# Hypothetical Matchup, Bulls vs. Bulls



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

This is a homage to K4E's undying love for 3C. Even after all 3C left Bulls, he is still missing them so bad and continuously posting about them.

Main complaint from K4E is that we are better off with 3C RIGHT NOW.

So let's have a hypothetical match. Bulls vs. Bulls!!! Which team do you think will win?

TEAM (a) KH, (Du), Gordon, Deng, Noc + 3C
( assumption: with JC, no room for Du. Other than Orthella or some other filler, no other significant update is possible with monies tied in 3C)

TEAM (b) KH, Du, Gordon, Deng, Noc, PJ, Wallace + Thabo, TT, Khrypa

If a lot of people think Team (a) will beat Team (b), then K4E and some other posters clearly have some point for complaining about Paxon's moves.

But if a lot of people (including me) think Team (b) will beat Team (a), then what is the point for constant moaning over the loss of 3C.

What do you think? 

Team (a)?

Or 

Team (b)?

(Go Team B!!! YES)


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

We'd still have the draft pick we used on Thabo. Let's say we drafted a decent young big like Cedric Simmons.

And we'd still have Duhon.

TEAM A

Hinrich, Duhon, Crawford
Gordon, Crawford
Deng, Nocioni
Nocioni, Chandler (#2 in league in rebounding), Othella
Curry (#2 scoring center in NBA), Chandler, Cedric Simmons


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

The idea is intriguing but when does the game (or series) take place? The fact that the three C's are further along in their careers (have more experience, are close to their peaks, make more money) makes it somewhat difficult to compare their value to the alternatives (other than PJ we're talking about two rookies and the NY pick which should probably be included but is obviously spectulative and unable to play in the NBA right now). 

If the game takes place today I feel like it's a pretty close call with probably a slight edge to the 3 C's team since the rooks are contributing right now but still somewhat raw. A year from now, perhaps I'd give a slight edge to the current team. Two years from now we could be talking about a large edge for the current team but it's difficult to accurately forecast the development of 6 or 7 different young players a couple years from now.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> If the game takes place today I feel like it's a pretty close call with probably a slight edge to the 3 C's team since the rooks are contributing right now but still somewhat raw.


I agree. The three Cs team would win if the game is played now.



> A year from now, perhaps I'd give a slight edge to the current team. Two years from now we could be talking about a large edge for the current team but it's difficult to accurately forecast the development of 6 or 7 different young players a couple years from now.


It all depends on Tyrus and the pick swap. The lotto picks are what will decide where this team goes, just like any rebuilding team.

If we get Oden/Durant and Tyrus turns out to be a stud then that team could be better. The drawback is that we had to wait 3-4 years for this new team to really be able to play.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Let's assume 3C as of now. And let's also assume that Team (A) also has Thabo.

Thank you.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I don't see any real comparison between Curry, Chandler, and Crawford vs. Thabo, Wallace, TT, PJ, and Viktor.

3Cs are MUCH better right now, and still are young and have upside.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> I don't see any real comparison between Curry, Chandler, and Crawford vs. Thabo, Wallace, TT, PJ, and Viktor.
> 
> 3Cs are MUCH better right now, and still are young and have upside.


This is not about the direct comparison between 3C vs. PJ, Wallace, TT, & Viktor. 

Comparison in question is about Team A vs. Team B. 

I do think these two are different questions. No?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> I do think these two are different questions. No?


Not really. Its basically the same team at the 1,2 and 3, expect you have Crawford on board.

Keep in mind that 2 years ago, with a rookie Deng, a rookie Nocioni, a rookie Gordon, a rookie Duhon, a 2nd year Hinrich and a younger, less developed 2 Cs that team won 47 games and was the #3 team in the East.

The Team A team would have 2 more years of experience (think how much better Noc and Deng are now) and Crawford coming off the bench.. along with a Chandler and Curry who are able to stay on the floor longer and be among the best in the league in scoring for big men and rebounding.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> This is not about the direct comparison between 3C vs. PJ, Wallace, TT, & Viktor.
> 
> Comparison in question is about Team A vs. Team B.
> 
> I do think these two are different questions. No?


No.

This team would be SOOOOO much better with just Crawford in the guard rotation. He's the big guard you want at time, and along with gordon, is a Q4 kind of scorer (or end of quarters).

That's not even considering the benefit of having two young ~7-footers who can play together or provide you the option of post scoring or rebounding/defense. Mix/match.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

In a 7 game series Team B wins 4-2


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> No.
> 
> This team would be SOOOOO much better with just Crawford in the guard rotation. He's the big guard you want at time, and along with gordon, is a Q4 kind of scorer (or end of quarters).
> 
> That's not even considering the benefit of having two young ~7-footers who can play together or provide you the option of post scoring or rebounding/defense. Mix/match.


Ben Gordon would kill Crawford at half time when Crawford has taken 20 shots and Gordon none


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> Ben Gordon would kill Crawford at half time when Crawford has taken 20 shots and Gordon none


Crawford seems like a more disciplined player now.

Perhaps Crawford could teach Gordon how to take it to the hole better. Of course, you can't teach height.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> Ben Gordon would kill Crawford at half time when Crawford has taken 20 shots and Gordon none


Doubtful. He and Gordon combined shoot about as much as Iverson


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Crawford seems like a more disciplined player now.
> 
> Perhaps Crawford could teach Gordon how to take it to the hole better. Of course, you can't teach height.


40% shooting on 14 SPG really screams disciplined

I'm not a Gordon fan, but Crawford is vastly overrated in this forum


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Doubtful. He and Gordon combined shoot about as much as Iverson


On different teams, they combine for 4 more SPG than AI. Put them together and Gordon doesn't get to shoot.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Team A would have too many guards with Crawford, Gordon, Hinrich, Duhon, and Sefolosha. So a trade of some kind would be in order (Duhon for Khryapa?).

Team A would be the better team for now IF, and only IF, Skiles could get Curry and Crawford to play defense. Teams that have centers who play matador defense don't go far in a series; particularly when one of their guards has a tendency to do the same. 

Next year team B would have the NY pick swap (Oden?), and TT will have matured into a player who is possibly literally head and shoulders above Chandler. If this comes close to proving out, the glory days of team A would have been very short indeed.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Interesting that the popular argument for Team B being better in the future are the "found money" lotto picks.

If we can land a stud big man in this draft and Tyrus (FIRE PAX!!!!) keeps developing well, the Bulls could be in very good shape going forward. "Win Later."


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Interesting that the popular argument for Team B being better in the future are the "found money" lotto picks.
> 
> If we can land a stud big man in this draft and Tyrus (FIRE PAX!!!!) keeps developing well, the Bulls could be in very good shape going forward. "Win Later."


Pitfall of your constant belittling of current roster as "win later" team is that the one with 3C is not a "win now" team either. Even you suggested that team B has better looking future.

So do you think team A can win the championship "NOW?"

So basically we have two non-championship caliber teams here now. Which team do you rather have? You can guess my answer, I assume.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> So do you think team A can win the championship "NOW?"
> 
> So basically we have two non-championship caliber teams here now. Which team do you rather have? You can guess my answer, I assume.


I think team A can get to the Eastern Conference finals this season.

That team minus Crawford was the 3rd best team in the NBA 2 years ago.... and all of the players are better now than they were 2 seasons ago.

I think everyone can guess everyone else's answers on this one, which makes the poll pointless, IMO.






lgtwins said:


> Pitfall of your constant belittling of current roster as "win later" team is that the one with 3C is not a "win now" team either. Even you suggested that team B has better looking future.


Team B *could* have a better looking future. Its not beyond the rhelm of possibility that the found money TT and pick swap could result in two all-NBA players. 

As for the 3Cs not being on a winning roster, there are several great players in the NBA that are not on winning rosters. And none of those guys are superstars. They are better than Duhon, the Ben Wallace I've seen on the Bulls to this point and creaky 'ol PJ.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I think team A can get to the Eastern Conference finals this season.
> 
> That team minus Crawford was the 3rd best team in the NBA 2 years ago.... and all of the players are better now than they were 2 seasons ago.


Crawford makes it a worse team and how did that team do in the playoffs 2 years ago?

The East is better now than it was 2 years ago.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I think team A can get to the Eastern Conference finals this season.
> 
> That team minus Crawford was the 3rd best team in the NBA 2 years ago.... and all of the players are better now than they were 2 seasons ago.
> 
> ...


You think Team A won't win a cahmpionship this season. (Probably not any time soon? No?)

And you think Team B probably has better future.

So what is you problem with Paxon's move so far?


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Interesting that the popular argument for Team B being better in the future are the "found money" lotto picks.
> 
> If we can land a stud big man in this draft and Tyrus (FIRE PAX!!!!) keeps developing well, the Bulls could be in very good shape going forward. "Win Later."


The question posed by this thread is a false dichotomy. The Bulls could have kept Chandler, so team B could have had Chandler and Wallace (but, of course, no PJ and no Denver 2nd rounders). Greed, not need, motivated the trade of at least the Chander member of the 3 Cs, and was a significant factor in letting the other two go. But you are right, it's better to be lucky than smart. If the 4 picks given by NY in trade for Curry turn out to be good then all is well.

So far the picks have yielded Tyrus Thomas, V. Khryapa, and a 3 spot move up in the 1st round to grab Sefolosha. That alone is a lot of bang for Curry's fat butt. But we are getting some use out of Sweetney, and there still remain the swap this year and a second rounder next year. 

All in all, the Curry trade alone may have yielded enough to pay for all three of the Cs. But that would ignore the fact that the cap space saved in releasing Crawford and Curry helped get Wallace, that the Bulls got some use out of the players gotten in return for Crawford, and they have PJ and two 2nd rounders to show for letting Chander go. 

So... in the long run, and maybe even in the short run the things gotten in return for letting the 3 Cs go are 
1) A team that should be able to play better defense than team A could ever conceive of (Sefolosha, Wallace, TT, Khryapa, PJ >>> Chandler, Curry & Crawford defensively both now and in the future). 
2) Depth at SG, SF, PF and Center. Offensively, the 3 Cs have the advantage, with the caveat that they have much more trouble sharing the ball with teammates than Sefolosha, Wallace, TT, Khryapa and PJ, who are all much better team players than the 3Cs.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> You think Team A won't win a cahmpionship this season. (Probably not any time soon? No?)


I think Team A has a much better chance of winning and advancing deep into the playoffs over the next two seasons than Team B. There is no team in the East that I think would have a tremendous advantage over Team A. And, if the players on Team A keep improving (Noc, Deng, Curry, Chandler, JC, Hinrich) as they have, I think its possibly the best team in the league. A team of above-average players at every position. The Pistons Model. 




lgtwins said:


> And you think Team B probably has better future.


No, I think team A probably has a better future. 



> So what is you problem with Paxon's move so far?


The only way team B is better is due to dumb luck? Found money? That might have something to do with it. The end result could be good, as long as he does not revert to his old ultra conservative self and not draft tyrus thomas (FIRE PAX!!!) types.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> Crawford makes it a worse team and how did that team do in the playoffs 2 years ago?


The starting center and small forward were injured.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

McBulls said:


> <b>The question posed by this thread is a false dichotomy. The Bulls could have kept Chandler, so team B could have had Chandler and Wallace (but, of course, no PJ and no Denver 2nd rounders). </b> Greed, not need, motivated the trade of at least the Chander member of the 3 Cs, and was a significant factor in letting the other two go. But you are right, it's better to be lucky than smart. If the 4 picks given by NY in trade for Curry turn out to be good then all is well.
> 
> So far the picks have yielded Tyrus Thomas, V. Khryapa, and a 3 spot move up in the 1st round to grab Sefolosha. That alone is a lot of bang for Curry's fat butt. But we are getting some use out of Sweetney, and there still remain the swap this year and a second rounder next year.
> 
> ...


No it's not. And you completely missed the point. This is about "current" roster vs. one with 3C. There is no room for Chandler in team B hypothesis. Plus, team A will have barely enough money to keep the entire roster intact in the future and nothing more (Considering the way Paxon works in terms of finance and if he wants to keep all the players mentioned down the road). So not much update for team A in the near future.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> The starting center and small forward were injured.


They weren't good enough to get out of the first round no matter which way you slice it.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I think Team A has a much better chance of winning and advancing deep into the playoffs over the next two seasons than Team B. There is no team in the East that I think would have a tremendous advantage over Team A. And, if the players on Team A keep improving (Noc, Deng, Curry, Chandler, JC, Hinrich) as they have, I think its possibly the best team in the league. A team of above-average players at every position. The Pistons Model.


Above-average  Curry and Crawford are very average to any impartial observer (i.e. non-Knicks fans and half the Bulls fans)


----------



## BullSoxChicagosFinest (Oct 22, 2005)

I will go with Team A (with Thabo btw)


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> Above-average  Curry and Crawford are very average to any impartial observer (i.e. non-Knicks fans and half the Bulls fans)


They are both above average, if you only watch the part of the game where their team is in possession of the ball.

Reverse that for Tyson.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

What ball do they use? the one that's easy to palm or the old one?

The great thing about hypothetical matchups, there's no way to win, hypothetially speaking.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> So let's have a hypothetical match. Bulls vs. Bulls!!! Which team do you think will win?
> 
> TEAM (a) KH, (Du), Gordon, Deng, Noc + 3C
> ( assumption: with JC, no room for Du. Other than Orthella or some other filler, no other significant update is possible with monies tied in 3C)


Most likely, if the Bulls had intended to re-sign Crawford, they would have drafted differently. Gordon looked like a Crawford replacement from the getgo to a lot of folks. Thus, I'll say the Bulls might have drafted Iggy and Deng instead of Gordon and Deng. Since we're being hypothetical, of course, you could say Andris Biedrins or Robert Swift or Al Jefferson too and you'd look pretty good today.

Harrington came in the Crawford trade, so he's out.

We could still have drafted Duhon, but he's further back on the bench. We basically look like:
1- Hinrich, _Crawford_, Duhon
2- Crawford, Iguodala
3- Deng, _Iguodala, Nocioni_
4- Davis, Nocioni, Jerome Williams
5- Curry, Chandler, _Davis_

Fast forward to this year and perhaps we draft Josh Boone, Hilton Armstrong or Cedric Simmons. Maybe Oleksiy Pecherov, who the Wiz didn't bring over this way but who I am pretty sure can play quite well. We sign and keep Songaila around

1- Hinrich, _Crawford_, Duhon
2- Crawford, Iguodala
3- Deng, _Iguodala, Nocioni_
4- Nocioni, Boone, Songaila
5- Curry, Chandler

Of course, there's the chance there are trades along the way too.



> TEAM (b) KH, Du, Gordon, Deng, Noc, PJ, Wallace + Thabo, TT, Khrypa
> 
> If a lot of people think Team (a) will beat Team (b), then K4E and some other posters clearly have some point for complaining about Paxon's moves.
> 
> ...


I think you stacked the deck against the team you didn't like 

Team (b) might squeak out a win in a series this year. It might not. It looks pretty even. Next year (barring a really great MLE signing or luck in the lottery) the (b) team's big guys are way over the hill and they get their asses handed to them.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Why stop here?

How 'bout a team with Artest, Brand and Miller?

Or, phew, thank God the Bulls didn't keep Olden Polynice! 

This never gets old!


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> 3Cs are MUCH better right now, *and still are young and have upside.*


Wasn't this the same thing all Bulls fans were getting tired of hearing when the C cubed was on our team?

The dreaded "upside" argument?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Pay Ton said:


> Wasn't this the same thing all Bulls fans were getting tired of hearing when the C cubed was on our team?
> 
> The dreaded "upside" argument?


In this case, the upside is... well, compare to Ben Wallace who only has downside (he's not going to get better or grow as a player at his age).


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Reverse that for Tyson.


And the guy Paxson spent 60 million on?



----------


Curry with 26 points and 15 boards tonight. 13 trips to the FT line. Wow.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Curry with 26 points and 15 boards tonight. 13 trips to the FT line. Wow.


Naysayers would point out that he did it against Memphis' really small front line, but that's just evidence of how nice it is to have a real center on your team. Curry's been playing very well lately and Isiah's leaving him out there for 35-40 minutes, fouls permitting.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

I find quite a bit of irony in Pax's moves. What we end up trading away in those 3 are very things that posters complain this current team lacks: a low post scorer, someone who will front the post, a big combo guard. 

PaxSkiles' next move is probably going to involve Ben Gordon. People will complain come playoff time about needing some kind of poise, some kind of 4th quarter finisher down the stretch.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

DaBullz said:


> I don't see any real comparison between Curry, Chandler, and Crawford vs. Thabo, Wallace, TT, PJ, and Viktor.
> 
> 3Cs are MUCH better right now, and still are young and have upside.


I'd say that right now, the 3 C's would be a vastly superior team. You also have to include Thabo into that, cause we used our normal pick. Nice try by the guy making the poll to skew it by deducting a guy from one team that has nothing to do with the trades. :thumbdown: 

In 2-3 years though, the current team might be better. If Tyrus progresses as expected, he has a much higher ceiling than the 3 Cs, and we could get a real superstar in next year's draft. This is of course all speculation, whereas the 3 C's are real and we know what we have. I think that with their progression, along with Deng, Ben and Kirk's progression, along with the addition of Noc and Sefolosha, that could be a wicked team, easily in the 50s for wins, and maybe even cracking 60s. It was definitely a more complete team, having 2 big 7 footers, a bigger SG, etc.

*But in the end, we do have the potential to be a better team, and even a dominant one, if the pick next year turns out to be a superstar, cause none of the 3 C's are ever going to be superstars.* That's really all that matters, and we won't know the answer to that question for 3 years in all likelihood.


----------



## Sleep520 (Nov 6, 2006)

kukoc4ever said:


> Crawford seems like a more disciplined player now.


:lol: 



kukoc4ever said:


> And, if the players on Team A keep improving (Noc, Deng, Curry, Chandler, JC, Hinrich) as they have, *I think its possibly the best team in the league. A team of above-average players at every position.* The Pistons Model.


:lol: 

Watch more knicks games. Notice the record. Their numbers may look somewhat improved, along with tyson's, but the same deficiencies have not gone away. Yes, tyson can rebound, but he still is worthless on offense, still will get manhandled in the paint, still makes the dumbest fouls possible, is even more atrocious at the line, etc...Yes eddy can score down low, but that's about it. His effort is minimal at every other aspect of the game, a couple of games notwithstanding. And yes, crawford can get hot, but watching him force up shot after shot after shot one-on-one isn't my cup of tea. Watching tyrus do it from time to time is bad enough for me. They all still make the same dumb, rookie-like mistakes, and I'm all set with Gordon's occasional silly mistakes. Also, our team defense would be not-so-good...


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Interesting that the popular argument for Team B being better in the future are the "found money" lotto picks.



It's ironic that two of the 3 Cs had something to do with those lotto picks becoming "found money". 

This is a tough debate. I just don't see how Crawford, a former leader of this team and number one scoring option, has the mental nuggets to accept a largely diminished role on Team A. I think Crawford's improvement has had a lot to do with being used in an "off the bench" capacity. I just don't see that happening had he remained a Bull. Too much pride.

Curry has put up some dominating stats recently. What's the Knicks record over that stretch? The fact is, his defense has been pathetic. On the other hand I think Curry might have worked well alongside Wallace and our current team defense. We would have been able to hide his shortcomings. Alongside Chandler? Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt. Next. Add Crawford to the mix? Meh, he's improved but I just don't buy the collective basketball IQ and commitment to defense of the 3 Cs on the floor at the same time. We can handle one but not 3.

I'll take Team B. Sure, we get outmatched athletically at some positions, but I'll take the hustle, basketball IQ, unselfishness and veteran presence of Team B any day. And, I think there's even a greater disparity in a best of 7 series deep into the playoffs since I believe Wallace and Brown will prove their worth come playoffs and Ty Thomas, Sweets, and Kryhapa will have found valuable niches. 

The swap is gravy.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

badfish said:


> This is a tough debate. I just don't see how Crawford, a former leader of this team and number one scoring option, has the mental nuggets to accept a largely diminished role on Team A. I think Crawford's improvement has had a lot to do with being used in an "off the bench" capacity. I just don't see that happening had he remained a Bull. Too much pride.


This argument hold very little weight IMO, given that he's accepted coming off the bench for NY. His improvement had more to do with Larry Brown with anything, IMO. He would have been a fine starting 2 guard for the Bulls, with Gordon playing the 6th man role he's comfortable with.

Keep Gordon in down the stretch if he's hot. 



> Curry has put up some dominating stats recently. What's the Knicks record over that stretch?


I never buy this one either. There are plenty of good players on bad teams. We've seen Curry can be a key player on a winning team. The fact that it was a winning Bulls team under PaxSkiles solidifies this even more.




> I'll take Team B. Sure, we get outmatched athletically at some positions, but I'll take the hustle, basketball IQ, unselfishness and veteran presence of Team B any day.


In the end, its Wallace, PJ and Tyrus vs the 3 Cs. Wallace is under performing, PJ is damn near useless and Tyrus is raw as hell. PJ's veteran presence has him playing about 10 minutes a game now of below-average basketball. Wallace is under performing by any standard. (60 million!?!??!?!?)





> And, I think there's even a greater disparity in a best of 7 series deep into the playoffs since I believe Wallace and Brown will prove their worth come playoffs and Ty Thomas, Sweets, and Kryhapa will have found valuable niches.


We'll see.

I’m still in the camp that guys who can be top 2 of their positions in scoring (high efficiency scoring, BTW) and top 5 in rebounding in the entire NBA are better than over the hill 10th men. Wallace is supposed to be a big time producer. He needs to be the guy in the top 10 of the big man categories. He’s being paid 60 million dollars.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

I think everyone on the board outside the utmost of Curry haters would argue that the Bulls were going to take a step backwards last year after Curry-gate. Hindsight proponents of keeping the three C's argue that we should improve on our 47-win season and be building chemistry and experience leading towards the playoffs while adding rookies and MLE-deal players into the fray.

Thabo cannot be assumed on Team A unless you assume that the 3-C's Bulls would have the same record as last season's Bulls. Someone like Josh Boone should probably be assumed on Team A.

:worthy:


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

I think the Bulls would win.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> I think the Bulls would win.


Touche!:yay:


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> This argument hold very little weight IMO, given that he's accepted coming off the bench for NY. His improvement had more to do with Larry Brown with anything, IMO. He would have been a fine starting 2 guard for the Bulls, with Gordon playing the 6th man role he's comfortable with.


If your theory is that larry the clown caused Crawford to improve, then you can't assume that he would have improved at all in Chicago. Me first, shoot first combo guards are a dime a dozen.



> I never buy this one either. There are plenty of good players on bad teams. We've seen Curry can be a key player on a winning team. The fact that it was a winning Bulls team under PaxSkiles solidifies this even more.


Curry is in the midst of his annual talent tease. You've seen the movie several times already, yet you're munching your popcorn telling yourself that if you watch the DVD another time the ending will magically be different.

Curry and Crawford are what they are. Crawford is the second guard off the bench on a winning team that you ride if his shot is on that night, otherwise you limit his minutes. Curry needs to have an offense run through him in order to put up stats and that isn't conducive to winning basketball.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> Curry needs to have an offense run through him in order to put up stats and that isn't conducive to winning basketball.


Funny, the Bulls won with him.

And we ran enough of the offense through him for him to be our leading scorer.

And an offense does not run though Curry... it ends with Curry either getting a 55% shot at 2 points, a trip to the FT line, or 3 times per 32 minutes this season.... a turnover.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Funny, the Bulls won with him.
> 
> And we ran enough of the offense through him for him to be our leading scorer.


The Bulls went 6-3 in April without him. Curry had a -6 +/- for the season. More accurate to say they won despite Curry.

Curry was the leading scorer by 0.4 PPG in his contract year.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> And an offense does not run though Curry... it ends with Curry either getting a 55% shot at 2 points, a trip to the FT line, or 3 times per 32 minutes this season.... a turnover.


How nice of you to point out his lack of passing. I'll amend my statement to if a team doesn't give Eddy the ball a lot on offense he is useless and giving the ball to a black hole isn't conducive to winning.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I agree. The three Cs team would win if the game is played now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No. That team with Tyrus and Oden/Durant WILL be better. ALOT better.

That said, I just amended my ignore list. I'm tired of hearing about the three C's. And since the same members keep talking about them like they are a long lost boyfriend who took their virginity, I'll just ignore those posters.

G'day.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> In this case, the upside is... well, compare to Ben Wallace who only has downside (he's not going to get better or grow as a player at his age).


In that case, I can't wait until we trade Tyrus Thomas. Then I get to hear those same people that were complaining about how we don't need potential, instead complain about how we traded away potential for another veteran player who has no upside, or downside, as you put it.

It's a can't win system, I guess.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Pay Ton said:


> In that case, I can't wait until we trade Tyrus Thomas. Then I get to hear those same people that were complaining about how we don't need potential, instead complain about how we traded away potential for another veteran player who has no upside, or downside, as you put it.
> 
> It's a can't win system, I guess.


It's a can't win system if you develop players and then trade them away, trade away your leading scorer 3 straight years, play CBA/NBDL quality players for a season, etc. Actually, it sounds like a minor league system.

It's also been pointed out that the guys we've traded away are exactly the holes we have in our depth chart. big scoring/playmaking guard. Post scoring. An actual power forward.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> The Bulls went 6-3 in April without him.


The Bulls were 5-0 without Hinrich. Your point?



> Curry had a -6 +/- for the season. More accurate to say they won despite Curry.


Only if you put a lot of stock in raw +/-. 



> Curry was the leading scorer by 0.4 PPG in his contract year.


Yes, Curry was the leading scorer. That's correct.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Here's a nice meaningless stat. Knicks won their last game. Curry had 26 points and 15 rebounds, yeah, yeah. BUT he had 2 assists, which is about what he used to be good for in a month.

:biggrin:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> I'll amend my statement to if a team doesn't give Eddy the ball a lot on offense he is useless and giving the ball to a black hole isn't conducive to winning.


But yet, the Bulls won with him as their leading scorer. Strange.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> It's a can't win system if you develop players and then trade them away,


We developed players here?

We must have sucked at developing them then. 

Curry still looks like he doesn't get it, because New York and Isiah are apparently trying to get this player that we have already "developed" to do something more than 16 points a game (something he was doing for us his last season).

Crawford too. Who's looked great on occassion, but just occassion (similar to what he did in some other city). 

I'll tell you what. It sucks that the Knicks are getting the benefits of our hard work at developing these guys. Too bad they couldn't put up these monster numbers while they were around here...maybe we would have never traded them.



DaBullz said:


> *trade away your leading scorer 3 straight years*, play CBA/NBDL quality players for a season, etc. Actually, it sounds like a minor league system.


You mean Jalen Rose/Jamal Crawford/Eddy Curry? Those leading scorers? The Knicks had all three of our former leading scorers last year, right? Yeah, I clearly remember that because I recall them kicking our *** in the playoffs last year. 

Again...if only we still had those guys.



> It's also been pointed out that the guys we've traded away are exactly the holes we have in our depth chart. *big scoring/playmaking guard.* Post scoring. An actual power forward.


C'est Jamal? Hmm...big scoring guard huh? I guess I never caught on to that one. I always thought his scoring came in spurts, which is no different than some of the guys we have on our team now.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> The Bulls were 5-0 without Hinrich. Your point?


Curry wasn't important to winning. I'm not pro-Hinrich, so what is your point? 



> Only if you put a lot of stock in raw +/-.


A total number for an entire season is a significant number



> Yes, Curry was the leading scorer. That's correct.


To borrow your phrase, only if you put stock in 0.4 being a meaningful difference.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> But yet, the Bulls won with him as their leading scorer. Strange.


Winning in spite of isn't the same as winning because of. Curry was limited to 11.6 SPG, any more would have been a negative.

The team also won in spite of Kirk shooting 39.7% on 14.6 SPG.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> Curry wasn't important to winning. I'm not pro-Hinrich, so what is your point?


Would you also say Hinrich wasn't important to winning?






> A total number for an entire season is a significant number


Significant for what?





> To borrow your phrase, only if you put stock in 0.4 being a meaningful difference.


If you don't think a team's leading scorer is important to the outcomes of their games, then we'll just have to disagree.

Curry had the 2nd highest MPG on that team as well. If you don't think a player that logs that many minutes is important to the outcome of the games, then we'll just have to disagree.

Why would Skiles play Curry that many minutes if he didn't think Curry was helping the Bulls win NBA Basketball games? Misguided?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> Curry was limited to 11.6 SPG, any more would have been a negative.


Just curious, what are you basing this on?


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

I voted for the current team simply because any team that has Jamal "Shleprock" Crawford on it seems to have a perpetual dark cloud hanging over it. Bad luck seems to strike every team JC is on. And bad basketball. Just my opinion.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Jamal's numbers this season are worse in almost every category than they were in his last season as a Bull. How is this considered improvement? Why do we want him back? When was it that he became a consistent scorer? When was it that he learned to play defense? or should I say, when WILL IT BE?

Mr. Ed's 16.6ppg and 7rpg hardly put him in elite territory. In fact, i'd say the most significant increases in Ed's new "featured scorer" capacity have ben an increase in turn-overs and an increase in fouls. Any other changes are hardly significant from his last season as a Bull.

Tyson is also showing the same things we saw when he was a Bull. Good rebounding skill, nice help defense, no offense.

Say what you will..... none of these players has changed their game at all since leaving the Bull. Mr. Ed is still not an elite scoring force, Crawdad is still not the "big 2 guard" that we've been missing. I think we currently miss Chandler's defense and boards, but once Tyrus grows and Ben finds his way into our system, we won't miss Tyson nearly as much as we think. I stand by my prediction that the Bull will continue to charge ahead and the Hornet will continue to fall.

NYK, BTW, will be in the bottom 3 by the end of the season.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Just curious, what are you basing this on?


Watching the man play basketball. It is as obvious as seeing that Jamal Crawford doesn't help his team win games. They are both members of a long line of NBA players that can put up nice stat lines while not helping their team. Championship teams aren't made up of players like that.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Would you also say Hinrich wasn't important to winning?


39.7% shooting from the player taking the most shots on a team isn't a positive contribution.



> Significant for what?


Significant for measuring the value of a player. The Bulls scoring differential was better with Eddy off the court.




> If you don't think a team's leading scorer is important to the outcomes of their games, then we'll just have to disagree.


How important was Marbury to the Knicks winning games last season? He was their leading scorer



> Curry had the 2nd highest MPG on that team as well. If you don't think a player that logs that many minutes is important to the outcome of the games, then we'll just have to disagree.
> 
> Why would Skiles play Curry that many minutes if he didn't think Curry was helping the Bulls win NBA Basketball games? Misguided?


The same Marbury example applies.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> How important was Marbury to the Knicks winning games last season? He was their leading scorer


The 47 win Bulls team with Curry as its leading scorer was the 3rd best team in the East. Last year's Knicks was one of the worst teams in the league

Marbury's poor play was a very important part of the Knicks terrible season last year, IMO.

Curry can be a leading scorer and 2nd leading MPG guy on a winning NBA team. No doubt about that. Its already happened. Good players can also be on losing teams. Ask Elton Brand. To say Eddy Curry wasn't a key player for the Bulls when they were the 3rd best team in the East is ludicrous.

In the end, your argument is completely subjective. Players like X can’t win a championship. Players like Elton Brand can’t win a championship. Players like Kevin Garnett can’t win a championship. Wheeeee… its fun. If you want to feel that way, there is nothing I can do about that. 

I can say that players like Eddy Curry can be the leading scorer and have the 2nd highest MPG on the 3rd best team in the Eastern Conference.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> 39.7% shooting from the player taking the most shots on a team isn't a positive contribution.


So Hinrich didn't make a positive contribution either?

Hinrich took the most shots and had the highest MPG.

You are saying that the leading scorer, the leading shot taker and the #1 and #2 guys in MPG didn't make positive contributions to a team that was #3 in the East? Really?


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> So Hinrich didn't make a positive contribution either?
> 
> Hinrich took the most shots and had the highest MPG.
> 
> You are saying that the leading scorer, the leading shot taker and the #1 and #2 guys in MPG didn't make positive contributions to a team that was #3 in the East? Really?


I'd argue that Hinrich does a whole lot more in the way of setting up teammates and defending than Crawford does.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> I'd argue that Hinrich does a whole lot more in the way of setting up teammates and defending than Crawford does.


I would agree.

I don't see what that has to do with the post you quoted though. 

Just like Chandler / Wallace..... Hinrich / Crawford was never an either-or decision.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I would agree.
> 
> I don't see what that has to do with the post you quoted though.
> 
> Just like Chandler / Wallace..... Hinrich / Crawford was never an either-or decision.


It's got plenty to do with it, if we're talking about whether or not Hinrich and Crawford are good players in spite of their low field goal percentages. Hinrich things in other areas of the game to offset his low percentage. I'm not sure that's the case with Crawford.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> So Hinrich didn't make a positive contribution either?
> 
> Hinrich took the most shots and had the highest MPG.
> 
> You are saying that the leading scorer, the leading shot taker and the #1 and #2 guys in MPG didn't make positive contributions to a team that was #3 in the East? Really?


You keep changing the debate by changing the evaluation parameters. Positive contribution, key player and important to winning are all different concepts and different discussions. Which one do you want to discuss?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> Positive contribution, key player and important to winning are all different concepts and different discussions. Which one do you want to discuss?


I'd stick with the 1st two. Positive contribution and key player.

"Important to winning" is completely subjective.

Scott Skiles felt playing Eddy Curry the 2nd most MPG on the team and giving him the looks needed for him to be the leading scorer was "important to winning," otherwise, why do it?

You seem to disagree with Skiles, and I don't think there is any way to change your mind.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

jbulls said:


> It's got plenty to do with it, if we're talking about whether or not Hinrich and Crawford are good players in spite of their *low field goal percentages*. Hinrich things in other areas of the game to offset his low percentage. I'm not sure that's the case with Crawford.


Hinrich is shooting 47.3% from the field this year, Crawford 38.9%. 
Hinrich is shooting 42.9% from the 3pt range this year, Crawford 29.0%. 

Hinrich is a better shooter than Crawford, a better point guard than Crawford, a better man defender, a better passer, better rebounder, better ball handler and better team leader. And he has a comparable contract. 

The two players don't come close to being comparable. One has been much better than the other from the first day he arrived in training camp.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> The 47 win Bulls team with Curry as its leading scorer was the 3rd best team in the East.


A record that would have been 5th last season in the East. Pardon me if I don't get excited about that. I'm a Nets fan and I can admit that the Nets made the finals in a weaker East.



> Last year's Knicks was one of the worst teams in the league. Marbury's poor play was a very important part of the Knicks terrible season last year, IMO.


The Knicks didn't win when Marbury played well. Marbury wasn't responsible for wins or losses, he just was. The same as Curry on the Bulls.



> Curry can be a leading scorer and 2nd leading MPG guy on a winning NBA team. No doubt about that. Its already happened.


That is as valuable as saying a team made the NBA Finals with Kenyon Martin as the leading rebounder.



> Good players can also be on losing teams. Ask Elton Brand. To say Eddy Curry wasn't a key player for the Bulls when they were the 3rd best team in the East is ludicrous.


Key players aren't easily replaceable. Just because Paxson has done a poor job of replacing the one thing Curry brought to the team doesn't mean he was a key player.



> In the end, your argument is completely subjective. Players like X can’t win a championship. Players like Elton Brand can’t win a championship. Players like Kevin Garnett can’t win a championship. Wheeeee… its fun. If you want to feel that way, there is nothing I can do about that.


It is less subjective than saying the Bulls would be better with the 3C's. Curry's body of work in the NBA demonstrate a consistent theme.



> I can say that players like Eddy Curry can be the leading scorer and have the 2nd highest MPG on the 3rd best team in the Eastern Conference.


I can say Kenyon Martin was the leading rebounder on the 2nd and 3rd best team in the Eastern Conference


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> You seem to disagree with Skiles, and I don't think there is any way to change your mind.


as has been mentioned before, Curry as a leading scorer doesnt mean everything. it's not just that bad teams have leading scorers though.



i agree, the Bulls valued Eddy, to a point, and planned to work at keeping him, before the heart issues. but I also believed that they felt:

1) the offense could find a way to get better without him, and would probably move the ball around better

2) they could lose Eddy and also afford to lose his penchant for fading in second halves.

3) they could improve defense by having tougher players down low. i know it's subjective, but "tougher" is something you know when you see it. it's the reason teams pay big money to have scouts in person, as opposed to just paying number crunchers.



k4e, do you like how our offense produces now, how it distributes the ball around, compared to how it was when Eddy was here? i know that question doesnt account for the other guys all having gotten better, but i am interested to hear your answer


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'd stick with the 1st two. Positive contribution and key player.
> 
> "Important to winning" is completely subjective.
> 
> ...


Scott Skiles also decided it was very important to not allow Curry to take more than 11.6 SPG. Key low post players on winning teams get a lot more shot attempts than that.

I don't disagree with how Skiles managed Curry at all. Limit the touches and therefore limit the mistakes. What I disagree with is that the Bulls would be better off now with Curry or that he has improved. I also disagree that a team could win a championship with Curry being anything more than a role player


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

also with all this mention of Curry as "2nd most minutes played".... on the Bulls that year, it still meant 28.7 minutes. a reliable centerpiece load carrier is going to get more than that. even under Skiles.

he was given those 28 minutes because he gave us something no one else on the roster did. but in key stretches, he was on the bench very often.

reasons for that are in my above 3 numbered points. the Bulls valued what Eddy gave them, but very often, in second halves, they'd take him out for a reason. or 3.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> k4e, do you like how our offense produces now, how it distributes the ball around, compared to how it was when Eddy was here? i know that question doesnt account for the other guys all having gotten better, but i am interested to hear your answer


We're a jump shooting team.

When the jump shots are falling, we look really good.

At times, the offense looks great. In the games against the Celtics, Knicks and Wizards, I liked what I saw.

But, there is a reason people get excited when we see Sweetney produces.... and its not because of his passing skills (although he's had some nice dump offs this season).


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> The Knicks didn't win when Marbury played well. Marbury wasn't responsible for wins or losses, he just was. The same as Curry on the Bulls.


OK. If Hinrich wasn't a positive contributor due to his poor shooting and if Eddy wasn't a positive contributor then who was. How on Earth did the Bulls win?




> That is as valuable as saying a team made the NBA Finals with Kenyon Martin as the leading rebounder.


Wasn't Martin was valuable member of that team? Do you think you could have been as successful with Brian Scalabrine in Martin's place?

It seems like the Nets were pretty rotten once they lost a productive Kenyon Martin. It wasn't until they landed Vince Carter that the Nets became a good NBA basketball team again.



> Key players aren't easily replaceable. Just because Paxson has done a poor job of replacing the one thing Curry brought to the team doesn't mean he was a key player.


He was a key player because he played the 2nd most minutes and was the leading scorer, and an efficient on at that. Skiles felt he was a key player. That's why he played him.





> It is less subjective than saying the Bulls would be better with the 3C's. Curry's body of work in the NBA demonstrate a consistent theme.


Not really. His last year with the Bulls the Bulls were #3 in the East. After he left, the team regressed.




> I can say Kenyon Martin was the leading rebounder on the 2nd and 3rd best team in the Eastern Conference


I don't think the Nets would have been as good with a below-average PF in his place, do you? When he was healthy, he seemed like a solid PF, although you have watched a lot more Nets BB than I have.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> I also disagree that a team could win a championship with Curry being anything more than a role player


The Bulls are a superstar-less team.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

McBulls said:


> Hinrich is shooting 47.3% from the field this year, Crawford 38.9%.
> Hinrich is shooting 42.9% from the 3pt range this year, Crawford 29.0%.
> 
> Hinrich is a better shooter than Crawford, a better point guard than Crawford, a better man defender, a better passer, better rebounder, better ball handler and better team leader. And he has a comparable contract.
> ...


I agree that Hinrich is the better player, that was my point. That said, over the course of their careers they've been pretty darn comparable in terms of FG%. Hinrich has had a nice start to the season in terms of shooting, and his percentages have trended upwards over the past three seasons. Let's see if he can keep it up.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> He was a key player because he played the 2nd most minutes and was the leading scorer, and an efficient on at that. Skiles felt he was a key player. That's why he played him.



it was 28.7 minutes per game. isnt it possible that Curry played those 28 minutes a game because he gave us something on the roster than no one else did? 

If Skiles really felt exactly like you do, wouldnt he have played Curry more?


also do key players sit at the end of games, second halves even... as much as Eddy did? i think, even in the coaches' eyes, he was at least a tier below what you propose he is.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> If Skiles really felt exactly like you do, wouldnt he have played him more?


I thought Skiles managed Curry and that team just fine.

I'm not one to ignore Curry's faults. The Curry we had was productive in spurts and would get into fatigue and foul trouble. That limits his minutes. 

That being said, he still played more that Gordon, Duhon, Deng, Nocioni, Chandler and AD. 

That was what Scott Skiles chose to do.

29 minutes a game is a lot for a center.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/byposition?pos=C&conference=NBA&year=season_2006

There are only 5 centers in the game that play more than that per game right now.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I thought Skiles managed Curry and that team just fine.
> 
> I'm not one to ignore Curry's faults. The Curry we had was productive in spurts and would get into fatigue and foul trouble. That limits his minutes.
> 
> That being said, he still played more that Gordon, Duhon, Deng, Nocioni, Chandler and AD.



right but what each of those players gives has some overlap with what the others do. Curry's skills were absolutely unique to that team, as you have pointed out in your arguments.

my belief is that Skiles begrudgingly played him as much as he had to. with that roster, I would have had him out there too.

then, when it came to make a final decision on his Bulls career, the team felt they could get better without him.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> isnt it possible that Curry played those 28 minutes a game because he gave us something on the roster than no one else did?


No doubt about it. 

And, we've yet to find someone to replace it. 

We get exicted when Sweetney gives us big man, back to the basket, points in the paint. But he's not going to be averaging anywhere near close to what Curry did, MPG wise. If he could, the Bulls would be sitting pretty, cause Sweetney is pretty effective when he stays on the floor.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> .
> then, when it came to make a final decision on his Bulls career, the team felt they could get better without him.


Not true.

Paxson dumped him b/c of a "heart issue," right?


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> There are only 5 centers in the game that play more than that per game right now.



but what about using "impact" players as the sample size? how many "impact" or "key" guys play 28 min per game? 

i mean, if Curry is what you say, he should easily play more than the Jerome Jameses of the world. especially in today's Phoenixey NBA.



i mean, are you arguing that there's something about being a center that prohibits one from playing 34 min per game? because they're big or something?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> i mean, if Curry is what you say, he should easily play more than the Jerome Jameses of the world.


He does.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> i mean, are you arguing that there's something about being a center that prohibits one from playing 34 min per game? because they're big or something?


I'm just pointing out that not many NBA centers play more than 28 minutes a game.

The reason? Your guess is as good as mine. There are not many good NBA centers. But, NBA GMs still value them. Do you consider them fools?


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Not true.
> 
> Paxson dumped him b/c of a "heart issue," right?



i've always felt the Bulls wanted to keep him at their price. when the heart issues came up, they contributed to that price being lower. 

thing is, when you have an 'impact' or 'key' guy, you keep him. you take the risk on those heart issues. i just dont think they wanted him that badly, and wanted to explore what the team would be like without him.

to see what else they could do what that money. i like what they've come up with, even if we're as superstarless as we were then. Pax has done what he can.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> He does.



but if he is what i say he is, he'll average more than those guys and still less than NBA stars. star centers even.

because of all those flaws that make you hit your head with your palm as a coach or fan. all the time. i dont miss those forehead bruises.



okey byebye til evening.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> thing is, when you have an 'impact' or 'key' guy, you keep him. you take the risk on those heart issues.



I agree.

Paxson said the reason behind the Bulls regression last season was because "we lost our size."

The Bulls org claims that they were not willing to commit that kind of money to a player without the DNA test. That's more a financial/operational decision than anything, IMO.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> but if he is what i say he is, he'll average more than those guys and still less than NBA stars. star centers even.


Ah, you want to affix the "star" label to Curry. 

Sorry, he's not a "star." He's not paid like a star either.

He's an impact player and an above average NBA center though.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> to see what else they could do what that money. i like what they've come up with, even if we're as superstarless as we were then. Pax has done what he can.


The Bulls are paying Ben Wallace superstar level money.

He's a multi-time all-star, DPOY, NBA Champion.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> OK. If Hinrich wasn't a positive contributor due to his poor shooting and if Eddy wasn't a positive contributor then who was. How on Earth did the Bulls win?


It helps if you use words in the same context I am. I didn't say Hinrich wasn't a positive contributor to the Bulls that season. What I said was his FG% wasn't a positive contribution.




> Wasn't Martin was valuable member of that team? Do you think you could have been as successful with Brian Scalabrine in Martin's place?
> 
> It seems like the Nets were pretty rotten once they lost a productive Kenyon Martin. It wasn't until they landed Vince Carter that the Nets became a good NBA basketball team again.


The point is using a limit sample of the past to predict the future. You're claiming that because it happened once, Curry can again be the leading scorer on a team with the 3rd best record in a Conference. There is no valid logic to that claim

For the record, the Nets played 1 month and half of NBA basketball w/out Kenyon on their roster and Vince on their roster. During that same time, Kidd missed the majority of the games.




> He was a key player because he played the 2nd most minutes and was the leading scorer, and an efficient on at that. Skiles felt he was a key player. That's why he played him.


Just because a player is the best available option on a team doesn't make him a key player. Skiles limited how much Curry played and how many shots he tooks so as not to make the team worse. A coach shouldn't have to do that with a key player.



> Not really. His last year with the Bulls the Bulls were #3 in the East. After he left, the team regressed.


Again, the Bulls were #3 in a weaker East. If they had remained the same, they would have automatically been less than 3rd and therefore regressed. 

You are again using poor logic. If you really believed it you would never pine for Crawford since the Bulls drastically improved after he was traded.




> I don't think the Nets would have been as good with a below-average PF in his place, do you? When he was healthy, he seemed like a solid PF, although you have watched a lot more Nets BB than I have.


The point is keeping him wouldn't have assured the Nets would have remained one of the best 3 teams in the East and Kenyon was significantly more important to the Nets success than Curry was to the Bulls.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I agree.
> 
> Paxson said the reason behind the Bulls regression last season was becuase "we lost our size."
> 
> The Bulls org claims that they were not willing to commit that kind of money to a player without the DNA test. That's more a financial/operational decision than anything, IMO.



ok one more. i just cant get fired because of Eddy Curry (i actually like my job, unlike him).




but did they let Curry go because they're cheap, or because they just didnt value him at "star level"? would they never extend any star? 

i think they would extend one if, after that many years, he had erased more of said flaws. game-killing flaws that make you have to sit in second halves.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> He's an impact player and an above average NBA center though.


He is neither. Above average individual offense, way below average defense, poor recognition of teammates on offense all result in an average center.

Or put another way, 100 million dollar body and 10 cent head


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> It helps if you use words in the same context I am. I didn't say Hinrich wasn't a positive contributor to the Bulls that season. What I said was his FG% wasn't a positive contribution.


Do you think Curry's FG% was a positive contribution?
How about his FTA per minute?

The Bulls were the best defense in the league Opp FG% wise, with Curry averaging the 2nd most MPG.




> The point is using a limit sample of the past to predict the future. You're claiming that because it happened once, Curry can again be the leading scorer on a team with the 3rd best record in a Conference. There is no valid logic to that claim


IMO, there is no valid logic to claiming that Curry is NBA player doomed to "losing", which many on this board do since the Knicks are a poor team.

There is also no valid logic to thinking a very young team that won 47 games would not improve the following year.





> For the record, the Nets played 1 month and half of NBA basketball w/out Kenyon on their roster and Vince on their roster. During that same time, Kidd missed the majority of the games.


Do you think that if Kenyon was replaced with a modern day Michael Sweetney lets say they would have gone to the NBA Finals?






> Just because a player is the best available option on a team doesn't make him a key player. Skiles limited how much Curry played and how many shots he tooks so as not to make the team worse. A coach shouldn't have to do that with a key player.


A teams leading scorer and 2nd most MPG guy is a key player.

I disagree with you.

Curry, due to his lack of a complete game and conditioning issues limited his playing time more than anything. Skiles managed him very well. 

Deng, Nocioni and Gordon were also key players on that team, even though they played less than Curry. To say otherwise is foolish, IMO, if you watched many Bulls games that season.

But, once again, its the subjective interpretation of "key player."

I have faith in Scott Skiles to play good players. If you disagree with him playing Curry more than any other player than Hinrich that's your call. I disagree with you.

Skiles had plenty of centers on the roster over the last few years. Curry is the only one he chose to play as heavily as he did.



> You are again using poor logic. If you really believed it you would never pine for Crawford since the Bulls drastically improved after he was traded.


Where am I pining for Crawford?

I just think team A beats team B both today in the future. Crawford is easily the least important of the Three Cs.

It would have been nice to have been at least at 47 wins last season, and likely better given how young the team was.



> The point is keeping him wouldn't have assured the Nets would have remained one of the best 3 teams in the East and Kenyon was significantly more important to the Nets success than Curry was to the Bulls.


Both squads regressed once they "lost their size." Once again, your argument hinges on your subjective definition of "significant."

Kenyon seemed like an above average PF for that Nets team. I think the Nets would have been better off with Martin than an average to below average PF over those NBA Finals years. You are right though, there are no assurances in the NBA.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Once again, your argument hinges on your subjective definition of "significant."


Unfortunately, k4e, I think this whole Curry / Three C's arguement hinges on subjective definitions all around, which is why it never goes anywhere.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> He is neither. Above average individual offense, way below average defense, poor recognition of teammates on offense all result in an average center.
> Or put another way, 100 million dollar body and 10 cent head


I disagree.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> but did they let Curry go because they're cheap, or because they just didnt value him at "star level"? would they never extend any star?


How would I know this?

It would be interesting to see how the Bulls Org would have handled the DNA-gate with a legit NBA superstar.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

You really need to add Rose and Marshall to Team A since that was the original "dream team."


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I thought Skiles managed Curry and that team just fine.


No you didn't. 

And for all your "golden age of the 47 win, 3rd best team in the East" posts, you ripped that team, the man who constructed it, and the man who coached it no differently than you sarcastically bagged on last year's team and as you do with the current team today. Since the minute Paxson took over and started blowing things up, you've been disgruntled.

Do you feel conflicted at all when the team that you once ripped with a "The Right Way????" signature intended to illustrate its pitiful state is that which you now hold up as some idealized, platonic form? 

Seriously, we get it.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Do you feel conflicted at all when the team that you once ripped with a "The Right Way????" signature intended to illustrate its pitiful state is that which you now hold up as some idealized, platonic form?


Skiles won me over that season.

I had serious doubts about winning with a group of rookies, a Chandler with a balky back and a an inconsistent yet promising Curry when the coach's main word of advice to him was "jump."

Chandler and Curry were both extremely productive that season, the rookies were as good / better than expected, Hinrich continued to progress and Skiles managed to get the most out of the players he was given. I became a Scott Skiles fan that season, even though I think you have to accept that there are a certain percentage of NBA players he's not going to be able to deal with.

Once Chandler stopped producing as he was and Curry was dumped, the team regressed to an average one.

The 2004-2005 Bulls the last 2/3 of the season were easily the best team we've had since MJ. We could beat any team in the league, IMO, and it was a real shame Curry went down with his heart issue and Deng got injured. 

It was a shocking season. The Twin Towers dream was realized and Skiles was the guy that put it together. Nobody else saw it coming either, judging by the preseason win prediction thread from that year.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Do you think Curry's FG% was a positive contribution?
> How about his FTA per minute?
> 
> The Bulls were the best defense in the league Opp FG% wise, with Curry averaging the 2nd most MPG.


Curry contributed, but he wasn't important to the team winning.



> IMO, there is no valid logic to claiming that Curry is NBA player doomed to "losing", which many on this board do since the Knicks are a poor team.


Any team that wants to make Curry the centerpiece of their team is doomed to not winning. He is a role player.



> There is also no valid logic to thinking a very young team that won 47 games would not improve the following year.


There is no valid logic to not accepting the fact that the East was significantly better in 05/06 than 04/05. Staying the same is automatically stepping backwards.



> Do you think that if Kenyon was replaced with a modern day Michael Sweetney lets say they would have gone to the NBA Finals?


The Nets wouldn't have gone to the finals with Chandler or Curry so certainly not a waste of a lottery pick like Sweetney in place of Kenyon.



> A teams leading scorer and 2nd most MPG guy is a key player.


Not always. There is no universal standard.



> I disagree with you.
> 
> Curry, due to his lack of a complete game and conditioning issues limited his playing time more than anything. Skiles managed him very well.
> 
> ...


Just because Curry was better than the others doesn't mean in an objective analysis Curry is good.




> Where am I pining for Crawford?


My mistake, it is DaBullz pining for him. You're just convinced he'd help the team and accept being a role player



> I just think team A beats team B both today in the future. Crawford is easily the least important of the Three Cs.
> 
> It would have been nice to have been at least at 47 wins last season, and likely better given how young the team was.


East was much better and 47 would have been very difficult




> Both squads regressed once they "lost their size." Once again, your argument hinges on your subjective definition of "significant."
> 
> Kenyon seemed like an above average PF for that Nets team. I think the Nets would have been better off with Martin than an average to below average PF over those NBA Finals years. You are right though, there are no assurances in the NBA.


The Nets didn't regress as they made another trade to right the ship. The 04/05 team with Vince and a healthy Kidd barely got a chance to play with RJ. In 05/06 they were at the wins level of their Finals teams.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> Curry contributed, but he was important to the team winning.


I assume this is a typo.

I think that the leading scorer (an efficient one at that) and the 2nd highest MPG player is important to a winning team in nearly all cases.





> Any team that wants to make Curry the centerpiece of their team is doomed to not winning. He is a role player.


Centerpiece? Yah, you won't see me saying that.

The same could be said with any player on the current Bulls.

The same could be said about Richard Jefferson. I would not call him a role player though.




> There is no valid logic to not accepting the fact that the East was significantly better in 05/06 than 04/05. Staying the same is automatically stepping backwards.


The Bulls were the #7 team in the East with a .500 record. A losing team made the playoffs. 

Significantly better? Hmmmmm.





> Just because Curry was better than the others doesn't mean in an objective analysis Curry is good.


But if he's bad, and he's playing the 2nd most MPG on the team and is the leading scorer, that's an incredible hurdle for a team to overcome to win games. Is that what you are contending?




> My mistake, it is DaBullz pining for him. You're just convinced he'd help the team and accept being a role player


He already has on the Knicks.








> East was much better and 47 would have been very difficult


A losing record was good enough to make the playoffs. I disagree.






> The Nets didn't regress as they made another trade to right the ship. The 04/05 team with Vince and a healthy Kidd barely got a chance to play with RJ. In 05/06 they were at the wins level of their Finals teams.


What team do you think had a better chance of winning it all?

Just curious.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Skiles won me over that season.
> 
> I had serious doubts about winning with a group of rookies, a Chandler with a balky back and a an inconsistent yet promising Curry when the coach's main word of advice to him was "jump."
> 
> ...


What a load. 

You ripped them as a team that, despite when they were obviously heading to a playoff berth, wasn't a meaningfull contender and, therefore, not to be excited about. The exact same criticism you levied on last year's team and have already anticipatorily projected on this year's squad. You maintained your "membership" in the Fire Paxson/Fire Skiles clubs during that season and the post season. 

You have a dream. A dream of a Skaxson-less Chicago Bulls. In order to emphasize the import of your vision, you have taken what you once claimed to abhor and re-cast it into a golden calf (pun intended). 

Ben Wallace provides another example. On the one hand you blast his underachievement as an acquisition, mocking his past awards in relationship to his current salary and statistics. Yet when he selfishly clashes with management and makes a complete *** of himself, you come to his aid like a nurse on a battlefield because now, by taking "his side", it gives you a new angle for criticism of Skaxson. 

I realize these posts are about you, and not basketball (well, they are sort of about basketball), but I tire of the hypocrisy of it all. If a moderator (or administrator) wants to delete these posts, I will certainly understand. Perhaps I'm just "in a mood" today. But I'm so god damned tired of coming in here reading post after post about the "47 win, 3rd best team in the East" from a poster who openly despised that team, its GM and its coach. 

As for the poll, I'll take what we have now over a 3Cs team both in the short and long term. The only one I remotely regret trading is Chandler. And the jury is still out on that one, in my opinion.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> I realize these posts are about you, and not basketball (well, they are sort of about basketball), but I tire of the hypocrisy of it all.


and i thought I was the only one who felt this way........:cheers: 


since coaches and gm's are hired to be fired, maybe a more productive thread could be generated by nominating who the bull should look to as the new regime, post "Skakson".

couldn't be any less boring than revisiting threads about players who're gone and have 0 chance of returning.:biggrin:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> You maintained your "membership" in the Fire Paxson/Fire Skiles clubs during that season and the post season.
> 
> You have a dream. A dream of a Skaxson-less Chicago Bulls.


Not true. If the towers were resigned, I would have left both of those clubs.

I'm happy with Paxson's draft and I think Skiles does a pretty good job.

If these guys turn the Bulls into a REAL contender again, I’m a happy camper. I actually thought we were pretty close to start this season. I didn’t pick them to go to the Finals like you did, but I think Paxson made the best out of a bad situation with the Wallace signing. The Chandler trade was crap. Wallace's play to this point has been disappointing.




> Ben Wallace provides another example. On the one hand you blast his underachievement as an acquisition, mocking his past awards in relationship to his current salary and statistics. Yet when he selfishly clashes with management and makes a complete *** of himself, you come to his aid like a nurse on a battlefield because now, by taking "his side", it gives you a new angle for criticism of Skaxson.


I don't think those two opinions clash at all. I can be upset with Wallace's production and be unhappy with having to deal with the team having petty handband rules when they just spent 60 million on a guy who is known for wearing a headband and being childish at the same time. 

Just becuase Wallace isn't producing like a star is no reason to believe he'll stop behaving like he has in the past, or for being unhappy with PaxSkiles for not seeing this train a coming.




> But I'm so god damned tired of coming in here reading post after post about the "47 win, 3rd best team in the East" from a poster who openly despised that team, its GM and its coach.


But, if i remember correctly, that kind of feeling is what prompted you to join the site and start posting to begin with.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> But, if i remember correctly, that kind of feeling is what prompted you to join the site and start posting to begin with.


You do recall correctly.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> If these guys turn the Bulls into a REAL contender again, I’m a happy camper.


Until then, they suck and should be fired.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I assume this is a typo.
> 
> I think that the leading scorer (an efficient one at that) and the 2nd highest MPG player is important to a winning team in nearly all cases.


Again, the Bulls record in April was better without him. It was obvious that the Rockets were a better team without Francis before he was traded.



> Centerpiece? Yah, you won't see me saying that.
> 
> The same could be said with any player on the current Bulls.
> 
> The same could be said about Richard Jefferson. I would not call him a role player though.


He'd have to be the centerpiece to be the leading scorer on this Bulls team. 



> The Bulls were the #7 team in the East with a .500 record. A losing team made the playoffs.
> 
> Significantly better? Hmmmmm.


There were 1 60+ and 2 50+ win teams and the East won the finals. Yes, that is significantly better



> But if he's bad, and he's playing the 2nd most MPG on the team and is the leading scorer, that's an incredible hurdle for a team to overcome to win games. Is that what you are contending?


He's average, not bad so it is a hurdle, but not an incredible hurdle



> He already has on the Knicks.


He was never the man on the Knicks, so there weren't demotion issues to deal with. Shaq got in shape after he was traded to Miami. Doesn't mean he was ever going to do that in LA.



> A losing record was good enough to make the playoffs. I disagree.


Covered above. The East was far better at the top.



> What team do you think had a better chance of winning it all?
> Just curious.


The Nets team that faced the Spurs in the finals could have won if Kenyon didn't have the flu and have the mental breakdown of shooting 3/23


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

i'm almost actually defending k4e here, but with regard to the last few posts from Ron.... we all are probably here because we fit the definition of "happy to complain"

at least with regards to NBA. although with me, i know for sure that it extends to my personal life!



and...if we werent this type of fan, we would each probably instead spend our time scouting when the next "Floppy Hat Night" is at the UC. therefore, i am happy to be here, amongst you all.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Until then, they suck and should be fired.


Which would be much easier to do if the NBA had non-guaranteed contracts. That way players could be paid what they are "worth" until they are not

Of course that won't happen any time soon, if ever.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DengNabbit said:


> i'm almost actually defending k4e here, but with regard to the last few posts from Ron.... we all are probably here because we fit the definition of "happy to complain"


That isn't what I was getting at.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

another way of looking at this debate:

whether you agree with it or not, the Bulls decided that...with parting ways with Eddy... they would go the Pistons route. winning a championship with defense and perimeter guys. if they had to, they'd go with not too much punch down low on offense.


this could be called the "harder way" to win a title... but really the "hardest way" is to have a zero entity on defense playing center. and i think they balanced all this against out in making the decision to move away from Curry. 





kukoc4ever said:


> The Bulls are paying Ben Wallace superstar level money.
> 
> He's a multi-time all-star, DPOY, NBA Champion.


Wallace gives the Bulls a part that is found on every recent championship team: a tough, non-skinny big man with defensive skills. 

on a championship team, wouldnt you say it's very unlikely to find a starting center that is a liability defensively? i would like to run down all the past champions and see when we'd see the last one with a center as weak defensively as Eddy.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> Again, the Bulls record in April was better without him. It was obvious that the Rockets were a better team without Francis before he was traded.


And the Bulls record without Hinrich was 5-0 that season. Take a look at the quality of opponent in April of that season.





> He'd have to be the centerpiece to be the leading scorer on this Bulls team.


He’d be the center. He would not have to be the centerpiece. Given the efficiency at which he scores, I think you would like to get him a lot of touches in the paint if you could.





> There were 1 60+ and 2 50+ win teams and the East won the finals. Yes, that is significantly better


Right, but when looking at why a team’s overall regular season record changed, wouldn’t the overall quality of the conference be better to consider. If the top team in the conference became much better and all the other teams became worse, that means more games against worse teams.

Your odds at getting to the NBA Finals might go down, since you have to go through this better team at the top, but you would expect your regular season record to improve as well.





> He's average, not bad so it is a hurdle, but not an incredible hurdle


If playing Curry created a hurdle to overcome, Skiles looks pretty foolish for willingly putting that hurdle in front of his team by playing him the 2nd most MPG.





> He was never the man on the Knicks, so there weren't demotion issues to deal with.


He was never “the man” on the Bulls either. He had to shoot a lot on a brutal team (full of NBDL guys) and a rookie Hinrich…. But he wasn’t “the man.” Gordon is more comfortable in a 6 th man role anyway. Seems like a win-win if Crawford could handle starting.







> Covered above. The East was far better at the top.


The overall quality of the conference is more important to consider when discussing regular season record.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> whether you agree with it or not, the Bulls decided that...with parting ways with Eddy... they would go the Pistons route. winning a championship with defense and perimeter guys. if they had to, they'd go with not too much punch down low on offense.


The Bulls had the top defense in the league from a opp FG% perspective with Curry as their starting center.

They were already tops in the league defense wise *with* Curry.

And, unless you don't trust the words that come out of Paxson's mouth, he wanted to resign Curry if he took that DNA test and the results were satisfactory.








> Wallace gives the Bulls a part that is found on every recent championship team: a tough, non-skinny big man with defensive skills.


I think its funny that you have to put "non-skinny" into this sentence. 



> on a championship team, wouldnt you say it's very unlikely to find a starting center that is a liability defensively? i would like to run down all the past champions and see when we'd see the last one with a center as weak defensively as Eddy.


I think that if a team is tops in the league in opp fg%, the defense is damn close to good enough.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I think that if a team is tops in the league in opp fg%, the defense is damn close to good enough.


it definitely isnt. the Bulls have found out in a few playoff series now that teams can adapt to what they do and get past it.

with Wallace, playing at his best... he's something you can't adapt to. he's a big bruiser who is going to put you on your seat. when he's at his best. i want to see it, just like everyone here, but at least it's an option now.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I think that if a team is tops in the league in opp fg%, the defense is good enough.


This is actually kind of interesting. Because I kind of thought like that as well. But then I heard an interview this summer with Paxson where he was talking about fouls and free throws and pointed out that when you incorporated opposition free throws into the mix, the Bulls were actually a just-barely-below average defensive unit. 

And ScottMay, I think it was, wrote a fascinating post breaking down how the Pistons were so effective. Opposition free throws and Pistons' turnovers played a very significant role. 

While I maintain that opposition fg% is a reliable indicator - and certainly I'm not disputing that the 47 was a very good defensive team - its a little bit more complicate than I once thought. 

For example, despite our sluggish offensive start this season, we are actually yielding less points to the opposition than we did last season and this is in large part due to our ability to cut down on fouls and opposition free throws.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> with Wallace, playing at his best... he's something you can't adapt to. he's a big bruiser who is going to put you on your seat. when he's at his best. i want to see it, just like everyone here, but at least it's an option now.


Yah, I just hope we see him "at his best" again.

At age 32, that just may not be in the tank anymore.

It didn't seem to be there for the Pistons against SHAQ last playoffs.


----------



## Cyanobacteria (Jun 25, 2002)

Did the hypothetical JWill crash his hypothetical motorcycle before construction of hypothetical team A? Because I'd love to sort through another JWill versus JCraw thread too.

Give me team B every day and twice on Sunday.

Time for several days away from the board...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> While I maintain that opposition fg% is a reliable indicator - and certainly I'm not disputing that the 47 was a very good defensive team - its a little bit more complicate than I once thought.


Yah, I agree with this. I use opp fg% since its so popular around here. A opp ts% approach would be a better one.

We both agree that it was a very good defensive team.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> And the Bulls record without Hinrich was 5-0 that season. Take a look at the quality of opponent in April of that season.


You're trying to take this back in a circle. I don't care if the Bulls were beter w/out Hinrich



> He’d be the center. He would not have to be the centerpiece. Given the efficiency at which he scores, I think you would like to get him a lot of touches in the paint if you could.


Again, it comes back to that the more he gets, the worse it is for the team.



> Right, but when looking at why a team’s overall regular season record changed, wouldn’t the overall quality of the conference be better to consider. If the top team in the conference became much better and all the other teams became worse, that means more games against worse teams.
> 
> Your odds at getting to the NBA Finals might go down, since you have to go through this better team at the top, but you would expect your regular season record to improve as well.


And you are overlooking the change in the bottom of the conference. The bottom team in 05/06 won 23 games while in 04/05 there was a team with 13 wins and another with 18. The middle gets squeezed when the top and the bottom get better.





> If playing Curry created a hurdle to overcome, Skiles looks pretty foolish for willingly putting that hurdle in front of his team by playing him the 2nd most MPG.


Glad you realize it



> He was never “the man” on the Bulls either. He had to shoot a lot on a brutal team (full of NBDL guys) and a rookie Hinrich…. But he wasn’t “the man.” Gordon is more comfortable in a 6 th man role anyway. Seems like a win-win if Crawford could handle starting.


Taking almost 500 more shots than the next player on the team is definitely being the man






> The overall quality of the conference is more important to consider when discussing regular season record.


Again, covered above.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

opponent FG%, over the course of a year, does not necessarily mean playoff success.



take note: even with the great Tyson Chandler down low last playoffs, we still had Dwyane Wade coming through the line in crunch time, like a hot knife thru butter, and he was getting high % shots. 

By switching Wallace in for Chandler, we get a guy who will give you second thoughts when going to the hoop. Championship teams have this, and we haven’t in 04-05 and 05-06.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> You're trying to take this back in a circle.


No, I'm showing you your point has little merit. The Bulls had a winning record without Curry. The Bulls had a winning record without Hinrich. Both were important parts of that team.





> Again, it comes back to that the more he gets, the worse it is for the team.


And I'd be interested to see whatever research you've done to base this on.





> And you are overlooking the change in the bottom of the conference. The bottom team in 05/06 won 23 games while in 04/05 there was a team with 13 wins and another with 18. The middle gets squeezed when the top and the bottom get better.


No, I'm not overlooking it. I'm just telling you looking only at the top couple teams, which was the approach you were using, is flawed.






> Glad you realize it


I disagree with your appraisal of Skiles.





> Taking almost 500 more shots than the next player on the team is definitely being the man


Or being one of a couple competent NBA basketball players on a team.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Ron Cey again.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> No you didn't.
> 
> And for all your "golden age of the 47 win, 3rd best team in the East" posts, you ripped that team, the man who constructed it, and the man who coached it no differently than you sarcastically bagged on last year's team and as you do with the current team today. Since the minute Paxson took over and started blowing things up, you've been disgruntled.
> 
> ...


What happened to the "Jamal Crawford Update Thread" anyway? I can't find it anywhere..... it's like it was here, and then all of the sudden it vanished. Conspiracy? Too many "important" posters to this board with to many embarrassingly ridiculous posts that they needed to bury it forever?!

My signature bet was one of my favorite moments on this board!


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> No, I'm showing you your point has little merit. The Bulls had a winning record without Curry. The Bulls had a winning record without Hinrich. Both were important parts of that team.


Based upon the roster and your beliefs in the skills and talent of Curry, the Bulls should have suffered without Curry in the lineup and they didn't. The Bulls had skillful backups, that even on paper, make the drop off from Kirk less than the drop off from Curry. The Bulls did much better in real life than they should have on paper with Curry out. 




> And I'd be interested to see whatever research you've done to base this on.


Watch him play the game. Teams with black holes on offense generally don't do well. The list of offensive black holes isn't very big and Curry is on it.



> No, I'm not overlooking it. I'm just telling you looking only at the top couple teams, which was the approach you were using, is flawed.


No, that wasn't the approach I was using. I gave an obvious reason instead of listing all of them.




> I disagree with your appraisal of Skiles.


I can find many posts from you that say otherwise



> Or being one of a couple competent NBA basketball players on a team.


No, it clearly says that the player had an I'm the man complex. Which goes hand in hand with coming out of college to early.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

If I have one lesson to learn from the 3Cs experience its :

If you feel you must bet a high lottery pick on a high shool prospect, don't double or triple up. 
One big risk is more than enough. The infinite wait for these prospects to develop can drive otherwise sane fans crazy.

The 3Cs are in the middle of their second pro contracts and people are still talking about their potential... Fortunately those people are mostly fans of other teams.

Thank goodness the NBA has restricted the practice of drafting and giving millions of dollars to children too young to legally buy a drink, smoke, get married or vote. Too much money, fame and freedom at too young an age. The Moses Malones, Kevin Garnetts and Dwight Howards are the exceptions. Most of these young guys can't handle the lifestyle. LBJ seems to be behaving more erratically each year. We all know what happened to Kobe Bryant. And those are the players with real talent.

It's amazing what a few years in a college environment with parental authority figures and peers of the same age can do for the maturity of young people. The players that come out 3 or 4 years of college are so much more mature and stable than those who come out earlier. One has to suspect that the early recruitment did more harm than good to many young NBA players; including each of the 3 Cs.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> The Bulls had skillful backups, that even on paper, make the drop off from Kirk less than the drop off from Curry. The Bulls did much better in real life than they should have on paper with Curry out.


You are right. Its tough to find competent big men. Its easier to find competent guards. That's why there is a big man premium when its time to pay them.






> Teams with black holes on offense generally don't do well. The list of offensive black holes isn't very big and Curry is on it.



The Bulls did very well with Curry being their leading scorer and having the 2nd highest MPG. 






> I can find many posts from you that say otherwise


Its been a long time since I've ripped Skiles expect for the fact that he's not going to get along with a certain percentage of NBA players. He's a good coach, IMO. I'm impressed with the way he ends up finding solid lineups and rotations with the players he's given.





> No, it clearly says that the player had an I'm the man complex. Which goes hand in hand with coming out of college to early.


Wow. OK. Why didn't this "I'm the man" complex emerge in NYC?


----------

