classic "They can take Chicago's deal, or lose him to free agency."



You must have been reading some other message board. It seems most here always understood Dwight didn't have Chicago on his list. Some thought that was stupid. Some thought you should trade for him anyway and try to convince him to re-sign. But the picture you paint I don't think occurred.

Thanks for the trolling, though.


----------



## jnrjr79

So, the Score is now reporting that Orlando is attempting to make a trade for a significant player to appease Howard. Obviously, that's no surprise. What is a surprise, is they've also reported that if Howard will agree to an extension, then he will be able to decide whether or not the team will retain Stan Van or the GM after this season.

Incredible.


----------



## thebizkit69u

jnrjr79 said:


> So, the Score is now reporting that Orlando is attempting to make a trade for a significant player to appease Howard. Obviously, that's no surprise. What is a surprise, is they've also reported that if Howard will agree to an extension, then he will be able to decide whether or not the team will retain Stan Van or the GM after this season.
> 
> Incredible.


Why did we even have a ****ing lock out in the first place.... Ugh. 

Ive never seen a team bend over so much for a guy who is the best center in the NBA basically because the rest suck ass.


----------



## R-Star

jnrjr79 said:


> You must have been reading some other message board. It seems most here always understood Dwight didn't have Chicago on his list. Some thought that was stupid. Some thought you should trade for him anyway and try to convince him to re-sign. But the picture you paint I don't think occurred.
> 
> Thanks for the trolling, though.


Yea. I guess you're right. I didn't just days ago post back and forth with Bogg and others about Dwight and the Bulls. That never happened.

Me stating that isn't trolling, its not baiting, its me wondering where all the "He said god wants him to come to Chicago" talk went. You can argue that all you want, but before you waste your time, I'll point out that we're posting in a thread called "Bulls a sleeper candidate for Dwight Howard" and I'd also point out I'm not generalizing every Bulls fan here, just the handful who kept arguing that Dwight to Chicago was a distinct possibility.


----------



## Dornado

R-Star said:


> Yea. I guess you're right. I didn't just days ago post back and forth with Bogg and others about Dwight and the Bulls. That never happened.
> 
> Me stating that isn't trolling, its not baiting, its me wondering where all the "He said god wants him to come to Chicago" talk went. You can argue that all you want, but before you waste your time, I'll point out that we're posting in a thread called "Bulls a sleeper candidate for Dwight Howard" and I'd also point out I'm not generalizing every Bulls fan here, just the handful who kept arguing that Dwight to Chicago was a distinct possibility.


I don't think Bogg is a Bulls fan.


----------



## R-Star

Dornado said:


> I don't think Bogg is a Bulls fan.


Not sure. There were a few others, but Bogg definitely was the biggest "Howard to Chicago" poster recently.

If that's the case, sorry for lumping you guys in with him.


----------



## Dornado

R-Star said:


> Not sure. There were a few others, but Bogg definitely was the biggest "Howard to Chicago" poster recently.
> 
> If that's the case, sorry for lumping you guys in with him.


We can't take responsibility for every Tom, Dick and Harry that pops his head into the Bulls forum... although you fit right in with your KJ-mandated Bulls avatar... join us R-Star... join us....


----------



## Pay Ton

Bogg is a Celtics fan.

I also disagreed with his general views on the Howard to Bulls possibility, though.


----------



## R-Star

Dornado said:


> We can't take responsibility for every Tom, Dick and Harry that pops his head into the Bulls forum... although you fit right in with your KJ-mandated Bulls avatar... join us R-Star... join us....


I've stuck with the Pacers in some pretty bleak years.

I'm not going to leave now. Even though the Bulls are a hell of a team.


----------



## Rhyder

_via Sam Amick on Twitter_

Dwight Howard has verbally committed to playing his option year next year in Orlando.

He will become a FA in 2013-14.


----------



## thebizkit69u

Rhyder said:


> _via Sam Amick on Twitter_
> 
> Dwight Howard has verbally committed to playing his option year next year in Orlando.
> 
> He will become a FA in 2013-14.


Yahoo's Adrian Woj says no verbal commitment.


----------



## Rhyder

thebizkit69u said:


> Yahoo's Adrian Woj says no verbal commitment.


This whole thing had really been nonsensical. Almost seems like he is trying to set up his own Dwight: The Decision ESPN special.


----------



## Spikeaji

Wow, after all of the flip flopping Dwight has done this season, would any team in their right mind really build around this guy and expect him to be a leader?


----------

