# Fools Gold



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

http://chicagostadiumsports.blogspot.com

(if it didn't work it's chicagostadiumsports.blogspot.com)

I really busted my ass to do an article on the difference between Bulls regular season and playoff success. 

If you disagree, please realize I've spent a boatload of time on it, and be kind.

If you like it, don't hesitate to share it on other forums or with others in general. 

I'd eventually like to write sports full time. Long road -_-


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> and be kind.



An interesting request...

:laugh:


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> An interesting request...
> 
> :laugh:


I was kind of laughing when I typed that lol.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> I was kind of laughing when I typed that lol.



Heh.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> http://chicagostadiumsports.blogspot.com
> 
> (if it didn't work it's chicagostadiumsports.blogspot.com)
> 
> ...


Jesus.

Where do you find the time to write huge amounts of stuff on here and elsewhere lol.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

thebizkit69u said:


> Jesus.
> 
> Where do you find the time to write huge amounts of stuff on here and elsewhere lol.


My name isn't Jesus.

It actually didn't take THAT long. I type pretty fast. 

I usually don't (something that big), but that was something I wanted to figure out, just to, you know, do it.

Any thoughts on the actual substance rather than my status as a potential christ figure?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> Heh.


Now, if I pretty much posted with the same tone, but my posts were all about how gritty and solid Luol Deng is, something tells me we wouldn't find ourselves disagreeing so much . 

Here, I'll start.

If Kirk Hinrich was leather, I'd have to say he'd be fine italian leather, because of the toughness of the depths of his basketball jib. Magellan was said to have been looking for the source of Hinrich's basketball IQ as he made his way near the Phillipines.


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

Nice article, but the sample size just isn't there yet. The early playoff teams weren't going anywhere..they were like today's version of the Indiana Pacers. They might make some noise here and there, but in the end, they just don't have the star to carry them to contention of a title.
Fast forward to the Bulls of this year and last. Last year the Bulls finished the regular season with the best overall record, made it to the ECF, and then got smoked by Miami. This year, again finished with the best regular season record, and then lost in the first round. The Bulls, because of the HEAD COACH, not Paxson, are always going to play tough, hard defense and rebound the ball well, EVERY single night. Both Skiles and Thibs stress this over and over. Because of this, they will win more close games then lose close games in the regular season purely on hustle. This is going to inflate that win total. Watch a Clippers/Timberwolves game one day... the NBA is a joke when it comes to effort. Unless it's a marquee game or the final 8 minutes, teams go half speed. The Bulls are always playing hard.
With that said, the playoff record is going to be off because of those early playoff teams that played tough and gutsy (Boston series), but when it came down to it, just didn't have the talent. Last year the Bulls made it to the ECF. They finished with the best record in the NBA and made it to the ECF, I'm not going to complain about that. This year, again best record, but a Derrick Rose torn ACL will never let us know what could of happened. Good regular season record, and they very well could of made it to the ECF's again, and possibly to the NBA finals. Again, no complaint from me on that.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Firefight said:


> Nice article, but the sample size just isn't there yet. The early playoff teams weren't going anywhere..they were like today's version of the Indiana Pacers. They might make some noise here and there, but in the end, they just don't have the star to carry them to contention of a title.
> Fast forward to the Bulls of this year and last. Last year the Bulls finished the regular season with the best overall record, made it to the ECF, and then got smoked by Miami. This year, again finished with the best regular season record, and then lost in the first round. The Bulls, because of the HEAD COACH, not Paxson, are always going to play tough, hard defense and rebound the ball well, EVERY single night. Both Skiles and Thibs stress this over and over. Because of this, they will win more close games then lose close games in the regular season purely on hustle. This is going to inflate that win total. Watch a Clippers/Timberwolves game one day... the NBA is a joke when it comes to effort. Unless it's a marquee game or the final 8 minutes, teams go half speed. The Bulls are always playing hard.
> With that said, the playoff record is going to be off because of those early playoff teams that played tough and gutsy (Boston series), but when it came down to it, just didn't have the talent. Last year the Bulls made it to the ECF. They finished with the best record in the NBA and made it to the ECF, I'm not going to complain about that. This year, again best record, but a Derrick Rose torn ACL will never let us know what could of happened. Good regular season record, and they very well could of made it to the ECF's again, and possibly to the NBA finals. Again, no complaint from me on that.


He's had 9 years bro. 

I don't buy this "accidental CEO" thing with Paxson. As if the team just happened while he was taking a nap. If were weren't there or just "didn't have the talent" it's his job to go get it. He could have gotten it with Rose by sitting tight and not signing Deng, but he decided we didn't need the lotto anymore. So Deng and Noah ARE OUR Westbrook and Durant. 

Joe Dumars team didn't "have the talent" in 03. He went out and GOT IT by trading for Rasheed Wallace. I'm not buying this idea that there's just been nobody out there for Paxson to get for four years. Rather, he's not looking.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> Now, if I pretty much posted with the same tone, but my posts were all about how gritty and solid Luol Deng is, something tells me we wouldn't find ourselves disagreeing so much .
> 
> Here, I'll start.
> 
> If Kirk Hinrich was leather, I'd have to say he'd be fine italian leather, because of the toughness of the depths of his basketball jib. Magellan was said to have been looking for the source of Hinrich's basketball IQ as he made his way near the Phillipines.



Hmm, actually, I don't care for Hinrich, so maybe them's fightin' words!


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

*Ummm...*



Hoodey said:


> So Deng and Noah ARE OUR Westbrook and Durant.
> 
> I'm not buying this idea that there's just been nobody out there for Paxson to get for four years. Rather, he's not looking.


2 things: Your first statement here would imply that Harden is the Thunder's best player. Your second would imply that every single NBA GM doesn't take multiple calls every single day about trade possibilities. It's not like he hasn't been looking. That's like you coming to my job not knowing anything about my industry and questioning my work ethic. Maybe he isn't the best evaluator of talent or personalities, but saying he isn't looking is crazy.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

*Re: Ummm...*



RollWithEm said:


> 2 things: Your first statement here would imply that Harden is the Thunder's best player. Your second would imply that every single NBA GM doesn't take multiple calls every single day about trade possibilities. It's not like he hasn't been looking. That's like you coming to my job not knowing anything about my industry and questioning my work ethic. Maybe he isn't the best evaluator of talent or personalities, but saying he isn't looking is crazy.


Sorry, I meant Westbrook and Harden.

See, I don't think he has been looking. When I have media personalities telling me that Paxson told them that he wanted to "reward Deng, Gordon and Hinrich with contracts for bringing us back to relevance" and then I see the kind of players he has brought in (conservative), I don't think he is. 

Looking would be like McCloskey in Detroit. You look at the trades he swung and the average picks he turned into gold, and you say "there's a guy who is looking."

Either way, a justification for him not doing something isn't the same as him actually DOING it. Where has he shown value?

Mind you, some people I think still subconsciously live in the "thank god we're not as bad as we were in Krause's day" mind frame. You can give him credit if you're still fearing us being the 01 Bulls or if "anything is better than that." Once that is the past though, and everything isn't coming with the comparison of "at least we aren't living through the 2002 season" - once that is the past, it's hard to look at anything he's done and pump your fists.


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

Doesn't happen overnight. I think the team has improved in each year under Paxson. When he started, he had to deal with players that were here that he didn't want or didn't want to build around... then, he has slowly assembled this team (who has finished with the best record for 2 years in a row).. that's not bad. Who knows what they could of done this year. Miami is a powerhouse and a team that does not come around that often. With that, the Bulls still compete with them. Anything could have happened in the ECF's this year. The team has taken the natural progression each year under Paxson, improving and becoming stronger...but yet, it's just not enough for you. OKC is building, but they didn't win the chip last year, should we bash them? Or Miami? Riley is a fool? You won't be satisfied until Pax wins a ring... and I agree, that's the only goal...but it's not as easy as you seem to think it is.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Firefight said:


> Doesn't happen overnight.


Your right, it doesn't. I think Krause took over in what, 86, when Jordan had been with the team for about a year and a half? Four years into Jordan's career (Rose is in his 4th year), the ring was still three years off, but we HAD Pippen. 

Is there someone we have on the team now that gives you hope that if this roster isn't enough, it's going to just be a matter of player X developing?

Besides, it potentially "happening" in the future isn't the same as it having already happened. If you just rate the 9 years Paxson has been here, at best he's been a failure at converting regular season success into post-season success.



> I think the team has improved in each year under Paxson.


Does incremental improvement have anything to do with championships?

Most title outfits have a moment where they shoot up all at once due to some great move, either in the development of a player or in the acquisition of a player.

The first example would be Scottie Pippen or Kobe Bryant. Sure the Bulls weren't there in 89 and the Lakers weren't there in 99, because those players were too young, but you had to know it was only a matter of time. Then they exploded and the Bulls and Lakers happened.

The second example would be the acquisition of Bill Russell, when the Knicks traded Bellamy for Debusschere, the Lakers getting Magic with a draft pick that they acquired in exchange for an old Gail Goodrich, the Celtics getting Bird.

Incremental improvement has nothing to do with titles. NOTHING. 

The con job there is that that is how you accomplish most things in life, so it's an easy sell. "Hey, we're a 60 win team who went to the ECF this year, so that must mean in a couple years we'll just take our rightful turn as champions." The NBA has just never worked that way. 



> When he started, he had to deal with players that were here that he didn't want or didn't want to build around... then, he has slowly assembled this team (who has finished with the best record for 2 years in a row)..


See, you love throwing that in in your little parentheses, but they've also gone 11-11 in the PLAYOFFS. So I'm not really interested in your chest bumping on the matter. This stooge is trying to beat teams whose second best players are Wade and Westbrook and whose third best players are Bosh and Harden - with Luol freaking Deng and Joakim Noah. That will be a laughable idea four years from now, but then Paxson apologists will bust out "easy to say that now, how come you weren't saying that then" and "well, we know Deng and Noah weren't that kind of player, stop beating a dead horse."

I'm not interested in Paxson excuses. He had a team that sucked when he got here. But this isn't about him sucking. I've never once accused Paxson of being Michael Jordan as a GM. What this is about is the fact that whatever the Bulls do during the season, even if they don't suck, you can guarantee a substantial drop off in the playoffs, especially relative to other teams who are "legit contenders." 

Nine years is a long time my man. 



> Who knows what they could of done this year. Miami is a powerhouse and a team that does not come around that often. With that, the Bulls still compete with them.


Actually, for one, they're not that special. They lost to Dallas who wasn't a great championship team because Lebron has the brain and lack of competitive fire and clutch-ability that Wilt had. You'll see. If they get by Indiana, the Thunder are going to waste them.

Secondly, we don't compete with Miami in the PLAYOFFS. We're 1-4 v. them. That's a 20% clip. That's not competitive. The Cleveland Cavaliers were more competitive with Jordan's Bulls than we are with Miami. 



> Anything could have happened in the ECF's this year.


But on my side there is what DID happen last year. On your side there is what you're hoping would have happened this year. One is real and the other one is your dream.



> The team has taken the natural progression each year under Paxson, improving and becoming stronger...but yet, it's just not enough for you.


Natural progressions don't have anything to do with winning rings. Some special players have the talent to take off. Players like Joakim Noah and Luol Deng progress to a point, just like Kersey and Porter or Oakley and Starks or Price and Nance. But loss in CF + 1 year doesn't mean CF win just on some mythical time progression. 




> OKC is building, but they didn't win the chip last year, should we bash them? Or Miami? Riley is a fool? You won't be satisfied until Pax wins a ring... and I agree, that's the only goal...but it's not as easy as you seem to think it is.


No we shouldn't bash OKC (first, I've never lauded Miami; I think the way they built their team was cheap and doesn't work - see 1969 Lakers, 1970 Lakers).

I wouldn't be bashing Chicago if we had a Harden and a SF talent like the talent that Westbrook is (obviously having Westbrook with Rose would be redundant). Those kind of players have the immense talent to progress like a Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant did (mind you, Horace was only consequential because he aged with Scottie).

Deng and Noah aren't those kinds of talent. Westbrook is a kid who has already shown flashes of being almost as good as a Derrick Rose down the line.

Can't you see how I see one working and not the other?


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

I don't see a Pippen on this roster, no. But that doesn't mean we need one to win a championship. You throw Pippen's name out there quite a bit as a 2nd fiddle type player. Pippen was all-world. One of the best number 2's of all-time (mainly because he was behind the GOAT). You don't just stumble upon a Pippen. Can the Bulls draft the player we need to put this team over the top, sure. Could we get him via FA, sure. Through trade, of course. 

This team's core is in place, what you see is what you get. Instead of dwelling on Paxson's first years here when it was not his roster fully, look at the team he put together... It competes and can win a championship, when healthy, as is.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

My frustration with this topic, and the vast majority of Hoodey's threads/comments, is that it tends to be focused on mistakes made in the past rather than focused upon what the team can do moving forward to become (or remain, if you think the team is there already) a championship contender. This is far more interesting than wanting to jump in the DeLorean and pine over Nene Hilario or whatever.

At this point, I believe it is basically irrelevant whether you are in the camp that thinks the Bulls (when healthy) had a championship-level team this year or in the camp that thinks it did not. Why is this? It's because I believe you have seen the last of this particular incarnation of the Bulls, at least in terms of being title contenders.

As hard as it is to say, my suspicion is next year will be a bit of a lost season. Yes, Derrick should come back at some point. However, I am hesitant to believe he will be in full-on MVP Derrick Rose form at any point during the season. He's going to have to get in shape and will likely have to spend quite a bit of time playing at game speed before he can trust his reconstructed knee and understand what it can do. By all reports, it seems knees coming off ACL repairs become as strong or stronger than before the injury. However, it also seems commonplace that players don't "trust" the knee and have a hard time going at full speed for quite a while. While some of us may disagree as to whether the Bulls are built to win it all, I assume we all agree that a full-strength Derrick Rose is a necessary, if perhaps not sufficient, condition to winning a championship.

The majority of CJ, Korver, Asik, Gibson, and Brewer will not be back, you must believe. Even if they were all retained for next year, with Derrick coming off of injury, I'm not sure the Bulls would have what it takes. You know they're all not going to be back the following season. Rip will depart after next season as well. The Bulls seem very intent on retaining Asik, and while I very much respect his defensive capabilities, I am not sure I would invest a lot of money in that direction considering his offensive liabilities. This team defends well, and for once, a bit of an emphasis on scoring would be appreciated. 

The fact is the Bulls have big money wrapped up in Deng, Noah, Boozer, and Rose for the next couple of years. For those who expect or hope Boozer to be amnestied, I think it's a pipe dream not worth entertaining. Even were that option on the table, it's gone now that Derrick will be out for so much of next year, as Boozer's scoring will be needed. However, the first year that Derrick is back at full strength will be Boozer's last year of his deal. He will either expire or be shipped out in a trade for a younger asset.

So how can the Bulls expect to re-tool?

1) Consolidation trade. Obviously, you do the Dwight move if you can. I'd happily ship out any two of Noah, Deng, and Boozer to make this happen. Amare looks to be available, though I suspect people would detest him for the same reasons they detest Boozer. Joe Johnson is an option, but at an enormous price tag. If you sign him, you're probably looking at Rose, Noah, Mirotic, Johnson as your core. I assume Deng would be gone in that scenario. Are there other names here? Gasol I suppose could be available if the Lakers get throttled by the Thunder, but I think he's too old to really plan a future around.

2) Tank. I think this is unlikely. However, the Bulls could decline to pick up the options of CJ, Korver, and Watson, decline to sign any significant free agents, and try to make sure Derrick does not play most of next season. You also let Deng take his sweet time coming back from wrist surgery. You probably are on the fringe of the lottery this way. You take that pick and then after one season try to pick up an MLE guy or the like. 

3) The GarPax GarPlan. If you believe Gar's comments from yesterday about keeping most of the core intact, then you pick up the options and resign some of the folks mentioned above. You make the playoffs next year and see what happens. Barring a top-level guy like Dwight becoming available, you probably don't make any major moves over the course of the season. Per Hoodey's desire to find this team's "Pippen," you cross your fingers that it's Mirotic or the Bobcats pick. 

Anything I'm missing here in terms of realistic options? It seems to me the choices aren't that hard. I can't imagine the team tanking. So, if you can pull off a consolidation move, you do it. The Bulls have a lot of highly paid guys but no true 2nd star, so this makes a lot of sense. If you can't pull off the consolidation trade, then you pretty much let Boozer and Rip go at the ends of their deals (while exploring possibilities to move them when they are expiring). You better be right about Mirotic and you better draft well with the Bobcats pick, whenever that becomes available. The Bulls have enough salary locked up now that you're simply not going to be able to re-tool via free agency. That time has passed. 

Thoughts? Potential consolidation trade targets? Who would you gut the team to acquire, at this point in time?


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

I'm glad you posted this, instead of being negative.

With that said, I do not believe the "tank" option is even available. Without Rose, and a delayed Deng, the Bulls unfortunately, with current players will still probably make the playoffs in the Eastern Conference. 
As far as players coming back, I think it's safe to say that the Bulls will pursue FA's to replace both CJ and JLIII. CJ has shown he can't carry the load, and although a great back-up, he's going to get offered a little more than I think the Bulls will be willing to pay. Brewer also will most likely be gone with Butler waiting in the wings to take over that role. I believe they retain Korver. Without him, this teams outside shooting drastically gets reduced, and Kyle has shown that his defense is at least improving. RIP, Noah, and Boozer will also be back in the starting lineup barring a big trade.

One option that I think is a real possibility is the signing of Steve Nash. He can come in immediately and start, and when Rose comes back, he can play reduced minutes off the bench, and then have both on the floor in late game situations. As a free agent, Nash is seeking a 3-year deal. Given his age, I think signing on with the Bulls is a real option and gives him the chance to win a ring. Next year, if the Bulls make the playoffs, a healthy Rose/Deng at teh end of the year, with some additions, this team can compete... If they don't, they go into the following year at full strength. I think this is a better option than building from the draft with what would most likely be the 15-19th pick.

If this 2-yr project doesn't pan out, you have the Charlotte pick waiting in the wings and a promising PF in Europe that will be ready to come over.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> My frustration with this topic, and the vast majority of Hoodey's threads/comments, is that it tends to be focused on mistakes made in the past rather than focused upon what the team can do moving forward to become (or remain, if you think the team is there already) a championship contender. This is far more interesting than wanting to jump in the DeLorean and pine over Nene Hilario or whatever.


Well first, let's talk "thinking we're there already." We're not. There's no way you can watch Oklahoma City, say that we're there, and be doing anything but wishing. It would also be a stretch to say that the Bulls would beat Miami or San Antonio healthy. In one game in February before the Spurs head to another city for the second game of a back-to-back? Sure. In the Finals where more physical play is allowed and you have to win four with nowhere to hide (everything is scouted). No. And if you think otherwise, the only real evidence there is is a 1-4 loss to Miami last year. Anything else speculative.

As far as "focusing on mistakes made in the past rather than focusing upon what the team can do moving forward," it's really quite simple. When someone is inadequate in the past and does something like signing Deng to that deal (and you can defend it all you want, he's still our second best player), do I trust that same person to do anything different in the future? No.

When I saw what an unmitigated disaster Jerry Angelo was in the draft, did I then want to move forward with Jerry Angelo? No. I'm all for talking about what someone ELSE would do with this team. The fact is, just glimpsing at your potential solutions, I don't trust Paxson to make those changes. He thinks we're good the way we are. He's likely going to take a couple years to find out. And if you wonder why I think that, please, remember, this is a guy who gave Luol Deng a "reward contract." 

Additionally, history repeats itself. We should be aware of, and discuss, Paxson's history, so that we can identify if he's making a change from his normal course of behavior (bad signings like Boozer, Wallace; gift re-signings of players like Deng to bloated contracts), or if he's staying the same. 



> At this point, I believe it is basically irrelevant whether you are in the camp that thinks the Bulls (when healthy) had a championship-level team this year or in the camp that thinks it did not. Why is this? It's because I believe you have seen the last of this particular incarnation of the Bulls, at least in terms of being title contenders.


I mean yeah; I'm always down with Paxson showing me the money. But I'm not expecting some version of the Bulls that's built properly, with a 285 lb. center (notice Hibbert and a bunch of stiffs are holding their own with Wade; just like Ewing and 0 hall of famers took Pippen and Jordan to the brink twice) or with a second scorer who is not only at least semi-dominant, but also efficient and the same player in the playoffs that he is in the regular season. I expect some other Rip Hamilton type solution. And I just spent six months being nice to personal friends who swore up and down that Rip was the answer. They made the guy sound like it was 2005 and he just left the defending champion Pistons. 

For the record, for the perennial "we just need a better SG" crowd, the Pacers have an all-star 285 lb. center. Who is their SG? Paul George? Dahntay Jones? Leandro Barbosa? I'd say they're doing just fine. We need the beef. And not a guy who can't play like Asik. There's nothing good about losing just about everything Noah brings to get a guy who is 255 in there. That's why I'd go for a Cousins, because the price tag is going to be cheaper than a legit second star. 



> As hard as it is to say, my suspicion is next year will be a bit of a lost season.


I hope so, but typical Chicago would be for it to be a crappy season, for everyone to know that once we do get everyone back in March, it's just not the kind of team that's going to win the East, and then to "storm to the 5 seed" only to lose, ruining our draft pick in the process. I've seen Lovie, Wannstedt and Jauron ruin enough draft picks with miracle wins to bring us to 6-10 to see that coming. 

Even if we don't amnesty Boozer, I'd just have Deng, Rose and Noah take super conservative time-tables getting back, gut the whole team in terms of guys who we have options on, and then get ready for 2013-14. Do I think we'll actually do that? No. 



> Yes, Derrick should come back at some point. However, I am hesitant to believe he will be in full-on MVP Derrick Rose form at any point during the season. He's going to have to get in shape and will likely have to spend quite a bit of time playing at game speed before he can trust his reconstructed knee and understand what it can do. By all reports, it seems knees coming off ACL repairs become as strong or stronger than before the injury. However, it also seems commonplace that players don't "trust" the knee and have a hard time going at full speed for quite a while. While some of us may disagree as to whether the Bulls are built to win it all, I assume we all agree that a full-strength Derrick Rose is a necessary, if perhaps not sufficient, condition to winning a championship.


While we're no longer in the Tim/Penny Hardaway days of ACL repairs, and while Derrick didn't suffer near the amount of structural damage he could have suffered, the prognosis for any ACL tear is that that first calendar year back is almost a wash. Chris Paul is just become himself now, and I wouldn't be surprised if he still had some room to improve back to his old self, but if it didn't happen until the beginning of next year. 



> The majority of CJ, Korver, Asik, Gibson, and Brewer will not be back, you must believe. Even if they were all retained for next year, with Derrick coming off of injury, I'm not sure the Bulls would have what it takes. You know they're all not going to be back the following season. Rip will depart after next season as well. The Bulls seem very intent on retaining Asik, and while I very much respect his defensive capabilities, I am not sure I would invest a lot of money in that direction considering his offensive liabilities. This team defends well, and for once, a bit of an emphasis on scoring would be appreciated.


I'd be all for most of them not being back, save perhaps for Asik, but it has to be on a deal that isn't too pricey or long-term. Gibson I want back, but again, it can't be on a deal that overpays him. I want us to get out of the practice of feeling like we "have to" pay guys who aren't named Derrick. What this team needs until we're championship ready, more than any one player (not named Rose), is flexibility, so that if that guy who does solve our problems comes along, we can move on him. 

I'm with you on defensive and offensive balance. The difference between late playoff losers and winners is that the teams that win late in the playoffs defend AND can score high percentage baskets. They usually have at least one go-to guy, but two is better. I don't think Derrick is up there with MJ, Shaq, Duncan, etc. as a primary playoff crunch-time scorer (meaning, even if he develops, he doesn't have that kind of talent). So, like Bryant, who also isn't with those guys, you're going to need another scorer like Gasol. 



> The fact is the Bulls have big money wrapped up in Deng, Noah, Boozer, and Rose for the next couple of years. For those who expect or hope Boozer to be amnestied, I think it's a pipe dream not worth entertaining. Even were that option on the table, it's gone now that Derrick will be out for so much of next year, as Boozer's scoring will be needed. However, the first year that Derrick is back at full strength will be Boozer's last year of his deal. He will either expire or be shipped out in a trade for a younger asset.


One thing Shuster said that was interesting is that the amnesty of Boozer probably starts becoming a lot more realistic AFTER next season, when he'll have one less year remaining on his deal. If Deng, Rose and perhaps Noah miss portions of the season with injury, I doubt Boozer is going to take us out of the lotto (assuming Paxson does take the 97 Spurs tank approach [when Robinson missed the whole year])



> So how can the Bulls expect to re-tool?
> 
> 1) Consolidation trade. Obviously, you do the Dwight move if you can. I'd happily ship out any two of Noah, Deng, and Boozer to make this happen. Amare looks to be available, though I suspect people would detest him for the same reasons they detest Boozer. Joe Johnson is an option, but at an enormous price tag. If you sign him, you're probably looking at Rose, Noah, Mirotic, Johnson as your core. I assume Deng would be gone in that scenario. Are there other names here? Gasol I suppose could be available if the Lakers get throttled by the Thunder, but I think he's too old to really plan a future around.


I like talk of cores as two MAYBE 3 players. Your core should really consist of three guys everything is built around to the point that it almost doesn't matter who else you have. 

I wouldn't trade for Johnson. He's not good enough to pair with Rose and make a title duo. I think this is where Paxson has to be a salesman. He needs to offer a deal, get Orlando to grant access to Dwight and then SELL him on Chicago. 

For one, if Mirotic is the player he sounds like, he'd be a disaster with Noah, but probably fine with Dwight.

If Dwight just won't work, I'm still down for Gasol, but I'd rather have Bynum. I mean to a team like LA, who has to bear the loss of Bryant, but yet who is still controlled by Bryant, and who has a player like Gasol already, I can't help but feel like a deal centered around Deng and the Charlotte pick, and perhaps one other player like Noah (prefer Boozer, but assume they'd also tell me to go F myself if I was Paxson and offered Boozer as part of that deal) and more picks wouldn't be attractive for Bynum. LA will always sign free agents if they're under the cap, so with Bryant hitting the twilight you have to think picks are most attractive. 



> 2) Tank. I think this is unlikely. However, the Bulls could decline to pick up the options of CJ, Korver, and Watson, decline to sign any significant free agents, and try to make sure Derrick does not play most of next season. You also let Deng take his sweet time coming back from wrist surgery. You probably are on the fringe of the lottery this way. You take that pick and then after one season try to pick up an MLE guy or the like.


I certainly like this. If you get lucky you hit the top 3. If not, there have been plenty of good players like Joe Dumars had with picks in the teens. 



> 3) The GarPax GarPlan. If you believe Gar's comments from yesterday about keeping most of the core intact, then you pick up the options and resign some of the folks mentioned above. You make the playoffs next year and see what happens. Barring a top-level guy like Dwight becoming available, you probably don't make any major moves over the course of the season. Per Hoodey's desire to find this team's "Pippen," you cross your fingers that it's Mirotic or the Bobcats pick.


Mirotic is a 6'10" 210 lb. PF. Look at the PFs who have ever factored into championships even as a second option, and the list looks like this:

Duncan - 6'11" 260
Gasol - 7'0" 255
Garnett - 6'11" 253
Nowitzki - 7'0" 245
McHale - 6'10" 225

Gasol and Duncan are really more C/Fs with pure Wooden-principled post games. Garnett's athleticism at the position may never be duplicated. Nowitzki is on his own planet as an inside outside post scoring threat. McHale probably had the best arsenal of post moves ever.

I don't see it. I see this as more D'Antoni/Nelson foreign Darko/Bargnani dreaming. I mean let's just call it what it is.

As far as the 2016 pick, that's just too far out. 



> Anything I'm missing here in terms of realistic options? It seems to me the choices aren't that hard. I can't imagine the team tanking. So, if you can pull off a consolidation move, you do it. The Bulls have a lot of highly paid guys but no true 2nd star, so this makes a lot of sense. If you can't pull off the consolidation trade, then you pretty much let Boozer and Rip go at the ends of their deals (while exploring possibilities to move them when they are expiring). You better be right about Mirotic and you better draft well with the Bobcats pick, whenever that becomes available. The Bulls have enough salary locked up now that you're simply not going to be able to re-tool via free agency. That time has passed.
> 
> Thoughts? Potential consolidation trade targets? Who would you gut the team to acquire, at this point in time?


I basically have my list of second stars or centers, ranging from unrealistic to cheap price tags

Second stars:

Wade - completely unrealistic
DeRozan - Call me crazy; I like the talent he's shown. I don't think he's a primary star on a team of any consequence, but I think the problem is he's getting crowded in Toronto, which would be tough to do to him in Chicago.
Harden - probably unrealistic; I think he will be a 2nd star at some point, but probably is destined to be no more than 3rd fiddle in OKC
Ibaka - Maybe not a second scorer, but could be a second star in the making. 

So far this is kind of my list. The problem with secondary stars is that a lot of them are PGs and a lot of the guys who will be second stars over the next 5-7 years DONT occupy that role now. Identifying who will or could be a second star in the next 2-3 years, and separating them from the Marburys of tomorrow is one of the big ways GMs make their money (or don't). 


Centers:

Howard - Tough because he has this Chicago complex
Bynum - Tough, high trade value
Gasol - I value him less than Howard or Bynum due to age
Hibbert - I don't value him as much as Howard or Bynum, but fat chance getting him
Cousins - Would come cheap due to potential that he's crazy lol
Chandler - New York would tell us to eat one
Drummond - I wouldn't offer too much after analyzing. Mostly I'd want to offer future picks like Charlotte's pick in an effort to not wait until 2016
Nene - Only for a low, low price tag. I'd almost want him off the bench for Noah. I'd try a LOT of moves before this one

I may be missing somebody, it's dinner time


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Not to respond in full, but just as to Gasol. Don't you think that's probably a bad move at this point? If you believe next year is probably a lost cause in terms of winning a championship, then Gasol will be 33 going into the first season in which you would contemplate the Bulls being contenders. I assume you want the person in the 2nd star role to have at least a 4 season window where that person can serve that role. I'm not sure Gasol does it.

Bynum would be great. I don't know how available he would be. Conflicting information on that front seems to come out of L.A. with some regularity.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> Not to respond in full, but just as to Gasol. Don't you think that's probably a bad move at this point? If you believe next year is probably a lost cause in terms of winning a championship, then Gasol will be 33 going into the first season in which you would contemplate the Bulls being contenders. I assume you want the person in the 2nd star role to have at least a 4 season window where that person can serve that role. I'm not sure Gasol does it.
> 
> Bynum would be great. I don't know how available he would be. Conflicting information on that front seems to come out of L.A. with some regularity.


You're weighing a couple things with Gasol. As fans, to us, with limited knowledge compared to the vast resources available to a GM, Gasol has some advantages. He's more well-known to people who don't have the time or resources to have someone look through 20 hours of tape on Demar DeRozan to find out if he'd be a better #2 to Rose. We've seen Gasol play that role.

But yes, I agree he has all the signs of a bad move. He's aging, and has appeared to lose what little aggressiveness he had as he's aged just a bit. He seemed to have kicked that aggressiveness up a notch playing with Kobe as opposed to Memphis, but now has appeared to lose it. What a GM must be charged with though is figuring out if that is because he's played more with Bynum (if you'll recall, a lot of key stretches in LA's 09 and 10 playoff runs involved Gasol and Odom, where Gasol had more of the post to himself). I'm not so sure he is a PF. I think Pau Gasol's best basketball has come when Bynum has been out of the game, but still available, as he was in 09 and 10. I think Gasol, like Duncan, is literally a guy who is best used as both a PF and C in the same game. He's a guy who you want to either pair with a C or an active PF, and in doing so, force isolation of the other frontcourt's weaker defender. 

The next thing you're weighing with Gasol (along with age, aggressiveness relating to age and role) is who you're pairing him with. If I was going to trade for Gasol, I'd probably also want to go out and get a Cousins, Nene or Drummond. That way I could go Nene at center and Gasol at PF, but just as easily switch to Gasol/Gibson. Gasol's strength, like I said with him and Duncan, is using your rotation to isolate him on a weak defender. If you remember, when Bynum was out, LA couldn't really do this in 08, and it was a pick em between having Garnett's athleticism all over Pau or having Perkins beating him up with Garnett helping. You have to be able to have both a true center and a very athletic PF so that you can pick how to attack with Gasol, which I also think is the true weaponizing force of any F/C.

Then you weigh ease in terms of getting Gasol. I'd much rather have Bynum, but LA is going to try to fleece you in a trade for Bynum, as he's really their future. You would have to think that THEY think they're getting a surefire chance at another title now to part with Bynum. 

I could see LA liking a deal for Gasol, especially if OKC trounces them, that looks like this:

Boozer
Deng
1 or 2 first round picks (not Charlotte's pick)

for

Gasol
Artest

Worth noting that if I have Gasol + Rose and a good true center/athletic PF rotation to throw Gasol into as the third, then I can go find a starting SF at the Halsted courts (slight exaggeration). I've also made the trade without parting with Noah or the Charlotte pick. The idea that LA would do this revolves around Deng being a massive upgrade from the erratic Artest, as well as a youth infusion, ridding themselves of Artest's contract, and then making the frontcourt all about Bynum by taking such an imposing figure as Gasol out of there, also providing Bynum with a true 4 to play next to, and not another C. If LA wanted more I'd consider tossing Mirotic in, as I'm not sold, as well as a potential Gibson for Hill swap or even Brewer for more LA scrubs (so long as their deal ends soon). 

If I trade for Bynum, the trade would probably have to include the Charlotte pick AND Noah and even Mirotic and more picks, as well as LA salary relief.

The final thing you have to consider with Gasol is how he fits into our plan. The age thing in relation to Rose returning in 13-14 is compelling. However, you have to weigh the idea of trading Gasol in a trade where you'd rid yourself of Boozer and only be offering Deng up as the principle piece. I'd do it. SF has been such a weak factoring position in championship play, and it's almost always as a player who does the dirty work (Pippen) even if he's also a star (Pippen). I'd much rather have a role player. 

Will Gasol tale off? Sure. Do I still see him giving us enough of an inside outside scoring game to make it happen with super role players at the other three positions (other than Rose and Gasol)? Also sure. Gasol at 33 and even 34 is probably still more of an inside scoring threat when the game gets physical in the playoffs than Boozer ever was. I feel that he'd justify the deal just by making defenses stay with him enough to allow Rose to have a little more one-on-one play. He's also not going to be gooned up by Joel Anthony. I think you need to be 265+ to start really having the ability to goon Gasol. 

Mind you, this entire plan would be exclusively tailored to getting Gasol, it's NOT my main desire. Additionally, keep in mind that so much of this is hindered by moves Paxson has made that I never wanted.

So trade:

Lakers get:

Boozer
Deng
Bulls 2014 first round pick
Bulls 2016 first round pick

Bulls get:

Gasol
Artest

If salaries don't match, I'd make minor changes one way or another, such as taking on more minor LA salary, etc. I'd give more picks, a Gibson/Hill swap or Mirotic, but NOT Noah, the Charlotte pick or Rose. Those three must stay out.

I immediately cut Artest even though I know I have to pay him. I know I can't amnesty him, because Chicago didn't have his salary at the time of the CBA, but he's just not worth whatever positive he brings and I think he's killing LA.

Immediately I let everyone we have an option go except for Gibson and Asik. Even for Asik I'm only willing to match a low offer.

Then I draft the player I want anyway, the perfect SG if you're not looking for a SG to actually create his own offense, Ohio State G William Buford, who to me is like a very rich man's Rick Fox at SG. Bad if you need him to be the offense. Great if you need him to make teams be honest with Rose and Gasol.

I then, in my world, swing a deal involving Noah and Cousins. Noah for Cousins and John Salmons. I personally feel strongly enough about Cousins worth to an actual good team that I'd throw the Charlotte pick in. I think Cousins embodies the Rodman/Jordan factor perfectly. In 96, Rodman wasn't going to stop acting a fool for anyone. Then when presented with the chance to play a secondary role for one of the few players he could ever respect, he managed to be sane enough to pay massive dividends. 

So my lineup for next year would be:

Cousins, Asik
Gasol, Gibson
Brewer, Hummel, Salmons
Buford, Hamilton, Korver, Butler
Rose (March), Lucas

The salary structure would look like this:

Rose 19.0 (too lazy to look up exact figure, not listed on hoopshype)
Gasol 19.0
Salmons 8.0
Artest 7.2
Asik 5.5 (anticipated; anything higher he'd be gone)
Hamilton 5.0
Korver 5.0
Brewer 4.3
Cousins 3.9
Gibson 2.1
Butler 1.0
Lucas new 3 year putz deal
Buford rookie deal
Hummel undrafted rookie deal
Total: 80.0 million

Then, next year, without Rose, you probably only win 35 games with such a new cast. You'd intentionally keep Lucas as your PG along with some other scrub like James so that you didn't win too much (or at least that's the way I'd do it). Also, I realize you might have to wait to trade Deng, but you'd do it when he was ready to pass a physical. This would work especially great if there was turmoil in LA. 

So, I'm gonna go ahead and estimate the 10th pick in 2013 draft. I'm of the opinion that Elijah Johnson will shoot up and I want him. He may be lower but our pick may be lower. I don't think we should be drafting potential stars in 2013 if we actually make some moves to get the star power we need. We'll need role players and Johnson to me has a great fundamental base. 

My desired FA acquisition in 2013 would be Trevor Ariza. If you go back and look at the player he was with Gasol in 2009 and 2010, where he had open shots created for him, his FG% was sky high and he defends. I also think we'd be able to get him.

So, my lineup in 2013 would look like this:

C Cousins, Asik
F/C Gasol PF Gibson, Oriakhi
SF Ariza, Hummel, Salmons
SG Buford, Salmons, Butler
PG Rose (should hit full strength midseason 13-14), Johnson, Lucas

I realize that's 15 guys but I'd figure it out.

Salaries:

Rose 19.0 (again, too lazy)
Gasol 19.2 (expiring)
Gibson 8.0 (first year of a matched offer, any higher and I'd have him walk)
Artest 7.7 (player option, expiring)
Salmons 7.5 (team option in 14-15, so basically expiring)
Asik 5.5 (probably last year of any deal I'd match)
Ariza 5.5
Cousins 4.9
Butler 1.1
Lucas 1.0
Buford Rookie Deal
Johnson Rookie Deal
Oriaki Rookie Deal
Hummel Undrafted Rookie Deal

And then the good news is that you'd literally have Gasol, Artest and Salmons coming off the books in the summer of 2014 and you'd have the option to match or not match Cousins. So you could just as easily shed every salary up there not going to Rose, Gibson, Butler, Lucas or rookies, putting you massively under the cap if you choose not to bring back Gasol. I think Cousins would be enough by then that you could easily just go with a true PF next to him anyway. 

I know there are a trillion variables and possibilities, but that's an example of what I would do. Mind you, it's very Wooden post-principled as a team, similar to LA now (LA would be winning if Kobe wasn't falling off the ledge and if they had young legs at SF like Ariza as opposed to the Old Dirty Bastard's cousin Ron Artest).

But you must realize I don't see this as a possibility as our GMs are very much of the Mark D'Antoni, Joe Dumars new school "let's just try to run them off the court" persuasion. 

(By the way I've been off sick from work for a week; if you find the time commitment disturbing bizkit).


----------



## SWIFTSLICK (Aug 22, 2009)

No one is going to trade with us if Carlos Boozer is part of the offer. I'm sorry. The Lakers want to improve their team to a Championship level, that will not happen with Boozer on their roster. Sacramento may make a trade for Noah but I have very hard time believing Pax will considering he was the only person aside from Rose to attempt to step up his game in the playoffs.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

SWIFTSLICK said:


> No one is going to trade with us if Carlos Boozer is part of the offer. I'm sorry. The Lakers want to improve their team to a Championship level, that will not happen with Boozer on their roster. Sacramento may make a trade for Noah but I have very hard time believing Pax will considering he was the only person aside from Rose to attempt to step up his game in the playoffs.


You have to consider a couple of things when it comes to LA. For one, I think Boozer is one of many "it depends" players in the NBA. When you ask, "is he good?" Depends who he plays with and what his role is. As a third scoring threat to Bynum and Bryant? He's good. As a guy who can't be doubled from the paint or pushed too far because Bynum can get right in front of the rim on a one-on-one? Yeah. He's good. 

As a guy who has to be a second scorer (the Bulls are always looking for SOMEBODY to be their second scorer on a given night) and can be hounded in the high post? No. Not very good.

Now with LA. You have to consider that Gasol is not the attractive trading chip he once was. He's going to be 32 to start the season. He just posted consecutive playoff PER of 17.3 and 17.2, the two lowest of his career. His regular season PER of 20.5 was his lowest for a full season since his *rookie year. * That and he makes 38 mill the next two seasons. 

Pause! If you're asking, "then why would we want him?" Easy. To get a secondary scoring threat of any consequence at this stage of building a team is not an easy thing to do with low picks when you're over the cap. He's one of the best things we can trade for considering where we are in what I call the life cycle of a team. We're in the maturity stage. Just like you don't become a star athlete in a new sport at age 41, you don't just go to the store and grab a second scoring threat when you're picking 29th or whatever with no cap room. So, we have little choice. BUT,

*Neither does LA!*

Remember that we'd be competing against the alternative, not the almighty. What kind of offers do you think LA is going to get for him? When I asked that question on hoopshype, the best anyone could come up with was Iguodala and Hawes for Artest and Gasol. Ouch, that's terrible.

Then you have to consider leverage. The whole league knows that if LA doesn't make the move, they're not going to have a chance next year. Do you think someone is just going to step into that void to say "here, have Kevin Love and Ricky Rubio for Gasol."

By the way, 60-54 Boston, but I'm not sure they're up enough to survive when their legs die at the end of the 4th.


----------



## Job (Feb 28, 2011)

Hoodey said:


> You have to consider a couple of things when it comes to LA. For one, I think Boozer is one of many "it depends" players in the NBA. When you ask, "is he good?" Depends who he plays with and what his role is. As a third scoring threat to Bynum and Bryant? He's good. As a guy who can't be doubled from the paint or pushed too far because Bynum can get right in front of the rim on a one-on-one? Yeah. He's good.
> 
> As a guy who has to be a second scorer (the Bulls are always looking for SOMEBODY to be their second scorer on a given night) and can be hounded in the high post? No. Not very good.
> 
> ...


I want Gasol. Give La Boozer and Asik?


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

*Interesting*



Hoodey said:


> You have to consider a couple of things when it comes to LA. For one, I think Boozer is one of many "it depends" players in the NBA. When you ask, "is he good?" Depends who he plays with and what his role is. As a third scoring threat to Bynum and Bryant? He's good. As a guy who can't be doubled from the paint or pushed too far because Bynum can get right in front of the rim on a one-on-one? Yeah. He's good.
> 
> As a guy who has to be a second scorer (the Bulls are always looking for SOMEBODY to be their second scorer on a given night) and can be hounded in the high post? No. Not very good.
> 
> ...


You don't often convince me of things Hoodey, but you strangely sold me on this. If the Lakers could add big depth and speed/shooting at the PG position, I think they would pull the trigger. How about this...

Lakers trade: Pau Gasol, Steve Blake
Bulls trade: Carlos Boozer, CJ Watson, Taj Gibson

I think that trade helps both teams a great deal. Good idea.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

I'm sorry if this has already been hashed out in previous threads, but one quick question:

Paxson's name has been thrown around a lot in this forum of late. Surprisingly, I'd say. Is he still taking all of the responsibility for personnel moves? Do you guys know something I don't know about Paxson's role in the front office? I mean, what has the guy done in the last three years? I honestly thought Gar Forman was running the show now, for the most part.

I do also find it difficult to believe that there's a lot of questions swirling around whether this roster has the talent to win a championship. The answer rests squarely on the ACL of Derrick Rose, and if not, it's hard to recreate history in a way that we would have the pieces we need to beat Miami or OKC. Have there really been personnel moves that would have us so much closer? Yes, LaMarcus Aldridge is much much better than Ty Thomas was, and much better than Boozer is. Yes, JR Smith is a really talented rotation player who we traded for a bag of chips. James Johnson was a decent draft pick who we traded.

But it's been middle of the road, and it just seems that the degree of outrage against a B+ to A- team (agreed, not as good as their regular season record yet) seems unwarranted. Can someone chart the series of moves that would have put us in a position to get Wade, James and Bosh? How about to get Parker, Ginobili and Duncan? How about to draft Durant and Westbrook? Did we have the pieces to assemble Ray Allen and KG around a HOFer like Pierce and then "luck" into a savvy (if annoying) point guard like Rondo? Did we have a shot at getting Dirk Nowitzki or the money to assemble his supporting cast from 2011?

I don't care if we could have been starting Rose and Carmelo, Wade and Amar'e, whatever else the combinations are. It doesn't amount to rings. It's Miami, OKC, San Antonio, and then I guess Boston. There are four teams in front of us in the pecking order of today's NBA, and I have no idea how Forman could have pulled off anything better than that, even setting aside some questionable GM moves. Tanking the right year to draft the right guys will never be the right answer, because of the lottery system--you can't target a guy and go get him by being bad enough, like in the NFL.

So, did I miss something here?


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Showtyme said:


> Did we have the pieces to assemble Ray Allen and KG around a HOFer like Pierce and then "luck" into a savvy (if annoying) point guard like Rondo?


To be fair, they assembled the pieces to get KG and Allen by committing to stockpiling youth to later cash in, and they got Rondo by buying a late first(Rondo was considered a reach at that spot) with cash and the willingness to take on Brian Grant's contract, so that was just good GM work.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Bogg said:


> To be fair, they assembled the pieces to get KG and Allen by committing to stockpiling youth to later cash in, and they got Rondo by buying a late first(Rondo was considered a reach at that spot) with cash and the willingness to take on Brian Grant's contract, so that was just good GM work.


Point well taken. I agree that the Big Three in Boston was a valiant effort and it yielded them the ultimate prize, and getting Rondo was crucial as well when the hip thing in the NBA is scoring guards and the scouting report on Rondo is that he's got a terrible jump shot (still does, although it's improved).

Still, can anyone address the other point? Why does Paxson get all the flak? Yes, his tenure through 2009 was a mixed bag, but it's been three years since it's been Forman's gig (and he, not Pax, won Executive of the Year in 2011) so why are we still digging up history? Can we talk about Jerry Krause throwing $32 million at Eddie Robinson or drafting Marcus Fizer out of spite, then telling him to lose 40 pounds and learn how to jack threes because they already had a PF in Brand? Sure, we can, but to what end?

The dominoes go back a ways, yes, but Paxson's individual moves are not reflected in our team very much anymore. The remnant of Paxson's moves are "lucking" into Rose, drafting All-Star Luol Deng, and drafting Joakim Noah, a top 8 player at his position in the league. Yes, he made some blunders, like LaMarcus for Thomas and passing on JR Smith, but he did identify Hinrich > Crawford, Gordon is a legit scorer, Duhon is a gem in the 2nd and Nocioni's reasonable contract for his effectiveness. 

Again, returning to the main point: NONE of those guys are on the team anymore! So is there evidence that Paxson is still pulling the strings? I'm really curious. Because otherwise, why are we still talking about him in a way relevant to decision-making for the Bulls?


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

*Re: Interesting*



RollWithEm said:


> You don't often convince me of things Hoodey, but you strangely sold me on this. If the Lakers could add big depth and speed/shooting at the PG position, I think they would pull the trigger. How about this...
> 
> Lakers trade: Pau Gasol, Steve Blake
> Bulls trade: Carlos Boozer, CJ Watson, Taj Gibson
> ...


I don't like this trade. I'm not anointing Taj Gibson as an All-Star caliber PF, but the gap between Gasol and Boozer is not as great as Gibson. Gibson is to valuable to bring off of the bench, and he potentially can be a solid starter if he continues to improve. The value of him coming off the bench to play behind Boozer (or Gasol) is not worth the swap in PF's.

We missed our chance to move Asik last year when his value was high. I think he regressed some this past year and his weaknesses were exposed. He doesn't fit our team with Noah as the starter. I still believe Asik can be a better than average Center in the NBA, but the Bulls need a more offensive minded center to come off the bench behind a defensive minded Noah.
I do not believe Taj will take this same path. Taj's value is high right now, but unlike Asik, I think it will only continue to rise, whereas Asik's took a step back.


----------



## FutureBullsDr (Apr 17, 2012)

Showtyme said:


> I'm sorry if this has already been hashed out in previous threads, but one quick question:
> 
> Paxson's name has been thrown around a lot in this forum of late. Surprisingly, I'd say. Is he still taking all of the responsibility for personnel moves? Do you guys know something I don't know about Paxson's role in the front office? I mean, what has the guy done in the last three years? I honestly thought Gar Forman was running the show now, for the most part.
> 
> ...


Great post. Errors are going to be made by every single GM. Remember the debate over Beasley/Rose. We had a "solid" starting PG in Hinrich on a playoff team and we were lacking a scoring PF. There was no reason why the Bulls shouldn't have traded back one pick and snag Beasley. Instead they pick Rose and ship Hinrich away.

Nice move, regardless of this current ACL issue.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Job said:


> I want Gasol. Give La Boozer and Asik?


Man, I wish. I hope they'd say yes to that. I don't think anyone outside of Chicago thinks Asik is any good at all. I'd rather have Jordan Hill by far.

LA isn't going to get great offers, but they're going to get good enough offers that we'd have to agree to throw Deng in for Artest as well to make it happen.

I think a perfectly logical, balanced deal is:

LA gets:

Deng
Boozer
1st round pick (not Charlotte)

Chicago gets
Gasol
Artest

The fact is, if we get Gasol, we don't need Deng. Sure we'd like to have him, but we don't need him. Kobe really likes him too, so you know he's going to have to be part of the deal. 

Honestly, with Deng and Boozer, I'm not so sure LA doesn't have enough to knock on the door of a title next year BECAUSE those guys would be playing with Bryant and Bynum.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

*Re: Interesting*



RollWithEm said:


> You don't often convince me of things Hoodey, but you strangely sold me on this. If the Lakers could add big depth and speed/shooting at the PG position, I think they would pull the trigger. How about this...
> 
> Lakers trade: Pau Gasol, Steve Blake
> Bulls trade: Carlos Boozer, CJ Watson, Taj Gibson
> ...


I'd like it, but I just don't see LA liking it. They might still want Watson, but they're going to want Deng. They're likely going to want a Deng-Artest swap. 

I argued that LA isn't going to get great offers. I meant offers better than Deng and Boozer for Gasol and Artest. They're going to get offers better than Boozer/Watson/Gibson.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Showtyme said:


> I'm sorry if this has already been hashed out in previous threads, but one quick question:
> 
> Paxson's name has been thrown around a lot in this forum of late. Surprisingly, I'd say. Is he still taking all of the responsibility for personnel moves? Do you guys know something I don't know about Paxson's role in the front office? I mean, what has the guy done in the last three years? I honestly thought Gar Forman was running the show now, for the most part.


I don't do Wizard of Oz crap. Paxson is the man behind the curtain. He isn't the GM of the Bulls the same way Theo isn't the GM of the Cubs. As in, he IS calling the shots. But, if you were to presume he wasn't, then Forman sucks too. 



> I do also find it difficult to believe that there's a lot of questions swirling around whether this roster has the talent to win a championship.


Really? You're watching the Spurs and Thunder and you find it hard to believe? Based on what? Other than wishing. This team has a superstar just like Miami, OKC and the Spurs. Then, here's what the four teams have:

OKC - Westbrook, Harden
San Antonio - Parker, Ginobili (if you decide Parker is the best player on the team, fine - Duncan/Ginobili)
Miami - Wade, Bosh (he'll be healthy next year)

Chicago - Deng, Noah

You really don't see the difference there? Based on what?



> The answer rests squarely on the ACL of Derrick Rose,


No, it doesn't. We were 1-4 against Miami in the ECF last year. AND Miami lost in the Finals and will likely be an underdog this year. Why do you people live in this world where the cart is before the horse and it's already presumed we'll win championships and others must prove to you that we wouldn't.

We're the 4th best playoff team RIGHT NOW with Rose healthy. That's a very realistic appraisal. There's definitely no factual evidence to prove otherwise. And I'm a guy who was on top of the world the six years we were the best team in the playoffs.



> and if not, it's hard to recreate history in a way that we would have the pieces we need to beat Miami or OKC. Have there really been personnel moves that would have us so much closer?


Sure. Sometimes it's the moves you don't make that are the good ones. You don't re-sign a player in Luol Deng who is going to ensure that you become a 41-41 team right away (thus taking away your lotto picks) to that deal unless you think he will be as good as a Scottie Pippen or Russell Westbrook or even Paul Pierce or Pau Gasol. 

OKC wasn't in a rush to become a merely competitive team. They weren't living in this world where they were so afraid of becoming the 2002 Bulls that they got anxiety and pulled the trigger on a deal that pays Deng as much as TONY PARKER.

You get that superstar and if you don't already have your sidekick on the roster, you wait until one comes along before you start unleashing deals like the Deng deal. 



> Yes, LaMarcus Aldridge is much much better than Ty Thomas was, and much better than Boozer is. Yes, JR Smith is a really talented rotation player who we traded for a bag of chips. James Johnson was a decent draft pick who we traded.


None of those players would put us any closer. You know what would put us closer? When you go out and make moves like the following:

Detroit Pistons 1989, 1990 
Bill Laimbeer - Acquired for Paul Mokeski, Phil Hubbard, 1st round pick, 2nd round pick
Joe Dumars - 18th pick

Chicago Bulls 1991-93, 1996-98
Scottie Pippen - Acquired along with Jeff Sanders for Olden Polynice, 2nd round pick, 1st round pick
Horace Grant - 10th pick
Dennis Rodman - Acquired for Will Perdue

San Antonio Spurs 2003, 2005, 2007 (probably this year too)
Tony Parker - 28th pick
Manu Ginobili - 57th pick

So spare me this idea that "oh god, what else could we have done?" Please. You can do things in this league when you have an MVP; when you luck into an MVP. 

Do you realize they started giving the MVP award out in 56 and Charles Barkley was the first MVP not to win a title in his career? Guess who was missing a championship level second fiddle? Yep. Charles Barkley.



> But it's been middle of the road, and it just seems that the degree of outrage against a B+ to A- team (agreed, not as good as their regular season record yet) seems unwarranted.


No it doesn't. Under Paxson they're a below average playoff team. With Boozer and Tibs they're .500 in the playoffs. Even with Rose in those two seasons they've got a 56.3% winning percentage.

And yet I have to read idiots trying to tell me that what we're missing relative to San Antonio isn't a second scoring option, because "Luol Deng is solid" - relative to TIM DUNCAN, the second leading scorer on the Spurs in the playoffs.

I have to listen to morons in February talking about how "oh yeah, tell me we're not the best team in the NBA now." And I reply, "we're not." This is at work. We're a really, really good regular season team. Many, many regular season teams have not been able to make it translate in the playoffs.

That's what Jerry Krause, for all of his terrible ideas post Jordan, meant when he said "I don't want to be a playoff team." He was unable to deliver the players to do it, but he didn't want to be one of these teams that looks great until the 3rd round of the playoffs. He didn't want to be the 92 Cavaliers. And I'd put us between the 92 Cavs and 02 Kings in terms of impact as a team. 

I'm outraged because we can swing deals to get better. We have the Charlotte pick and a couple of guys who could be of value to teams with potential stars who need a player to come in and glue it together in Deng and Noah. But if you think you're already good enough, you won't make the deals. 



> Can someone chart the series of moves that would have put us in a position to get Wade, James and Bosh? How about to get Parker, Ginobili and Duncan?


Gotcha! You just fell into the trap.

Duncan they got lucky with, but we got lucky with Rose. Parker and Ginobili were drafted with a 28th pick and 57th pick. 

I don't so much think about Miami because I don't view them as being better than OKC or SAS until they can add role players who are better than who they have now. 



> How about to draft Durant and Westbrook? Did we have the pieces to assemble Ray Allen and KG around a HOFer like Pierce and then "luck" into a savvy (if annoying) point guard like Rondo? Did we have a shot at getting Dirk Nowitzki or the money to assemble his supporting cast from 2011?
> 
> I don't care if we could have been starting Rose and Carmelo, Wade and Amar'e, whatever else the combinations are. It doesn't amount to rings. It's Miami, OKC, San Antonio, and then I guess Boston. There are four teams in front of us in the pecking order of today's NBA, and I have no idea how Forman could have pulled off anything better than that, even setting aside some questionable GM moves. Tanking the right year to draft the right guys will never be the right answer, because of the lottery system--you can't target a guy and go get him by being bad enough, like in the NFL.
> 
> So, did I miss something here?


Well, if the Thunder signed Luol Deng right away and got to 41 wins in the first season with Durant, would they have Westbrook?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Showtyme said:


> Point well taken. I agree that the Big Three in Boston was a valiant effort and it yielded them the ultimate prize, and getting Rondo was crucial as well when the hip thing in the NBA is scoring guards and the scouting report on Rondo is that he's got a terrible jump shot (still does, although it's improved).
> 
> Still, can anyone address the other point? Why does Paxson get all the flak? Yes, his tenure through 2009 was a mixed bag, but it's been three years since it's been Forman's gig (and he, not Pax, won Executive of the Year in 2011) so why are we still digging up history? Can we talk about Jerry Krause throwing $32 million at Eddie Robinson or drafting Marcus Fizer out of spite, then telling him to lose 40 pounds and learn how to jack threes because they already had a PF in Brand? Sure, we can, but to what end?
> 
> ...


Again, I presume Paxson is running the show. I'm hardly enamored with Forman if you're saying he's the real GM. Again, I buy Paxson "not being the GM wink wink" the same way I buy Theo giving Jed full autonomy. 

Man, you're still playing the "he's not as bad as Krause" game huh? First, in his wildest dreams, and Forman's, they'll never be as GOOD as Jerry was pre-98, but why use Krause as a basis for comparison?

You can be better than Jerry Krause post 98 and fall way short of Gregg Popovich and R.C. Buford. But you still want to compare him to Krause.

This is the mentality that gave us the Deng deal. OKC drafted Durant and they weren't afraid. They had a superstar and they were content to build slowly. We got Rose and were basically like, "oh my god, if we let Luol Deng get away, even WITH Rose, we could become the 2002 Bulls who were led by the evil fat man! Oh no, not that! Let's pay Deng Tony Parker money. 

You say Luol Deng is an all star as if they're all created equal. Fat Lever was an all star.

Since when do 8th best players at their position factor into championship play.

This is the problem with a lot of Bulls fans. Most of them weren't paying attention during the Jordan years. With some exceptions, you win with a superstar and then another star. Here are the second best players on title teams since Magic and Bird joined the league:

1980 Magic Johnson
1981 Robert Parish
1982 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
1983 Julius Erving
1984 Kevin McHale
1985 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
1986 Kevin McHale
1987 James Worthy
1988 James Worthy
1989 Joe Dumars
1990 Joe Dumars
1991 Scottie Pippen
1992 Scottie Pippen
1993 Scottie Pippen
1994 Otis Thorpe
1995 Clyde Drexler
1996 Scottie Pippen
1997 Scottie Pippen
1998 Scottie Pippen
1999 David Robinson
2000 Kobe Bryant
2001 Kobe Bryant
2002 Kobe Bryant
2003 Manu Ginobili
2004 Chauncey Billups
2005 Manu Ginobili
2006 Shaquille O'neal
2007 Tony Parker
2008 Paul Pierce
2009 Pau Gasol
2010 Pau Gasol
2011 Jason Terry

How many guys on that list is Luol Deng better than?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

FutureBullsDr said:


> Great post. Errors are going to be made by every single GM. Remember the debate over Beasley/Rose. We had a "solid" starting PG in Hinrich on a playoff team and we were lacking a scoring PF. There was no reason why the Bulls shouldn't have traded back one pick and snag Beasley. Instead they pick Rose and ship Hinrich away.
> 
> Nice move, regardless of this current ACL issue.


Yeah, I remember that debate. The only people on the Beasley side were morons who wanted a roster full of tweener forwards and combo guards. It wasn't a debate, except to people like Bullsville.

Again, if you want to win a championship, are you talking about being better than most GMs? Or all but the very best. GMs who "make as many errors as the next guy" don't win rings. GMs who get Tony Parker with a 28th pick and Manu Ginobili with a 57th pick DO win championships.

Just admit it. You just LIKE Paxson or Paxson/Forman. Because there is no rational basis for arguing they are champion level GMs. Not being a championship level GM is fine, when you lack a player to win a title with. We have one, Derrick Rose. So we need a title level GM. If Paxson or Forman isn't a title level GM, they need to quit.

That's hilarious. "Remember when people wanted Beasley." Yeah, I remember trying to talk basketball with that moron parade.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> Again, I presume Paxson is running the show. I'm hardly enamored with Forman if you're saying he's the real GM. Again, I buy Paxson "not being the GM wink wink" the same way I buy Theo giving Jed full autonomy.
> 
> Man, you're still playing the "he's not as bad as Krause" game huh? First, in his wildest dreams, and Forman's, they'll never be as GOOD as Jerry was pre-98, but why use Krause as a basis for comparison?
> 
> ...


Just a few. 

Anyway, your point is taken. You are a hater of the Bulls GM-ing, which I would not defend except to say that yes, it has not been building a championship. If you give all the GMs that skillfully and shrewdly got the above players all the credit and accuse the Bulls GM (whoever it is) of being totally terrible in that department, be my guest.

What team do you follow? Your remarks smack of trolling.

And if it's not that tough to identify the key free agents and best draft picks, I would ask you to identify the top three free agents this offseason and the top three draft picks, and we can revisit the record in three years to see how they did.

At the end of the day, unforeseen circumstances loom larger than smart GM-ing. It does matter, yes, but if it was the only thing that mattered, how come RC Buford couldn't put together a team that was in the Finals every single year, while Jerry West dominated the 80's and early 2000's? 

There are a lot of factors involved. Good GM-ing (maybe even great GM-ing) is a minimum requirement for winning a championship, and I can agree that the Bulls have made a mixed bag of moves including not securing the second star-quality player to play alongside Derrick Rose. But your arguments are basically, "here are the results" and "here's who was GM at the time" and thus, the Bulls GM really sucks. If it's truly so one-for-one, how did Joe Dumars score a ring yet still have so many terrible seasons? 

Maybe others are defending [Bulls GM] very heavily and you feel the need to flame them into submission for some reason, but I would defend that Paxson/Forman are reasonable GMs. Not great ones, and they have made their share of mistakes, as well as their share of decent moves. No, it's not at the level of Ainge getting the Big Three (Ainge was heavily hated until then, by the way), Riley getting the Big 2.5 (that was almost completely not his doing, but he deserves some credit), West trading the kitchen sink for Kobe Bryant and then later landing Shaq, and Buford for having a killer eye for late round talent (Parker was the last pick in the 1st round and Ginobili was a 2nd rounder). I doubt anyone would dispute that.

Yes, we could use an upgrade at GM. I don't think I dispute that fact, within reason. I think we have a GM who is in the middle third of the NBA, and usually you need someone better at that spot unless you get very lucky. 

But you are pouring the haterade on really, really heavy.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Showtyme said:


> Just a few.
> 
> Anyway, your point is taken. You are a hater of the Bulls GM-ing, which I would not defend except to say that yes, it has not been building a championship. If you give all the GMs that skillfully and shrewdly got the above players all the credit and accuse the Bulls GM (whoever it is) of being totally terrible in that department, be my guest.
> 
> What team do you follow? Your remarks smack of trolling.


My team is the Bulls and has been since 1983. I know, it's crazy to say that though, since most message board Bulls fans think the team started when Kirk Hinrich was drafted, and if they do actually acknowledge any history prior to the Hinrich drafting, it's to point out how bad Krause was (to then point out how good Paxson must be) OR it's the history of those gritty, short-shorts Van Lier/Sloan Bulls.



> And if it's not that tough to identify the key free agents and best draft picks, I would ask you to identify the top three free agents this offseason and the top three draft picks, and we can revisit the record in three years to see how they did.


It's funny that in your ardent defense of Paxson (or Paxson/Forman), you have to take this attitude rather than just admitting he hasn't been good.

I can tell you what attributes are good. What you're looking for me to say is "yes, Andre Drummond is the guy" so that if Drummond becomes a crack addict, you can say "ha ha! Paxson and I must be right about the delusions of a title with Deng as the second best player, because this one specific player you liked ended up being a bust.

Let me ask you this. Does that change the fact that players Drummond's size who can play are markedly better than players Noah's size who have the same skills? Because one guy I pick now ends up being a bust?

The fact is, the attributes are there. The specific players? I can't be responsible for their character or other things that you'd need a staff to be able to research. If I had the resources Paxson has or Krause had to follow Stacey King around campus, then I could be responsible for who is and isn't going to be a good player based on things external from winning attributes.

That doesn't change the fact that SGs who get to the hole and shoot 49.6% (Wade) help you win a championship a lot more than your precious chump (relative to championship level second fiddles) Deng. That doesn't change the fact that if you line up ten guys Andrew Bynum's size, with his post moves and his ability to get in front of the rim, you're going to come up with two championships a lot more often than you will with Joakim Noah. That doesn't change the fact that yeah, maybe some guys with Russell Westbrook's talent just won't have the desire to put the work in (and again you'd need the resources to make sure those players were vetted), but the ones who do will bring you a lot closer than relying on Luol Deng as your second best player. 



> At the end of the day, unforeseen circumstances loom larger than smart GM-ing. It does matter, yes, but if it was the only thing that mattered, how come RC Buford couldn't put together a team that was in the Finals every single year, while Jerry West dominated the 80's and early 2000's?


Well, first, if it's just dumb luck, then don't ever try to give Paxson or Forman credit. Because hey, it's all just a big crap shoot right? That's according to you.

But it's not. You're either looking for certain players or you aren't. Nobody made John Paxson (or the "GM" Forman) sign Luol Deng to the kind of money the Spurs paid Tony Parker. It was Paxson who decided that Deng and Noah were the 2nd and 3rd best players on a championship team.

Are you telling me "unforeseen circumstances" were McCloskey's saving grace in Detroit? Yeah, because he must have just rolled the lucky dice every time he got Joe Dumars for a mid first rounder or Dennis Rodman for nothing or Bill Laimbeer for less than nothing. Just unforeseen circumstances lining up in good ole Jack's favor, right? 

Gee, I don't know genius, because Tim Duncan, as great as he is, is not as dominant as Shaq from 00-02 and certainly not as good as having Shaq and Kobe. And Tim, again, as good as he is, is no Magic and Kareem. I also don't think Jerry West did it on GM-ing as smart as Buford. Magic fell in his lap, Kareem made the Bucks trade him to LA. By the time he had to actually make big moves he already had Magic and Kareem and your dad could build a team with those two. When it was time for Shaq and Kobe, Kobe's dad basically forced Kobe's way to LA and West showed he was what Paxson is not. Additional to being a smart GM, being a good salesman and landing Shaq is also a big deal. And you can say "oh everyone wants to play in LA," but Paul Pierce sold Allen and Garnett on Boston, so it can be done when it comes to selling great players on a cold weather franchise. 

You're either looking for a certain type of player or you aren't. You either like what John Wooden did and you want a big frontcourt like Bynum and Gasol, or you think a 260 lb. fat ass with no explosiveness and a 240 lb. center make up an awesome front. Sure luck can swing different ways, but if you're NOT looking for that next big man to get lucky on, because you don't like players who fit Roy Hibbert's mold, then you won't ever go out and trade for the pick to get Roy Hibbert. 

If you're not looking for Andrew Bynum because you like smaller centers you can run the floor with, then you won't get Bynum or Cousins (who I'll maintain would be a much better player playing here with Derrick Rose than in Sacramento) or whoever, because you think you're fine with Joakim Noah. In the meantime, every time Joel Anthony sees Noah in a playoff atmosphere he holds him and pushes him around, but I guess if Paxson gets lucky, then Noah will become a 285 lb. beast huh?



> There are a lot of factors involved. Good GM-ing (maybe even great GM-ing) is a minimum requirement for winning a championship, and I can agree that the Bulls have made a mixed bag of moves including not securing the second star-quality player to play alongside Derrick Rose. But your arguments are basically, "here are the results" and "here's who was GM at the time" and thus, the Bulls GM really sucks. If it's truly so one-for-one, how did Joe Dumars score a ring yet still have so many terrible seasons?


I really don't think Joe Dumars would save us here, nor that he was some great #2. I think that when you look at all the players McCloskey got, Dumars didn't have to be Scottie Pippen. If this team had Rose, Laimbeer, Rodman, Aguirre, Johnson, Salley, Edwards, Mahorn do you really think Deng would have to be some miracle worker? 

And am I missing something? Dumars was still pretty good when Thomas and the rest of the bunch were in their prime. So, for McCloskey to be a good GM, Dumars has to go from second fiddle on a team that was really more by committee than in the Jordan-Pippen-ten other guys format to being a great top dog when Isiah was done? I mean, Isiah was done and the team vanished by 92, just like Kobe said the other day. And then by the time Grant Hill was there, Dumars was old man.

So for Paxson to be bad, every good second fiddle ever picked who contributes to a championship has to be good for their entire career or other GMs are just as bad but were momentarily lucky? Man, you're really a lot worse at this than you were in 2007 when you could rely on Paxson doing okay without a superstar, the "you have to luck into a superstar to win" argument and the uncertainty that "hey, he could always end up being really good down the line." 

You should email Bullsville. You need help. 



> Maybe others are defending [Bulls GM] very heavily and you feel the need to flame them into submission for some reason, but I would defend that Paxson/Forman are reasonable GMs.


Bernstein, who I often disagree with said it. "Everything you do has to be championship focused or nothing you do matters." 

"Reasonable GMs" however you quantify that, don't win championships. That's another way of saying "guy who is going to get you to buy a bill of goods by building a regular season juggernaut who will get their faces pounded in in the playoffs (and that's exactly what last years ECF was)." Hey, when your best player is Chris Mullin or Reggie Miller, get a reasonable GM and there's no foul there. I don't think anybody EXPECTS a GM to turn a team led by Chris Webber, Chris Mullin, Reggie Miller or even Scottie Pippen into a juggernaut.

But we have a NBA MVP. When a NBA MVP DOESN'T win a championship in his career, it's actually a LOT more rare than when he does.

So screw the reasonable GM who thinks Luol Deng is a championship second fiddle and let's get a guy who can build a team as good as San Antonio around Rose the same way Buford built a team like that around Duncan (and I can assure you if he gets two players as good as Ginobili and Parker and we still lose I won't be crying, because that's just doing the best you can and it not happening). 



> Not great ones, and they have made their share of mistakes, as well as their share of decent moves. No, it's not at the level of Ainge getting the Big Three (Ainge was heavily hated until then, by the way), Riley getting the Big 2.5 (that was almost completely not his doing, but he deserves some credit), West trading the kitchen sink for Kobe Bryant and then later landing Shaq, and Buford for having a killer eye for late round talent (Parker was the last pick in the 1st round and Ginobili was a 2nd rounder). I doubt anyone would dispute that.
> 
> Yes, we could use an upgrade at GM. I don't think I dispute that fact, within reason. I think we have a GM who is in the middle third of the NBA, and usually you need someone better at that spot unless you get very lucky.
> 
> But you are pouring the haterade on really, really heavy.


So let me ask you this. If you admit we can use an upgrade at GM, then where do you think our disagreement lies?

Do you think I don't think Paxson or Forman work hard or care? I think they are devoted to a dogma where tweener forwards, combo guards and gritty players are a lot more important than they are to championship level GMs, but I don't think they suck on purpose.

If you admit we need a new GM, then why does it have to come with defenses of Paxson/Forman or this idea that Buford "just got lucky." 

After all of this, "hey, I like fundamental basketball at all costs/solid players at all cost/character jibby guys at all cost" dogmatic almost religious piety that has taken over Bulls forums for a decade, why can't you just say, "you know what, maybe Paxson didn't come with a Right Way bible that's going to part the NBA Red Sea and maybe I was just wrong about him and about wanting so much crew cut and short shorts" and why can't we just move on?

Jesus, you'd think I was sitting here asking for a return to KRAUSE or something.


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

Hoodey said:


> Man, I wish. I hope they'd say yes to that. I don't think anyone outside of Chicago thinks Asik is any good at all. I'd rather have Jordan Hill by far.
> 
> LA isn't going to get great offers, but they're going to get good enough offers that we'd have to agree to throw Deng in for Artest as well to make it happen.
> 
> ...


I know HATE the Bulls front office, but you think you'd be liked if you pulled the trigger on this horrible deal? How does this help the Bulls? For now or the future? It's a serious question because I don't see ANY positive in this deal other than geting rid of Boozer's contract. But if you take on Gasol's contract, plus lose Deng and a first just to get rid of Boozer, than this deal is absolutely horrible!!!


----------



## FutureBullsDr (Apr 17, 2012)

Firefight said:


> I know HATE the Bulls front office, but you think you'd be liked if you pulled the trigger on this horrible deal? How does this help the Bulls? For now or the future? It's a serious question because I don't see ANY positive in this deal other than geting rid of Boozer's contract. But if you take on Gasol's contract, plus lose Deng and a first just to get rid of Boozer, than this deal is absolutely horrible!!!


I'm not a huge fan simply due to the fact that this trade makes the Bulls starters substantially older. However, this is definitely not a horrible deal. 

Gasol is much better than Boozer.
Deng is better than Artest.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Firefight said:


> I know HATE the Bulls front office, but you think you'd be liked if you pulled the trigger on this horrible deal? How does this help the Bulls? For now or the future? It's a serious question because I don't see ANY positive in this deal other than geting rid of Boozer's contract. But if you take on Gasol's contract, plus lose Deng and a first just to get rid of Boozer, than this deal is absolutely horrible!!!


So you don't see positives in the fact that Gasol is an inside scoring threat and that that would give us an inside outside game?

Oh! You love the small forward position. It's probably the position that has the least barring on Finals success along with PF (not F/Cs like Duncan and Gasol). 

So I'd be shifting assets into different priorities from the ones that Paxson loves. I'd be making post scoring a priority. If you have a good inside game and a good outside game, I can go find you a pretty good SF at the mall (obvious hyperbole). I'd be looking to someone in the mold of Trevor Ariza, who was a much better player the last time he was playing with Gasol and a superstar.

I also like the flexibility, which is always key when you have a superstar and don't have the team you're ready to move forward with for the long haul (you only commit to a team salary-wise when you have your superstar and your second fiddle, etc.). Where Boozer still makes 16.8 mill in 2015, Gasol and Artest would be done in 2014 (just so there's no confusion I'd immediately trade Artest for scraps or just waive him and pay him). You'd probably have the chance to re-up Gasol. I presume he'd be happy here. You'd get him at a discount. I'll maintain that 2014 with Rose coming off a season healthy in which he'll likely reassert his dominant ways - clearing a bunch of cap when Gasol and Artest would become free agents is a good thing. 

I mean, you likely just overrate Luol Deng. That's the best I can give you. I've maintained that if your team has the right structure a good SF is easy to find. SAS proved it! They got Kawhi Leonard for nothing, and they won't have to pay him more than 3 million for the next few seasons. But they have a great F/C - PG duo in Duncan - Parker, just like we would with Gasol - Rose. So SF becomes very easy to manage at that point.

Call me crazy but answer me this. With a trio of Gasol, Noah and Gibson, who couldn't you match up with in the NBA? 

Also, you don't like that plan, and yet we have a bunch of people banking hopes on a 2016 draft pick? Really? Seriously?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

FutureBullsDr said:


> I'm not a huge fan simply due to the fact that this trade makes the Bulls starters substantially older. However, this is definitely not a horrible deal.
> 
> Gasol is much better than Boozer.
> Deng is better than Artest.


No. I'd cut Artest. I'd never let that whack job play here. I'm just being very realistic about what LA likely wants in exchange for Gasol if the best player they are getting back is mediocre (relative to Gasol) Luol Deng.

I'd follow San Antonio's strategy. First, I'd draft Will Buford and I think he'd be a good fit at SG, then my team would look like this.

*C Noah - Multi-talented C with little individual offensive prowess
F Gasol - F/C who is capable of exploiting speed matchups against centers and power matchups against PFs in the post *
F Some guy I go get from a place like San Diego State
G Buford (I'd obviously look to do better at starter here, but this post isn't going to take an hour of research)
*G Rose*

Notice the similarities here:

C Diaw
F Duncan
F
G
G Parker

It's about where you place your assets. Do you put them in a combo of a PG and a C/F who can do damage in the post against any PF he sees in the playoffs?

Or is it all about having the best role playing SF masquerading as a borderline all star and a chunky 6'8" 260 lb. PF who shoots dick in the playoffs?


----------



## FutureBullsDr (Apr 17, 2012)

Hoodey said:


> No. I'd cut Artest. I'd never let that whack job play here. I'm just being very realistic about what LA likely wants in exchange for Gasol if the best player they are getting back is mediocre (relative to Gasol) Luol Deng.
> 
> I'd follow San Antonio's strategy. First, I'd draft Will Buford and I think he'd be a good fit at SG, then my team would look like this.
> 
> ...



I don't disagree at all. I also like the idea of a player like Ariza taking Deng's place. Why not attempt to get him in a 3 team deal.

Bulls trade: Boozer, Deng, Watson, Butler, Charlotte 1st 
Bulls receive: Gasol, Ariza, Blake

Lakers trade: Gasol, Artest, Blake 
Lakers receive: Boozer, Deng, Watson 

Hornets trade: Ariza
Hornets receive: Artest, Butler, Charlotte 1st 

Lakers get a much needed shake up. Bulls get Pau and replace Deng with Ariza. Charlotte gets Artest and some youth to continue rebuild mode with Butler and another lottery pick. 

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=77w9mhg

PG: Rose/Blake
SG: Rip/Korver
SF: Ariza/Brewer
PF: Gasol/Gibson
C: Noah/Asik


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

FutureBullsDr said:


> I don't disagree at all. I also like the idea of a player like Ariza taking Deng's place. Why not attempt to get him in a 3 team deal.
> 
> Bulls trade: Boozer, Deng, Watson, Butler, Charlotte 1st
> Bulls receive: Gasol, Ariza, Blake
> ...


I like the idea, I really do. But if we throw that Charlotte pick into the mix, we need to get more out of the other side than just Ariza. 

By the way, for all of those saying that being a GM is just "unforeseen circumstance" I forgot to add Perkins for Green. When that trade went down, most people who love tweener forwards actually thought Boston got the better of it. I circled it in red ink, because that move came with the intent of bolstering the paint and it was a very good move without a lot of luck involved (Perkins was what he is now at the time of the trade).

But the OKC front office had to WANT a player like that. If they thought Jeff Green was good enough the way that this team is arrogant about their own players, they'd still have Jeff Green (let's just presume the benefit of the doubt on Green's crazy injury) and they'd be at home watching Spurs-Lakers.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

The Hornets do not play in Charlotte.


----------



## Ben (Nov 7, 2006)

RollWithEm said:


> The Hornets do not play in Charlotte.


The Bulls have a Bobcats 1st rounder.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

ßen said:


> The Bulls have a Bobcats 1st rounder.


Nice random fact unrelated to what I just said.

That FBR trade post mentioned Ariza playing for Charlotte. That is not the case.


----------



## Ben (Nov 7, 2006)

RollWithEm said:


> Nice random fact unrelated to what I just said.
> 
> That FBR trade post mentioned Ariza playing for Charlotte. That is not the case.


So it does. I thought you were referring to the Charlotte 1st included in the trade.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Anyone who got points for putting their name on the SAT/ACT can pretty much tell he meant "New Orleans gets"


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

The Lakers would never accept a Gasol deal that centered around Carlos Boozer and Taj Gibson. That makes us considerably worse and you guys benefit immensely. The kind of deal that L.A. would accept would look like Deng/Gibson/Korver for Pau/filler. That is a lot for the Bulls to give up, and I personally wouldn't pull the trigger if I was Chicago, but that's the type of deal that would entice the Lakers.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Luke said:


> The Lakers would never accept a Gasol deal that centered around Carlos Boozer and Taj Gibson. That makes us considerably worse and you guys benefit immensely. The kind of deal that L.A. would accept would look like Deng/Gibson/Korver for Pau/filler. That is a lot for the Bulls to give up, and I personally wouldn't pull the trigger if I was Chicago, but that's the type of deal that would entice the Lakers.


The problem with your deal is that it's what you can demand in a vacuum in la la land. It's "hey, we can name the deal, we ARE the Lakers, right?" 

But if you don't make a deal with Chicago, who are you really going to get? This isn't trading for Pau Gasol in the summer of 2010. And everyone knows if your team stays the same, you don't have enough to ever beat OKC again. They'll be better, you guys will be older, Kobe will still hate Pau and vice versa, and oh, did I mention that's a fact everyone in the world is aware of?

In the meantime, the Bulls don't have to deal for Gasol. Next year is a wash anyway with Rose's knee sure to be less than 100% for more than a calendar year. The Bulls could easily elect to wait until summer 13 to make a deal at which time the Charlotte pick will be more valuable and a lot more options than Gasol probably open up. 

I've seen this movie before. LA fans deciding what Shaq was worth, telling everyone all about it, and getting Brian Grant and Lamar Odom. 

Now, if we shift the subject to Bynum, yes. Inflated ideas of what he's worth are probably more realistic than not. But Gasol isn't a guy on the way up. He's a guy on the way down.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Hoodey said:


> The problem with your deal is that it's what you can demand in a vacuum in la la land. It's "hey, we can name the deal, we ARE the Lakers, right?"
> 
> But if you don't make a deal with Chicago, who are you really going to get? This isn't trading for Pau Gasol in the summer of 2010. And everyone knows if your team stays the same, you don't have enough to ever beat OKC again. They'll be better, you guys will be older, Kobe will still hate Pau and vice versa, and oh, did I mention that's a fact everyone in the world is aware of?
> 
> ...


None of this changes the fact that the Lakers would never accept the deal that you proposed. It is a horrible deal for us. I would rather keep Gasol than trade him for trash and become a worse team for no reason. That makes no sense.

And we also got Caron Butler (who became an all star) in the Shaq deal. And either way that deal indirectly landed us Pau in the first place. If someone would have told me on the day of the O'Neal trade that we would be receiving a 7 footer who would proceed to be a perennial all star and a future 6th man of the year for a grumpy declining Shaq I would have been ecstatic.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Luke said:


> None of this changes the fact that the Lakers would never accept the deal that you proposed. It is a horrible deal for us. I would rather keep Gasol than trade him for trash and become a worse team for no reason. That makes no sense.
> 
> And we also got Caron Butler (who became an all star) in the Shaq deal. And either way that deal indirectly landed us Pau in the first place. If someone would have told me on the day of the O'Neal trade that we would be receiving a 7 footer who would proceed to be a perennial all star and a future 6th man of the year for a grumpy declining Shaq I would have been ecstatic.


You're dreaming if you think the Lakers thought that at the time they made the deal. It was a horrible deal and the owner of the Grizzlies decided to play the role that the Kansas City Royals used to play for the Yankees when the only purpose of the Royals was to suck, get good draft picks and trade their best talent to NY for nothing.

Don't sell that that was a good deal for LA because it wasn't.

You're venturing into the realm of horrible Laker fan thoughts such as "Michael can never beat a player like Magic who makes everyone around him so much better. This series is over before it starts."

You would rather keep Gasol, and that's great. You're not Kobe though. Kobe runs that team and he wants Gasol out of there. He also loves Luol Deng. I personally don't think Deng is that good, but Kobe does for some reason.

I'd offer what I offered and unless the talk shifted to Bynum, I wouldn't be offended at all if the Lakers were to decide that there is no potential deal to be had if that is my offer (presuming I was in Paxson's shoes). I would not up the offer. Not for a guy whose PER is falling off of a cliff.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

its worth noting in Shaq's LA-heat deal jerry buss and shaq's relationship was strained , extremely so .

the heat got a deal because buss just wanted him gone... it got personal ...there is no such problems with pau.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Da Grinch said:


> its worth noting in Shaq's LA-heat deal jerry buss and shaq's relationship was strained , extremely so .
> 
> the heat got a deal because buss just wanted him gone... it got personal ...there is no such problems with pau.


Kobe doesn't have a problem with Gasol?

If Kobe wants someone gone or "thinks they're soft" it may not be quite as bad as Buss wanting them gone, but it's close.


----------



## MojoPin (Oct 10, 2008)

Hoodey said:


> Kobe doesn't have a problem with Gasol?
> 
> If Kobe wants someone gone or "thinks they're soft" it may not be quite as bad as Buss wanting them gone, but it's close.


That may be so, but it's still CARLOS BOOZER. Kobe does not have any respect for him, and I'm sure the lakers as an organization dont either. Yeah..trade for a PF who shows up even less than Gasol and has an equally bad contract. :lol: Everyone knows about Boozer; we watched him disappear against LAL for years.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

MojoPin said:


> That may be so, but it's still CARLOS BOOZER. Kobe does not have any respect for him, and I'm sure the lakers as an organization dont either. Yeah..trade for a PF who shows up even less than Gasol and has an equally bad contract. :lol: Everyone knows about Boozer; we watched him disappear against LAL for years.


No, it's not Boozer they'd want. The player LA would want is Deng. The player they'd have to take is Boozer. Just like the player the Bulls would want is Gasol. The player they'd have to take is Artest.

There's no way Chicago is stepping into a trade with LA where they pay both Gasol and Boozer. So maybe LA and Chicago just aren't trading partners.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> Kobe doesn't have a problem with Gasol?
> 
> If Kobe wants someone gone or "thinks they're soft" it may not be quite as bad as Buss wanting them gone, but it's close.


does he?

i dont think so ,


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Da Grinch said:


> does he?
> 
> i dont think so ,


It's been all over the media. I mean it's not some kind of thing where it's every day like Shaq, but it's definitely hit talk radio hard.

But hey, you're the guy who thought a lot of things about Wilt and eventually stopped answering the bell in that thread, right?


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Hoodey said:


> You're dreaming if you think the Lakers thought that at the time they made the deal. It was a horrible deal and the owner of the Grizzlies decided to play the role that the Kansas City Royals used to play for the Yankees when the only purpose of the Royals was to suck, get good draft picks and trade their best talent to NY for nothing.


You don't think that the Lakers believed that unloading Shaquille's 20+ million contract would help them be more flexible in the future? You don't think that the Lakers thought that Caron Butler was going to emerge as a stud or that Lamar Odom wasn't one of the most versatile players in the game?

And I was under the impression that the Grizzlies deal ended up benefited both squads. The Lakers got their all star big man and the Grizzlies unloaded a player that was not capable of being a first banana that was making first banana money. That trade allowed them the cap flexibility to sign Zach Randolph (who has been tremendous in Memphis) and the draft rights to Marc Gasol (who is now an all star big man). Sounds like a relatively good deal for both parties.



Hoodey said:


> sell that that was a good deal for LA because it wasn't.


Two championships and three finals appearances later, I think it was probably the right decision.



Hoodey said:


> You're venturing into the realm of horrible Laker fan thoughts such as "Michael can never beat a player like Magic who makes everyone around him so much better. This series is over before it starts."


This has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about. Someone has a case of Napoleon syndrome I see.



Hoodey said:


> You would rather keep Gasol, and that's great. You're not Kobe though. Kobe runs that team and he wants Gasol out of there. He also loves Luol Deng. I personally don't think Deng is that good, but Kobe does for some reason.
> 
> I'd offer what I offered and unless the talk shifted to Bynum, I wouldn't be offended at all if the Lakers were to decide that there is no potential deal to be had if that is my offer (presuming I was in Paxson's shoes). I would not up the offer. Not for a guy whose PER is falling off of a cliff.


You are correct. I am not Kobe Bryant. 

Luol Deng has nothing to do with what we're talking about. If you reread my original post I clearly stated that the Lakers would never accept a deal centered around Carlos Boozer and Taj Gibson, because that is a horrible deal. I then went on to say that a deal that involved Deng/Gibson/Korver would potentially entice the Lakers considering their unhappiness with Pau.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Luke said:


> You don't think that the Lakers believed that unloading Shaquille's 20+ million contract would help them be more flexible in the future? You don't think that the Lakers thought that Caron Butler was going to emerge as a stud or that Lamar Odom wasn't one of the most versatile players in the game?
> 
> And I was under the impression that the Grizzlies deal ended up benefited both squads. The Lakers got their all star big man and the Grizzlies unloaded a player that was not capable of being a first banana that was making first banana money. That trade allowed them the cap flexibility to sign Zach Randolph (who has been tremendous in Memphis) and the draft rights to Marc Gasol (who is now an all star big man). Sounds like a relatively good deal for both parties.


There's no way you could have been LA and thought that a trade for a player like Pau Gasol would be the result with any sort of proximate intent. Too far removed. 



> Two championships and three finals appearances later, I think it was probably the right decision.


Obnoxious Laker A-hole alert. Go on and tell me about how in ten years, Kobe can be better than Michael now.



> You are correct. I am not Kobe Bryant.
> 
> Luol Deng has nothing to do with what we're talking about. If you reread my original post I clearly stated that the Lakers would never accept a deal centered around Carlos Boozer and Taj Gibson, because that is a horrible deal. I then went on to say that a deal that involved Deng/Gibson/Korver would potentially entice the Lakers considering their unhappiness with Pau.


I didn't read that far because I never suggested a deal for Boozer and Gibson.


----------



## MojoPin (Oct 10, 2008)

Hoodey said:


> No, it's not Boozer they'd want. The player LA would want is Deng. The player they'd have to take is Boozer. Just like the player the Bulls would want is Gasol. The player they'd have to take is Artest.
> 
> There's no way Chicago is stepping into a trade with LA where they pay both Gasol and Boozer. So maybe LA and Chicago just aren't trading partners.


That's equally as bad. Deng takes LAL nowhere. A gifted 7ft big man - even on the decline - is worth much much more than a dime a dozen SF.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> It's been all over the media. I mean it's not some kind of thing where it's every day like Shaq, but it's definitely hit talk radio hard.
> 
> But hey, you're the guy who thought a lot of things about Wilt and eventually stopped answering the bell in that thread, right?



you should have kept paying attention about that controversy Vanessa and kobe byryant didn't break up Gasol's relationship, they settled on shannon brown as being the guy Pau had a beef with after both Kobe and Pau denied it and since Pau and his girlfriend were actually still together and went on a mexican vacation after the lakers were eliminated. (shannon later denied he had sex with pau's girlfriend on twitter , but he's no longer a laker now)

and I stopped responding about wilt because it was silly , the game footage is on youtube , that there is an insane amount of proof that the 1970's finals weren't lost because of wilt chaimberlain , so at some point its just wise to back away from the foolishness.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Hoodey said:


> There's no way you could have been LA and thought that a trade for a player like Pau Gasol would be the result with any sort of proximate intent. Too far removed.


The trade was supposed to result in getting Kobe a future all star small forward, a jack of all trades power forward, and a big expiring contract in Brian Grant. We ended up with Pau Gasol. I am not seeing the issue here.





Hoodey said:


> Obnoxious Laker A-hole alert. Go on and tell me about how in ten years, Kobe can be better than Michael now.


It's adorable that you have to resort to putting words into my mouth to make yourself look better. Go ahead and look into my post history and show me where I have ever compared Kobe favorably to Jordan. Please.





Hoodey said:


> I didn't read that far because I never suggested a deal for Boozer and Gibson.


My original post stated that the Lakers would never accept a deal that did not involve Luol Deng as the center piece. You proceeded to babble on about how I live in "la la land" without actually refuting anything that I said. Here's a tip - just because you post with a condescending tone doesn't make you look smart. Run along now.


----------

