# I love how Philly got Bynum



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

While we just sat back and did nothing. Because hey, "we're good." That's Paxson's mentality.

Always remember when people try to say, "well, Howard didn't want to play here, and no other good player has ever been available to Paxson," that Philly has a lot less to deal than us and got Bynum.

Bynum and Rose would have made me MORE Than happy not to get Dwight Howard. But alas, instead of Bynum we still have the Boozer/Deng mediocrity-fest as our #2.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Philly gave up an All Star player. They are gambling that Bynum will sign an extension with them, when the new CBA makes it extremely unlikely that he does so without testing the market. This move could easily turn out to be a disaster for the Sixers.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Diable said:


> Philly gave up an All Star player. They are gambling that Bynum will sign an extension with them, when the new CBA makes it extremely unlikely that he does so without testing the market. This move could easily turn out to be a disaster for the Sixers.


Here come the excuses and apologies.

We had an all star player I would have been HAPPY to give up for Bynum. Luol Deng - who frankly SUCKS relative to what Bynum brings to the championship level of basketball.

Best part, if you don't re-sign Bynum, what are you afraid of? That without Deng you're not going to be able to sign anyone to play with Derrick Rose? Are we going to become the 2002 Bulls if we trade for Bynum and he signs elsewhere?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Ok Hoodey, what was Chicago going to give up for Bynum?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

R-Star said:


> Ok Hoodey, what was Chicago going to give up for Bynum?


Exactly what the f Philly gave up. An "all star" and another minor chip


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Your all star with the damaged wrist?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> Exactly what the f Philly gave up. An "all star" and another minor chip


I'm sorry, but in what world is Deng on par with Iggy?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

R-Star said:


> I'm sorry, but in what world is Deng on par with Iggy?


I dont think he's quite as good? In the same range? Yes. did the vulls have enough assets to take Philly's place? Yes


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

It could be that the other teams involved share your opinions on Deng (or at least the negative opinions).


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Dornado said:


> It could be that the other teams involved share your opinions on Deng (or at least the negative opinions).



Bingo. Deng sucks, until he's a good enough chip to land you Bynum.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> Bingo. Deng sucks, until he's a good enough chip to land you Bynum.


Deng does suck for the money and a #2 role. So does iguodala. Am I missing something? Did Philly give wade up? Or was it crappy Iggy?

Also this was not a straight up trade. It was as part of a four team deal. Easier than a trade for bynum straight up


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

So whats the stance guys? No good move is ever possible? Is this where you say you arent pax fans?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> So whats the stance guys? No good move is ever possible? Is this where you say you arent pax fans?



Knock it off. Jesus.


If dealing Deng could have made you a part of this deal, then I'm all for it.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> Deng does suck for the money and a #2 role.


STRAWMAN!



> Am I missing something?


Honesty?

Iggy is a better chip than Deng right now. Arguably, he's a better player when both are healthy, and Deng is not healthy. Deng's shooting percentage has suffered since his injury, and he's thinking of skipping surgery. My guess would be that to get in on this deal, you've got to do better than Deng. As I said before, if I'm wrong about that and you could have dealt Deng to land Bynum, then yes, you definitely, obviously, always make that move.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Denver would have to want Deng for Chicago to replace Philly. Iggy is a much better transition player than Deng and the Nuggets are pretty much the highest paced team in the league. Deng just doesn't fit nearly as well with what they do.


----------



## Job (Feb 28, 2011)

Hoodey said:


> While we just sat back and did nothing. Because hey, "we're good." That's Paxson's mentality.
> 
> Always remember when people try to say, "well, Howard didn't want to play here, and no other good player has ever been available to Paxson," that Philly has a lot less to deal than us and got Bynum.
> 
> Bynum and Rose would have made me MORE Than happy not to get Dwight Howard. But alas, instead of Bynum we still have the Boozer/Deng mediocrity-fest as our #2.


I feel your pain! What makes it even worse is that we lost what little size we had in Asik. It feels like the Bulls are slipping.


----------



## RedsDrunk (Oct 31, 2005)

From a Sixer fan perspective:

Iggy's been trying to get out of Philly for the last 2 years.He flat out said he didn't think he'd be with the team coming into last season. He was gone after this year anyways. This wasn't the big gamble you make it out to be. All star 3 for "the second best big man in the league?" Yes please.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

the thing about this is this .

maybe Deng couldn't be a part of this deal , but what about Noah or Boozer .

thats 3 positions of basically the same ability at basically the same salary.

there have been plenty of Howard/Bynum scenerios featuring plenty of teams but the bulls have been a part of none of them.

the answer is simple , 

they didn't want to , they are content with the roster as is .

I think the front office should want to win as badly as their players.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> the thing about this is this .
> 
> maybe Deng couldn't be a part of this deal , but what about Noah or Boozer .
> 
> ...


The simple answer is, none of those guys are worth Iguodala. Deng and Noah are nice, but I would say a tier down from Iggy value wise, and no one in the league wants Boozer at his current salary.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Iggy is absolutely mote valuable than Deng, silly thing to get worked up about. Though I wouldn't expect anything less from a poster like Hoodey.


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

Just because you call Iggy crappy doesn't mean he is. Just because you think Deng is on par with him doesn't mean he is. 

Deng is an ok player at best. He plays one position and isn't at all special. And worst of all he is badly overpaid which scares other teams away. He's the fwd version of Afflalo, nice guy plays hard but, limited. Notice how through the years Deng's name always pops up in trade rumors and how those rumors go nowhere ?

The only high paid player the Bulls should have are Rose and Noah. Rose is a star and Noah is a big man. The rest should be expendable.

You should be jumping for joy that the Bulls let Asik go. That may have been the best deal of the off season ! When the Rockets have to pay him $15 million, your mood should change .


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> STRAWMAN!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Iguodala is better than Deng healthy.

Now, here's my thing. Would Deng have failed a physical? Look, I'd have loved it if they did the deal and then it got voided because Deng failed a physical. "Wow, Paxson took a shot! He did something! He does think we need to improve. He does listen when others make very good arguments that we're not good enough and he doesn't sit back with his smug right way bullsh*t talking about 'nah, we're good.'"

Presuming it's just an issue of another team saying, "hey, Deng's wrist lowers his value," okay, how much? Is Denver really going somewhere early in next season? Are they going somewhere that a Deng surgery prevents if he's out till January? Doubtful. 

Here's the deal. Is Iguodala better than Deng? Incrementally. Even healthy I'll take Andre, but if Lebron is a dollar and Deng is 50 cents, then I'd call Iguodala 53 cents or so. This is hardly some vast difference.

Now, what's the difference between Iguodala and BYNUM? Far greater than the difference between Iguodala and Deng with a few month injury even.

So we could have offered more and gotten a nice deal STILL. I'd have offered Deng and Gibson for Bynum without thinking twice. Deng and the Charlotte pick? Again, without thinking twice. You can go out there and find 25 guys like Luol Deng or Taj Gibson. I'd have offered Noah. You're not going to find even close to that many who pose the problems Bynum does on the right team (I also think Philly is the wrong team).

So we could have given up quite a bit more than Deng to make it attractive and it's still a good deal.

The thing you're taking advantage of is that it's a four team deal and it's not a situation where you're giving LA return value for a center like Bynum. LA wanted Howard ANYWAY, so you HAVE TO get Bynum out of there. The incentive is THERE to move him, where it's not in a straight up trade. Philly made a great deal! Can they capitalize? Not sure they'll put the personnel around us. Would have been a great deal for us.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Diable said:


> Denver would have to want Deng for Chicago to replace Philly. Iggy is a much better transition player than Deng and the Nuggets are pretty much the highest paced team in the league. Deng just doesn't fit nearly as well with what they do.


I'd have given Gibson and Deng or Deng and the Charlotte pick or Gibson, Hamilton (salary), other salary and the Charlotte pick. Gibson is great for pace. 

Don't tell me we couldn't have made this deal, because you know if we WANTED Bynum, we could have been in this deal. Philly didn't have anything close to the arsenal of assets we have. Assets we'll never use apparently


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Job said:


> I feel your pain! What makes it even worse is that we lost what little size we had in Asik. It feels like the Bulls are slipping.


To me it feels more like what this chump has always been. I think sometimes people forget that if we don't get the luckiest in lottery history, how ugly the continuation of the 2008 Bulls would have gotten.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

RedsDrunk said:


> From a Sixer fan perspective:
> 
> Iggy's been trying to get out of Philly for the last 2 years.He flat out said he didn't think he'd be with the team coming into last season. He was gone after this year anyways. This wasn't the big gamble you make it out to be. All star 3 for "the second best big man in the league?" Yes please.


And yet you see the reaction here. It's hilarious. Remember, jnr and others played the "well Deng just isn't as good as Andre card." First, we had a lot more assets to make this deal if we want to. We just don't want to. But, BEFORE the "Deng isn't that good" card was played, the first respondent in this thread decided to argue that it's not a good deal because "Bynum could leave." So trading Deng for Andrew freaking Bynum is not good because one day Andre might leave. I guess I shouldn't leave my house tomorrow. Forget work and getting paid. I could get in a car accident. I will now quit my job and remain in my house until I am evicted. The Paxson plan to lower middle class working success. Sweet.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> I'd have given Gibson and Deng or Deng and the Charlotte pick or Gibson, Hamilton (salary), other salary and the Charlotte pick. Gibson is great for pace.
> 
> Don't tell me we couldn't have made this deal, because you know if we WANTED Bynum, we could have been in this deal. Philly didn't have anything close to the arsenal of assets we have. Assets we'll never use apparently


Yep.

As it turns out though, Philly was the only team in the whole league that wanted Bynum.

No one else wanted him at all.....


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Da Grinch said:


> the thing about this is this .
> 
> maybe Deng couldn't be a part of this deal , but what about Noah or Boozer .
> 
> ...


And that's just it. When you don't WANT to be part of the deal because you're the kind of moron who thinks your collection of mediocrity is good enough to win a title against good champions, you don't make a deal. 

We could have been part of this deal. You hit the nail on the head. We had 11 million ways into this deal. But when you don't want to, you won't! Especially trading for a real legit center who has Wooden fundamentals in the post?! Paxson thinks that's bad. He HATES that. Now, if Bynum was 225, ran the floor like a four and had no offensive game, he would have been kidnapped and brought here by this mediocrity loving chump BEFORE The trade.


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

R-Star said:


> Yep.
> 
> As it turns out though, Philly was the only team in the whole league that wanted Bynum.
> 
> No one else wanted him at all.....


Houston wanted him. Still does but, they chained themselves to Asik. :laugh:


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

BlakeJesus said:


> Iggy is absolutely mote valuable than Deng, silly thing to get worked up about. Though I wouldn't expect anything less from a poster like Hoodey.


I've always felt he was somewhat better, but this absolutely is something to get worked up over, because we had more than enough to make up the difference. We could have gone with Deng plus Gibson or the Charlotte pick, or a trade built around Noah. So please.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

R-Star said:


> The simple answer is, none of those guys are worth Iguodala. Deng and Noah are nice, but I would say a tier down from Iggy value wise, and no one in the league wants Boozer at his current salary.


Not only could we have persuaded Denver with more than Deng, as in Gibson or the Charlotte pick or the same around Noah, we could have gone AROUND Denver and said, "hey guys, let us be part of the deal and you don't need Philly OR Denver. Look what we have to give. Look at all of the ASSETS (that posters who disagree with me all the time love to talk about)! Ditch BOTH Teams and get another team in here and we'll make it worth EVERYONE'S while."

All we needed coming out of this deal was Bynum, Noah OR Gibson and then Rose eventually coming back. You can go down to Halsted Street and get the rest if you have that. 

Absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

LA68 said:


> Houston wanted him. Still does but, they chained themselves to Asik. :laugh:


I was joking around. Almost every team in the league would want Bynum. That's why it always makes me laugh when I hear "Well once again, looks like we don't want xxxx player and refuse to improve!"

Hoodey makes threads like this any time any player is traded.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

R-Star said:


> I was joking around. Almost every team in the league would want Bynum. That's why it always makes me laugh when I hear "Well once again, looks like we don't want xxxx player and refuse to improve!"
> 
> Hoodey makes threads like this any time any player is traded.


Uh, that's because you have all of these Bulls fans who have been talking about how we are "oozing with oodles of assets" since Eddy Curry was traded! It's all about asset accumulation, but never about using them. I think right now Rhyder is getting ready to post about the consolidation trade we're going to make in 2014.

I agree that we have assets. We need to use them. 

I know a lot of people wanted Bynum. Philly got him for a lot less than we have to give, and could have given while still having enough left to compete after the trade.

What you don't get is that if you have Bynum and Rose, you could have gutted this whole effing team if you wanted to and just put together something nice for 2014. Bynum, Rose, Noah or Gibson and you're fine by the time Rose is ready to make a run.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

R-Star said:


> The simple answer is, none of those guys are worth Iguodala. Deng and Noah are nice, but I would say a tier down from Iggy value wise, and no one in the league wants Boozer at his current salary.


i would rather have iggy than deng , so i'm not going to argue that , but its not some huge difference 

deng avg. 15.3 6.5 and 2.9 last season and iggy 12.4 6.1 and 5.5

both are very good defenders.

there isn't a world of difference and deng is a year younger.

and out of all 3 i would rather have noah because he is a center in a league where most teams have crap centers but good small forwards and shooting guards .

denver obviously with gallo and chandler would have no need for deng but since they are trading afflalo would need a 2guard back and iggy fits the bill.

not arguing that ....but there have been numerous teams involved in these trades over the past year trying to get howard and to a lesser degree bynum and the bulls despite their need to upgrade to a legit contender ( i just dont believe they are one, they are too one dimensional) refuse to do so.

i dont have a problem with the bulls not being in on this particular deal to upgrade their team, but I do have a problem with them not being involved in *any* deal that will elevate the team.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> I dont think he's quite as good? In the same range? Yes. did the vulls have enough assets to take Philly's place? Yes


Philly gave up Iggy, Harkelis and a first rounder.

Our only similar offer could have been Deng, Gibson, first rounder. Lose Deng and Gibson and Bynum doesn't re-sign, and you better be sure we are going after Kevin Love. Plus we would have to take back Jason Richardson, which limits our FA flexibility by $6 million. FA and the Charlotte draft pick would be our last two chances to pair anyone with Rose.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> i would rather have iggy than deng , so i'm not going to argue that , but its not some huge difference
> 
> deng avg. 15.3 6.5 and 2.9 last season and iggy 12.4 6.1 and 5.5
> 
> ...


That I can agree with. I don't really understand the "Everythings fine. Stay the course" approach the Bulls front office are taking.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

R-Star said:


> That I can agree with. I don't really understand the "Everythings fine. Stay the course" approach the Bulls front office are taking.


What haven't they done outside of participating in this deal? They are clearly trying to minimize the dollars committed to players over the next two years.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> What haven't they done outside of participating in this deal? They are clearly trying to minimize the dollars committed to players over the next two years.


Why? Because they walked away from an asinine deal for a mediocre backup center?


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

You can trade Deng to Toronto if you like.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

R-Star said:


> Why? Because they walked away from an asinine deal for a mediocre backup center?


You must want Isiah thomas. Fire pax, fire skiles


----------



## Ragingbull33 (Apr 10, 2005)

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-b...eball-american-basketball-193854609--nba.html

Originally, I thought we were being realistic by making moves towards 2014 because Rose's injury put us in a holding pattern, but I firmly believe, no specifics, that GarPax missed out on opportunities to improve, even if marginally, because they're overly cautious. 

To me, they are not active enough, whether it's getting something for Brewer, Korver (more), or Watson, or somehow being part of other deals that take advantage of dumb GM's. The Lakers deal proves that there are a handful of smart GM's (Kupchak, Uriji, Cho, Morey) and about 22 moron's who often get second/third chances to screw up other teams (King, Kahn, Grunwald, Mchale) that are continually robbed blind to the point that I honestly feel this deal should be voided. Each team received more than they gave up except the Magic who, for some reason, graciously ate the cumulative difference. GarPAX aren't part of either group, they basically have their own, good / no balls/ cheap.

Iggy is marginally better than Deng, regardless of his wrist. It's ignorant to argue that there is a significant difference in overall talent.


Also, given the above article on Reinsdorf, I worry that we're going to be just like Ewing's Knicks, always very good, but not good enough.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Why do people think the Bulls should be part of every damn trade that becomes available. Jeez, there are 29 other teams out there, we can't be part of all of them. Every time a big trade goes down, it's "why wasn't that the Bulls!? @#$% Pax! <end rant>

As for Philly, IMO they made this trade b/c they had to. I agree with the person who said it was risky (Bynum may leave next season) but they pretty much maxed out their talent last year too and are quickly entering permanent mediocrity. That is what happens when you don't have a superstar. Philly got better with this trade, but at best they are still probably a 50-win team similar to the Pacers last year, and they have virtually no options to be better than that. That is the type of player Andrew Bynum is; a "good not great" player who only has trophies b/c he played with 2 other excellent players who are better than him. I've never been a huge fan of the guy personally, though I admit he had a great season this past year.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

yodurk said:


> Why do people think the Bulls should be part of every damn trade that becomes available. Jeez, there are 29 other teams out there, we can't be part of all of them. Every time a big trade goes down, it's "why wasn't that the Bulls!? @#$% Pax! <end rant>
> 
> As for Philly, IMO they made this trade b/c they had to. I agree with the person who said it was risky (Bynum may leave next season) but they pretty much maxed out their talent last year too and are quickly entering permanent mediocrity. That is what happens when you don't have a superstar. Philly got better with this trade, but at best they are still probably a 50-win team similar to the Pacers last year, and they have virtually no options to be better than that. That is the type of player Andrew Bynum is; a "good not great" player who only has trophies b/c he played with 2 other excellent players who are better than him. I've never been a huge fan of the guy personally, though I admit he had a great season this past year.


I thought the bulls should be part of this deal cause of who the f was in it. Bynum is significantly better than anyone on this team buy rose.

Paxson is a chump who somehow still has people defending his (non) actions because of how refreshing he was in 05. 

Youre really reaching to defend him


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

I would think that if you're going to sum the activity of 29 teams and compare it with the activity of the Bulls (1 team) you're going to be in a constant state of frustration.... so from that perspective this thread (and the plethora of similar threads/comments) are a little bit pointless and annoying to me.

That being said, I get wanting Bynum... he's a gigantic presence in the paint with a high ceiling. If the Bulls really did have the opportunity to acquire him at something resembling a reasonable price and missed out for whatever reason, I'd be upset. The thing is, that's a hypothetical... I have no way to know whether or not we tried and failed, or never tried at all. I just can't see getting agitated over a hypothetical. It seems just as reasonable to me to believe that we did make an offer and were told we didn't have what they were looking for. We don't know.

My best guess is that people probably aren't lining up to trade for Luol Deng. And to anticipate the Hoodey response of "that's what good GMs do, they make those deals happen", that's just not how the world works. Any illusion that anyone has about Mitch Kupcheck or other comparable GMs possessing some kind of jedi-mindtrick where they can force teams to take on less desirable players is just that, an illusion. When I'm negotiating a contract, for example, and the other party doesn't want to do something I want them to do... I can't just will them in the right direction... either you have an offer that is appealing to the other party or you don't. At this professional level there is no duping other GMs (despite the questionable decisions they occasionally make)... this isn't fantasy sports where you might have a lot more information than the other guy. Everyone knows who Luol Deng is... either they want him or they don't.


----------



## Ragingbull33 (Apr 10, 2005)

My best guess is that people probably aren't lining up to trade for Luol Deng. And to anticipate the Hoodey response of "that's what good GMs do, they make those deals happen", that's just not how the world works. Any illusion that anyone has about Mitch Kupcheck or other comparable GMs possessing some kind of jedi-mindtrick where they can force teams to take on less desirable players is just that, an illusion. 


By all aco****s, this is the third or fourth best offer the Magic got and took it (Certainly behind the Rockets). That defies all logic and resulted in Kareem...er, Shaq...er, Gasol..er, Howard to the Lakers. When this happens every decade, stupid GM's aside, the only logical answer is the league is fixed for the Lakers (and Celtics), I'm sorry, there is no doubt about it.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> I thought the bulls should be part of this deal cause of who the f was in it. Bynum is significantly better than anyone on this team buy rose.
> 
> Paxson is a chump who somehow still has people defending his (non) actions because of how refreshing he was in 05.
> 
> Youre really reaching to defend him


Where in that post did I defend Paxson? You continue to argue against points that were never stated.

I am just saying it gets old when people b**** that we are supposed to be involved with every trade scenario that ever becomes available.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

not only is Iggy qualitatively better than Deng head to head but despite superficial similarities Deng and Iggy arent the same kind of player, and dont make the same kind of fit - Iggy is much more of a point forward facilitator and runs the floor better and is just a general all around better option for the nuggets system than Deng is


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Dornado said:


> That being said, I get wanting Bynum... he's a gigantic presence in the paint with a high ceiling. If the Bulls really did have the opportunity to acquire him at something resembling a reasonable price and missed out for whatever reason, I'd be upset. The thing is, that's a hypothetical... I have no way to know whether or not we tried and failed, or never tried at all. I just can't see getting agitated over a hypothetical. It seems just as reasonable to me to believe that we did make an offer and were told we didn't have what they were looking for. We don't know.


I get it too...sort of. At least from Philly's perspective, I get it. 

I am just saying it's not a no-brainer:
- $16M this upcoming season then he's a free agent next summer
- In the case that he does bolt, he will have played in a "lost season" where Rose is not playing most of the time
- If we do re-sign him, he will cost a ton (max contract, most likely...even more than Boozer)
- Extensive injury history
- We would've given up at a minimum a very good player in Deng and 1-2 picks/prospects, and that assumes they would've taken it

IMO, that is not a no-brainer even it was on the table. I do admit my bias here b/c I've never been a big fan of Andrew Bynum.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Let me throw another thought on the table...

If we were to be so bold as to trade for Andrew Bynum, why not just go for Dwight Howard? Both have 1-yr contracts and could bolt next summer. Howard is clearly better and has less injury history. And I have little doubt the Bulls could've topped what Orlando received (e.g., Noah, Bobcats Pick, and future 1st for Howard and a bad contract as the basis of the trade). 

Another way of saying that Bynum was not worth trading for. Howard, maybe...that is a different topic.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Dornado said:


> That being said, I get wanting Bynum... he's a gigantic presence in the paint with a high ceiling. If the Bulls really did have the opportunity to acquire him at something resembling a reasonable price and missed out for whatever reason, I'd be upset. The thing is, that's a hypothetical... I have no way to know whether or not we tried and failed, or never tried at all. I just can't see getting agitated over a hypothetical. It seems just as reasonable to me to believe that we did make an offer and were told we didn't have what they were looking for. We don't know.


This is the same as saying "Well, if Wilt had Russell's teammates, he would have won more" in an argument to try to diminish that Russell was a better winner than Wilt.

You can play this argument all you want that goes like this. "No good player has EVER been available to the Bulls. Because if they were, the Bulls would have made the deal. Paxson hasn't done something, because there truly has never been anything that could be done." 

Offering this as an excuse for him NOT making deals isn't the same as him MAKING DEALS. So, if your point is that of all of the non-active GMs, he's not the worst, because you have excuses for him not acting or you want to play "we don't know" .. that's fine, but that's not the same as him actually swinging good deals like a McCloskey, Buford, Kupchak, Krause, Auerbach, Ainge and Dumars. You're just giving me reasons he's not the worst of the other guys who aren't in that group. Please realize that. Your argument, if I grant you every last part of it, is an argument as to why he's "NOT BAD" not as to why he's actually affirmatively good.

"Kobe Bryant didn't score like Michael and have the role Michael had in 6 titles because (insert excuses or 'things we can't know about') is an argument for why Kobe isn't worse than Michael by some degree. It can never be used as an argument that he's better.

Pro Paxson arguments are a lot like pro Wilt Chamberlain arguments. 



> My best guess is that people probably aren't lining up to trade for Luol Deng. And to anticipate the Hoodey response of "that's what good GMs do, they make those deals happen", that's just not how the world works. Any illusion that anyone has about Mitch Kupcheck or other comparable GMs possessing some kind of jedi-mindtrick where they can force teams to take on less desirable players is just that, an illusion. When I'm negotiating a contract, for example, and the other party doesn't want to do something I want them to do... I can't just will them in the right direction... either you have an offer that is appealing to the other party or you don't. At this professional level there is no duping other GMs (despite the questionable decisions they occasionally make)... this isn't fantasy sports where you might have a lot more information than the other guy. Everyone knows who Luol Deng is... either they want him or they don't.


But you can't have it both ways. If Deng "just isn't that good" then Paxson has to be a terrible awful chump piece of mediocre crap for signing him to that deal. He can't be a "guy that just isn't desirable to the rest of the league" also be 70 mill desirable to Paxson and all of his chump fans who love that mediocre pile of crap that is Deng so much, and have Paxson not be an idiot for signing him.

Remember, before you reply about how I want it both ways. I never said Deng was good. Iguodala just isn't good either. Neither of them will be remembered by anyone in 20 years for anything ever. 

The point is that Philly found a way with assets a lot worse than us. You addressed Deng. You did not address Deng plus Gibson or the Charlotte pick or even a Noah-centered trade.

Good GMs go out and make it happen. They get Howard when Howard was supposed to be gift wrapped for Brooklyn. They get Scottie Pippen for Olden Polynice. They don't hand out almost 30 million to two pieces of dung like Boozer and Deng.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

yodurk said:


> Let me throw another thought on the table...
> 
> If we were to be so bold as to trade for Andrew Bynum, why not just go for Dwight Howard? Both have 1-yr contracts and could bolt next summer. Howard is clearly better and has less injury history. And I have little doubt the Bulls could've topped what Orlando received (e.g., Noah, Bobcats Pick, and future 1st for Howard and a bad contract as the basis of the trade).
> 
> Another way of saying that Bynum was not worth trading for. Howard, maybe...that is a different topic.


Bynum was not the one crying about not signing an extension except with certain teams. 

Bynum not worth trading for, when you look at who else we have on this team. 

Dude, you're a defender and an apologist if I ever saw one. Don't sit here and take Paxson's side, the same side that the same people always seem to take, and then try to tell me I'm arguing stuff you didn't post. Please. Ever heard of implicit?


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

Simple answer to this madness: MONEY.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Let me throw another thought on the table...
> 
> If we were to be so bold as to trade for Andrew Bynum, why not just go for Dwight Howard? Both have 1-yr contracts and could bolt next summer. Howard is clearly better and has less injury history. And I have little doubt the Bulls could've topped what Orlando received (e.g., Noah, Bobcats Pick, and future 1st for Howard and a bad contract as the basis of the trade).
> 
> Another way of saying that Bynum was not worth trading for. Howard, maybe...that is a different topic.


if bynum is not worth trading for than no one on the bulls currently is worth trading for because as a player he is flat out better than any bull not named rose and unlike rose he is currently healthy.

there is no way if the bulls made the trade offer you used as an example you wouldn't see the bulls as a much better team.

and that is the point , the bulls to be better....supposedly.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> if bynum is not worth trading for than no one on the bulls currently is worth trading for because as a player he is flat out better than any bull not named rose and unlike rose he is currently healthy.
> 
> there is no way if the bulls made the trade offer you used as an example you wouldn't see the bulls as a much better team.
> 
> and that is the point , the bulls to be better....supposedly.


Look, I agree Bynum is better than anyone on the team sans Rose. I never said he wasn't.

The question here is not does he make the team better, it is whether he will even be here in a year when Rose is actually...you know, playing again.

And if he re-signs, you have zero reservation about Bynum's injury history for a guy who demand a max contract? For all the people who hate Boozer around here, I do not see how those same people would be willing to absorb the same risk of him missing significant time.

All this for a guy who, while better than Deng and Boozer, is not extensively better the way people like to say. His value is inflated b/c he is the #2 player at the weakest position in the league. All things considering I'm just not a huge fan of the idea, sorry. 

I believe there will be better opportunities to be bold, and also the Rose recovery does not strike me as the best time to take a huge risk like this. If it was a no-brainer decision like trading for Dwight (w/ an extension in place), then sure make the move. If not, what the hell else are we supposed to do this upcoming season without our franchise player.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Look, I agree Bynum is better than anyone on the team sans Rose. I never said he wasn't.
> 
> The question here is not does he make the team better, it is whether he will even be here in a year when Rose is actually...you know, playing again.
> 
> ...


1.you pay players based on their ability to help you win.

if bynum does that at a max player's level I have no reservations about paying him that amount of money.

2. rose supposedly will be back by the end of the season, i strongly doubt he'll be at full strength , but back is back.

3. i dont complain about boozer's injury history , I complain that when healthy he really isn't all that great . bynum's injury history has not inhibited his ability to keep improving and playing well.

4. the center spot is considered weak because there are no good scorers there, and alot of the guys who are big and can score play power forward instead , centers pretty much can all play defense and rebound , and as long as bynum can rebound and score on those centers its a moot point .

there is never going to a situation where bynum scores on lets say joel pryzbilla and they are going to grant his team less than 2 points because joel sucks.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> This is the same as saying "Well, if Wilt had Russell's teammates, he would have won more" in an argument to try to diminish that Russell was a better winner than Wilt.
> 
> You can play this argument all you want that goes like this. "No good player has EVER been available to the Bulls. Because if they were, the Bulls would have made the deal. Paxson hasn't done something, because there truly has never been anything that could be done."
> 
> ...


If you want to argue against strawmen that's fine, but please don't quote my post when you do... I had to read that whole thing on my phone just to find out it was entirely unrelated to my post, or at least any reasonable interpretation of my post


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

yodurk said:


> Look, I agree Bynum is better than anyone on the team sans Rose. I never said he wasn't.
> 
> The question here is not does he make the team better, it is whether he will even be here in a year when Rose is actually...you know, playing again.


Here is where we start on the absurd train. Okay, so you acknowledge he's better, but he could leave. When is that not the case? You're not going to see players like Bynum on the free agent market as unrestricted free agents very often if ever. It's more likely that you're going to have to trade for a guy and then show that YOU CAN GET HIM TO WANT to stay with you. 

My god. He could leave? Really? That's the best you have? The "don't leave the house because you could get killed by a truck as you're getting in your car" line of argument? 

What's better? Bynum with the potential to leave, or guys like Noah, Deng or Boozer STAYING when they won't ever be the #2 on a title team? I'll take Bynum and then hope my GM can make a damn sale.

And that's what it goes back to. How does Paxson provide value as a GM? He doesn't make great draft picks. There are no Joe Dumars with picks in the mid teens on this team. He doesn't fleece other teams in trades to uncover hidden gem stars. And, he can't make a sale. To the point that is, "well, Bynum may be good, but he could leave (because our stooge GM can't get him to want to stay)."

Finally it brings us once again to a fan base ruled by fear since the dark days of Krause. Let's say we trade Deng and Gibson or Deng and the Charlotte pick and then Bynum bolts. If I'm a GM, and that's the worst case scenario, I'm jumping for joy to make this deal! The chance to have cap room, have Rose as my #1 and Noah as my #3, and for it then to make sense to amnesty Boozer with Deng's money already gone? I'm jumping for it. Because I'm not afraid to have Derrick freaking Rose, cap room and no feeling that I HAVE to sign anyone, because Deng's money doesn't already have us so close to the cap anymore, since he's gone now.

But not this fan base. We are made to feel that not only COULD we be left with nothing, but we're made to feel as if this is the most likely result! And then we're going to become the 2002 Bulls again for infinity if we somehow are so risky and irresponsible as to get rid of the Dalai Deng. 

[quote[And if he re-signs, you have zero reservation about Bynum's injury history for a guy who demand a max contract? For all the people who hate Boozer around here, I do not see how those same people would be willing to absorb the same risk of him missing significant time.[/quote]

I'll second someone else. If both players are healthy, Bynum is a championship #2 and Boozer never will sniff that. The problem with Boozer isn't injury. It's that he sucks when he's healthy. Bynum is one of the top 20 or so players in the league when healthy.



> All this for a guy who, while better than Deng and Boozer, is not extensively better the way people like to say. His value is inflated b/c he is the #2 player at the weakest position in the league. All things considering I'm just not a huge fan of the idea, sorry.


Once again, not getting it. 

Andrew Bynum is significantly better than Luol Deng and Carlos Boozer. 

Luol Deng's PER this year was 14.1. That's below average. Andrew Bynum posted a 22.9 at age 24. And he wasn't some anomaly. He wasn't a guy whose PER was only high because he played low minutes. He played 35 MPG. He's a career 56.6% FG shooter. That's insane for a guy who handles rock as much as he does in the post.

Your center reasoning is the same basketball dumb I've been reading from Bulls fans for years. "There aren't a lot of good centers" offered up as a reason why you wouldn't want one. If there is a position right next to the basket, a position whose created inequities controls so much of the postseason, where there aren't that many good players. That means I WANT ONE MORE THAN EVER! 

Look at this list just in the last 13 years

1999 - David Robinson #2 Center in PER
2000 - Shaquille O'neal #1 Center in PER
2001 - Shaquille O'neal #1 Center in PER
2002 - Shaquille O'neal #1 Center in PER
2003 - Tim Duncan (who basically functions as a center at 6'11" 260, can do everything elite centers can do) 3rd in the league in PER
2004 - Ben Wallace #1 Center in Defensive Rating
2005 - Tim Duncan #2 player in league in PER
2006 - Shaquille O'neal #2 center in the league in PER
2007 - Tim Duncan #4 player in the league in PER
2008 - Kendrick Perkins #1 center in defensive rating
2009 - Pau Gasol #2 post player in the league in PER - also starts with Bynum for ridiculous 1-2 post punch. No center ranks ahead of Gasol in PER and he's 7'0" 255
2010 - Same
2011 - Tyson Chandler #2 center in DPOY voting. Wins the following season
2012 - Bosh plays center, is a massive mismatch for Perkins because Perkins can't score.

So, whether it's offensively or defensively, one thing is clear. Centers and C/Fs like Duncan and Gasol matter, they matter BIG TIME and they do affect late post season series. 



> I believe there will be better opportunities to be bold, and also the Rose recovery does not strike me as the best time to take a huge risk like this. If it was a no-brainer decision like trading for Dwight (w/ an extension in place), then sure make the move. If not, what the hell else are we supposed to do this upcoming season without our franchise player.


How about being ready for 2013-14? No. Instead, make no moves so that we can hear all of the excuses in 2014 like "well, this is Rose's first full year back. THIS year was the year we had to get ready." When we could be doing it now. 

I know you, like jnr, dreams that this team is going to come back in 2014 as they were constituted in 2011 and contend. Not close. 

What the trade of Howard to LA should have made clear, is that the 2011 Bulls core, aged by 3 years, has zero chance to sniff a title in 2014. I know you and Paxson don't know it. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be known.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Why? Because they walked away from an asinine deal for a mediocre backup center?


And have only comitted money to two guys past one season--Hinrich and Belinelli (with team option). And we only have both of them for two seasons.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> To the point that is, "well, Bynum may be good, but he could leave (because our stooge GM can't get him to want to stay)."


Bynum is going to get a max contract. Other than giving him the max contract, what do you expect Gar Forman to do to "get him to want to stay?" Maybe give him a pretty kitten?



> I know you, like jnr, dreams that this team is going to come back in 2014 as they were constituted in 2011 and contend. Not close.



1. That's not an accurate representation of my viewpoint in the least.
2. Why do you bring me up in posts where we're not even having a discussion together? It's weird.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Hoodey, would you rather:

A) Trade Deng, Taj, and the Charlotte pick for Bynum and Richardson this year
B) Wait and try to S&T for Bynum next offseason to a five or six-year deal


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

Hoodey said:


> Here come the excuses and apologies.
> 
> We had an all star player I would have been HAPPY to give up for Bynum. *Luol Deng *- who frankly SUCKS relative to what Bynum brings to the championship level of basketball.
> 
> Best part, if you don't re-sign Bynum, what are you afraid of? That without Deng you're not going to be able to sign anyone to play with Derrick Rose? Are we going to become the 2002 Bulls if we trade for Bynum and he signs elsewhere?


Deng is nowhere near the level of A.I. You would probably have to through in Noah or another good name into the pot. No team is going to want Boozer and his contract.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> Bynum is going to get a max contract. Other than giving him the max contract, what do you expect Gar Forman to do to "get him to want to stay?" Maybe give him a pretty kitten?


Are you really going to play disingenuous ignorance here? As if sales is not a big part of a GM job? First, yes, I'd give him a max contract. Second, yeah, you get him to want to stay by selling him on his role in Chicago and on everything a GM should be able to sell here. It's a great city, with a franchise with the 3rd most rings ever, and the whole "Jordan threat" shouldn't be a factor to a guy like Bynum because he's not a guy trying to be that Jordan-type figure like a Lebron or Kobe have been. Bynum is a true center who may be the second best player on some great title teams, maybe the best player on some decent title teams - a big maybe. He's not trying to be MJ. So you sell him all of that. Why is that so hard?



> 1. That's not an accurate representation of my viewpoint in the least.
> 2. Why do you bring me up in posts where we're not even having a discussion together? It's weird.


Yes. I do realize there are a few of you who want to walk and talk like a duck, and then whine and cry when someone calls you a duck. Going to tell me you're not a Pax supporter now?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Rhyder said:


> Hoodey, would you rather:
> 
> A) Trade Deng, Taj, and the Charlotte pick for Bynum and Richardson this year
> B) Wait and try to S&T for Bynum next offseason to a five or six-year deal


Well wait a minute now. I would not have traded both Gibson AND the Charlotte pick with Deng. It would have been one or the other, or maybe one or the other with Noah. I might have sweetened it with the rights to Mirotic, whose style of ball (finesse 3-4 tweener foreigner) has never impacted championship basketball in any real way. 

Now, if the choice is what you're saying it is, I'd pick whichever got it done. I'd of course be mad after not doing it now, because now you're 0-for-1 with one more shot. But if you're asking if I will be a fan of the regime, whoever it is, if we do a deal next summer - sure. 

Am I convinced we will? No. The whole underlying problem here is that Paxson loves tweener forwards and combo guards. If Bynum was 6'10" 235 with no offensive game and he just ran around like a circus clown and made mean faces, I'm convinced Paxson would have murdered and pillaged entire cities to get him. He would literally not have been able to run fast enough. 

But Bynum can score, and Paxson hates that. He also hates true centers who have any offensive ability at all. I'm convinced he doesn't WANT players like Bynum. 

Now, if you're asking if I'll take hats off if Paxson does the deal next summer? Sure. i'd love to get Bynum on this team any time.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Hoodey said:


> I might have sweetened it with the rights to Mirotic, whose style of ball (finesse 3-4 tweener foreigner) has never impacted championship basketball in any real way.


poor Robert Horry....


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

e-monk said:


> poor Robert Horry....


Two questions..

1. Robert Horry is a foreigner? Crazy.
2. Is that what Paxson is hanging on Mirotic? That he'll be a low impact fringe starter who can hit a big shot if you drop Shaq or Duncan in the post and feed him open threes? Wow. Not very promising.

And I can almost bet you Mirotic is no Horry.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

doctordrizzay said:


> Deng is nowhere near the level of A.I. You would probably have to through in Noah or another good name into the pot. No team is going to want Boozer and his contract.


Fine! You're telling me Noah, who you don't need if you get Bynum anyway, and the Charlotte pick is not a better offer than Iguodala?

Deng isn't good. But come on man. Iguodala has been a disappointment too.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> Are you really going to play disingenuous ignorance here? As if sales is not a big part of a GM job? First, yes, I'd give him a max contract. Second, yeah, you get him to want to stay by selling him on his role in Chicago and on everything a GM should be able to sell here. It's a great city, with a franchise with the 3rd most rings ever, and the whole "Jordan threat" shouldn't be a factor to a guy like Bynum because he's not a guy trying to be that Jordan-type figure like a Lebron or Kobe have been. Bynum is a true center who may be the second best player on some great title teams, maybe the best player on some decent title teams - a big maybe. He's not trying to be MJ. So you sell him all of that. Why is that so hard?


It's not hard. The whole point is Bynum already knows all this. You're not talking about selling the guy to sign here as a free agent moving over from another team. Sure, in that instance you might need to outline Chicago's advantages. What you're talking about is re-signing a guy who has already played here for a year. He already has formed his own opinion about whether Chicago is a "great city," he knows it has the "3rd most rings ever" (also a great slogan for a crappy foam finger souvenir), and he's aware of the existence of Michael Jordan.

I'm not sure you could sell a 1997 Toyota Camry with that super awesome sales pitch.

But hey, I'll stick by my pretty kitty cat idea! Yay kittens!




> Yes. I do realize there are a few of you who want to walk and talk like a duck, and then whine and cry when someone calls you a duck. Going to tell me you're not a Pax supporter now?



1. Stop being a jerk with language like "whine and cry." Or don't. But it's really irritating, immature, and counterproductive. If you want that to be your hallmark, have at it, I suppose.

2. Gar Forman is the GM, but continue with the passive aggressiveness if that's what makes you happy.

3. There are enough people here actually expressing their own opinions such that you do not need to speak for them. Please stick to one side of the conversation, if you care at all about intellectual honesty and/or integrity.

4. I could give two you-know-whats as to whether John Paxson remains employed by the Chicago Bulls. I'd be perfectly happy to see a front office shakeup. But, to act like a new GM is going to solve the problem is foolish. Increasingly, due to the phenomenon of the max contract, elite players are underpaid relative to their actual market value (while scrubs are overpaid). As long as the max contract exists, so will "superteams" wherein stars are consolidated. To build a perennial champion, I fear you must assemble one of these superteams. So, I'm only really interested in solutions that further that end. If you think the VP of Basketball Operations is what's stopping the Bulls from having a superteam (and not, say Reinsdorf's luxury tax aversion, Chicago being a less desirable place to live than NY, Miami, or LA, or any myriad other factors), then by all means fire the guy.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> I might have sweetened it with the rights to Mirotic, whose style of ball (finesse 3-4 tweener foreigner) has never impacted championship basketball in any real way.


Tell that to Mark Cuban. 



> Am I convinced we will? No. The whole underlying problem here is that Paxson loves tweener forwards and combo guards.


As evidenced by what, with respect to tweener forwards?




> He would literally not have been able to run fast enough.


You mean figuratively.



> But Bynum can score, and Paxson hates that. He also hates true centers who have any offensive ability at all. I'm convinced he doesn't WANT players like Bynum.


You destroy any shred of credibility you might otherwise have when you say things as ridiculous as this. I realize there's an element of hyperbole at work here, but this claim has absolutely zero merit. The utter silliness of the claim, though, certainly does shed light on your irrationality on this particular topic.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> Well wait a minute now. I would not have traded both Gibson AND the Charlotte pick with Deng. It would have been one or the other, or maybe one or the other with Noah. I might have sweetened it with the rights to Mirotic, whose style of ball (finesse 3-4 tweener foreigner) has never impacted championship basketball in any real way.


I was not implying that you would, but I think Deng + Gibson + Chicago first pick is less than Iguodala, Harkelis, and Philly first rounder. I swapped in the Charlotte pick over ours to make it more equitable.

Me, I'd rather not lose assets for the sake of losing assets on a one year rental. To me, that means we will be stuck with Rose + Love + role players. If we keep assets, we can work out a S&T for D12, Bynum, Harden, etc. We have a lot more options.

I'm not saying Bynum would walk had we traded for him. I'm just not willing to put all of our eggs in the Bynum will sign else we only have UFA as our last remaining option bucket. We can still go after him next year, and we probably would not have needed him this year anyways.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

Hoodey said:


> Two questions..
> 
> 1. Robert Horry is a foreigner? Crazy.
> 2. Is that what Paxson is hanging on Mirotic?


1)the only thing he's not from your original description is a foriegner
2)what does this have to do with your contention that a 3-4 finesse tweener never played a hand in winning a title



> That he'll be a low impact fringe starter who can hit a big shot if you drop Shaq or Duncan in the post and feed him open threes? Wow. Not very promising.


in case you're wondering, this is the statement that made me realize that you dont know anything about nba basketball


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> It's not hard. The whole point is Bynum already knows all this. You're not talking about selling the guy to sign here as a free agent moving over from another team. Sure, in that instance you might need to outline Chicago's advantages. What you're talking about is re-signing a guy who has already played here for a year. He already has formed his own opinion about whether Chicago is a "great city," he knows it has the "3rd most rings ever" (also a great slogan for a crappy foam finger souvenir), and he's aware of the existence of Michael Jordan.
> 
> I'm not sure you could sell a 1997 Toyota Camry with that super awesome sales pitch.
> 
> But hey, I'll stick by my pretty kitty cat idea! Yay kittens!


Oh wow, an establishment Bulls fan deciding that they are right because after all, they ARE themselves, and therefore they must be right? Awesome.

You don't like my selling points. Well guess what, I do like them. Don't try to argue that sales aren't a part of this so that you can play your whole "hey, what can Paxson do here? It's all external" line of argumentation. 

Sales is a big part of this. How valued you make someone feel, how much "love" you show them, getting out in front of it as soon as possible with a max deal and letting a player know where someone is on the pecking order and then saying "hey, the Lakers are full, the Clippers are over the cap, the Knicks, whole a big market team, good luck there, the Heat are full. Where would you rather be but here, for the reasons outlined" is absolutely better than giving someone a kitten



> 1. Stop being a jerk with language like "whine and cry." Or don't. But it's really irritating, immature, and counterproductive. If you want that to be your hallmark, have at it, I suppose.


From the guy who just mocked the approach of sales by a GM with an offer to give Bynum a kitty cat. Must be nice to be the guy who happens to be friends with whoever gave you your powers lol. I mean, making the rules and deciding who does and doesn't have to follow them must be nice huh?



> 2. Gar Forman is the GM, but continue with the passive aggressiveness if that's what makes you happy.


Just like Jed Hoyer is the GM of the Cubs right? But I'm sure he tells Theo what is going to happen with player personnel and Theo just sits there and says "please dictate more to me." 

Paxson and Forman both suck. Paxson sucks, I blame him, he is Forman's boss. But if you'd really like me to tackle Forman as a solo entity, he sucks too. 



> 3. There are enough people here actually expressing their own opinions such that you do not need to speak for them. Please stick to one side of the conversation, if you care at all about intellectual honesty and/or integrity.


Yawn



> 4. I could give two you-know-whats as to whether John Paxson remains employed by the Chicago Bulls. I'd be perfectly happy to see a front office shakeup. But, to act like a new GM is going to solve the problem is foolish. Increasingly, due to the phenomenon of the max contract, elite players are underpaid relative to their actual market value (while scrubs are overpaid). As long as the max contract exists, so will "superteams" wherein stars are consolidated. To build a perennial champion, I fear you must assemble one of these superteams. So, I'm only really interested in solutions that further that end. If you think the VP of Basketball Operations is what's stopping the Bulls from having a superteam (and not, say Reinsdorf's luxury tax aversion, Chicago being a less desirable place to live than NY, Miami, or LA, or any myriad other factors), then by all means fire the guy.


If you have one superstar, and we do, you have the makings of a superteam. Old Kobe and Howard are not better than Rose and Bynum to me. So if we get a guy close to old Gasol, we're there.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> Oh wow, an establishment Bulls fan deciding that they are right because after all, they ARE themselves, and therefore they must be right? Awesome.


What is an "establishment Bulls fan"? The remainder of what you said is simply incoherent, but I'm interested in knowing what that term means to you.



> You don't like my selling points. Well guess what, I do like them. Don't try to argue that sales aren't a part of this so that you can play your whole "hey, what can Paxson do here? It's all external" line of argumentation.


It's not that I don't like your points. It's just that the things you identified are all known already to an existing Bulls player. I'm not saying there's no salesmanship involved at all, but retaining a player is going to involve mostly considerations other than whether the GM tells you how much the Art Institute kicks ass. A max salary is a max salary. Chicago's tax situation, weather, marketing opportunities, etc. are all basically outside the control of the GM. The GM basically has control over one thing: the product on the floor. That's less a sales pitch and more of a performance metric. Results speak louder than words.



> From the guy who just mocked the approach of sales by a GM with an offer to give Bynum a kitty cat. Must be nice to be the guy who happens to be friends with whoever gave you your powers lol. I mean, making the rules and deciding who does and doesn't have to follow them must be nice huh?


Ooh, tell me more about these "powers" I have! Sounds nifty! Do I get a cape?



> Just like Jed Hoyer is the GM of the Cubs right? But I'm sure he tells Theo what is going to happen with player personnel and Theo just sits there and says "please dictate more to me."


I don't follow the Cubs, as I'm a Sox person, but ok.




> Paxson and Forman both suck. Paxson sucks, I blame him, he is Forman's boss. But if you'd really like me to tackle Forman as a solo entity, he sucks too.


We only have limited information on where the Paxson/Forman responsibilities break down. Your constant focusing on Paxson, though, betrays some weird animus on your end. In any event, we do know that Forman, and not Paxson, is the guy with the duties to interface with the players themselves, where Paxson is more behind-the-scenes. So, all your invective about salesmanship should rightly be pointed at Forman rather than Paxson, but you ignore this for some unstated reason. 



> Yawn


Maybe consider a nap?




> If you have one superstar, and we do, you have the makings of a superteam. Old Kobe and Howard are not better than Rose and Bynum to me. So if we get a guy close to old Gasol, we're there.



By your logic, you also have the "makings" of a superteam simply by having an NBA franchise.

Also, you seem to ignore that the Lakers have Gasol and Nash in addition to Howard and Kobe. It's not just a 2-element superteam.

I agree with the general notion that 1 additional star-level player (ideally to replace Boozer, but various permutations could work) is what's necessary. I have no idea, though, how the Bulls plan to go about acquiring that person, though the oft-discussed "consolidation trade" for a discontented star is probably the most likely scenario.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Lamar Odom was a finesse 3/4, no? Toni Kukoc? He even fits the odd foreigner requirement


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Rhyder said:


> I was not implying that you would, but I think Deng + Gibson + Chicago first pick is less than Iguodala, Harkelis, and Philly first rounder. I swapped in the Charlotte pick over ours to make it more equitable.
> 
> Me, I'd rather not lose assets for the sake of losing assets on a one year rental. To me, that means we will be stuck with Rose + Love + role players. If we keep assets, we can work out a S&T for D12, Bynum, Harden, etc. We have a lot more options.
> 
> I'm not saying Bynum would walk had we traded for him. I'm just not willing to put all of our eggs in the Bynum will sign else we only have UFA as our last remaining option bucket. We can still go after him next year, and we probably would not have needed him this year anyways.


Okay we actually appear to be on the same page in this narrow subtopic. If you're against Kevin Love, well, you're a lot smarter than some of the Bulls fans I read and talk to, and I applaud that.

Who is D12? I don't keep up with nicknames. I would like a S&T for Bynum or maybe Harden. You need a lot more out of the rest of your team if it's Harden though.

So, is it next year or bust? How patient will you be about a move?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> Who is D12?



That's Howard.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Dornado said:


> Lamar Odom was a finesse 3/4, no? Toni Kukoc? He even fits the odd foreigner requirement


First, I don't have time to go through all of these posts right now, but someone brought up Cuban, implying Dirk. 

Uh, pretty sure Dirk is a 7'0" 245 lb. four. If he's a tweener in any direction, and I'm not saying he is, it's a 5, not a 3.

The problem with Dirk is, for every Dirk, there are so many Darkos, Bargnanis, etc. Possibly more than any other type of player. The miss rate is pretty high.

Lamar Odom was considered to be one of the top talents to ever come out of high school. I mean, qualitatively, is that what you guys are alleging? You're claiming that this guy is as good as the European Magic (Kukoc) or Lamar Odom (whose natural talent was far greater than even what he did). 

The fact is, for all of the claims of how good foreign players were and how they were going to "change the game" that I heard around the 2007 Finals, we have not seen the second wave. We already had Dirk, Gasol, etc. by then. Who has come around from Europe since then? Ricky Rubio? Who else? Certainly no one who will ever approach Dirk or Gasol's level.

So yes, criticizing that type of player as if they might not work when they're foreign (again responding to many posts at once) is relevant. 

Additionally, Kukoc, Odom, Horry, as good as these guys were at times, they never threatened to be title #2s, and anyone who is not threatening to be that should be on the trading block today - cause that's what we need.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

jnrjr79 said:


> That's Howard.


Yeah, I was thinking "is that who it is" but also, "it couldn't be because didn't LA lock him up as a condition of the deal?"


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> Yeah, I was thinking "is that who it is" but also, "it couldn't be because didn't LA lock him up as a condition of the deal?"



Right. I have a hard time seeing Howard not re-up in LA.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Right. I have a hard time seeing Howard not re-up in LA.


I don't either, but assuming the Lakers re-sign Howard and amnesty Artest, their payroll is going to be in the upward of $90 million next season. That will result in ~$80ish million in luxury tax. They might opt to pay that for one year for another championship run, but they might trade Pau or S&T Dwight to lessen the blow if they don't come together next year.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> Okay we actually appear to be on the same page in this narrow subtopic. If you're against Kevin Love, well, you're a lot smarter than some of the Bulls fans I read and talk to, and I applaud that.
> 
> Who is D12? I don't keep up with nicknames. I would like a S&T for Bynum or maybe Harden. You need a lot more out of the rest of your team if it's Harden though.
> 
> So, is it next year or bust? How patient will you be about a move?


I'd give it two offseasons. We could move Deng and be aggressive next offseason depending on who is available. If not, I'd prefer signing Gibson to 7-8 million per year to hopefully be a cheap starter or super third big depending on who we land the following year. Guys like Cousins, Gay, Monta Ellis, Carmelo, Favors, or anyone who signs one year deals because they couldn't find enough under the cap money to sign long-term deals are among the potentially available that offseason.


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

Hoodey said:


> I might have sweetened it with the rights to Mirotic, whose style of ball (finesse 3-4 tweener foreigner) has never impacted championship basketball in any real way.




Toni Kukoc...


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Firefight said:


> Toni Kukoc...


I guess by "any real way" I mean this.

Take another "type" of player. Say, the athletic, 6'11"+ 250+ true center. That TYPE of player has impacted championship basketball in a real way. You've seen that type of player start and usually play a top two role for over 20 NBA champions.

Toni Kukoc was a sixth man..


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Rhyder said:


> I'd give it two offseasons. We could move Deng and be aggressive next offseason depending on who is available. If not, I'd prefer signing Gibson to 7-8 million per year to hopefully be a cheap starter or super third big depending on who we land the following year. Guys like Cousins, Gay, Monta Ellis, Carmelo, Favors, or anyone who signs one year deals because they couldn't find enough under the cap money to sign long-term deals are among the potentially available that offseason.


But I think what we've learned from Bulls fans here, many of whom who have ironically defended Deng, is that he has no value at all to anyone, anywhere at any time, and that any thought that he might ever have value is ridiculous and classifies you as someone who belongs in a padded room. No?

Breaking down your list, only Cousins has the potential to be a title winning #2. Carmelo is getting up there in age. He turns 29 next year. He dominates the ball too much, becomes a black hole and can't take it straight to the hole like a guy with his talent should. He can't force the issue and ends up taking shots that the other team is happy to have him take. He's a volume scorer.

Cousins I like, but I really feel the time to trade for him is now. He's had his mental issues, he just shot 44%, but the rest of his stat line is great. He just put a 21.7 PER up at age 21 on 30.5 MPG (so now cry that it's just because he plays low minutes).

If he comes out this year and goes up even to 23.0+ with a FG% more in line with his talent, it's going to be a lot harder to trade him. Then, you'd be talking about Noah, Gibson, the pick and other Chicago first rounders. Now it could be done for Noah and the Charlotte pick, maybe less. 

The reason I was so fanatical about Bynum is that he is DEFINITELY a title #2 going forward, and there are very few guys who are that now and will still be that in 3 years like Bynum. And, if Philly locks him up to an extention, that's gone now. 

The problem with making a list of other guys is you find out that there are very few sure things as a top scoring #2, and I mean scoring efficiency more than volume, but also volume. You find out that there are so many guys who could hurt you more than they help. And when I think of guys who are prototypes of "hurt more than help" I'm talking McGrady, Iverson, etc.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> But I think what we've learned from Bulls fans here, many of whom who have ironically defended Deng, is that he has no value at all to anyone, anywhere at any time, and that any thought that he might ever have value is ridiculous and classifies you as someone who belongs in a padded room. No?


A lot of that is knee jerk, which has been Deng's whole career. When he's healthy, he's knocking down wide open 18-20 foot jump shots, an excellent rebounder for his position, and an elite defender. When he is not, his shot suffers signficantly and he becomes more of a defensive role player.

Player A is wonderful to have. Player B, especially at his contract, not so much.

When I said move Deng this year in aggressive manner, I mean it for cap space, and/or for a guy who is about to command a big contract that is unlikely to sign with the current team.

I would like to keep Noah around unless that trade or FA signing is for a C. I don't think Noah complements too many C's out there to slide over and be the starting PF.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> I don't either, but assuming the Lakers re-sign Howard and amnesty Artest, their payroll is going to be in the upward of $90 million next season. That will result in ~$80ish million in luxury tax. They might opt to pay that for one year for another championship run, but they might trade Pau or S&T Dwight to lessen the blow if they don't come together next year.



They won't trade Dwight if he'll stay. He's the centerpiece of the new era of their team. Pau can go, and even perhaps Kobe depending how much longer he wants to play.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Hoodey said:


> I guess by "any real way" I mean this.
> 
> Take another "type" of player. Say, the athletic, 6'11"+ 250+ true center. That TYPE of player has impacted championship basketball in a real way. You've seen that type of player start and usually play a top two role for over 20 NBA champions.
> 
> Toni Kukoc was a sixth man..


It's more about having two or three elite players and surrounding them with talent than it is about needing a certain archetype at each position. I mean, James Posey played a huge role as an undersized four for the '08 Celtics that won the title when they shifted KG to center and went smallball on teams. I agree that the ability to control the paint with a big center is very important, and that aside from your absolute core players(and for the Bulls, that list is Rose and only Rose), everyone should be available if you can make the team better. However, it's worth pointing out that Miami was able to win the title with a finesse four and a whole bunch of bums as their bigs because they had three elite players and dictated the pace against a bigger OKC team(also, Westbrook self-destructed and OKC got screwed by the refs, but that's ancillary).


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> They won't trade Dwight if he'll stay. He's the centerpiece of the new era of their team. Pau can go, and even perhaps Kobe depending how much longer he wants to play.


I agree, and it certainly seems like Dwight is open to the idea.

Pau certainly looked like he had some giddyup left in the Olympics. Deng would also fill a need for the Lakers. Perhaps this yearly discussion will finally come to fruition.

LAKERS
Nash
Kobe
Deng
Someone Cheap
Howard

BULLS
Rose
MLE
Butler
Gasol/Gibson
Noah/Gibson

Assuming Butler develops. That would actually balance out both rosters quite a bit, save the Lakers some $$, and give us a #2 for 2-3 seasons until the legs fall off.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> I agree, and it certainly seems like Dwight is open to the idea.
> 
> Pau certainly looked like he had some giddyup left in the Olympics. Deng would also fill a need for the Lakers. Perhaps this yearly discussion will finally come to fruition.
> 
> ...



I'm all for it.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Latest word on the street is that Andrew Bynum might miss the entire season: http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/sto...-injury-update-knee-rumors-philadelphia-76ers

Hope the Sixers enjoy negotiating the max contract he will demand this off-season. 

Even more so, I hope this serves as a reminder why we should be careful what we wish for. Certain Bulls fans were clamoring for the front office to trade valuable assets for this guy in spite of his pending free agent status and troubling injury history.


----------



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

Bump for the absolute greatest poster ever here and how he was right on how we should have traded for Bynum


----------



## taco_daddy (Jun 13, 2004)

*toasts a beer to the great Hoodey*

:cheers:


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

mvP to the Wee said:


> Bump for the absolute greatest poster ever here and how he was right on how we should have traded for Bynum


Like yall have do so much better not trading for him


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> if bynum is not worth trading for than no one on the bulls currently is worth trading for because as a player he is flat out better than any bull not named rose and unlike *rose he is currently healthy*.
> 
> there is no way if the bulls made the trade offer you used as an example you wouldn't see the bulls as a much better team.
> 
> and that is the point , the bulls to be better....supposedly.


lol


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Maybe the bowling alleys are safer in Chicago than in Philadelphia and he would've been great for the Bulls last year. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

LeGoat06 said:


> Like yall have do so much better not trading for him


Well, that conversation starts and ends with Rose's knees. If Lebron had missed the last two playoffs and was out for the rest of this year we'd still be hearing about how he wilts under the spotlight and doesn't have the mentality to be the closer on a championship team.


----------



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

LeGoat06 said:


> Like yall have do so much better not trading for him


Right, because Bynum would have helped win games last season as well as this season.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

mvP to the Wee said:


> Right, because Bynum would have helped win games last season as well as this season.


You can't predict injuries


----------



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

LeGoat06 said:


> You can't predict injuries


At the time of the trade Bynum was injured and that same injury kept him out all this time.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

mvP to the Wee said:


> At the time of the trade Bynum was injured and that same injury kept him out all this time.


You are correct. Sorry


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

mvP to the Wee said:


> At the time of the trade Bynum was injured and that same injury kept him out all this time.


Maybe if he hadn't gone bowling...


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Diable said:


> lol


i wrote that summer 2012, he was at the time healthy .

as mentioned by others already you cant predict injuries.


----------



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

From Woj:

About Bynum suspension, league source tells Yahoo: *"He doesn't want to play basketball anymore. He never liked it that much in first place."
*
It's very possible Bynum's played his final game for Cavs, sources tell Yahoo. In trade, a team can waive Bynum and save $6m of $12m salary.

Teams who considered signing Bynum in summer were as concerned about his desire to play as his knees. Officials didn't see motivated rehab.

Cavs believe Bynum has been "disruptive" presence within team and lost hope partnership can be salvaged, league sources tell Yahoo.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

So it's fair to say that, if we want to bash Bulls management, we probably shouldn't use their failure to acquire Bynum as the cornerstone of our argument, right?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

transplant said:


> So it's fair to say that, if we want to bash Bulls management, we probably shouldn't use their failure to acquire Bynum as the cornerstone of our argument, right?



Haha. You'd need to move to more fertile ground than that, to be sure.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

mvP to the Wee said:


> From Woj:
> 
> About Bynum suspension, league source tells Yahoo: *"He doesn't want to play basketball anymore. He never liked it that much in first place."
> *
> ...


What is up with gifted big men just either not caring about playing the game or are just flat out turds?

Eddy Curry never wanted to be great.
Andrew Bynum either doesn't have the mental fortitude to overcome an injury or just flat out never liked basketball either. 
Demarcus Cousins is supremely talented but fails to mature on and off the court.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> What is up with gifted big men just either not caring about playing the game or are just flat out turds?
> 
> Eddy Curry never wanted to be great.
> Andrew Bynum either doesn't have the mental fortitude to overcome an injury or just flat out never liked basketball either.
> Demarcus Cousins is supremely talented but fails to mature on and off the court.


I suppose that it's the same as happens with so many over-privileged young people who are given every possible advantage in life and achieve nothing.

We say that we wish things could be easier, but there's some truth to the Carleton Fisk line about how it's not what you achieve, it's what you overcome.


----------

