# Bulls after SAR?



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

I was listening to Fox Sports Radio and a Blazer's columnist from the Oregonian was on talking that the Bulls are one of four teams interested in SAR since the Net deal fell through.

He also said that SAR didn't fail his physical, but rather the Nets were worried about SAR developing an arthritic condition in his knee and wanting him to take a smaller contract. This is what SAR hinted at when he spoke about the Net deal this weekend.

Found it interesting.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I'd be jumping up and down excessively if we can somehow manage to keep Eddy, Tyson, Duhon, and get 'Reef. I don't care what people say about Reef being on bad teams, the guy can play. I don't know if we can get him though, I figure a lot of teams could offer him the MLE.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> I'd be jumping up and down excessively if we can somehow manage to keep Eddy, Tyson, Duhon, and get 'Reef. I don't care what people say about Reef being on bad teams, the guy can play. I don't know if we can get him though, I figure a lot of teams could offer him the MLE.


From what I got from the conversation, he is looking at a 6 year deal starting at $6m per.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> I'd be jumping up and down excessively if we can somehow manage to keep Eddy, Tyson, Duhon, and get 'Reef. I don't care what people say about Reef being on bad teams, the guy can play. I don't know if we can get him though, I figure a lot of teams could offer him the MLE.


There would be no way to get Reef without offering him the full MLE, probably for at least 5 years, if not 6 in some kind of sign and trade with Portland. So at this point, there would be no way to do Reef and Duhon.

Pax is wise to inquire though.

However, does Reef really have a place on this team if Chandler and Curry are on it? If this is a further sign we're not going to sign Eddy, I don't like it. I'd prefer to have Chris and Eddy back than add Reef, by far.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Yeah, I definitely agree with you guys. Thats why I figure, there are lots of teams with the MLE available to offer him. I remember hearing a while ago that Sacto was interested in him. 

Anyone know if SA has used part of their MLE (Oberto)? If Reef was serious about winning it all, he could go there. 

Who knows what could happen? I could see a team like the Mavs going for him. 

It's great Pax is talking to them, but I'm not interested in these Vets that want a 5-6 year deal. Our future is with our core.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> However, does Reef really have a place on this team if Chandler and Curry are on it


That's a GREAT 3 man PF/C rotation in my book. If SAR is healthy enough, sign him and let Duhon have fun up North.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> Yeah, I definitely agree with you guys. Thats why I figure, there are lots of teams with the MLE available to offer him. I remember hearing a while ago that Sacto was interested in him.
> 
> Anyone know if SA has used part of their MLE (Oberto)? If Reef was serious about winning it all, he could go there.
> 
> ...


Yes, San Antonio would have had to have bit into their MLE to sign Oberto, because the reports on the deal I have seen have been between 7-9 million for 3 years. (Jesus, what a steal! OK, I'm going to shut up now). San Antonio can't make a full MLE offer to Reef, that's for sure at least.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> That's a GREAT 3 man PF/C rotation in my book. If SAR is healthy enough, sign him and let Duhon have fun up North.


Oh, I agree, but would Reef really be interested in being part of a three man rotation? Isn't he established enough and young enough to command being a full time starter? I just can't imagine selling him on it, and then I can't imagine Paxson signing Eddy if he signed Reef. Tyson better be coming in all cases.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I agree with DMD, that the bulls interest in SAR could mean Pax is seriously thinking that we may not have Eddy. 

Nothing wrong with inquiring. We would have to trade some of our players to get him wouldn't we?


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

sign du with part of MLE

portland signs raef and trades for our remaining MLE and Othella or someone


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Oh, I agree, but would Reef really be interested in being part of a three man rotation? Isn't he established enough and young enough to command being a full time starter? I just can't imagine selling him on it, and then I can't imagine Paxson signing Eddy if he signed Reef. Tyson better be coming in all cases.


Good insight on Shareef. He'd insist on becoming a starter here in Chicago. Pairing him and Eddy in the frontcourt with Deng would be dynamic. Even more so, Reef becomes great offensive insurance if matched up with Tyson in case Eddy's a no-go.

Move Eddie Basdens into the guard rotation in place of Duhon, slide Kirk back to the point and bring Ben into the rotation as a starter and we can match muscle with anyone. Now, that means losing Duhon, which is a shame. But like someone else said, I'd take SAR over CD anyday.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Maybe you guys could elaborate on why SAR is a more valuable guy to have than Duhon.

Sure, he'd give us depth and another scoring option up front, but if the cost is we lose Duhon then we're down to one guy who can play point guard with any credibility.

Adding to that SAR's potentially arthritic knees, his poor defense, the likely chemistry problems of adding an average older player with a star-sized head, and the additional expense, which will likely whack our cap room straight to ****, I'd be pretty cautious about signing him even if we had the full MLE to offer.

And since he likely won't take less than that, the only way I see him coming here is via a trade. Since Portland has no conceivable use for Duhon, that means we'd end up giving them someone else too, effectively making it a Duhon + someone for SAR trade.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I'd rather keep Duhon and Curry (if healthy) than lose Duhon and Curry and add Rahim.

Many here slam “good” players on losing teams. Rahim is exactly that guy. Pretty much his whole career. He has health issues as well... and not as much room for improvement as our 22 year old center.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Maybe you guys could elaborate on why SAR is a more valuable guy to have than Duhon.
> 
> Sure, he'd give us depth and another scoring option up front, but if the cost is we lose Duhon then we're down to one guy who can play point guard with any credibility.
> 
> ...


It's about $2.5M out of next year's cap space. SAR is only 28 years old. He has produced at a high level for his entire career. MLE guys have flaws. With ok knees, SAR is a bargin at the MLE.

Duhon's best year in college was his frosh year. Think this could be a trend? If his jump shot goes south, he is an eleventh man.

I suspect that SAR has lost enough so that he doesn't have a big head. And it would be conditional on him taking the MLE and being fine sharing the minutes with Chandler and Curry. And the knee being ok, if not great.

So a lot of ifs. But if it falls into place, it's just losing Duhon. Not Duhon and More. And I very well might go for it. A healthy SAR can be a 6th man or better on a championship team. Not positive that I can say the same for Duhon.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

I don't necessarily see it as either / or with Duhon vs Shareef. 

What if we traded a re-signed Othella, Pike, Austin, and maybe a 2nd rounder to Portland? This does not dip into our MLE at all, so we would still keep Duhon.

C: Curry, Davis
PF: Abdur-Rahim, Chandler
SF: Deng, Nocioni
SG: Hinrich, Basden
PG: Duhon, Gordon

Nice looking 10-man rotation right there. :clap:


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Maybe you guys could elaborate on why SAR is a more valuable guy to have than Duhon.


I am not sure if the Bulls would be better next year with Rahim as opposed to Duhon, but you could certainly make an arguement for it. We're talking about a guy who averaged over 20/10 in '99-00 and has career averages of 20/8. He's been very healthy over the course of his career, although he certainly missed a good chunk of games last year, and this knee condition is definitely a red flag, because past performance does not insure future performance. He's generally been regarded at as a good character guy. It might be unfair to assume he would disrupt chemistly -- he might be incredibly happy to be playing for a winning team for once. And yes, the acusation of being a stat hording loser have dogged him just as is has dogged Elton Brand, but was Brand had for the MLE? Last I checked, he's a max player. To top it off, he's only 28 years old. 

Mike, Rahim could be a ridiculous steal for the MLE. I know Duhon brings so much to our team, but I'm still no fan of three small guards in the rotation. 

As I said in the other thread, if we could wind up with Duhon and Lafrentz, I would be overjoyed. Sure, perhaps it's a pipe dream, but we'll see if Raef is available by next week.


----------



## Shermitt (Nov 10, 2003)

Some interesting points about SAR...but would it be better for us to use the MLE and try to lure Finley back home instead? Besides Gordon, we don't really have any consistent outside threat night in and night out. I definitely agree with everyone else here that we can live without Duhon.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

OK, if we can get him without giving up any of our current players (ie Curry, Duhon), then I don't much have a problem with it. I do, however, question why we want a guy with a major red flag in the injury department. And yes, he's only 28, but he's also played 9 seasons of basketball, so I could imagine the tread is getting a little thin. I guess I'm just pretty lukewarm on him. I'd rather try and get ahold of Al Harrington myself. He's younger and a better defender by light years. I'd call Atlanta first and offer them the same package I'm going to offer for SAR.

But hey, if we can send a re-signed Harrington, Pike, and next year's number 1 for him, then it's probably no worse than we'll do next summer. And we'd still likely be under the cap by a million or two over the MLE if we do it (This is part of the logic of trading next year's pick- it'll count against the cap otherwise, and probably won't be of great immediate value to us).


----------



## butr (Mar 23, 2004)

SALO said:


> I don't necessarily see it as either / or with Duhon vs Shareef.
> 
> What if we traded a re-signed Othella, Pike, Austin, and maybe a 2nd rounder to Portland? This does not dip into our MLE at all, so we would still keep Duhon.
> 
> ...


2 firsts and a trade exception is considerably better than what you are offering to portland here.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Boy this is a tough one. I would have to say(I think) that I would sign Reef to MLE and let Duhon walk. Then bring back Pargo and sign Jay. Start Reef and Curry and have Tyson as third big(even though he will play a LOT at center with Reef at PF)


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Basghetti80 said:


> Boy this is a tough one. I would have to say(I think) that I would sign Reef to MLE and let Duhon walk. Then bring back Pargo and sign Jay. Start Reef and Curry and have Tyson as third big(even though he will play a LOT at center with Reef at PF)


Lets say we sign SAR to a full MLE offer sheet. Portland waits 7 days in which we would have to let Duhon go to Toronto. Now Portland matches SAR's offer sheet. We walk away with nothing.

In my eyes, we have to decide whether or not we want to keep Duhon. If the answer is yes, the only way we are going to acquire a new impact player to the team is through trade only.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I like Mike's proposal for the most part, because it allows us to retain Duhon AND Curry; and I bet Portland would go for it. The catch is that we're sacrificing some of our cap flexibility for next summer. So we'd have to ask ourselves if it's worth the risk of getting possibly damaged goods (with a potentially high reward factor), or sitting with what we have and seeing how they do this year before deciding what kind of player to add next summer. I don't know, I'm 50-50 on this one.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> Lets say we sign SAR to a full MLE offer sheet. Portland waits 7 days in which we would have to let Duhon go to Toronto. Now Portland matches SAR's offer sheet. We walk away with nothing.


SAR is unrestricted, so there's no possibility they can match.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I am sorry but i just dont see what SAR reall brings the the bulls. Like it or not he has never played for a winning team. I agree he can score but after that his game is pretty limited. Not a great rebounder or defender and teams have not really be offering him more than the MLE. 

I think we would be better off with Malik Allan and O with chandler and Curry than with SAR. I mean he is a bench player in Portland.

david


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

giusd said:


> I am sorry but i just dont see what SAR reall brings the the bulls. Like it or not he has never played for a winning team. I agree he can score but after that his game is pretty limited. Not a great rebounder or defender and teams have not really be offering him more than the MLE.
> 
> I think we would be better off with Malik Allan and O with chandler and Curry than with SAR. I mean he is a bench player in Portland.
> 
> david


Isn't offense what this team needs? I think we're set at the defensive end, but we still lack a balanced offensive attack. When healthy, SAR has one of the best high-post games in the NBA as both a shooter and passer. I agree he's weak defensively, but at least he's a good rebounder. On paper, he's a good compliment to Chandler OR Curry because he compensates for their weaknesses somewhat. (BTW, make sure to look at MikeDC's trade proposal; the sign-and-trade allows us to keep Duhon AND Curry, while only losing Othella, Pike, and a 1st rounder.)

But it's not the fit that concerns me. It's his health. I don't want another E-Rob situation on our hands, especially when it would severely limit who we bring in next summer. I'm not sure it's worth the risk when this team has a ways to go anyway.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

Has anyone stopped to consider what it is exactly that the Nets saw in Rahim's knees to make them cancel the trade? I'm thinking it had to be something pretty serious for them to void such a key acquisition.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

i read somewhere the Nets discovered scar tissue from a HS injury...which you would assume everyone had to know about, and would take with a grain of salt because he's been playing on it. There must be something more


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

I'll take this for what it is: a rumor.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

yodurk said:


> SAR is unrestricted, so there's no possibility they can match.


Never mind then :angel:


----------



## Shermitt (Nov 10, 2003)

I mean is anyone else interested in this guy besides the Nets were? I know that we inquired about him, but is there anyone else that shows an interest in him? 

I SAY BRING MICHAEL FINLEY BACK HOME!!! Someone who can be had definitely for the MLE and wants to come home. Someone who can jack up the 3's because aside from Gordon, who else do we have from the outside? And please don't tell me Pike...this guy can be on and then off from quarter to quarter. We can bring back Othella as well and he will cost a lot less.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Kneepad said:


> Has anyone stopped to consider what it is exactly that the Nets saw in Rahim's knees to make them cancel the trade? I'm thinking it had to be something pretty serious for them to void such a key acquisition.


Rod Thorn's mamma didn't raise no dummy. 

I like SAR a lot and don't have the same criticisms of his game, career, and fit on this team as some others. On the contrary, I think he'd be an excellent acquisition on paper and, if healthy, on the court.

But the Nets move gives me serious pause.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

If we were to do a trade, I wouldn't get rid of Othella. I find that we can prolly keep him for cheaps, and he was HUGE for us last year. 

Portland is in a rebuilding stage, and I think we can entice them to take back expiring contracts (if this doesn't put them over the Lux Tax Threshold). However, I feel that AD and Pike's expiring contracts will be more valuable toward the Trade Deadline and can fetch us a better player than 'Reef. 

This move would mean we get to go after no one next year, which isn't that big of a concern. I don't really find anyone worth spending all that money on, and even more so on the UFAs. I feel our best move of adding a solid player is via a trade, whether it be for Shareef or someone else. 

Shareef is looking to get around a 6yr/$36-$40 million deal. I honestly don't see him worth keeping after 3 years. By then, our core will have matured, and most players will be around the age of 25-26, and I hope we are contending to win it all by then. 

A FA who can shoot, and I love to offer the rest of the MLE for would be Walter McCarty. The guy can hit the long ball, and has been a solid vet.


----------



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

We don't need 'Reef, I think if we stick with OH we'll be all right, it's the openings created by the potential departures of AD and AG that have me worried.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I'd rather sign Michael Finely for the MLE and re-sign O. Harrington & Jay Williams

G Hinrich / J. Williams
G Gordon / M. Finley / E. Basden
F Deng / Nocioni / Piatkowski
F Chandler / O. Harrington
C Curry / A. Davis

Pax probably wouldn't do it since he's looking at free agency next off-season. He's put together a GREAT group of young talent, now I bet he wants to see if he can reel in some bigger fish to take it to the next level.


----------



## Shermitt (Nov 10, 2003)

But Finley would give the Bulls the 3 pt shooting they need and the tough veteran leadership that they seek. Also, when healthy, Finley is a pretty good defender who can also help out a sometimes suspect perimeter defense.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Kismet, my good friend and a damn smart poster (though he ought to check his PMs sometime!) has been hot on SAR for a long time. I have to disagree with my distinguised colleague on this one. He is the modern day Orlando Woolridge. Everywhere he has gone, he has put up all world stats and the teams have gotten worse. He has never played in a playoff game, heck, he hasnt played in a game that was do or die since college, if even then. He is a tweener who has some wear and tear on his bones. But all in all, the guy is a loser. Pass on this guy. There isnt a spot for him on the Bulls anyway. Chicago needs a big 2 guard to defend and who is atheletic, Basden might be the guy but I sort of doubt it though I am intrigued, and might need a 5 if Curry cant go. Id also like to see the Bulls get a big who can shoot with range. What the Bulls dont need is a 4/3 whose teams get worse after he gets there. He takes minutes away from Chandler and Deng, who is probably the most important player on the Bulls for next year.

and may I add, a front line of Curry, Deng and SAR has almost no range, and hence spacing issues.


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

right on the money rlucas.Great post.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> He takes minutes away from Chandler and Deng, who is probably the most important player on the Bulls for next year.


AD played 25 minutes a game. O played 18 minutes a game. This is who would lose minutes.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

rlucas4257 said:


> Kismet, my good friend and a damn smart poster (though he ought to check his PMs sometime!) has been hot on SAR for a long time. I have to disagree with my distinguised colleague on this one. He is the modern day Orlando Woolridge.


Yeah ?

Never would have picked Reef as a coker


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

The question is, how many playoff games has SAR played in? ZERO. Did Cal even make the NCAA tournament the one year he was there? The point is, he goes to a team, it gets worse. Then isnt a declaration of SAR as a person, but his game isnt suited to being on a winner, unless he becomes a deep bench player.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

rlucas4257 said:


> The question is, how many playoff games has SAR played in? ZERO. Did Cal even make the NCAA tournament the one year he was there? The point is, he goes to a team, it gets worse. Then isnt a declaration of SAR as a person, but his game isnt suited to being on a winner, unless he becomes a deep bench player.


What teams did he go to that got worse BECAUSE OF him? None. Vancouver was bad. Atlanta was bad. Portland was getting worse before he even arrived. 

Your analysis is too simplistic. Reef cannot carry a team. No debate. But he is a quality player who can help any team. 

If you removed Reef from any of the teams he played on, would they have suddenly improved? Of course not. 

He is not a franchise player, I agree. Nor is he an allstar, or even close. But you go too far.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> What teams did he go to that got worse BECAUSE OF him? None. Vancouver was bad. Atlanta was bad. Portland was getting worse before he even arrived.
> 
> Your analysis is too simplistic. Reef cannot carry a team. No debate. But he is a quality player who can help any team.
> 
> ...



Memphis got better after he left in the Gasol deal. That hawk team looked like a lock for the playoffs and hugely underachieved. Portland hasnt been better by his arrival. Why would anyone wnat a player with that kind of track record on thier team. Call it simple, call it going too far. But I have said not one thing that wasnt true. The guy is a loser.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Basically didn't Portland trade Rasheed for Theo Ratliff and SAR? And they've been (ironically) going to pot ever since.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

There are just certain guys, usually good people types, who just are not winners. SAR is one of those guys. Purvis Short was another. Orlando Woolridge was the best example, except he was a bad guy. But SARs game and size is like O, hence the comparison. SAR just isnt a winner. And he has been on teams with talent who underachieved. Nice stats dont mean much if the team he plays for dont do anything. 

And even assuming SAR had played a playoff game, are people telling me that SAR-Deng-Curry would work? Or replace Deng with Chandler? That, my friends, is about the most lack of range of any team in the NBAs front line. Not good for spacing. Just let SAR go to whatever team. Theyll be a -5 in the Win column right away. His game just doesnt mesh very well with success.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

I certainly don't see Reef as "not having range". He's over 30% in his career from behind the arc and shot 38.5% last season.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Memphis got better after he left in the Gasol deal.


3 years later. The season after Reef was traded and the Griz acquired Gasol (who won rookie of the year that season), the team treaded water and stayed at a 23 win clip. The next season they jumped a whopping 5 games to 28 wins. It wasn't until the 3rd season after Reef was dealt, and after Jerry West/Hubie Brown and many other new players were put in place, that Memphis showed any improvement.

Drawing any direct correlation to the quality of Reef's play is nonsensical.



> That hawk team looked like a lock for the playoffs and hugely underachieved.


The year before Reef arrived, the Hawks won 25 games. His first year they won 33 games and his second year they improved again to 35 wins. Not amazing I'll grant, but its still improvement.

It would be hard to argue that the presence of Reef was somehow detrimental to that team.

In other words, this statement of yours is false:



> Everywhere he has gone, he has put up all world stats and the teams have gotten worse.


Moving on.



> Portland hasnt been better by his arrival.


The year he arrived, that team went 41 and 41. Then the rebuilding began along with countless legal and personality conflicts on the team that had nothing to do with him.

Again, no correlation.



> Why would anyone wnat a player with that kind of track record on thier team.


Because he's good. He's just not a good enough player to make a poor team into a playoff team. Everything you wrote could also be written of Elton Brand, and I'd certainly take him as a 3rd big man on the Bulls.

Like I said, you go too far. Reef is a very solid big man who would help (not carry) any team.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

bullsville said:


> I certainly don't see Reef as "not having range". He's over 30% in his career from behind the arc and shot 38.5% last season.


He's got more range than Deng and Chandler. But I suppose Curry/Deng/Chandler has all kinds of mad range to space the floor. Christ, its Phoenix like. Reef would screw that all up.

For the record, I'm not talking about Reef replacing anyone on the Bulls. All I'm saying is he could be nothing but helpful for this, or any other team, because he's simply a solid, but not spectacular, basketball player.

Far too often the "good player on a bad team" label is extrapolated into the false theory that the failure of the team means the player isn't good. That isn't what it means at all. What it means is that the player isn't good enough to be the engine of a team. He can, however, be a valuable cog.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> He's got more range than Deng and Chandler. But I suppose Curry/Deng/Chandler has all kinds of mad range to space the floor. Christ, its Phoenix like. Reef would screw that all up.
> 
> For the record, I'm not talking about Reef replacing anyone on the Bulls. All I'm saying is he could be nothing but helpful for this, or any other team, because he's simply a solid, but not spectacular, basketball player.
> 
> Far too often the "good player on a bad team" label is extrapolated into the false theory that the failure of the team means the player isn't good. That isn't what it means at all. What it means is that the player isn't good enough to be the engine of a team. He can, however, be a valuable cog.


Respectfully, I think you're focusing on the "good player on a bad team" issue and ignoring several other, very legitimate concerns that have been raised.

1. The condition of his knee (especially coupled with his desire for a 6 year deal).
2. From what I can tell, he's a downright poor defender.
3. IIRC, he bellyached for a trade from Atlanta, and then he bellyached for a trade from the Blazers. Whether that makes him a poor jib fit is an open question, but it certainly makes him more of a concern than a guy who's never complained or threatened to hold out.

I mean, I agree that if we're not giving up any key elements, and not signing him for a long-term deal (thus avoiding the arthritic knee risk) then sure. But if we're going to offer some sort of significant sign and trade package for him, there are a few other guys I'd be trying to trade for first.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> Respectfully, I think you're focusing on the "good player on a bad team" issue and ignoring several other, very legitimate concerns that have been raised.


Admittedly. I'm simply addressing the false concept that "a" team signing Reef = a step back. Which is precisely what rlucas is arguing and I consider it a nonsensical over-generalization. 

I don't really disagree with anything you wrote, Mike. If fact, I'd forgotten all about his little hold out threat in Portland which is certainly valid to the larger discussion of whether or not, if obtainable, a Reef signing would be worth giving up Duhon.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> He's got more range than Deng and Chandler. But I suppose Curry/Deng/Chandler has all kinds of mad range to space the floor. Christ, its Phoenix like. Reef would screw that all up.
> 
> For the record, I'm not talking about Reef replacing anyone on the Bulls. All I'm saying is he could be nothing but helpful for this, or any other team, because he's simply a solid, but not spectacular, basketball player.
> 
> Far too often the "good player on a bad team" label is extrapolated into the false theory that the failure of the team means the player isn't good. That isn't what it means at all. What it means is that the player isn't good enough to be the engine of a team. He can, however, be a valuable cog.


Give me a break. 10 years of being "the good player on a bad team" and you see no correlation? Extrapolate that!

And as I have said, the Bulls need more range on the front line. SAR doesnt provide that. La Frentz however could. And I am sure Vincent Vega has a stat somewhere to back up that claim for a fellow Jayhawk. Otherwise, Pax ought to keep away from this loser. The guy has nice stats, but clearly people dont dig a little deeper into his game and why his teams, even in college, dont seem to reach their potential.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

i'm reading a post with contributions from Retro, Rlucas, Mike, FJ, DMD, Johnston, Trueblue, Kukcok, Kneepad, Salo, Basg and Kismet.




what is this, 2002?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

rlucas4257 said:


> And as I have said, the Bulls need more range on the front line. SAR doesnt provide that.


This validates how little you know about his game. The modern day Reef is largely a jump shooter from 10-19 feet. He has more range on his J than any big man on the entire Bulls roster. To suggest that his acquisition would limit the Bulls' ability to spread the floor among the front line is absurd.

LaFrentz would be better at spreading the floor, I agree. Ricky Henderson stole more bases than Lou Brock. But that doesn't mean that Lou Brock wasn't a talented base-runner. 

Lots of "good" players play on poor teams. That doesn't mean they can't help another, better team as a piece to the puzzle. This seems an elementary point to me.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> This validates how little you know about his game. The modern day Reef is largely a jump shooter from 10-19 feet. He has more range on his J than any big man on the entire Bulls roster. To suggest that his acquisition would limit the Bulls' ability to spread the floor among the front line is absurd.
> 
> LaFrentz would be better at spreading the floor, I agree. Ricky Henderson stole more bases than Lou Brock. But that doesn't mean that Lou Brock wasn't a talented base-runner.
> 
> Lots of "good" players play on poor teams. That doesn't mean they can't help another, better team as a piece to the puzzle. This seems an elementary point to me.


Do you watch basketball? Most of SARs game is baseline and inside. Can he step outside to 10-19 feet, which by the way, in the NBA is not major range, and knock down that shot? Occasionally (he isnt even that great out there) sure. But he is no better then Othella Harrington at that shot. He is really a carbon copy of what the Bulls have already. He doesnt bring anything new to the club. And the fact that he has been on losing teams his entire career doesnt bring anything to the locker room of what is still a young NBA team. Please, go ahead and continue to make excuses for SAR and why he has no responsibility for his teams utter failures but where I come from, he was counted on to deliver wins and hasnt done that. There can be no denying that. There will be FAs out there, like La Frentz, like Doug Christie, who bring something to the Bulls that they dont have or a winning pedigree. But if you want to add a player who doesnt know the definition of do or die situations and who is a 3/4 who plays terrible D then go right ahead. And you question my lack of knowledge? Laughable. :curse:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> i'm reading a post with contributions from Retro, Rlucas, Mike, FJ, DMD, Johnston, Trueblue, Kukcok, Kneepad, Salo, Basg and Kismet.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Interesting. All good people, yes, even you Jayhawk.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> What teams did he go to that got worse BECAUSE OF him? None. *Chicago* was bad. *Toronto* was bad.
> 
> Your analysis is too simplistic. *Jalen* cannot carry a team. No debate. But he is a quality player who can help any team.
> 
> ...


(not trying to start anything.. i've just heard (and made) this argument before.  )


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> (not trying to start anything.. i've just heard (and made) this argument before.  )



Jalen Rose, thats another guy that SAR is similar too in terms of effort and results to the team. Interesting post Kukoc.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> (not trying to start anything.. i've just heard (and made) this argument before.  )


Touche. But Jalen Rose was on a Max contract with many years remaining and had become a distraction. There is a difference, but its a fair point you make nonetheless.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> (not trying to start anything.. i've just heard (and made) this argument before.  )


Oh, don't play all innocent with us, K4E...we're on to you. 

I've debated many times with you about Jalen's ideal role on a winning caliber team. Like Abdur-Rahim, I think he's best suited for a relatively minor role and nothing close to being "the man". The only difference between these 2 players is that SAR brings a unique skill set to his position (fantastic high-post game as a PF), while Rose doesn't have any skills at the 2/3 to make him stand out above the rest. Unless people still buy into his failed "point forward" experiment.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I've debated many times with you about Jalen's ideal role on a winning caliber team. Like Abdur-Rahim, I think he's best suited for a relatively minor role and nothing close to being "the man".


Of course, there is a difference between Rahim and Jalen.

Jalen has been one of the main guys on a team that went to the NBA finals.

Rahim has never really won.... and not one of the main guys on a winning team.

JALEN ROSE

1999-2000
Highest EFF and AV on a winning playoff team that went to the NBA Finals (took the Lakers to 6 games)
http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamyear.htm?tm=IND&lg=N&yr=1999


2000-2001
Highest EFF and AV on a winning playoff team
http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamyear.htm?tm=IND&lg=N&yr=2000

And... the Bulls *did* improve when he joined the team. Both in the first season with Best and in his first full season w/ the team.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Do you watch basketball?


Actually, no. 



> *Most* of SARs game is baseline and inside. Can he step outside to 10-19 feet, which by the way, in the NBA is not major range, and knock down that shot? *Occasionally* (he isnt even that great out there) sure.


According to 82games.com, 54% of Reef's shots came from the outside. Thats hardly "occasionally" and since 46% were from "inside" that doesn't really qualify as "most".

http://82games.com/04POR13A.HTM



> But he is no better then Othella Harrington at that shot. He is really a carbon copy of what the Bulls have already. He doesnt bring anything new to the club.


Othella is a jump shooter. But Reef has far more range. In his career, Harrington has shot 11 three pointers and made none of them. Last season alone, Reef shot 39 in 54 games at a .385% clip. 

Of all the Bulls big men combined last season, 2 three pointers were attempted. None were made. I'd say Reef brings a little more range to the table that what we currently have in place, wouldn't you? Especially since he *made* 7x more three point shots himself than the Bulls big men *attempted* combined.



> And you question my lack of knowledge? Laughable. :curse:


I forgot, you know more than Lute Olson.

Its a good thing those statistics happened to back me up, considering I don't actually watch the games and all.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

We will see who is right once SAR signs with my Sacramento Kings, since they seem to be the frontrunner for him at this moment. 

If all of a sudden the Kings plummet out of the playoffs this year (without sustaining any major injuries to key players) then maybe there is something to be said of SAR being a loser and taking teams down wherever he goes. 

My guess is the Kings will still make the playoffs, even if they add a "loser" like SAR.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Actually, no.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



39 threes. Wow great range. He is really going to spread the floor for the Bulls. Your totally right. The Bulls ought to give him the max. With him for sure we will make the finals since he really is known to come through during the playoffs. Roll Eyes

Oh, and lets talk about his defense for a second. Oh thats right, its non-existant, but I am sure youll find a stat that says he is more effective then Ron Artest. Thats what people who dont actually watch basketball do, they find stats. He is really bound to help this club. I got a good idea, lets fire Pax and make you the GM. Youll build a nice team of guys like Purvis Short, SAR, and other "good players on bad teams".


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

SALO said:


> We will see who is right once SAR signs with my Sacramento Kings, since they seem to be the frontrunner for him at this moment.
> 
> If all of a sudden the Kings plummet out of the playoffs this year (without sustaining any major injuries to key players) then maybe there is something to be said of SAR being a loser and taking teams down wherever he goes.
> 
> My guess is the Kings will still make the playoffs, even if they add a "loser" like SAR.



Personally I think Sacramento is in trouble with or without SAR. They have Peja, Miller and Bibby. Outside of that, not much. With GS, LA, LAC, Utah and a resurgent Minnesota I could easily see Sacramento and Memphis falling out next year. Id take GSs roster right now over Sac. But Sac knows how to win and they are well coached so they might have the intangibles. But it looks like their window has closed. Its a shame. That series against the Lakers was the most frustrating series of alltime. They were the better team, had it won and somehow LA snuck past them. Really ticked me off.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> Personally I think Sacramento is in trouble with or without SAR. They have Peja, Miller and Bibby. Outside of that, not much. With GS, LA, LAC, Utah and a resurgent Minnesota I could easily see Sacramento and Memphis falling out next year. Id take GSs roster right now over Sac. But Sac knows how to win and they are well coached so they might have the intangibles. But it looks like their window has closed. Its a shame. *That series against the Lakers was the most frustrating series of alltime. They were the better team*, had it won and somehow LA snuck past them. Really ticked me off.


About that Kings / Lakers series, I agree wholeheartedly. To take it a step further, I believe the Lakers should have also lost the series against that stacked Portland team with Rasheed, Pippen, Bonzi, O'neal etc. That team was also clearly better than L.A. It took a miracle choke job by Portland in the 4th quarter for L.A to pull that one out.

Out of those 3 titles L.A won under Jackson, I think they only really deserved one of them, and that was the year they beat Iverson and the Sixers in the Finals.

Back to the Kings, I'm going to disagree with you on this one...

C: Miller, Skinner
PF: Thomas, SAR? Songalia?
SF: Peja, Corliss, Evans
SG: Wells, Martin, Garcia
PG: Bibby, Hart

That is still a very deep team right there, IMO.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> There are just certain guys, usually good people types, who just are not winners. SAR is one of those guys. Purvis Short was another. Orlando Woolridge was the best example, except he was a bad guy. But SARs game and size is like O, hence the comparison. SAR just isnt a winner. And he has been on teams with talent who underachieved. Nice stats dont mean much if the team he plays for dont do anything.
> 
> And even assuming SAR had played a playoff game, are people telling me that SAR-Deng-Curry would work? Or replace Deng with Chandler? That, my friends, is about the most lack of range of any team in the NBAs front line. Not good for spacing. Just let SAR go to whatever team. Theyll be a -5 in the Win column right away. His game just doesnt mesh very well with success.


You got me interested.

Woolridge played with the Lakers in 1990, 1991. In 1990, the Lakers won 63 games. In 1991, the Lakers lost in the finals to the Bulls. He didn't win any championships, but then neither did Karl Malone or Patrick Ewing - and I wouldn't call those guys losers.

Seems to me that _any_ player considered a loser can contribute to a winning team; it just depends on the role the guy plays.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

It sounds like Rahim is about to sign with the Kings, so much of this discussion is moot.

http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/

"Barring a disaster like the one that made Shareef Abdur-Rahim available to begin with, the All-Star forward is about to become a King."


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Good grief. Here we go. 



> 39 threes. Wow great range. He is really going to spread the floor for the Bulls. Your totally right.


Your argument was that he would limit the Bulls ability to spread the floor. All I'm saying is that he can spread the floor far better than anyone the Bulls currently have at the 4. Do you disagree?



> The Bulls ought to give him the max. With him for sure we will make the finals since he really is known to come through during the playoffs. Roll Eyes


This is a child's argument. I said that he could help. Thats it. Not take the Bulls to the finals. And since we only have, at most, the MLE, I obviously am not contemplating giving him any more than that. 

Roll eyes, indeed.



> Oh, and lets talk about his defense for a second. Oh thats right, its non-existant, but I am sure youll find a stat that says he is more effective then Ron Artest.


I never contended, and don't now contend, that he is a good defensive player. But neither is Othella, and he helped the Bulls tremendously last season off the bench.



> Thats what people who dont actually watch basketball do, they find stats.


I know. You busted me again on that. I really ought to get a TV. 

Also, I'm not a stats guy. I've debated the current over-use of stats with Rosenbaum and Johnston797 plenty of times. But some stats are obvious. Like, for example, a stat that shows a guy made 7x the number of threes as the rest of the attempts of the Bulls bigs combined would suggest that this player would add range to the frontcourt. Doesn't seem like much of a stretch, does it?

Or a stat that shows that 56% of a guy's shots from the floor came from the outside would suggest that "most" of his shots DO NOT come from the inside. Again, that seems pretty obvious.

If you want to specifically contest the applicability of those stats to my point, feel free. But simply stating the use of those stats means I don't watch ball seems like a weak cop-out to me. 



> He is really bound to help this club. I got a good idea, lets fire Pax and make you the GM. Youll build a nice team of guys like Purvis Short, SAR, and other "good players on bad teams".


Classy. I know you've been gone for awhile. But if you had any idea what my ideas are about Paxson, this team, and its construction, you'd realize how silly this part of your post is.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

SAR expected to sign with Kings

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/3885184


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> SAR expected to sign with Kings
> 
> http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/3885184


They can probably get better offers but after matching Du, we should offer the other $2.5M to either Songila or Evans. One year deal only - however.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> They can probably get better offers but after matching Du, we should offer the other $2.5M to either Songila or Evans. One year deal only - however.



Songaila is a very good outside shooter, and he's not afraid to mix it up under the boards either. He'd be a much better option than Googs when it comes to adding a big who can shoot from the perimeter.

Evans would be a terrific pickup as well, but I would rather we spend our remaining MLE on a big man, as Evans and Basden are pretty much the same type of player.


----------



## nybullsfan (Aug 12, 2005)

whats going on with bonner how much he askin for


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ap-kings-abdur-rahim&prov=ap&type=lgns

Kings sign Abdur-Rahim
When the New Jersey Nets decided they didn't want Shareef Abdur-Rahim, the Sacramento Kings eagerly grabbed him. 

The Kings signed Abdur-Rahim to a multiyear contract Friday, three days after the Nets rescinded a trade with the Portland Trail Blazers because of medical concerns about the nine-year veteran's right knee. 

The Kings, who bid for the free agent's services earlier in the summer, wasted no time reasserting their interest. They quickly closed a deal, locking up a 28-year-old power forward who has racked up impressive statistics and made plenty of money, but never reached the playoffs.


``The biggest thing for me was trying to get on a team that had a chance to win and win big,'' Abdur-Rahim said. ``That's what I want to try and do for the rest of my career. The guys that are already here are accustomed to winning and competing at a high level. I'm looking forward to coming in and being a part of it. It's a nice fit for me here.'' 

Abdur-Rahim, who made more than $14 million last season in Portland, took a pay cut to join the Kings, who have made the postseason seven straight times and won 50 games in five straight seasons. Because the Kings already are over the salary cap, he is expected to be paid the NBA's midlevel exception, worth about $5 million next season. 

Abdur-Rahim has averaged 19.9 points and 8.1 rebounds in a career with Vancouver, Atlanta and Portland, but he doesn't want to go down in league history as the archetypal good player on bad teams. His playoff drought seems likely to end with the Kings, who added him to a starting lineup that now could be one of the NBA's strongest. 

But until early this week, he thought he would be playing alongside Jason Kidd and Vince Carter in New Jersey. 

``The only thing I can tell you is that I'm healthy,'' Abdur-Rahim said. ``I guess (the Nets) did their physical and found something that made them uncomfortable. I've never missed games or practices because of my knees, so like I said, their concerns came out of the blue to me.'' 

Geoff Petrie, the Kings' president of basketball operations, moved swiftly to complete the latest move in his yearlong makeover of the franchise, which has parted ways with Chris Webber, Vlade Divac, Doug Christie, Cuttino Mobley and Bobby Jackson since last summer. With Abdur-Rahim in town, Maurice Evans and Darius Songaila now are likely to leave as free agents. 

Petrie said the Kings' medical staff shares none of the Nets' concerns about Abdur-Rahim's knees. Abdur-Rahim missed 22 games last season with an elbow injury -- the first time he missed more than five games in an NBA season. 

``We think he'll improve our team in areas where we wanted to get better and give us dimensions on the (low) block,'' Petrie said. ``He has not only been a high-caliber player, but also a high-caliber citizen.'' 

Sacramento acquired high-scoring guard Bonzi Wells in a trade with Memphis last week, and the Kings picked up guard Francisco Garcia in the draft. Abdur-Rahim joins a projected starting lineup with Wells, Mike Bibby -- Abdur-Rahim's former teammate in Vancouver -- Peja Stojakovic and Brad Miller, along with Kenny Thomas, Corliss Williamson, Brian Skinner and new signees Jason Hart and Jamal Sampson on the bench. 

``I think we've been able to add pieces that are going to fit together well,'' coach Rick Adelman said. ``The challenge this team has is that so many new players have to come together quickly. In talking with Shareef and the other players we have, we're all about trying to win as a team. I'm excited this worked out.'' 

While Abdur-Rahim visited his list of potential new teams in recent weeks, he said the Kings were among his top two choices. His wife is from the San Francisco Bay area, about 90 miles west, and he played one collegiate season at California. 

``Since college, I've always like this area,'' Abdur-Rahim said. ``I spent two or three years after college here in the offseason, so if I have a second home other than Atlanta, it would be here.''


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

He signed for MLE or less?

Sacto was over the cap.


----------



## Pejavlade (Jul 10, 2004)

nybullsfan said:


> whats going on with bonner how much he askin for


2.5mill 5years


----------



## Pejavlade (Jul 10, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> He signed for MLE or less?
> 
> Sacto was over the cap.


He signed for MLE 1 year 5mill.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ap-kings-abdur-rahim&prov=ap&type=lgns
> 
> Kings sign Abdur-Rahim
> 
> The Kings signed Abdur-Rahim to a *multiyear contract* Friday...


Why do people keep saying he signed a 1-year contract?



DaBullz said:


> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ap-kings-abdur-rahim&prov=ap&type=lgns
> Petrie said the Kings' medical staff shares none of the Nets' concerns about Abdur-Rahim's knees. Abdur-Rahim missed 22 games last season with an elbow injury -- the first time he missed more than five games in an NBA season.


This is really one of the oddest things I have ever seen. Thorn has a good chance of looking very foolish. Marc Jackson?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

To top things off, the Kings suddenly have a nice looking roster again with very little holes:

PG - Mike Bibby, Jason Hart
SG - Bonzi Wells, Francisco Garcia
SF - Peja Stojokavic, Kevin Martin
PF - Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Kenny Thomas
C - Brad Miller, Brian Skinner

I think that's one of the most talented, and balanced, rosters in the entire NBA now. Their only glaring weakness is a severe lack of defense, but their ability to score should compensate. I'm predicting Petrie to be up there for GM of the year (and not just for the SAR signing; the Bonzi trade, his recent 2 draft picks, the Hart trade, the Webber trade).


----------

