# Odom a bull?



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

http://www.draftexpress.com/viewarticle.php?a=1341 

They are saying it will be for the #2 and #16 pick for Odom.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Doesn't make too much sense to me. We decide to give the Lakers cap room and our draft picks in exchange for a player that plays our strongest position? This must have originated from LA.


----------



## mr.ankle20 (Mar 7, 2004)

thats way to much for odom I would trade the 16th pick and chandler for odom. But not both picks for odom


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

What's more interesting is that PJax sees Roy as ideal for the triangle. After reading several posts about how we're wanting another Jordan (and won't get one), there's some fuel for that fire.


----------



## BULLS23 (Apr 13, 2003)

I hate that trade on every level . . . I think I just threw up in my mouth.

I don't want Odom on this team and we don't need him or his contract here. LA has to be joking . . .


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

sp00k said:


> Doesn't make too much sense to me. We decide to give the Lakers cap room and our draft picks in exchange for a player that plays our strongest position? This must have originated from LA.


Odom is heaps better than any player who plays our strongest position. It'd be a HUGE upgrade. 

He'd easily be our best player.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Actually Odom would fit the team perfectly! A passing, good shooting, good rebounding PF. But at what price? Cap space for LA and two young players. 

This trade would improve us. Lamar is only 26. We would still need a center and a big SG.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Odom is heaps better than any player who plays our strongest position. It'd be a HUGE upgrade.
> 
> He'd easily be our best player.


 To a certain degree, yes. Taking a second to digest this and I suppose this wouldn't be the worst deal provided that we can get Nazr and Prybilla in free agency. It's in the direction that Pax has hinted at all along and Odom spends about half his time at the 4.

Is Odom better than Nocioni + Deng? IMO, marginally at best.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

sp00k said:


> To a certain degree, yes. Taking a second to digest this and I suppose this wouldn't be the worst deal provided that we can get Nazr and Prybilla in free agency. It's in the direction that Pax has hinted at all along and Odom spends about half his time at the 4.
> 
> Is Odom better than Nocioni + Deng? IMO, marginally at best.


I think Odom would eat up all our cap space, so no other bigs would be had via that route.

Is Odom better than Nocioni + Deng? Dunno, I've never seen Odom play 2 positions on the court at the same time 

Here's something to think about though:

Odom averaged 10.2 and 9.2 rebounds per game the last two years.
Odom averaged 5.5 assists per game last year - Kirk last season was 6.3


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

If Odom is such a great player why is he traded and proposed to be traded so often. IMHO he is no different that a young JRose. All show but doesnt do the little things neccessary to win. I would rather have Noci or dent than Odom. IMHO they are both better than odom.

daivd


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Let me also add that my aversion to this is because it's strikingly similar to our Jalen Rose trade. We're giving up a high lotto pick and a solid mid-rounder plus cap space in exchange for a second rate "star". Does Odom bring us up a level? Or more importantly, does Odom turn us into championship contenders? My guess is negatory. If we're going to make a move that handcuffs us financially then I want Pax to wait until the trade deadline. 

But as I said, Odom isn't the worst move in the world.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> We would still need a center and a big SG.


That is the problem. We would come out of the draft without addressing ANY of our needs.

And with C Space gone, we'd be done.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

sp00k said:


> Let me also add that my aversion to this is because it's strikingly similar to our Jalen Rose trade. We're giving up a high lotto pick and a solid mid-rounder plus cap space in exchange for a second rate "star". Does Odom bring us up a level? Or more importantly, does Odom turn us into championship contenders? My guess is negatory. If we're going to make a move that handcuffs us financially then I want Pax to wait until the trade deadline.
> 
> But as I said, Odom isn't the worst move in the world.


I don't necessarily advocate doing this trade. I'm just pointing out that Odom is a heck of a good player and he'd be great on the Bulls.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Odom is a great player but I still see him as more of a 3 than a 4 and we are already pretty loaded at the 4. Perhaps the deal could be expanded for us to shed some contracts like Sweetney & Duhon and take Andrew Bynum the promising young 7 footer back. I don't know though, not sure where we would play Odom and what it would mean for Deng & possibly Noch's future.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I don't necessarily advocate doing this trade. I'm just pointing out that Odom is a heck of a good player and he'd be great on the Bulls.


that's exactly what I am doing. Thinking out loud.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Odom wouldn't only cost the two picks -- he'd also cost roughly 8 million of cap space (Gooden, Nene?). That is way too much to give up for a soft four who is a pretty weak post defender. Plus, just like Harrington, Odom's value is maximized on a team where he can play the 4 and the three. That's not happening in Chicago.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Interesting.....And I think we could still have cap space....And I consider Odom a full-time 4.

Odom makes $12M next year. if we sent Sweetney to them plus both draft picks, we would be sending at least $7M worth of salary.

We still easily have space for a guy like Przbilla.

I just might pull the trigger....


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

the question to ask is, would the #2 and #16 and a Fa give us more production from both ends of the floor than Odom?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> the question to ask is, would the #2 and #16 and a Fa give us more production from both ends of the floor than Odom?


#2 and #16 probably wouldn't. The FA? Who knows


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

I would prefer that we keep our pick somehow, pickup the bpa available (Sene) or the much needed bigger 2 guard.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Odom is a great player but I still see him as more of a 3 than a 4 and we are already pretty loaded at the 4. Perhaps the deal could be expanded for us to shed some contracts like Sweetney & Duhon and take Andrew Bynum the promising young 7 footer back. I don't know though, not sure where we would play Odom and what it would mean for Deng & possibly Noch's future.


A package that got us Bynum as well would certainly warm me to the idea more.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> Interesting.....And I think we could still have cap space....And I consider Odom a full-time 4.
> 
> Odom makes $12M next year. if we sent Sweetney to them plus both draft picks, we would be sending at least $7M worth of salary.
> 
> ...



I think if we have room to go pick up another FA big target, I just might pull the trigger as well. We'd still have the small guards, but I honestly don't see that as being as big a gaping need as some others. I'd be fine delaying addressing that issue for a year if need be, or trying to find someone for the vet minimum.

Kirk/Duhon
Ben/Kirk
Luol/Andres
Odom/Tyson/Andres
Pryz/Tyson/Malik

That could be pretty nice.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> A package that got us Bynum as well would certainly warm me to the idea more.


Mihm.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I think if we have room to go pick up another FA big target, I just might pull the trigger as well. We'd still have the small guards, but I honestly don't see that as being as big a gaping need as some others. I'd be fine delaying addressing that issue for a year if need be, or trying to find someone for the vet minimum.
> 
> Kirk/Duhon
> Ben/Kirk
> ...


Odom could mean extra minutes for Gordon, and in general really help take the defensive pressure off him. No need to gripe about Gordon's handles if you have a point-pf on the court.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Kirk/Duhon/Ben
> Luol/Noch
> Odom/Tyson/Pryz


That's a pretty sweet 8 man rotation. We might get Songalia back. We definetely would have our own draft picks and MLE's in the future to fill-in some holes\add depth. AND we have the Knicks pick next year.

There are a lot of worse ways to go. But Bulls would really have to do their homework on Odom.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

I like Odom but not to the extent that we give them both draft picks and get just Lamar in return. Now if they want to add Bynum or Turiaf, I might become interested.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Mihm.



uhhh...no..Bynum!


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

I don't think many people would even be entertaining this story had Odom not had the fortune of getting a very good matchup vs. Marion in the playoffs. That was probably the best basketball he's played, but I am sceptical that a 7 year vet is going to elevate his game significantly on a consistant basis.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> uhhh...no..Bynum!


They're not giving up Bynum, no way, no how.

Mihm is a possible piece in a trade, and it'd solve the bulk of peoples' issues with the proposed trade.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> They're not giving up Bynum, no way, no how.
> 
> Mihm is a possible piece in a trade, and it'd solve the bulk of peoples' issues with the proposed trade.



No Bynum..no deal...not interested in Mihm at all.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> I don't think many people would even be entertaining this story had Odom not had the fortune of getting a very good matchup vs. Marion in the playoffs. That was probably the best basketball he's played, but I am sceptical that a 7 year vet is going to elevate his game significantly on a consistant basis.


I disagree. He had loads of game with Miami 3 years ago. As a full-time 4. He definetely goes up a significant notch w/o Kobe dominating the ball.

On O, I think this team is tailor-made for Odom. He immeadialtely becomes the go-to guy, the best post-player, someone the offense is run through a lot of the time. And he has some great shooters to kick it out to.

I think Gordon, Hinrich and Chandler all are really helped by having this guy on the floor. The guards will have more room on the permeter. Chandler played his best ball with Rose.


----------



## Ventura (Aug 9, 2005)

hows the cut of his jib?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> I don't think many people would even be entertaining this story had Odom not had the fortune of getting a very good matchup vs. Marion in the playoffs. That was probably the best basketball he's played, but I am sceptical that a 7 year vet is going to elevate his game significantly on a consistant basis.



huh? Odom has been putting up ridiculously good #'s almost throughout his career, I don't think many people are looking at Odom's playoff matchup as a determiner of what he can bring.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> I disagree. He had loads of game with Miami 3 years ago. As a full-time 4. He definetely goes up a significant notch w/o Kobe dominating the ball.
> 
> On O, I think this team is tailor-made for Odom. He immeadialtely becomes the go-to guy, the best post-player, someone the offense is run through a lot of the time. And he has some great shooters to kick it out to.
> 
> I think Gordon, Hinrich and Chandler all are really helped by having this guy on the floor. The guards will have more room on the permeter. Chandler played his best ball with Rose.


this is true!

Keep in mind the way this team runs! The way we move the ball. Pax wants a good shooting big man! We would have a point pf!! I think it is a good fit. 

Now, how does the practice? Skiles will come into the equation.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ventura said:


> hows the cut of his jib?












He doesn't wear his hair in rows. No facial hair. Shirt looks tucked in.

He might even take the DNA test.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I think I'd be just as happy with Aldridge, Brewer and a good shot at Drew Gooden or Nene if the latter shows some health (I don't think we'd have enough space after taking on Odom but I could be wrong). Odom seems to constantly fold under pressure.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

To add a couple of points:
1) He was co-captain of the Lakers. VETERAN leadership.
2) He'll be 27 at the end of next season. Plenty of longevity left.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> He doesn't wear his hair in rows. No facial hair. Shirt looks tucked in.
> 
> He might even take the DNA test.


And the Krause-haters will love the fact that Lamar flat-out blew off his predraft interviews with the Sleuth in 1999. Didn't call, didn't write, didn't fax, didn't telegram -- he just completely stood up the Fat Man.

I would be very interested in 2/16 for Odom, but as others have noted, we'd need to get a little more back in such a deal -- Mihm and the 26, e.g.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> He doesn't wear his hair in rows. No facial hair. Shirt looks tucked in.
> 
> He might even take the DNA test.



Hahaha. Looks like he passes the test! Does he have any bonus points for being a notorious gym rat?


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Like many have said, you could do a lot worse.

If the #2 pick doesn't pan out then you will hate you missed out on Odom. Odom would be an All Star in the East on the Bulls. You won't get that in the draft or during FA. The key is sending out enough cap to pick up a >MLE player on the inside. The problem most have with this trade is draft fever. Every draft pick is the next whatever so they want to pass up on acquiring a 26 year old All Star.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> huh? Odom has been putting up ridiculously good #'s almost throughout his career, I don't think many people are looking at Odom's playoff matchup as a determiner of what he can bring.


He averages 15.8 ppg for his career along with 8.5 boards and 4.5 assists. That's hardly ridiculous, especially considering his FG percentage, which is pretty lousy for a big. The Bulls need to add efficient scorers who can get easy baskets.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> That's hardly ridiculous, especially considering his FG percentage, which is pretty lousy for a big. The Bulls need to add efficient scorers who can get easy baskets.


He shoot 48% last year; 52% eFG. Where would that place him on the Bulls?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

TripleDouble said:


> He averages 15.8 ppg for his career along with 8.5 boards and 4.5 assists. That's hardly ridiculous, especially considering his FG percentage, which is pretty lousy for a big. The Bulls need to add efficient scorers who can get easy baskets.



Sure, but I don't think you can count on anyone from this draft being a 16/8/4 guy either. Also, I do think the fact that he stepped up his numbers in the playoffs when the pressure was on is a good sign. 

Think about it. He scores as much as Eddy did, but he rebounds better and is an excellent passer for a big. That could have quite an impact for this team.

So, the question is, assuming this deal left us with enough money to acquire one more player of the Pryz/Nazr/Nene caliber, how good would the Bulls be in the Eastern Conference next year? Does that team win a first round playoff matchup? I think they'd be pretty darn competitive. Add into that the pick received from NY next year, and we may be pretty stacked heading into the future.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> He shoot 48% last year; 52% eFG. Where would that place him on the Bulls?


That was one season out of 7. If you think Odom is suddenly going to duplicate all his best numbers over and over again, then I can see why you'd want him here. Plus, last season he played with the best scorer in the league and took fewer shots.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> I think I'd be just as happy with Aldridge, Brewer and a good shot at Drew Gooden or Nene if the latter shows some health (I don't think we'd have enough space after taking on Odom but I could be wrong). Odom seems to constantly fold under pressure.


If Lakers took Sweetney, we defintely can take a shot at Gooden, Nene or Przy.

Why do you say Odom folds under pressure? His playoff stat line looks pretty darn good. Of course, he was better early in the series, but are we just talking about a few games here?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Sure, but I don't think you can count on anyone from this draft being a 16/8/4 guy either. Also, I do think the fact that he stepped up his numbers in the playoffs when the pressure was on is a good sign.
> 
> Think about it. He scores as much as Eddy did, but he rebounds better and is an excellent passer for a big. That could have quite an impact for this team.
> 
> So, the question is, assuming this deal left us with enough money to acquire one more player of the Pryz/Nazr/Nene caliber, how good would the Bulls be in the Eastern Conference next year? Does that team win a first round playoff matchup? I think they'd be pretty darn competitive. Add into that the pick received from NY next year, and we may be pretty stacked heading into the future.


The thing I especially like about Odom is his defensive rebounding. We'd give up a lot fewer second-chance points with him on the team.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> That was one season out of 7. If you think Odom is suddenly going to duplicate all his best numbers over and over again, then I can see why you'd want him here. Plus, last season he played with the best scorer in the league and took fewer shots.


He shoot very similarily the previous season as well. 

This is not inconsistant with players growing older and in a more structured offense as well.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

i must admit, the more I think about it, the more I am liking this trade. This is the first trade idea that I have heard in a long time that makes sense and actually improves the team. I would especially like what ScottMay said earlier. They include Mihm and #26 in some kind of package. 

I wonder why La is willing to implode the team and get even younger?


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Sure, but I don't think you can count on anyone from this draft being a 16/8/4 guy either. Also, I do think the fact that he stepped up his numbers in the playoffs when the pressure was on is a good sign.
> 
> Think about it. He scores as much as Eddy did, but he rebounds better and is an excellent passer for a big. That could have quite an impact for this team.
> 
> So, the question is, assuming this deal left us with enough money to acquire one more player of the Pryz/Nazr/Nene caliber, how good would the Bulls be in the Eastern Conference next year? Does that team win a first round playoff matchup? I think they'd be pretty darn competitive. Add into that the pick received from NY next year, and we may be pretty stacked heading into the future.


Trading for Odom would be a safe move because it would protect the franchise against the possiblity of both picks and the FA pickup being busts. I don't think Odom makes the Bulls a surefire championship contender. I do think the upside of the #2 + #16 + $8mil FA makes the Bulls championship contenders. 

Dealing that package for Odom would be far too conservative for my liking.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Odom is a 4 in the East. Period.

I watched one too many Lakers' games this season, here's my take. Odom is still a sick talent, and was/is never a great fit for the triangle offense (much less one that heavily involves Kobe Bryant). Too much structure IMO and Odom really did seem a bit handcuffed w/in the offense at times. This being said, he actually led the team in assists with 5.5per and when motivited seemed to take over games mainly from his versatility in the post. Throw in the mind-numbing pull up three pointer here or there (he actually shot 37% but it _seemed_ to be much worse!).

I'm trying to visualize Odom on the Bulls. Actually, as much as it pains me to say it, he'd be a good fit and would immediately become our most versatile offensive player. He would allow us to run a lot of our offense in the post. There is really nothing Lamar can't do offensively... face up, take his man to the lane, post up, pass in the paint our out, etc. LO usually holds his own defensively against 4's so I don't see a big problem there.

I would have to consider this offer, esp. if LA adds an additional piece (draft pick, player)


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Odom is heaps better than any player who plays our strongest position. It'd be a HUGE upgrade.
> 
> He'd easily be our best player.


It would be a huge upgrade, though I don't agree that he'd "easily be our best player". He'd definitely easily be the best big we've had since Brand, though. 

Certainly, this is a move that, if made, kills everything else except the MLE. I would think that, at minimum, the Bulls would need to keep the 16th pick to get another big. 

I've always liked Odom and still do. I think he'd fit wonderfully in Skiles' offense as a power forward - the position he played in Miami. 

Here's the thing, though. I don't believe the rumor. How much time do the Lakers want to spend rebuilding? Trading Odom - who is without question 1 of the only 2 good vets on that entire team - for draft picks? Perhaps the key for them is the capspace though. 1 year of possibly not making the playoffs followed by a good free agency class and an attractive market to sell. 

Just thinking out loud like th rest of you, I can't say that I'm opposed to this idea. Though like the rest of you, I'd rather trade the #16 and Chandler. But why would LA do that deal? They wouldn't.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

LA is willing to ship out Odom because they want the cap space to pursue someone in the next FA class. I believe the only thing holding them back from being players is Odom's contract.

http://hoopshype.com/salaries/la_lakers.htm

Odom to Chicago is slowly growing on me, but as many have said before, we need Mihm in return or at least enough money left over to pursue Nazr/Pryz. We still wouldn't have that coveted "big guard" so that would need to be addressed some other way.

And I think acquiring Odom would translate into Noc getting shipped out later in the year.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

I think Odom would be a great fit. But the Lakers would have to sweeten the pot a bit if they want both of our first rounders, IMO. Still, the more I think about this deal the more I like it. Odom is incredibly skilled, long and athletic, and extremely effective in the post.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

sp00k said:


> LA is willing to ship out Odom because they want the cap space to pursue someone in the next FA class. I believe the only thing holding them back from being players is Odom's contract.
> 
> http://hoopshype.com/salaries/la_lakers.htm
> 
> ...


then ship Noc for a SG with a similar contract. I would miss Andres. He was our best player down the stretch this last season.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

I'm in agreement. We'd need to get something back though I'd prefer that it break down something like this...

#2, #16, Michael Sweetney

for

#26, Lamar Odom

We'd still have enough space to go after Big Joel and draft a big guard. 

So let's say our squad looks like this...

Point Guard-Kirk Hinrich
Shooting Guard-Ben Gordon
Small Forward-Andres Nocioni
Power Forward-Lamar Odom
Center-Joel Pryzbilla

Chris Duhon(PG)
#26 Pick(SG)
Luol Deng(SF)
Tyson Chandler(PF/C)

compared to

Point Guard-Kirk Hinrich
Shooting Guard-Ben Gordon
Small Forward-Andres Nocioni
Power Forward-Drew Gooden
Center-Tyson Chandler

Chris Duhon(PG)
Brandon Roy(SG)
Luol Deng(SF)
Alexander Johnson(PF)
?(C)

I like that first team better and a combination of Nocioni and Odom at the 3 and 4 is so interchangeable it really gives us a lot of diverse options in the post and on the wing. We'd really be running a Dallas-style offense in my ideal situation. Anyways, I'm in favor of this deal if we can get the 26th pick in return and dump a contract on the Lakers.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

jnrjr79 said:


> Sure, but I don't think you can count on anyone from this draft being a 16/8/4 guy either. Also, I do think the fact that he stepped up his numbers in the playoffs when the pressure was on is a good sign.
> 
> Think about it. He scores as much as Eddy did, but he rebounds better and is an excellent passer for a big. That could have quite an impact for this team.
> 
> So, the question is, assuming this deal left us with enough money to acquire one more player of the Pryz/Nazr/Nene caliber, how good would the Bulls be in the Eastern Conference next year? Does that team win a first round playoff matchup? I think they'd be pretty darn competitive. Add into that the pick received from NY next year, and we may be pretty stacked heading into the future.


The Bulls would have upgraded enough to make a run for the conference finals. However, swapping the #2 + Allen for Odom is a more fair trade. LA would get a top prospect, a reserve big, and cap space for a top free agent. We would still have enough cap space to add Przybilla or Nazr or possibly Nene and could use the #16 to draft a big guard.

Frontline holes nicely plugged with veterans, with a rookie guard to play behind Hinrich, Gordon and Duhon. 

Outcome of Curry/AD trade = Sweetney, Odom, next year's pick swap and two 2nd rounders. Not bad.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

if LA adds another piece (like many are suggesting) i would _consider_ this.

just #2 and #16 isn't going to get it done. Mihm? he's a stiff.

but whatever the permutation is, the trade as suggested isn't enough.

and i wouldn't trade chandler to phil jackson and watch chandler blow up. (you know it could happen so, no thanks.)

i seem to remember some kind of drug suspension for odom when he played on the heat. does anyone remember that?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Here's the thing, though. I don't believe the rumor. How much time do the Lakers want to spend rebuilding? Trading Odom - who is without question 1 of the only 2 good vets on that entire team - for draft picks? Perhaps the key for them is the capspace though. 1 year of possibly not making the playoffs followed by a good free agency class and an attractive market to sell.


They'd get a nice piece in the #2, but the cap space is the true prize for them. They're one of a handful of teams that can reasonably assume they'll get whatever FA they want if they've got the room to sign them.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> i seem to remember some kind of drug suspension for odom when he played on the heat. does anyone remember that?


Pot, I believe.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> They'd get a nice piece in the #2, but the cap space is the true prize for them. They're one of a handful of teams that can reasonably assume they'll get whatever FA they want if they've got the room to sign them.


I'm not sure how valid that assumption is. Do you really think good players are clamoring to play with Kobe?


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> if LA adds another piece (like many are suggesting) i would _consider_ this.
> 
> just #2 and #16 isn't going to get it done. Mihm? he's a stiff.
> 
> ...


Odom's had marijuana issues in college and the pro's. I believe the drug suspension was during his Clipper days though...

http://espn.go.com/nba/news/2001/1107/1274985.html


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

sp00k said:


> And I think acquiring Odom would translate into Noc getting shipped out later in the year.


It could also translate into the Lakers making a huge offer for Hinrich next summer if we don't extend him and if the Lakers target someone other than Roy with the 2.


----------



## Jorbroni (Nov 24, 2004)

I don't know..

Odom just scares me. He has the reputation of not being agressive throughout his career. How could we have a team leader who is like that. He been label soft and sometimes lazy, This the opposite of what this team is built on. I think that he will be Skiles dogg house half way through the season.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

mizenkay said:


> if LA adds another piece (like many are suggesting) i would _consider_ this.
> 
> just #2 and #16 isn't going to get it done. Mihm? he's a stiff.
> 
> ...


 Going off of memory I think he's violated the NBA drug policy twice (while with the Clippers?) and once more he's out.

Another option to consider - can we get Brian Cook in return? He's cheap, young, and had a sweet stroke when he was with Illinois. As a pick and roll player he'd be improved in our system. My knock against him is I've always thought he was incredibly soft.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

sp00k said:


> LA is willing to ship out Odom because they want the cap space to pursue someone in the next FA class. I believe the only thing holding them back from being players is Odom's contract.
> 
> http://hoopshype.com/salaries/la_lakers.htm
> 
> ...


There's NO chance Noc is getting traded...unless he's told Pax he isn't coming back next year


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Odom's had marijuana issues in college and the pro's. I believe the drug suspension was during his Clipper days though...
> 
> http://espn.go.com/nba/news/2001/1107/1274985.html


I think you are right about that.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> I'm not sure how valid that assumption is. Do you really think good players are clamoring to play with Kobe?


I think that there are probably plenty of players who'd want to play with Kobe, and that's even before you get into Phil Jackson, the Laker mystique, and California.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I think you are right about that.


There went the jib thing. Up in a puff of smoke.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> They'd get a nice piece in the #2, but the cap space is the true prize for them. They're one of a handful of teams that can reasonably assume they'll get whatever FA they want if they've got the room to sign them.


Good points. I haven't really thought through all of the aspects of the rumor. But the more I think about it, the more I like it.

Especially if the posters saying we'd still have $7 or so mil in free agency to throw at another big are correct in their calculations. 

Odom = damn good fit for what our team lacks and how Skiles runs his offense. In my opinion. 

The downside is the potential limitation the trade may have on other moves. But based on what I'm reading here, that limitation may not be as severe as I thought. Especially since I think the "needs" this summer are getting 2 bigs. I think the third alleged "need" of a big guard isn't really a need at all. 

Odom and another big like Pryz, Nazr, or Nene and I'm a happy camper going into next season.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Odom makes way too much money for a guy that takes himself out of the game so often. No go-to moves offensively and an inconsistent playmaker. Defense and rebounding are above average, but at what price? Definitely not worth the contract, let alone the #2 and #16 picks. The only thing Odom does remarkably better than Nocioni is playmaking, but he isn't good enough to be depended upon to create for others.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

McBulls said:


> The Bulls would have upgraded enough to make a run for the conference finals. However, swapping the #2 + Allen for Odom is a more fair trade. LA would get a top prospect, a reserve big, and cap space for a top free agent. We would still have enough cap space to add Przybilla or Nazr or possibly Nene and could use the #16 to draft a big guard.
> 
> Frontline holes nicely plugged with veterans, with a rookie guard to play behind Hinrich, Gordon and Duhon.
> 
> Outcome of Curry/AD trade = Sweetney, Odom, next year's pick swap and two 2nd rounders. Not bad.



Does #2 + Allen get it done? I don't know that it does. If you swap Sweets for Allen, it might. 

To me, the only important thing is that the Bulls retain at least a little flexibility to make another move, because they will still have needs if they make this deal. Obviously they have the swap right next year which should yield a good player in a deep draft. I would definitely want some cap space left though to pursue a center.

In some ways, I think whether you make this deal depends on your level of certainty that the Knicks will be crap-tacular next year. The trade makes the Bulls instantaneous Eastern Conference contenders, but maybe still not good enough to make it to the Finals (and I severely doubt championship-level). However, if the Knicks are bad next year and give us another high pick, the Bulls could be truly set for the long-term. Then you might be able to spend the next few years just tweaking with contract extensions and mid-level exception moves. 

This trade would definitely limit the Bulls' future flexibility. However, at some point, you've got to settle on what your vision for the future is going to be and pursue it.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> They'd get a nice piece in the #2, but the cap space is the true prize for them. They're one of a handful of teams that can reasonably assume they'll get whatever FA they want if they've got the room to sign them.



Agreed. Other than some free agents potentially being scared of having to "share" the ball with Kobe, I would think living in LA, making a bunch of money, playing for Phil Jackson, etc. etc. is about as attractive a package as it gets. The Lakers would pretty much have their pick.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

jbulls said:


> Odom's had marijuana issues in college and the pro's. I believe the drug suspension was during his Clipper days though...
> 
> http://espn.go.com/nba/news/2001/1107/1274985.html



Yet another reason Skiles will love him!


Kidding aside, I am not one who gets worked up about a guy who has had some marijuana history. It's pretty commonplace in the NBA. Just don't get yourself suspended. It seems to me his problems with it were quite a while ago, so I wouldn't be too concerned.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> It could also translate into the Lakers making a huge offer for Hinrich next summer if we don't extend him and if the Lakers target someone other than Roy with the 2.


and phil would play kirk at point and he wouldn't have to guard 2's (cause kobe would do that).

ron - not to take this completely OFF topic, but how you think that a big 2 guard _isn't needed_ on the bulls is a bit confusing to me. 

maybe not with the #2 pick, but it is a need.



oh and thanks guys for clarifying the pot stuff (i knew it was pot, just not sure what team he was on at the time). it seems to me he has cleaned up his act.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

I'm with Ron on the need vs. want issue for a big 2. It's a bit of a hole, but I guess I don't see it as a "need" because I think the Bulls could be successful in the long-term with their current guard crop. I would like to see a big backup 2 come to the team, but I'm not sure that they need another guard who would be part of the core. If they do, then minimally Duhon would have to hit the road.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> ron - not to take this completely OFF topic, but how you think that a big 2 guard _isn't needed_ on the bulls is a bit confusing to me.
> 
> maybe not with the #2 pick, but it is a need.


Just a brief detour. Need = necessity, the way I use the term. I consider a "big guard" to be more of a hole to fill in with a role player when you get a chance. Maybe a trade deadline deal or an MLE acquisition next summer. Something along those lines.

Its a "want to have and will have". Not a need. To me, anyway. 

We need 2 bigs. We want a 4th, taller guard to mix into the rotation. The former is oxygen. The latter is cheesecake.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Just a brief detour. Need = necessity, the way I use the term. I consider a "big guard" to be more of a hole to fill in with a role player when you get a chance. Maybe a trade deadline deal or an MLE acquisition next summer. Something along those lines.
> 
> Its a "want to have and will have". Not a need. To me, anyway.
> 
> We need 2 bigs. We want a 4th, taller guard to mix into the rotation. The former is oxygen. The latter is cheesecake.


You can get oxygen from water, but it takes time and a lot of work. My fear is any of the three bigs we are talking about are more water than air at this point.

As I've said, in terms of the Bulls' long term needs in the front court, it doesn't matter whether we take Roy or Aldgridge/Bargnani/Thomas. Either way, we will need to be shoring up the front line with FA help, and our long term answer is not to be found in this draft.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Would trading the two picks for odom be better than:

keeping both picks and AH, or Gooden or Nene? Or even the chance of getting Big Ben?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> Just a brief detour. Need = necessity, the way I use the term. I consider a "big guard" to be more of a hole to fill in with a role player when you get a chance. Maybe a trade deadline deal or an MLE acquisition next summer. Something along those lines.
> 
> Its a "want to have and will have". Not a need. To me, anyway.
> 
> We need 2 bigs. We want a 4th, taller guard to mix into the rotation. The former is oxygen. The latter is cheesecake.


This dude should be a pastor..

PREACH!!


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> Just a brief detour. Need = necessity, the way I use the term. I consider a "big guard" to be more of a hole to fill in with a role player when you get a chance. Maybe a trade deadline deal or an MLE acquisition next summer. Something along those lines.
> 
> Its a "want to have and will have". Not a need. To me, anyway.
> 
> We need 2 bigs. We want a 4th, taller guard to mix into the rotation. The former is oxygen. The latter is cheesecake.


thanks ron. i just remember pax's interview at the end of the season where he said that they are "very aware" of the need to get bigger in the backcourt (in ADDITION to a very pressing and the more priority need up front).

i want it to be addressed. not first necessarily, but at some point soon. not NEXT summer. yeah, let's have kirk continue to guard bigger guys every night so we can wear him out.

size and athleticism. size and athleticism.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

I, for one, can not live without cheesecake. :biggrin:


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

If we're giving up the #2 & #16...we should atleast be able to get LA's #26


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Like others have said, this deal isn't too bad, but I'd make it contingent on two things:

We keep the #16 pick, since I think the odds of it yielding a useful big guard/post player are pretty good, and that we be able to send out enough salary to have enough cap room left to still be able to make moves in FA. 

Is Malik Allen on contract for next year? If he is, I'd assume it's a team option. If I could, I'd trade the number two with as many of O'fella/Malik/Sweets as I could. Ideally, I'd like to preserve about 10 million in cap room after the trade, which should give us the ammo to go after any of the FA's that we want, sans Ben Wallace. 

And for the most part, I actually don't worry too much about Lamar's attitude. I think he's kinda like Rasheed, where if you put him in a situation where he has to be the man, he'll disappoint, since he doesn't have the personality for it, even if he has the talent. But if you put him on a team where he can just be 'one of the guys' he blends right in and feels more comfortable using his talents. And with our stable of jibby, hard-working, team players, and the structure and discipline that Skiles would provide, I actually think he'd assimilate pretty easily, like he did with Pat Riley and the Heat, and on the olympic team. He's always struck me as a good teammate and someone people always get along with. In other words, he's not Zach Randolph.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

I've been clamoring for the guy since day 1. He'd be a perfect fit.

Moving both picks would drive the draft addicts crazy though. He's probably worth it...though I'd like to hold on to 16.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

Has a concrete figure come out for how much cap space the Bulls would have this summer come out?

The reason I'm asking is I don't see how Odom would take up all the cap space if cap space would be ~15M. Odom makes ~12.5M in 06-07, subtracting the ~4M that the 2 picks would make=Odom taking up ~8.5M. There should be some money still left to use in free agency after that.

I'd do the trade. Odom is a veteran, he's good, he's versatile, and he is only 26. The Bulls need should look for players of starting quality at both power forward and center with the uncertainty Chandler represents, and Odom made the all-star team(I think) with Miami, playing the 4. He would make it so that the Bulls have at least one other big besides Chandler who can reliably get defensive rebounds, which I thought was a problem even when Curry and Davis were with the team.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

rosenthall said:


> Like others have said, this deal isn't too bad, but I'd make it contingent on two things:
> 
> We keep the #16 pick, since I think the odds of it yielding a useful big guard/post player are pretty good, and that we be able to send out enough salary to have enough cap room left to still be able to make moves in FA.
> 
> ...



Well said, rosenthall. Well thought out. I like it.

:yes:


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

rosenthall said:


> Like others have said, this deal isn't too bad, but I'd make it contingent on two things:
> 
> We keep the #16 pick, since I think the odds of it yielding a useful big guard/post player are pretty good, and that we be able to send out enough salary to have enough cap room left to still be able to make moves in FA.
> 
> ...


I think we have options on both O'fella and Malik. Their salaries = about $5.5 M + 2nd pic salary 3.2 M = 8.7 M. Since Odom's salary next year is about $12.5 M, cap space would be reduced by about $3.8 M. That leaves plenty for Przybilla/Nazr + Songaila. I'd like to hold onto Sweeney during his contract year. He could break out.

Hinrich Duhon
Gordon #16
Deng Nocioni
Odom Sweetney Songaila
Przybilla Chandler

Good low post offense and rebounding from the pfs and good internal defense & rebounding from the centers. This team could go a very long way.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

McBulls said:


> I think we have options on both O'fella and Malik. Their salaries = about $5.5 M + 2nd pic salary 3.2 M = 8.7 M. Since Odom's salary next year is about $12.5 M, cap space would be reduced by about $3.8 M. That leaves plenty for Przybilla/Nazr + Songaila. I'd like to hold onto Sweeney during his contract year. He could break out.
> 
> Hinrich Duhon
> Gordon #16
> ...


That's not too bad, I think i'd also pull the trigger on that trade. We keep the core and add a young allstar and an improving big defensive center, sign me up. Plus, we could get a good guard at #16, either one of Brewer, Carney, Sefolosha is alright with me.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Big fan of Odom.

If we could add Odom and Przy, and only give up our picks this year and scrap, its a successful off season, IMO. 

The team mcbulls listed will be a good one.... and we'll still have next year's pick swap in our favor to take a bet on the future.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

The #2 & Duhon, sure

I'd do THAT


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

Way , but way too much for Odom. 

He's injury prone , not tough on D , and prefers the outside game. does not really help his teams . good on stats , very good passer for his position.

no thanxs for me!


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

I'm warming up to the idea more and more.

Adding Odom to a young team that's made the dance 2 straight seasons, plus adding another big man to tangle down low and take up space.... this team can really take it to the next level. (For those who are waiting on cap space.. I think it _still_ doesn't hurt our chances. Why? Because we're essentially adding an established young talent to our roster and another 'asset' if we need to do a consolidation trade. Hinrich/Gordon/Deng/Noch and still signed on the cheap. Chander/Odom are big contracts... we can/could be major players come trading deadline '07)


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

bullet said:


> Way , but way too much for Odom.
> 
> He's injury prone , not tough on D , and prefers the outside game. does not really help his teams . good on stats , very good passer for his position.
> 
> no thanxs for me!


This is a popular misconception about Odom. He actually takes an pretty high number of close-range shots (51% of his attempts last year, according to 82games.com) for a 6-11 forward with 3-point range. Compare his 51% with . . . 

Elton Brand -- 30%
Kevin Garnett -- 30%
Jermaine O'Neal -- 33%
Yao Ming -- 49%
Tim Duncan -- 44%
Shaquille O'Neal -- 76%
Eddy Curry -- 85%
Zack Randolph -- 37%
Troy Murphy -- 34%
Rasheed Wallace -- 16%

So basically, short of the true bruising low-post centers, Odom gets inside as much as anyone in the league.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> We need 2 bigs. We want a 4th, taller guard to mix into the rotation. The former is oxygen. The latter is cheesecake.


But Ron, you forget that you need oxygen to bake a cheescake. Actually, I'm not sure if you forgot that. . . or sure how thats relevant to the analogy.


I would vote no. I like Roy as a prospect too much and want to be able to root for him next year. But that may very well be just my perogative. We have heard nothing from the powers that be, that the Bulls are set on acquiring Roy.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> thanks ron. i just remember pax's interview at the end of the season where he said that they are "very aware" of the need to get bigger in the backcourt (in ADDITION to a very pressing and the more priority need up front).


Oh I know he said that. And I know he believes that. I just don't agree with him. This would be one of those instances where I don't agree with Paxson on a significant subject that will be forgotten in the future when I'm referred to as a Kool-Aid Kid.

Yes, it will be better to have Kirk not guarding bigger guards all the time. But the net benefit of that is moderate whereas the net benefit of improving our wretched cast of big men is likely quite a bit more significant in my book. 

Lest there is any confusion, I think the big guard issue should be addressed. I think it will be addressed. I just have a different prioritization for how and when it moves from convenience to "need".


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> This is a popular misconception about Odom. He actually takes an pretty high number of close-range shots (51% last year, according to 82games.com) for a 6-11 forward with 3-point range. Compare his 51% with . . .
> 
> Elton Brand -- 30%
> Kevin Garnett -- 30%
> ...


I agree. The fact that Odom is skilled and can do stuff like bring the ball up court and shoot from outside is nice, but he's really at his best in the post. Odom is a terrific post player on offense, I'm not sure why more people don't realize this.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Oh I know he said that. And I know he believes that. I just don't agree with him. This would be one of those instances where I don't agree with Paxson on a significant subject that will be forgotten in the future when I'm referred to as a Kool-Aid Kid.
> 
> Yes, it will be better to have Kirk not guarding bigger guards all the time. But the net benefit of that is moderate whereas the net benefit of improving our wretched cast of big men is likely quite a bit more significant in my book.
> 
> Lest there is any confusion, I think the big guard issue should be addressed. I think it will be addressed. I just have a different prioritization for how and when it moves from convenience to "need".


I agree, I'd say the big guard would be just fine as a role player off the bench, no need to spend the 2nd overall pick for that hole. The backcourt has functioned pretty well without a big guard the last two years. The frontcourt last year was horrible, the worst in the league.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

I don't really like it. First off, I don't see why we'd have to give up the #16 pick in the deal. Secondly, I'd like to send them a little salary back in Sweetney. However, if we had to send the the #16 pick and got back the #26, Mardy Collins might be there. Signing Pryz with the remainder of our cap room, we'd look improved over last year:

Hinrich, Duhon
Gordon, Collins
Nocioni, Deng
Odom, Songaila 
Pryzbilla, Chandler

Now let's factor that against:

Hinrich, (Roy), Pargo
Gordon, (Roy)
Nocioni, Deng
Gooden, Sweetney, Alexander Johnson
Pryzbilla, Chandler

(we trade Duhon for Gooden in a S&T)

or:

Hinrich, Duhon
Gordon, Brewer/Sefolosha
Nocioni, Deng
Chandler, Aldridge
Pryzbilla, Sweetney

It's hard to say which would be a better team. I tend towards the teams with the rookies. It scares me that Phil thinks Roy is worthy of a #2 pick, plus parting with an exceptional talent like Odom. I think Kobe and Roy (Batman and Robin, pt. 2) would blow up in LA. I'd actually have to watch the Lakers again.

However, I think all three rosters are an improvement over our 05-06 team.

BTW, if we are able to acquire Aldridge and Brewer (good luck), I will be able to deal without Brandon Roy.


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

BULLS23 said:


> I hate that trade on every level . . . I think I just threw up in my mouth.
> .


:laugh:


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

jbulls said:


> I agree. The fact that Odom is skilled and can do stuff like bring the ball up court and shoot from outside is nice, but he's really at his best in the post. Odom is a terrific post player on offense, I'm not sure why more people don't realize this.


Offensive minded post players worth the 2nd and 16th picks plus significant cap space shoot better than 45% from the field and get to the line more than 4.7 times per game.


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> I think I'd be just as happy with Aldridge, Brewer and a good shot at Drew Gooden or Nene if the latter shows some health (I don't think we'd have enough space after taking on Odom but I could be wrong). Odom seems to constantly fold under pressure.


I agree.
:clap:

IMHO, Deng at the 4 would be a GREAT imitation of Shareef Abdur-Rahim!!!


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

TripleDouble said:


> Offensive minded post players worth the 2nd and 16th picks plus significant cap space shoot better than 45% from the field and get to the line more than 4.7 times per game.


I never said Odom was worth the 2nd and the 16th pick in the draft. I do think he'd make a great fit in Chicago though.

I have no problem with his field goal percentage. Odom shot 48% last year, and 47% the year before that, with a fair amount of 3's mixed in. Also, the idea that he doesn't get to the line enough is bogus. Let's compare him to some other good forwards:

Lamar Odom: 12.9 FGA's per game, 4.7 FTA's
Elton Brand: 15.4, 6.6
Shawn Marion: 15.9, 3.3
Tim Duncan: 16.7, 7.5
Kevin Garnett: 16.5, 5.0
Richard Jefferson: 11.9, 5.7
Rasheed Wallace: 13.0, 3.3

Odom gets to the line at a better rate than Rasheed Wallace, Shawn Marion and Kevin Garnett. He doesn't live on the line but he gets there plenty - and it's not like he plays inside all the time. As for the offensive minded jab, what does that mean? He's a decent defender and an excellent rebounder.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

jbulls said:


> I never said Odom was worth the 2nd and the 16th pick in the draft. I do think he'd make a great fit in Chicago though.
> 
> I have no problem with his field goal percentage. Odom shot 48% last year, and 47% the year before that, with a fair amount of 3's mixed in. Also, the idea that he doesn't get to the line enough is bogus. Let's compare him to some other good forwards:
> 
> ...



I'm not sure why you're comparing him to an SF (Jefferson). His field goal percentage went up with LA but he took less shots and scored below his career average (I would guess because of Kobe). 

That said, he is obviously a good offensive player. My point he's not good enough offensively to compensate for his average defense and be worth the proposed package. I'm really not excited by the prospect of fielding a team that has two average defenders (Odom and Gordon) getting 70 minutes per game and that lacks a go-to offensive superstar.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

TripleDouble said:


> I'm not sure why you're comparing him to an SF (Jefferson). His field goal percentage went up with LA but he took less shots and scored below his career average (I would guess because of Kobe).
> 
> That said, he is obviously a good offensive player. My point he's not good enough offensively to compensate for his average defense and be worth the proposed package. I'm really not excited by the prospect of fielding a team that has two average defenders (Odom and Gordon) getting 70 minutes per game and that lacks a go-to offensive superstar.


I threw Jefferson in there because he's a high profile forward. Odom plays the 3 plenty. If your complaint is that Odom is an average defender and not a go-to offensive superstar I guess I can't argue. Do you think we'd be a bad defensive team with Ben Gordon and Lamar Odom on the court? I don't. I think a lineup of Gordon, Hinrich, Deng, Odom and Chandler would defend just fine.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

jbulls said:


> I threw Jefferson in there because he's a high profile forward. Odom plays the 3 plenty. If your complaint is that Odom is an average defender and not a go-to offensive superstar I guess I can't argue. Do you think we'd be a bad defensive team with Ben Gordon and Lamar Odom on the court? I don't. I think a lineup of Gordon, Hinrich, Deng, Odom and Chandler would defend just fine.


Not a bad defensive team. Just not close to as good as they have the potential to become this offseason. 

What would you be willing to trade for Odom?


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

TripleDouble said:


> Not a bad defensive team. Just not close to as good as they have the potential to become this offseason.
> 
> What would you be willing to trade for Odom?


I'm not totally sure. Maybe the #2 and a contract we don't want - Sweetney or Harrington if he's gauranteed (which I still can't figure out).


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Count me on the "I wouldnt make this deal" side.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Odom equals JRose and we have already done that and look how that turned out.

Odom doesnt bring anything that deng and noci dont already have and he is on my all NBA soft team. I hear he has his uniform specially cleaned to be really soft.

david


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

giusd said:


> Odom equals JRose and we have already done that and look how that turned out.
> 
> Odom doesnt bring anything that deng and noci dont already have and he is on my all NBA soft team. I hear he has his uniform specially cleaned to be really soft.
> 
> david



Odome and JRose are NOTHING alike.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Odome and JRose are NOTHING alike.



++
!!


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Odom and JRose are both left handed, soft playing SF who are strong scorers but play very weak defensive, dont rebound well, and dont appear to be playing that hard. Nothing like.

david


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

giusd said:


> Odom and JRose are both left handed, soft playing SF who are strong scorers but play very weak defensive, dont rebound well, and dont appear to be playing that hard. Nothing like.
> 
> david


 I believe Odom's lifetime RPG average of 8.5 would render that statement invalid.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

giusd said:


> Odom and JRose are both left handed, soft playing SF who are strong scorers but play very weak defensive, dont rebound well, and dont appear to be playing that hard. Nothing like.
> 
> david


Odom is a power forward, and he would fit in perfectly on this team. I simply don't understand why people are bringing Jalen into this discussion, seems like we want to talk about our old players more than anything else sometimes...

As for your other comments, Odom doesn't rebound well? 16 players in the NBA had more rebounds per game than Odom in the regular season, that's right, 16. Yeah, I can see why it's obvious that he's a terrible rebounder.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Anyhow, I've had practically the whole work day to think about this and it has my blessing provided that:

A) We have enough cap room to pursue Nazr and/or Pryz
B) We receive compensation in the form of their first rounder and/or Mihm/Cook

Obtaining a serviceable big two guard would also be nice, but not necessary.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Personally I think Odom is a bit of a head case. And 99% of the time in pro sports, it's "once a headcase, always a headcase." 

No doubt Odom has some good stats and that he's incredibly talented. I just can't get past the fact that he hasn't been much of a game changer throughout his career. I don't think he's the sort of guy to put us over the top. It's hard to give a specific reason why...I guess the best I can describe is that when the going gets tough, I rarely see Lamar Odom stepping up his play and getting after it. He's a fine player to have in your starting lineup and his versatility as a 3/4 is certainly nice. I just think he's better suited being a complimentary player to someone who CAN take control of a game (not named Kobe Bryant of course).


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

mr.ankle20 said:


> thats way to much for odom I would trade the 16th pick and chandler for odom. But not both picks for odom


The Lakers would laugh in your face if you offered that to us.

The fact is that there is not a very good chance that LaMarcus Aldridge, Tyrus Thomas, Adam Morrison or Brandon Roy will ever do better than the 17/9/5 that Odom can provide.

As a Lakers fan, I would be thoroughly disappointed if we traded our second best player who looked like an All-Star and helped us play fantastically in the last 32 games of the season for 2 rookies.

Hinrich/Duhon
Gordon
Nocioni/Deng
Odom/Sweetney/Songaila
Chandler/FA

That is just a darn good team.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Damian Necronamous said:


> The fact is that there is not a very good chance that LaMarcus Aldridge, Tyrus Thomas, Adam Morrison or Brandon Roy will ever do better than the 17/9/5 that Odom can provide.


That's it in a nutshell.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

giusd said:


> Odom and JRose are both left handed, soft playing SF who are strong scorers but play very weak defensive, dont rebound well, and dont appear to be playing that hard. Nothing like.
> 
> david


Methinks you speak of what you do not know. Odom is not a "soft" small forward at all. At that position, he's actually quite physical. Moreover, in Chicago he'd pretty much be a full time power forward.

He is a good and versatile defender. To compare him to Jalen Rose defensively is to compare Ben Gordon and Ben Wallace in a free throw contest. 

Don't rebound well? In the last three years, Odom has averaged 9.7, 10.2, and 9.2 rebounds respectively. That was good for 12th in the entire NBA this last season and even better the seasons before. He's one of the best rebounders in the game regardless of position and he's the second best rebouding small forward in all of basketball behind only Shawn Marion. 

Don't "appear" to play hard might be true. But that is an appearance, not a reality. Jalen Rose "appears" to not play hard because he doesn't play hard. Odom appears to not play hard because he's smooth. 

I'm not saying this guy busts *** like Nocioni, but Odom is not some soft bum deserving scorn and ridicule. Jalen Rose, however, is.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

truebluefan said:


> Actually Odom would fit the team perfectly! A passing, good shooting, good rebounding PF. But at what price? Cap space for LA and two young players.
> 
> This trade would improve us. Lamar is only 26. We would still need a center and a big SG.


After watching Terry and Harris + Jason Williams, Steve Nash , Leandaro Barbosa etc ..I think this big guard obsession is a bit of hoo haa

Wade and Billups are solid but they are not huge at 6'4 and 6'3 respectively

Rip's a twig that primarily uses speed off screen curls 

Big guard...big schmard

The game is emerging into one of speed and smaller quick ( but strong guards ) that can get inside and finish - and teams with these assets are fairing better . We have some of those styled assets ( incomplete works in progress ) but it is a large part of the reason why we have become a legitimate team again ..not ready to challenge yet , but legitimate and competitive with high upside to improve

Didn't the diminutive Tony Parker lead the most points in the paint for the league this year ?

Once more ..big guard big schmard


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Methinks you speak of what you do not know. Odom is not a "soft" small forward at all. At that position, he's actually quite physical. Moreover, in Chicago he'd pretty much be a full time power forward.
> 
> He is a good and versatile defender. To compare him to Jalen Rose defensively is to compare Ben Gordon and Ben Wallace in a free throw contest.
> 
> ...


Agree on all of this. Good points


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> Methinks you speak of what you do not know. Odom is not a "soft" small forward at all. At that position, he's actually quite physical. Moreover, in Chicago he'd pretty much be a full time power forward.
> 
> He is a good and versatile defender. To compare him to Jalen Rose defensively is to compare Ben Gordon and Ben Wallace in a free throw contest.
> 
> ...



Way to set the record straight!


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Yes, let go by the clippers. Plays one year in Miami, bang gone. One year in LA and they spend all summer trying to trade him. Last year he is on the block again. And now they want to trade him AGAIN. The record has sure been fixed. He really is phyisical, whatever.

Pjax hates soft players and he has been trying to get rid of him from day one. 

How many times has he been suspended for smoking pot. The only time he shows any intensity is when he is rolling a joint.

The guy is a head case just like Jrose. All potential and no production.

WORD.

david


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Methinks you speak of what you do not know. Odom is not a "soft" small forward at all. At that position, he's actually quite physical. Moreover, in Chicago he'd pretty much be a full time power forward.
> 
> He is a good and versatile defender. To compare him to Jalen Rose defensively is to compare Ben Gordon and Ben Wallace in a free throw contest.
> 
> ...


 :clap: looks like you and those that agree have seen lamar play ball the last couple years!


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> After watching Terry and Harris + Jason Williams, Steve Nash , Leandaro Barbosa etc ..I think this big guard obsession is a bit of hoo haa
> 
> Wade and Billups are solid but they are not huge at 6'4 and 6'3 respectively
> 
> ...


But you can't say defense shmeefence. That is why we need a big guard. Free up kirk a bit. It'd also be nice to have a slashing scorer and another guard who can shoot high % from the field.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> But you can't say defense shmeefence. That is why we need a big guard. Free up kirk a bit. It'd also be nice to have a slashing scorer and another guard who can shoot high % from the field.


I wonder if Marquis Daniels could be had for the right price. He'd be a great fit and, with the emergence of Devin Harris and Josh Howard, isn't playing a ton lately.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

jbulls said:


> I'm not totally sure. Maybe the #2 and a contract we don't want - Sweetney or Harrington if he's gauranteed (which I still can't figure out).


Harrington has a team option for 3.5, so he's gone, thats too much. Allen aslo has a tO for 1.7, thats a deal I would like to keep. Sweets should be the guy to go if this trade went down.

2, 16, and cap is a bit much. If you replace the 16th with Sweets we can talk. Pryzbilla would be a lock if this trade went down, he's likes us we like him, we have the money bodda bing


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

giusd said:


> Yes, let go by the clippers. Plays one year in Miami, bang gone. One year in LA and they spend all summer trying to trade him. Last year he is on the block again. And now they want to trade him AGAIN. The record has sure been fixed. He really is phyisical, whatever.
> 
> Pjax hates soft players and he has been trying to get rid of him from day one.
> 
> ...


Ok, this is Bill Cosby talking 

"That's the stupidest damn thing I've ever heard in my life!"

I don't see how anyone who grabs as many rebounds as he does can be considered soft, I guess because he has the skills to play the perimeter. LAC was too cheap to keep him and BRAND(both FA's same year). He got traded from Miami for SHAQ, LAL is a bad fit and he's still their second best player behinde KOBE. And Karl Malone will tell you about 80% of the guys in the league smoke pot, not that it's a desirable trait. 

All potential and no production, Bill say it again "Jello?" :raised_ey


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

The Lakers brought Phil Jackson to win a championship, right? So why would they trade us such a terrific player, that can play multiple positions (practically 5), that is young for two first rounders when this draft is considered one of the weakest in recent memory? Whats the logic? Just a little capspace to try to spend in a weak free agent class?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

jbulls said:


> I wonder if Marquis Daniels could be had for the right price. He'd be a great fit and, with the emergence of Devin Harris and Josh Howard, isn't playing a ton lately.


good idea..i've thought about this too...

he can handle the rock, play some point, he slashes, has a nice jumper and is a pretty good defender...


----------



## pmac34 (Feb 10, 2006)

Kwame + Odom + Cook

for:

Chandler + Deng + #2

happy?


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

pmac34 said:


> Kwame + Odom + Cook
> 
> for:
> 
> ...


Did someone say something about puking in their mouth?

I don't care that Kwame is slightly better than Chandler, but their personalities make it a wash. We need Tyson's fire. I wouldn't even trade Deng and Chandler for those guys, or 2 and Chandler, and don't even make me get into Deng and 2.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> The Lakers brought Phil Jackson to win a championship, right? So why would they trade us such a terrific player, that can play multiple positions (practically 5), that is young for two first rounders when this draft is considered one of the weakest in recent memory? Whats the logic? Just a little capspace to try to spend in a weak free agent class?


there's mention that aside from grabbing a guy like Roy, it would free them up for the 2007 class too.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

jbulls said:


> I wonder if Marquis Daniels could be had for the right price. He'd be a great fit and, with the emergence of Devin Harris and Josh Howard, isn't playing a ton lately.


I'd be TOTALLY into that idea. Do you think Sweetney and the #16 could swing it? Daniels makes 5.8 mil next year, and Sweets makes 2.6, so the cap hit would only be 3.2 mil, minus whatever the #16 pick would be worth.

If we choose not to select Roy and Brewer doesn't last until #16, I'd be game.


----------



## H.O.V.A. (Jul 13, 2005)

Odom is instant impact in terms of performance. The Bulls have the option on NY's pick in 2007. Yes capspace will take a hit, but do you guys really want to commit to an aging Ben Wallace when TC would benefit from playing off the ball with Odom in the post? Chicago could potentially be losing out on Al Harrington, Nene, and Pryzbilla, but these guys would only be filling the front court. Chicago's future is bright no matter which way you look at it, but trading for Odom will speed things up. 

Besides rebounding, Odom can *attack* the rim. Remember how much you've hated the FT disparity this whole past season? I've never focused on FT disparity as much as I have this past season. He is tougher than Al Harrington without a doubt. Odom might not have as nice as a scoring touch, but I'm fine with that, and thats _if_ we decide not to pursue Harrington or lose out on him.

Next year has always been slated as the "push" year anyways. How long can Shaq hold up in Miami? New Jersey? Indiana? Detroit? None of those teams scare me. Cleveland scares me, but there's nothing that can be done about King James. Aldridge, TT, Morrison, Roy, Bargs, or even my fave, Rudy Gay, won't even come close to contributing the way Odom could.


----------



## pmac34 (Feb 10, 2006)

Hustle said:


> Did someone say something about puking in their mouth?
> 
> I don't care that Kwame is slightly better than Chandler, but their personalities make it a wash. We need Tyson's fire. I wouldn't even trade Deng and Chandler for those guys, or 2 and Chandler, and don't even make me get into Deng and 2.


well Tysons contract is big and ugly. thats what i was getting at


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I'd be TOTALLY into that idea. Do you think Sweetney and the #16 could swing it? Daniels makes 5.8 mil next year, and Sweets makes 2.6, so the cap hit would only be 3.2 mil, minus whatever the #16 pick would be worth.
> 
> If we choose not to select Roy and Brewer doesn't last until #16, I'd be game.


I'm not sure. If there's a guy Dallas really likes at 16, perhaps. I'm not sure they'd commit to in advance though. On the plus side, Cuban seems to be trying to be fiscally more responsible these days and they're going to have to throw a bunch of money at Jason Terry if they want to keep him. It's possible...


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

H.O.V.A. said:


> Aldridge, TT, Morrison, Roy, Bargs, or even my fave, Rudy Gay, won't even come close to contributing the way Odom could.


I think that's stretching it.

As good as Odom is, he's still one of those "if only he'd play to his full potential" types.

I compared Deng and Odom's numbers for the year and Odom only had deng beat by a few rebs and assists.

A few of those players have potential to be alot BETTER than Odom, maybe not their first year, but down the line.


----------



## H.O.V.A. (Jul 13, 2005)

The ROY said:


> As good as Odom is, he's still one of those "if only he'd play to his full potential" types.


Agreed. I'm not talking about the next messiah of basketball either, something that Kobe, Laker fans, and Heat fans have argued at times.



> I compared Deng and Odom's numbers for the year and Odom only had deng beat by a few rebs and assists.


I view the two as different types of players. Deng is more of a hustle guy that can knock down the midrange J. Odom is more of a big-bodied facilitator that attacks the rim and can hit the open 3. If the Bulls felt like going small, they could run a Odom/Noc/Deng/Gordon/Hinrich lineup that would be fairly effective IMO. Otherwise they could slot Odom in at anywhere from the 3-4 spots, which is what Harrington would slotted for as well. The question then becomes if Odom's talent and contract are worth Ben Wallace, Al Harrington, Nene, Jackson Vroman, Paul Shirley, Eddie Gill, and/or Andre Emmett. Of anyone who has been legitmately mentioned as a FA this summer, I'd take Odom everyday of the week (yes even over Big Ben).



> A few of those players have potential to be alot BETTER than Odom, maybe not their first year, but down the line.


Not alot better. Marginally to moderately better perhaps.


----------



## pmac34 (Feb 10, 2006)

only Rudy, Bargnani, and Morrison *can* be better


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I am sorry deng is a better defender and rebounder than odom and he is what 20 years old. noci is already better than odom. Why trade for someone when we already have two players better than odom. Tell me would Pjax trade for deng or noci stright up for odom. I bet he would in a minute.

david


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

Odom is a tweener. he just needs to find a team that can really execute his talents. but his not a defensive player that that fits into the bulls system. his more of an offensive orchestrator in my opinion. and we don't need a point forward when we have Hinrich as our general.


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

**********

NBA: Odom sparking Heat bid for playoff berth

...But Pat Riley saw a player with the potential to reverse the Heat's fortunes, and he drew Odom with a six-year, $65 million deal.

"I knew a lot was going to be asked of me here," Odom says. "It's a position I wanted to be in."

It's a position that has Odom all over the court. He runs the offense from the point, slashes or shoots from the wing and provides a vital inside presence for a team with an undersized center in Brian Grant.

"Lamar's a great player," Sacramento's Vlade Divac says. "He does everything, and he makes the other players better."

Odom has scored in double figures in all but five games, but he takes particular pride in rebounds and assists.

"That means you're getting your teammates involved," he says.

But Odom has been forced to carry the Heat at times. Leading scorer Eddie Jones is struggling through the worst shooting season of his career, and talented rookie guard Dwyane Wade has missed 21 games with injuries.

"Lamar can do so many different things," coach Stan Van Gundy says. "We have asked him to do everything, and he has responded."

...

**********

This is very representative of what Odom did in Miami in 2004. He carried major load for that team, and was much more of a quiet leader/hard worker/good example than any fragile pretty boy. He allowed Wade a lot of shelter as a rookie, and played PF basically the whole playoffs - except when he defended centers. He thrived under the Riley/Van Gundy leadership, which I tend to think is more similar to Chicago than either LA team he's been on. In the playoffs, he would go straight to the rim in crunch time and draw fouls rather than mincing around the 3-point line, too. I'd definitely want him in Chicago for a fair price.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

I'm saying no to Odom. I'm echoing what guisd is saying about him. except about Jalen. Lamar D is far superior and a better rebounder but then a wet rag plays better D than Rose

If you want a playing who will attack the rim, why not get a guy like Maggette? If you're willing to give up a #2 and a mid first rounder for a guy who doesn't match the type of player Paxson wants on this team.

What, all of a sudden our core is mature enough to take in a player like him. We're barely removed from dropping a talented player in Tim Thomas because he wouldn't play/practice the way the team wanted him to act. You think they would bring in a player with a checkered past when given the choice over players they can choose in the draft? 

If we had a guy like Oden, then yes bring in a Odom but we don't and we have a pressing need for a big. period.


----------



## taurus515th (Oct 13, 2005)

i like odom but him in a bulls uniform i just do not c that happening hes more of a LA/Miami/Wizards player lol.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Methinks you speak of what you do not know. Odom is not a "soft" small forward at all. At that position, he's actually quite physical. Moreover, in Chicago he'd pretty much be a full time power forward.
> 
> He is a good and versatile defender. To compare him to Jalen Rose defensively is to compare Ben Gordon and Ben Wallace in a free throw contest.
> 
> ...


:greatjob:


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

The ROY said:


> As good as Odom is, he's still one of those "if only he'd play to his full potential" types.




We don't need his potential, we'll be good enough with his career production: 16ppg, 8.5 rbnds, 4.5 assists.

He's a piece, not a saviour.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

spongyfungy said:


> What, all of a sudden our core is mature enough to take in a player like him.


The only reason he is now longer a heat is because Shaq became available, not because he was trouble and they had to protect Wade. I think the core maturity thing was a board inspired fluke anyway...



> We're barely removed from dropping a talented player in Tim Thomas


:laugh:


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

spongyfungy said:


> I'm saying no to Odom. I'm echoing what guisd is saying about him. except about Jalen. Lamar D is far superior and a better rebounder but then a wet rag plays better D than Rose
> 
> If you want a playing who will attack the rim, why not get a guy like Maggette? If you're willing to give up a #2 and a mid first rounder for a guy who doesn't match the type of player Paxson wants on this team.
> 
> ...


Maggette would be nice, but he's really a 3 though he can play 2. Odom is a 6'10'' guy who can really play. We need somebody like that in the worst way.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Odom is a 6'10'' guy who can really play. We need somebody like that in the worst way.



We had that - Tim Thomas. The problem with Thomas was (as it is with Odom) that he didn't want to practice hard. Also, Odom does not like to play PF. He does it because he has to for his team. I give him credit for that. 

But unless Skiles and Paxson are going to soften up on guys' practice habits and star attitudes - Forget it.

I like Odom alot and wanted him in a Bulls Uni - but he is not a jib guy.

However, if it means that Skiles and Paxson change, Odom would be great.

One other side note, if Chandler was to be included in this deal along with 2 and 16 we are definitely looking at Nazr or Pryz.

PG - Hinrich, Pargo
SG - Gordon, Basden
SF - Deng, Nocioni
PF - Odom, Nocioni
C - Pryzbilla, Schendher


at 26 you might be able to grab Rudy Fernandez to swing between both guard positions.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

giusd said:


> I am sorry deng is a better defender and rebounder than odom and he is what 20 years old. noci is already better than odom. Why trade for someone when we already have two players better than odom. Tell me would Pjax trade for deng or noci stright up for odom. I bet he would in a minute.
> 
> david


 Neither Deng or Noci is better than Odom that is just crazy. 

Draft fever...it is wild. You would be lucky to get someone out of this draft that will be as good as Odom is now 3-4 years from now.

Also I don't get this 'big guard' crap. What difference does it make if you get a big guard that is not better than Gordon or Hinrich?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

chifaninca said:


> But unless Skiles and Paxson are going to soften up on guys' practice habits and star attitudes - Forget it.


If you can play for Riley you can play for anyone. The only reason he's not a Laker is Shaq became available.

To put another way: We'd move KH, or Deng, or Noc or Gordon if superstar vet became available...say Tim Duncan. And it wouldn't be a black mark on them that we did it.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

GB said:


> If you can play for Riley you can play for anyone. The only reason he's not a Laker is Shaq became available.
> 
> To put another way: We'd move KH, or Deng, or Noc or Gordon if superstar vet became available...say Tim Duncan. And it wouldn't be a black mark on them that we did it.


I'm not arguing his value. I agre with you whole heartedly. He's the reason I watch the Lakers.

I'm just telling you, all season long it was whispoers and reports about Odom not practicing hard and always giving 100%. PJ was fed up with it. That's why Odom is available. He's very talented, but he has to be coddled.

Riley totally coddles his players these days. So, he's no where near as intense 24/7/365 like Skiles.

We agree that Odom is better than anyone in the draft for the next few years. I just don't think he'll stay out of Skiles' doghouse long enough to justify the end of rebuilding. He's not just a piece....he becomes the final BIG piece we can add...he's a max player. If we got Bynum, I'm much mroe happy with the deal. That kid works hard and has a better shot than any big in this draft at the Center spot.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

GB said:


> I think the core maturity thing was a board inspired fluke anyway...














GB said:


> :laugh:


:|


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> Draft fever...it is wild.


Isn't it? Absolutely amazing.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

MemphisX said:


> Neither Deng or Noci is better than Odom that is just crazy.
> 
> Draft fever...it is wild. You would be lucky to get someone out of this draft that will be as good as Odom is now 3-4 years from now.
> 
> Also I don't get this 'big guard' crap. What difference does it make if you get a big guard that is not better than Gordon or Hinrich?


 I agree that Odom is better than Deng and undoubtely would improve this team but the Bulls have holes they need to fill with this draft. I expected Lamar to be 1a with Kobe and he delivered most nights for the Lakers after all the "where's Lamar" or the "Lamar has to step up" 

Andres and Deng however have some of the skills that Lamar brings to the table. I even believe Andres would have averaged 18 and 8 on that Lakers team.

Also the big guard need is a real issue, mainly for defense. Eddie Basden has not panned out for the Bulls and it's tough to find guys who fit the paxskiles mold. Kirk is usually guarding the taller shooting guards in the league and the coaching staff has expressed that they want him to play and guard PG's on some nights.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

chifaninca said:


> We had that - Tim Thomas. The problem with Thomas was (as it is with Odom) that he didn't want to practice hard. Also, Odom does not like to play PF. He does it because he has to for his team. I give him credit for that.
> 
> But unless Skiles and Paxson are going to soften up on guys' practice habits and star attitudes - Forget it.
> 
> ...


Thomas and Odom are totally different players. And since when is Odom a bad practice player? I live in LA and have never heard that.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> But you can't say defense shmeefence. That is why we need a big guard. Free up kirk a bit. It'd also be nice to have a slashing scorer and another guard who can shoot high % from the field.


who is to say that that couldn't be the 6'3 Shannon Brown ?

And I will say defense shmeefence. There I said it 

Dallas, Miami, Phoenix , are hardly known to have stellar back court defense and they don't feature "the big guard" Stack is a reserve and certainly doesn't D up and is there to score ..marquis daniels hardly sees any burn 

The game seems to be trending toward a fast paced offense focus where small speedy guards that are very good off the dribble or in transition are having an impact

The team that has those assets and can also execute transition D and play effective team / help D in zones ( The Bulls have a chance to be this team with players sort of resembling the type of assets that are required ) is going to be the team that has good shots at winning a title or three in a window of time 

Give this team an other 2 - 3 seasons and we'll be right there IMO

If we must persist with "Big Guard" to fulfill our basketball symmetry..dogma , of therefore it shall be , personally I would like to take a punt on Devin Brown and see whether he can be shaken loose from Utah


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Funny didnt noci have the same or better numbers than odom in the playoffs? And dont noci and deng play much better defensive than Odom. And deng is only 20 years old. I am sorry but i would not trade either noci or deng for odom and my bet is either would paxson. But i bet pjax would trade odom for deng stright up.

david


----------



## furious styles (Mar 31, 2006)

Ron Cey said:


> Good points. I haven't really thought through all of the aspects of the rumor. But the more I think about it, the more I like it.
> 
> Especially if the posters saying we'd still have $7 or so mil in free agency to throw at another big are correct in their calculations.
> 
> ...


 i warming up the idea as well, keeping our pic someone reduces the sting alot. howevr adding another big guard is almost like adding an additional offensive player, being that kirk defensive responsbilities are reduce.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

I really don't see the infactuation with Odom. Sure he is a talent. But will he go all out like the rest of the team? Is he defensive enough? Does he fit into the system. I definitly don't agree with the Tim Thomas comparisons as Odom is alot more multi skilled the the one dimensial Thomas. But i just don't see how fits into the Bulls scheme. Is he worth the max contract? People seem to be forgetting that. That will only cause trouble to resign our core in the future. Like a few people have suggested i prefer someone like Magette who also can play Sg/Sf who is alot more aggressive and plays all out on defensive is a slasher that could be useful for the bulls. He always gets to the line on a regular basis and is a very good free throw shooter. and his contract is also not bloated as is Odoms. I just don't see how the positives outweighing the negatives long term on whether fits into the system or financially. I think it will only stunt the team and cripple them finacially to sign the younger guns.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

giusd said:


> Funny didnt noci have the same or better numbers than odom in the playoffs? And dont noci and deng play much better defensive than Odom. And deng is only 20 years old. I am sorry but i would not trade either noci or deng for odom and my bet is either would paxson. But i bet pjax would trade odom for deng stright up.
> 
> david



Right but the premise of this thread doesn't have us giving up Nocioni or Deng for Odom. p.s. have you looked at what Odom did in the playoffs?


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Thomas and Odom are totally different players. And since when is Odom a bad practice player? I live in LA and have never heard that.



I Live in LA as well. I hear it on the radio and almost all my friends are Laker or Clipper fans. They tell me all the time the stuff they hear "off the record", much like we get nuggets occassionally explainging what's going on in the inside. It's his attitude. He's not a motivated guy. He's got all the talent in the world and if we just needed a piece, he'd be great. This proposed move would essentially end rebuilding (sans the NY pick next year) and we're still short a real center. 

Now, if I didn't want to play with Kobe (as some suggest) I might have a bad attitude as well.

Also, the point on Thomas was he was talented, but talent alone doesn't cut it with Skiles.

As for Odom, if he came here we'd have a hell of a player. But at the cost of not rounding out our team. No thanks. Plus losing 1-2 players and the two pick? No he's not worth it. Nocioni can fill in and bring atleast 3/4+ of what Odom brings and do it with heart.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> who is to say that that couldn't be the 6'3 Shannon Brown ?
> 
> And I will say defense shmeefence. There I said it
> 
> ...


Great post up until the last paragraph. 

A big guard isn't needed to fulfill our basketball symmetry... dogma... He's needed so when the Bulls play their 3 guard offense, they have a taller guard who can play better SF on the defensive end. 

Symettry, shmymettry. We just looked really awful with any of Kirk, Gordon, or Duhon trying to guard LeBron.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

chifaninca said:


> I Live in LA as well. I hear it on the radio and almost all my friends are Laker or Clipper fans. They tell me all the time the stuff they hear "off the record", much like we get nuggets occassionally explainging what's going on in the inside. It's his attitude. He's not a motivated guy. He's got all the talent in the world and if we just needed a piece, he'd be great. This proposed move would essentially end rebuilding (sans the NY pick next year) and we're still short a real center.
> 
> Now, if I didn't want to play with Kobe (as some suggest) I might have a bad attitude as well.
> 
> ...


If PJax has a problem with Odom, it's far more lilely that he doesn't play well in the triangle than anything else. There's a LOT of players who griped about the triangle all along.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Great post up until the last paragraph.
> 
> A big guard isn't needed to fulfill our basketball symmetry... dogma... He's needed so when the Bulls play their 3 guard offense, they have a taller guard who can play better SF on the defensive end.
> 
> Symettry, shmymettry. We just looked really awful with any of Kirk, Gordon, or Duhon trying to guard LeBron.


Bingo!!


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Great post up until the last paragraph.
> 
> A big guard isn't needed to fulfill our basketball symmetry... dogma... He's needed so when the Bulls play their 3 guard offense, they have a taller guard who can play better SF on the defensive end.
> 
> Symettry, shmymettry. We just looked really awful with any of Kirk, Gordon, or Duhon trying to guard LeBron.


Lebron LaSchmon 

What you allude to is a tactical coaching blunder not a question of that we don't have the asset(s)

Sure he's still young and developing ..and he is only 21 years old - but Luol Deng is potentially our best two way player and the guy that has the best ability to match up with the Lebron James , Vince Carter , Kobe Bryant , Paul Pierce types 

Individual matchups are important but it is less relevant as it applies to the Bulls given that team defense principles override the requirement / reliance for a one on one lock down perimeter guy + a lock down post guy. 

They would be nice to have but , bugger me , we have led the league the last two years in defensive FG %

And FWIW at this stage Skiles seems to lean toward throwing Nocioni directly at Lebron moreso than anyone else

I have said it not only in this thread but also in others..I think the big guard thing is nice to have but the "must have" element to it ( without it being a role player like Jiri Welsch ) is obsessive and has more to do with basketball feng shui and balance iand all that sh..t then what it does with absolute dire need for this team

We need bigs - a scoring firepower big with a true banging bodied big to throw plenty of screens and body up in the post and help keep the lane tight 

Andrea Bargnani and Joel Pryzibilla come to mind


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Great post up until the last paragraph.
> 
> A big guard isn't needed to fulfill our basketball symmetry... dogma... He's needed so when the Bulls play their 3 guard offense, they have a taller guard who can play better SF on the defensive end.
> 
> Symettry, shmymettry. We just looked really awful with any of Kirk, Gordon, or Duhon trying to guard LeBron.


At times last year it was Pike trying to guard James. Now that was depressing.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Lebron LaSchmon
> 
> What you allude to is a tactical coaching blunder not a question of that we don't have the asset(s)
> 
> ...


Blunder shmunder.

LeBron aside, having to make Kirk defend the big guards all the time has hindered him, IMO. I think his shooting % overall would be better if he wasn't put in the position of dragging 6'5" and 6'6" SGs so often.

Also, as much as I like Ben's teardrops, it would also please me to have a 2 who can actually shoot over somebody once in a while.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

jbulls said:


> At times last year it was Pike trying to guard James. Now that was depressing.


what crap

we played the cavs 4 times last year and pike played 3 minutes across 4 games - 4 possible matchups

look it up


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Blunder shmunder.
> 
> LeBron aside, having to make Kirk defend the big guards all the time has hindered him, IMO. I think his shooting % overall would be better if he wasn't put in the position of dragging 6'5" and 6'6" SGs so often.
> 
> Also, as much as I like Ben's teardrops, it would also please me to have a 2 who can actually shoot over somebody once in a while.



Kirk Schmirk

2 Schmoo

Who is to say that the player you refer to cannot be Luol Deng ?

Must we say Lu ain't a 2 ? He's not a pure 2 and is more a 3 but he matches up against the bigger perimeter players that we will face 

I think we can hold water and get a backup G/F in free agency like Welsch and Salmons and call it a day in the backcourt..although adding some more pace would be desirable for someone that can really play a transition game


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

chifaninca said:


> I Live in LA as well. I hear it on the radio and almost all my friends are Laker or Clipper fans. They tell me all the time the stuff they hear "off the record", much like we get nuggets occassionally explainging what's going on in the inside. It's his attitude. He's not a motivated guy. He's got all the talent in the world and if we just needed a piece, he'd be great. This proposed move would essentially end rebuilding (sans the NY pick next year) and we're still short a real center.
> 
> Now, if I didn't want to play with Kobe (as some suggest) I might have a bad attitude as well.
> 
> ...


I agree that not everyone in LA seems thrilled with Odom, but I've never heard any Laker official even hint that his practice habits are bad. I think Odom is a scapegoat and the fans have problems with him because they'd like to see him be more assertive. I'd like to see him be more assertive to, but I think passive and lazy are different things. Odom could stand to play with more aggression, but I just don't buy that he's a lazy guy.

FWIW, the season Odom played in Miami was mostly under Stan Van Gundy, who I think is probably a very demanding coach and he never had any issues there. I agree that we're still short a center if we get Odom, but I think if we get Przybilla we'll be able to take Chandler off the more physical, good offensive centers.

Nocioni at the 4 is an okay solution in stretches but my problems with that are two-fold:

a) Nocioni, for all his grit and intensity, cannot guard really good offensive power forwards. He's not going to kill you guarding Udonis Haslem, but I would prefer not to have to see him guarding long 4's like Chris Bosh in the post. Odom could do a better job of that.

b) If you move Noc to the 4, you have to play Deng at the 3. Then (if we don't get a big guard) we're stuck with two of the three lilliputans in the backcourt. Against teams like Cleveland or New Jersey with big physical 2's like Vince Carter and Larry Hughes this is a problem.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> what crap
> 
> we played the cavs 4 times last year and pike played 3 minutes across 4 games - 4 possible matchups
> 
> look it up


Perhaps "times" was the incorrect word. I distinctly remember one stretch (at the end of the first half of a game, I believe) vs. Cleveland last year, our starters were playing poorly, Skiles went with one of his weird Pargo/Pike/endofbenchdudes lineups. It may have only been for 3 or 4 minutes, but it was difficult to watch. I think Pike threw the ball out of bounds and scored upon three straight times.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

didnt read every post on this thread so i hope i dont repeat anything but if you're the lakers you dont trade up to #2 to get roy you trade up for bargnani or aldridge.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> The game seems to be trending toward a fast paced offense focus where small speedy guards that are very good off the dribble or in transition are having an impact


that's defintely the trend, but i'd say none of our guards are speedy.
hinrich needs a pick n roll in order to free himself up.
gordan has that hesitation to get by people, but he doesn't blow by people.
duhon is more of an opportunistic slasher. in other words if someone cares to defend him then he's left dribbling the court in circles.

guys like parker, barbosa, nash, terry, devin they have that first step and are comfortable finishing in the paint. they're guys that you have to think about double teaming in order to contain them. maybe it's playing with big men that are actual offensive threats. maybe that's what gives them the extra bit of freedom to use their speed. but at the moment i hesitate to say our pgs are on the list of fastest pg's.


----------



## babybulls23 (May 16, 2005)

jbulls said:


> Perhaps "times" was the incorrect word. I distinctly remember one stretch (at the end of the first half of a game, I believe) vs. Cleveland last year, our starters were playing poorly, Skiles went with one of his weird Pargo/Pike/endofbenchdudes lineups. It may have only been for 3 or 4 minutes, but it was difficult to watch. I think Pike threw the ball out of bounds and scored upon three straight times.


I remember the same thing. At first I was hoping it was a switch from a screen, but then I realized that they really had him matched up on Lebron...sad


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Lebron LaSchmon
> 
> What you allude to is a tactical coaching blunder not a question of that we don't have the asset(s)
> 
> ...


Three guards, Nocioni, and Chandler. I don't see Deng out there.

OK, so you put Deng out there instead of Chandler (or Sweets).

Now you have Deng guarding LeBron, Nocioni guarding Z, and Duhon guarding Yell or Gooden.

Yeah, I saw Skiles desparately try Pike on LeBron a few times. It worked so terribly, he got yanked real quick.

It isn't about balance. Balance schamalance. It's about improving our ability to matchup.

It's also about having a guard who can dunk (highest % shot in the game) or at least finish near the rim - something our guards have real problems with DUE TO HEIGHT.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Three guards, Nocioni, and Chandler. I don't see Deng out there.
> 
> OK, so you put Deng out there instead of Chandler (or Sweets).
> 
> ...


Height shmight.

**wait. what am I talking about**

I agree completely.


----------



## rene_mezny (May 24, 2006)

Why would the Lakers give up Odom for the #2? 

So they have the cap room to sign LeBron if he refuses to extend with Cleveland.

They take Roy as the big triangle "off guard" (the system doesn't use a true point and Roy can handle a bit).

Kobe stays at the 2.

LeBron mans the 3.

That is MJ and Pippen all over again, plus a better off guard than the Bulls ever had.

The Lakers will have traded Odom for LeBron and Roy. 

I am not a conspiracy theorist, pie-in-the-sky "let's sign LeBron" kool-aid drinker, nor am I generally in favor of making current decisions based on future possibilities. I am concerned that if the Lakers actually want to give Odom away, this must be their plan and the Bulls really need to think before helping them out. If LA and Chicago all offer LeBron the max there is no way we beat out LA. However, if Chicago and a bunch of crappy teams offer the max he is much more likely to come to the only good major market team. (I understand our cap space will be gone next year but I assume if LeBron is truly available that we give away Chandler or this year's FA big as well as one of Noc/Deng to clear room). Perhaps change references to "LeBron" to "Wade or LeBron" since Wade may figure out the Heat is going to fall apart just when his contract is up.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

rene_mezny said:


> Why would the Lakers give up Odom for the #2?
> 
> So they have the cap room to sign LeBron if he refuses to extend with Cleveland.
> 
> ...


 Fortunately Wade and Lebron are restricted FAs. LA can have all the money in the world and they won't be able to get Lebron from Cleveland.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

I posted this in the free agent thread as well, sounds very interesting when considering all the Odom talk lately:

Peter Vecsey in the New York Post: 



> The Lakers are looking at Kwame Brown exclusively as a center, meaning Andrew Bynum can be had. The question is, for what/ Since he has no college experience and only one unrevealing year of pro ball, nobody really knows what the New Jersey 7-footer is worth . . . If you believe the media (I never have), the Knicks have placed a gag order on Next Town Brown - a natural progression from the gag season he placed on the rest of us.


Bynum would be very interesting for us, a young legit 7' footer, with great athleticism. If there is any truth to the Odom talk, maybe Bynum could be included in a trade? Seems like a great deal to me, although I'm a bit skeptical towards everything Vecsey comes up with.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

LegoHat said:


> I posted this in the free agent thread as well, sounds very interesting when considering all the Odom talk lately:
> 
> Peter Vecsey in the New York Post:
> 
> ...



If it were something like Odom + Bynum + 26 for #2, Duhon, Sweetney & future 2nd....it would be almost too good to pass up for me.

I like Odom and if they are including Bynum (a project Center with size, and a developing game) and we can grab a swing PG/SG a the #26 (Fernandez) if we don't have someone fall to us at 16.

I believe Odom is a Max player so he would cut deeply into our FA crap space (combined about 16 million coming in) and about (6 Million going out). I think we can still grab a combo of Nazr, Pryz and Salmons/Johnson.

In fact, the more I look at it, the more I like it.

Ring Ring - Mitch Cupcake please -
This is Mitch Cupcake - Sure I'll make that trade cause I wanna prove I can GM like IT anyday........LOL


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

jbulls said:


> Perhaps "times" was the incorrect word. I distinctly remember one stretch (at the end of the first half of a game, I believe) vs. Cleveland last year, our starters were playing poorly, Skiles went with one of his weird Pargo/Pike/endofbenchdudes lineups. It may have only been for 3 or 4 minutes, but it was difficult to watch. I think Pike threw the ball out of bounds and scored upon three straight times.


I went back and had a look and we lost that game by one point 

Outside of the 3 minutes Pike was on the floor what lost that game was our offensive execution where our reserves shot 8 from 27 . Most notably our post men ( Harrington and Sweetney ) were 0 - 6 inside 

In every other statistical category we were there or thereabouts - most notably outrebounding the big bad Cavs 

Also most notably we kept the Cavs to 42.3% from the field and 27% from 3 

Their averages for the season were 45.4% and 33.9% respectively

Lebron dropped 33 on us that game against a season average of 31.5 but only shot 11 from 27 from the field against season average of 48% . He went 11 from 13 from the line ..but only shoots 78% normally ..so he was above his average that night

Any which way you slice it and dice it ......and you could pick a bunch of games and pick them apart against teams with the Bryants , Carters etc etc ...the issue is not really our perimeter defense and these guys exploding on us . They explode anyway - its what they do . All you have to do is contain them to their average or under because your not going to truly shut them down

The issue more than anything else, and what this game was a good illustration of , is getting reliable inside scoring addressed first more than any other team need

Our perimeter is just fine . We need speed and athleticism more than the surface level analysis of "big guard"

Which is why , whilst I do like Brandon Roy , if Pax drafts him at 2 ..it will be borderline negligent IMO

Just sounds nice to have


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

RoRo said:


> that's defintely the trend, but i'd say none of our guards are speedy.
> hinrich needs a pick n roll in order to free himself up.
> gordan has that hesitation to get by people, but he doesn't blow by people.
> duhon is more of an opportunistic slasher. in other words if someone cares to defend him then he's left dribbling the court in circles.
> ...


True but Kirk is no slouch . I think his speed particularly in transition is overlooked a bit . Duhon quick and has the handle and dish to get inside and create..although his shot is still unreliable at times and you can play him tight which takes away and his dribble drive 

The issue with Ben and all our guards in being agressive at the hoop is officiating . Because we are a young team we don't have the respect and their is a fear we won't get the calls. When this makes our guys tentative it takes that aggression in attacking the hoop away a bit


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Three guards, Nocioni, and Chandler. I don't see Deng out there.
> 
> OK, so you put Deng out there instead of Chandler (or Sweets).
> 
> ...


Height Schmeight 

Like I said in the previous post..its more about fear and playing the percentages because your not going to get the call. Maybe not so much Duhon ..but Kirk came out of his shell more last season and improved noticeably in finishing at the rim . All the indicators are there for Gordon as well and he can get inside fairly easily 

What your talking about is elevation and the impact big swinging dick dunking play with the symmetrically correct big guard

That's swell

I'd like to see that too. It would be prettier and more exciting 

However if the team is winning and leading the league in opposition fg% and laying it off the glass or on teardrops when they do have the CONFIDENCE to go inside ( not an issue of ability ) then I will wait for the icing on the Cake later

Incidentally Luol Deng played 41 minutes that game ( the fabled Pike played Lebron game we've been talking about )

The only thing I would say to you in your initial point is that it is indeed a tactical blunder when you are running 3 guards against James, Gooden, Marshall and Z 

How about zoning up in a 2 - 3 with Chandler, Nocioni + Deng / Kirk and Duhon..force them to take it outside or try and drive in and collapse on them if its not working outside

They have 9 players in their core rotation and 2 of them shoot above 35% and 3 shoot at around 33% 

I'll take those odds and take them outside with a zone and force them to try and come inside and beat you .

We scramble and collapse as good as anyone in the league 

2 years in a row leading in opponents fg% tells the story


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Height Schmeight
> 
> Like I said in the previous post..its more about fear and playing the percentages because your not going to get the call. Maybe not so much Duhon ..but Kirk came out of his shell more last season and improved noticeably in finishing at the rim . All the indicators are there for Gordon as well and he can get inside fairly easily
> 
> ...


2 years, 1st round and out tells the story. One with bigs (Curry/AD), one without.


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> 2 years, 1st round and out tells the story. One with bigs (Curry/AD), one without.


What if we trade the 2nd pick and Kirk Hinrich for Jamal Crawford and Eddy Curry.

Will that make things better?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

unBULLievable said:


> What if we trade the 2nd pick and Kirk Hinrich for Jamal Crawford and Eddy Curry.
> 
> Will that make things better?


We could have had Crawford and Curry for just the 2nd pick.

Maybe it would make things better.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> 2 years, 1st round and out tells the story. One with bigs (Curry/AD), one without.


Not really .

In fact not at all

2 years . 1st round and out . Two years without bigs . Eddy Curry didn't play in last year's playoffs

The heart thing ..remember ?

It just underscores my point even moreso

Our fundamental problem is lack of inside production. Our perimeter is not the problem. 

Can we improve the perimeter ?

Sure

But its more about tweaking rather than a total overhaul

And 2 years and 1st round out....geez man I'm sure glad your not a Timberwolves fan with that long hook short noose thing you got going on there 
I believe in Kirk and Ben


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

And because our problem is inside production and to get the thread back on topic I would give up 2 and Du for Lamar Odom 

And take Shannon Brown at #16 if he is there in this scenario. Brown gives us the speed and athleticism we could use more of on the wing

Resign Darius Songaila

Take Lorenzen Wright and Jiri Welsch in free agency and call it a summer 

*

Wright
Odom
Deng
Gordon
Hinrich

bench

Chandler
Songaila
Nocioni
Brown
Welsch

Allen
Sweetney
Pargo
Livingston

*


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I'd set my sights a bit higher than Wright, but if that scenario is what we ended up with, I wouldn't cry.

The reaction on the board might make me cry. 

But my personal faith would not be shaken.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

Odom = Cancer of the team = back to the lottery ( and not via NY)


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I'd set my sights a bit higher than Wright, but if that scenario is what we ended up with, I wouldn't cry.
> 
> The reaction on the board might make me cry.
> 
> But my personal faith would not be shaken.


Just thinking practically my man 

If we have a creator / scorer in Odom , an athletic help defender in Chandler , a guy like Songaila who with Odom gives us two high quality passing big men who are both tailor made for a pick and roll offense in the half court sets........we need a stout post defender who can body up and preferably a true vet who can hold the fort until we augment the frontline with our pick / Knicks pick next summer 

I have pushed Wright as cheaper option than Joel Pryzibilla for sometime , and , if we were to acquire Cheech Odom at 11 large ( on average ) I would think Pax would elect for a more fiscally prudent route with non sexy free agent additions like a vet such as Wright and a 1 through to 3 ball handling reserve in Welsch or Salmons that doesn't impact on the Kirk and Ben backcourt 

We keep a vet point like Livingston to back up but given Odom , Welsch/Salmons ball handling abilities to go with Kirk and Ben ..I don't think we will suffer if we lost Du with #2


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

I haven't read through the entire thread, but Odom is more of a 4 than a 3. He isn't a great defender at either position, getting abused in the low post as a 4 and out quicked on the perimeter. However, offensively, he is much better when he faces up (or posts up) and uses his quickness to blow by his man, and then dishes off to the open player. As a small forward, he too often jab steps and dribbles around doing nothing, before finally shooting a long jump shot because he can't move around his man, and he's not a good shooter. His strength comes when he posts up a smaller defender and backs him down, posts up a bigger defender and blows by him, or slashes by a slower man, because in all three instances he ends up around the hoop where he is a good finisher (and considerably better than shooting) and an excellent passer. And there's the new development in the NBA of going small, playing a 3 at the 4, and running, which would tailor to Odom playing the 4 even more. However, if the Bulls trade for Odom, I would stress the importance of signing Pryzbilla to cover for Odom underneath against traditional teams.

Odom is not a cancer; since Miami, he has matured a considerable amount.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Odom Plus loss of cap space is not enough for the #2. Give me odom and bynum + 26 for the #2 and Sweetney and you have a deal.

At #26you go way off the charts or you trade it for a future first next year.

At 16 you go (Brewer, Carney or Sefalosha - whoever falls to 16).


PG - Hinrich, Duhon
SG - Gordon, Sefalosha
SF - Deng, Nocioni
PF - Odom, Chandler
C - Pryz (though I wish Nene), Bynum


Honestly, that's a damn good team. 


#26 - we could take Paul Davis - Just to see Rlucas vomit

or James White to see if he can really harness the athleticism.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

How do you Get Odom without giving up Chandler though?

I know a #2's contract can't match that of Odoms


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

The ROY said:


> How do you Get Odom without giving up Chandler though?
> 
> I know a #2's contract can't match that of Odoms


 As of July 1st we'll be under the cap. We can absorb the difference.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

sp00k said:


> As of July 1st we'll be under the cap. We can absorb the difference.


I see...

Cool, I like ODOM as the PF

then I'd take Chandler + Duhon and go for the best center I could get


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

The ROY said:


> How do you Get Odom without giving up Chandler though?
> 
> I know a #2's contract can't match that of Odoms



Draft picks don't count for any money. We are under the cap and can take back without matching or being within the 25% rule.

So we can keep hands of stone. 

By taking on Odom's deal, I don't think we can grab a full boat FA like NENE may become once bidding starts, but Pryz or Nazr are definitely in reach. Plus, Bynum is a guy with talent. PJ just hates rooks.


Also, Keep in Mnd the Lakers will have even more FA space to restock with next off-season.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

chifaninca said:


> Give me odom and bynum + 26 for the #2 and Sweetney and you have a deal.


No-brainer. I'd go for this in an eye-blink, even though I like Sweetney more than most.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

McBulls said:


> No-brainer. I'd go for this in an eye-blink, even though I like Sweetney more than most.


Odom = Cancer of our franchise


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

kulaz3000 said:


> Odom = Cancer of our franchise


Odom= Best player on Bulls since Jordan hung them up (the 2nd time...)


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

Jim Ian said:


> Odom= Best player on Bulls since Jordan hung them up (the 2nd time...)


thats not true.

he wasn't as good as Brand was when he was with this team. He isn't better than Hinrich. Maybe the best "Potential" talent we could have. But noway the best player. not by a long short. After so many years in this leauge he still has too many "ifs" in his game.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Big fan of Odom.
> 
> If we could add Odom and Przy, and only give up our picks this year and scrap, its a successful off season, IMO.
> 
> The team mcbulls listed will be a good one.... and we'll still have next year's pick swap in our favor to take a bet on the future.


This is still my vote for most productive way to spend our assets this summer.

Send out Duhon and the number 2 if you don't want to send out the 16th...but to get Odom and Pryz added to what we have already?

Nice foundation. Nice.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I guess I should have come back to this sooner.

Skill wise, Odom is a good fit. However, even under Phil Jackson's tutilage, and even though he's a gym rat, he does some of the most boneheaded things on the court I've seen. He loses focus, and he's been in the league long enough to establish it ain't just a "youth thing". He does some spectacular things sometimes too, but I don't think he'll ever fully escape the bonehead things.

I also think, in general, he's shown himself to be a supporting cast player, not a star. I mean, I agree with those folks who think he won't even be the best guy on the team if he comes here. No one we draft at #2 is going to be either, immediately, but it's possible a guy like Thomas could really blow up in a year or two, whereas we can be pretty sure Odom won't.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> I guess I should have come back to this sooner.
> 
> Skill wise, Odom is a good fit. However, even under Phil Jackson's tutilage, and even though he's a gym rat, he does some of the most boneheaded things on the court I've seen. He loses focus, and he's been in the league long enough to establish it ain't just a "youth thing". He does some spectacular things sometimes too, but I don't think he'll ever fully escape the bonehead things.
> 
> I also think, in general, he's shown himself to be a supporting cast player, not a star. I mean, I agree with those folks who think he won't even be the best guy on the team if he comes here. No one we draft at #2 is going to be either, immediately, but it's possible a guy like Thomas could really blow up in a year or two, whereas we can be pretty sure Odom won't.


Is that a lukewarm endorsement of Tyrus Thomas I hear?!?

:biggrin:


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

jbulls said:


> Is that a lukewarm endorsement of Tyrus Thomas I hear?!?
> 
> :biggrin:


It's interesting that Thomas and Odom play similar positions. 

Of course, Odom is the real deal and TT is a pocket full of promises. 

If I recall, TT worked out for LA some time ago. Maybe this deal has been on the table for a long time. Obviously both teams would have to wait until July to complete the deal officially. If it fell through LA would keep Odom, and the Bulls would keep TT -- which would not be the end of the world for either team.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Is that a lukewarm endorsement of Tyrus Thomas I hear?!?
> 
> :biggrin:


Downright tepid. 

At least if the other option is Lamar Odom. 

To borrow from another thread here, I see Thomas as possibly "the end" one way or another. He's a guy that'll either get a GM known as "the guy who drafted Tyrus Thomas" or get him fired. 

I'm not sure which one it is, but reading the articles it does appear that Pax has covered all his bases and thought of everything (right down to his environment) that can be thought of. Pax's strength has been figuring which guys have "the eye of the tiger" in the draft, so I'm not going to immediately proclaim him a moron for drafting Thomas.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Downright tepid.
> 
> At least if the other option is Lamar Odom.
> 
> ...



Yes, I too am scared of Tyrus, and I think he's going to be our pick, but I will wait it out to see if Paxson got it right.

Nevertheless, I reserve the right to be critical during the offseason if I don't like the players he acquires. 

Hey, if I don't like certain moves that Paxson makes, I hope I will be wrong about all of them. I want to win a lot more than I want to be right about the draft.


----------

