# Do you need a top 5 player to win an NBA title?



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

This series of articles, started on Realand continued on NBADraft.net, argue that in the NBA, you almost have to have a top player to win.

Superduperstar Theory

Gold Medal Superstar Theory Part I

Gold Medal Superstar Theory Part II

Take a few minutes to browse the articles. They are a pretty good read.


----------



## SianTao (Jul 11, 2005)

It's hardly any news. The NBA is all about selling individuals.
But placing Ben Wallace among the 84 All Time Greatest Players to prove the point is ridiculous.


----------



## Wishbone (Jun 10, 2002)

Ben Wallace's 2004 season alone would put him in the top 84... but then you put the rest of his career in perspective, and he's not even the same calibre player as Rodman - who was absent from the list...
so putting Big Ben on the list really does seem to be a stretch.

I think he does make a good point -- and that the 2004 Pistons were something of an exception to the rule. though that team did have 4 Brass-medal stars to it's merit. for the most part, especially the last twenty years or so, it seems you don't win a championship without a top-5 player on your team.


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

either a top 5 player with complementory skills surrounding them. or else you need a top 5 skill coming from somebody at each position, but that player doesn't necessarily need to be top 5. If you have a point guard who is a top 5 playmaker, and runs an offense among the top 5 pg's, a guy who can be a top 5 shooter, a guy who is one of the 5 best at slashing. a top 5 shot blocker, a top 5 rebounder, and guys who are top 5 at D for their positions then you dont need that great superstar top 5 player. it's a team game, each player just needs to bring a strength that blends in with that team.


----------



## Wishbone (Jun 10, 2002)

ScottVdub said:


> either a top 5 player with complementory skills surrounding them. or else you need a top 5 skill coming from somebody at each position, but that player doesn't necessarily need to be top 5. If you have a point guard who is a top 5 playmaker, and runs an offense among the top 5 pg's, a guy who can be a top 5 shooter, a guy who is one of the 5 best at slashing. a top 5 shot blocker, a top 5 rebounder, and guys who are top 5 at D for their positions then you dont need that great superstar top 5 player. it's a team game, each player just needs to bring a strength that blends in with that team.



interesting theory... how does the Bulls stack up to that though?

is Hinrich a top 5 playmaker or top-5 defender at his position? probably yes for the D, but not so sure he's up that high as a playmaker

is Gordon a top-5 shooter? close, but I'd say top 10, not necessarily 5

is Wallace still a top-5 defender and top-5 rebounder? he may have slipped some from where he was number one in both categories just a couple years ago. but it's pretty safe to say that he is still right about at #5 or #6 in both categories

I'd really hesitate to say that either Deng or Noc are top-5 at any skill. Both are good defenders - but top-5? probably not. both got better at slashing to the hoop, but top-5? no way.

so, unless Tyrus comes on as an extraordinary shot-blocker, rebounder and slasher from the get go -- it doesn't seem so much like the Bulls are championship bound.


*edit* hey! that was my 800th post. and it only took me something like 4 years to reach that benchmark!


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Wishbone said:


> interesting theory... how does the Bulls stack up to that though?
> 
> is Hinrich a top 5 playmaker or top-5 defender at his position? probably yes for the D, but not so sure he's up that high as a playmaker
> 
> ...



And a nice post it was.


----------



## gregorius (Apr 26, 2005)

Nope. Detroit were proof of that in 2004.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

These ideas have been around for a while. Pippenaterade liked to talk about this and would probably have been happy to take over this thread.

No matter how much the guys who wrote these articles wriggle and dance, they can't get around the fact that there is a good deal of circularity in their reasoning. Championship teams will magically sprout all-stars and MVPs where none were recognized before -- particularly if they manage to repeat. So using first team all-star or MVP status as an index of excellence is circular, and it will be difficult to get around that fact.

It is hardly a surprise that Championship teams were manned by HOF quality players in a 5 man team game organized by a league with very few teams for many years whose rules discouraged team defense. But I wouldn't be surprised to see this rule become only a tendency in a league of 30 teams that has legalized zone defenses and double teaming. 

The only thing working in favor of continued "superstar" hegemony in NBA championships is the blatent favoritism shown by officals toward superstars on both ends of the floor, most recently demonstrated by their treatment of Dwane Wade and Lebron James (amoung others) in last year's playoffs. Apparently Wade is to be forever immune to charging calls as he propels himself into opposing players defending the paint; and James will be allowed to walk on 1 micron thick invisible air cushions above the floor without having to dribble. Oh, and the rather mediocre defensive abilites of these two players will not prevent them from being promoted into basketball Valhalla. Talk about circular reasoning ... The league identifies superstars and then bends the rules to make sure the definition holds.

Of course bending the rules during the NBA season only teaches superstars bad habits. So when they gather together to crush international teams in a neutral setting they have not been doing so well in recent years. Teams without a single superstar like Agentina, Brazil or Puerto Rico have been competing very well against US superstars simply by playing good team basketball. Olympic medals in basketball are being worn by an awful lot of guys who no-one would identify as superstars.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

gregorius said:


> Nope. Detroit were proof of that in 2004.


Actually, they were argument against it. At least by my rating system, Chauncy Billups was the #5 rated PG and Ben Wallace was the #2 rated C.

2003-2004
1- Billups (5)
2- Rip (12)
3- Prince (18)
4- Sheed (10)
5- Ben (2)

2004-2005
1- Billups (9)
2- Rip (10)
3- Prince (9)
4- Sheed (16)
5- Ben (3)

2005-2006
1- Billups (4)
2- Rip (11)
3- Prince (18)
4- Sheed (11)
5- Ben (3)

The Bulls, by the way...
2004-2005
1- Duhon (38)
2- Hinrich (7)
3- Deng (20)
4- Chandler (28)
5- Curry (14)

2005-2006
1- Hinrich (12)
2- Gordon (23)
3- Deng (17)
4- Nocioni (19)
5- Chandler (13)


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

McBulls said:


> These ideas have been around for a while. Pippenaterade liked to talk about this and would probably have been happy to take over this thread.
> 
> No matter how much the guys who wrote these articles wriggle and dance, they can't get around the fact that there is a good deal of circularity in their reasoning. Championship teams will magically sprout all-stars and MVPs where none were recognized before -- particularly if they manage to repeat. So using first team all-star or MVP status as an index of excellence is circular, and it will be difficult to get around that fact.


On the other hand, a rating system that's based on stats tends to suggest that even if recognition comes late, actual play (that is, actually being a superstar) is pretty steady.

For example, the 02-03 Pistons
02-03
1- Billups (9)
2- Hamilton (17)
3- Williamson (33)
4- Robinson (20)
5- Wallace (2)

weren't that much different from the 03-04 (Championship) Pistons
2003-2004
1- Billups (5)
2- Rip (12)
3- Prince (18)
4- Sheed (10)
5- Ben (2)

Ben and Billups produced at around the same levels. Rip steadily improved, as you'd expect from a younger player. They helped themselves to a championship a lot by improving at SF (Corliss Williamson upgraded to Tayshaun Prince) and PF (Cliff Robinson upgraded to Sheed).


----------



## gregorius (Apr 26, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> Actually, they were argument against it. At least by my rating system, Chauncy Billups was the #5 rated PG and Ben Wallace was the #2 rated C.
> 
> 2003-2004
> 1- Billups (5)
> ...



the phrase 'top 5 player' indicates to me a top 5 player not a top 25..

i guess by your terminology i'd say Billups is maybe the #2 or #3 PG, Hamilton a top 10 SG, Prince a top 15 SF, and Sheed a top 10 PF


as to the Bulls Kirk is around #8 or #9 as a PG, Ben is a top 15 SG, Lu and Noc top 20 SF's, and BW is maybe the #3 Center


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

gregorius said:


> the phrase 'top 5 player' indicates to me a top 5 player not a top 25..
> 
> i guess by your terminology i'd say Billups is maybe the #2 or #3 PG, Hamilton a top 10 SG, Prince a top 15 SF, and Sheed a top 10 PF
> 
> ...




Good point. At best, by that measure, we'd say Ben was a top 10 guy, overall. I do think the by-position comparison is valuable though, because in general if you're better than an opponent at a position, you've got an advantage.

I think you're right about the Bulls' ranking too, except maybe Gordon. He'll have to take a significant step to crack the top 15. I think he can, but it's no guarantee.

Based on last year, this year's Bulls look like:
  2006-2007
1- Hinrich (12)
2- Gordon (23)
3- Deng (17)
4- Nocioni (19), Brown (26)
5- Wallace (3)

Factor in nice improvements to our young guys and slight declines in our old guys (just to be optimistic, and maybe we're at something like
 1- Hinrich (8)
2- Gordon (19)
3- Deng (13)
4- Nocioni (15), Brown (28)
5- Wallace (4)

------------

That's nice, though I'm still not seeing a really top notch team there unless we get a really big jump in productivity from Ben, Noc, or Lou (or one of the rookies comes in and just busts ***).


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Good point. At best, by that measure, we'd say Ben was a top 10 guy, overall. I do think the by-position comparison is valuable though, because in general if you're better than an opponent at a position, you've got an advantage.
> 
> I think you're right about the Bulls' ranking too, except maybe Gordon. He'll have to take a significant step to crack the top 15. I think he can, but it's no guarantee.
> 
> ...


in general i like your rankings. but i do think it's hard to place a number on gordan and his 'clutchness'. overall his ranking is about right, but still in the fourth quarter i'm a-ok with him having the ball in his hands.

oh and out of curiosity how does minutes effect the rankings? the pistons were known to rely heavily on the starters whereas the bulls+skiles run a more equal opportunity rotation (so lower stats for everyone). in 04-05 only kirk avg more than 30 mpg, in 05-06 up to 3 people. Detroit has always had 5 people @ +30mpg.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> [/size][/size]
> That's nice, though I'm still not seeing a really top notch team there unless we get a really big jump in productivity from Ben, Noc, or Lou (or one of the rookies comes in and just busts ***).


But offensive chemistry, team defense, bench strength and in-game coaching are also significant variables that need to be taken into consideration in evaluating if a collection of individually ranked players constitutes a "top notch team".


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

RoRo said:


> in general i like your rankings. but i do think it's hard to place a number on gordan and his 'clutchness'. overall his ranking is about right, but still in the fourth quarter i'm a-ok with him having the ball in his hands.
> 
> oh and out of curiosity how does minutes effect the rankings? the pistons were known to rely heavily on the starters whereas the bulls+skiles run a more equal opportunity rotation (so lower stats for everyone). in 04-05 only kirk avg more than 30 mpg, in 05-06 up to 3 people. Detroit has always had 5 people @ +30mpg.


Detroit has had better players at 1-5, which is why they get the +30mpg.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Detroit has had better players at 1-5, which is why they get the +30mpg.


True but the flip side of that coin is that the Bulls have a deeper better bench.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> True but the flip side of that coin is that the Bulls have a deeper better bench.


Deeper, perhaps. Better? Perhaps not.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Deeper, perhaps. Better? Perhaps not.


Detroit will rely almost entirely on McDyess and Flip...solid almost-starter quality guys. But after that it's dicey for them. If our rookies prove even moderately competent this year, we should be able to come at people in waves. Unless we start Noc at PF, we'll have either Deng or Noc as our 1st guy off the bench as well. I think I'd take our bench over Detroit's.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Better? Perhaps not.


Hunter, Flip, Delfino, McDyess, Dale Davis.

compared to

Duhon, Thabo, Nocioni, Allen, Sweets.

I can see how it would be close...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Detroit will rely almost entirely on McDyess and Flip...solid almost-starter quality guys. But after that it's dicey for them. If our rookies prove even moderately competent this year, we should be able to come at people in waves. Unless we start Noc at PF, we'll have either Deng or Noc as our 1st guy off the bench as well. I think I'd take our bench over Detroit's.


I think McDyess would start for us, and would have last year, etc. That's the kind of thing that makes their best bench player(s) better than our best.

Like I said, we're deeper, and we agree on that.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Detroit has had better players at 1-5, which is why they get the +30mpg.


At the start of last season Detroit looked like they might break the record for regular season wins. But by the time the playoffs came around they looked quite mortal.

I think the failure to involve their bench players more during the regular season was partly responsible for this. 

It's much safer to use 10 players in the rotation during the regular season, and then narrow it to 8 duirng the playoffs. Bench players will be more ready to be integrated with the starters should they be needed, and the starters will be fresher during games -- particularly back-to-back games. The only price that is paid is that fans (and GMs) who rate players on the basis of per game statistics will undervalue your players.

In short, Skiles is a better coach than Flip Saunders, and the Pistons players were not as much better than their Bulls counterparts as they might appear to be from their per game stats.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

McBulls said:


> At the start of last season Detroit looked like they might break the record for regular season wins. But by the time the playoffs came around they looked quite mortal.
> 
> I think the failure to involve their bench players more during the regular season was partly responsible for this.
> 
> ...


That's an interesting analysis. Mine is that Detroit built up a big lead and decided to coast rather than go for the all-time best win/loss record. And they found it hard to get the fire back after being complacent for so long (like half the season!).


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I think McDyess would start for us, and would have last year, etc. That's the kind of thing that makes their best bench player(s) better than our best.
> 
> Like I said, we're deeper, and we agree on that.


fair enough. I might argue that if one of Noc or Deng isn't starting, that non-starter would be better than McDyess, but I guess that's a matter of opinion. 

Though I agree with you that depth is only useful if it's of a good quality. In our case I am optimistic that it will be, but it depends on the rooks. If they're clueless, we're suddenly not as deep.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I would say that having a mentally strong top 5 player makes things a whole lot easier. As the biggest piece of the puzzle, they can hold people accountable, and it makes things easier for the players surrounding him. It relieves pressure. 

Do you need a player like that? I would say no, but it's more difficult to put together, and more difficult to maintain without one. 

Without that though, you need atleast 5 guys who are all mentally strong and all have games that compliment the others. The problem with building this way is that *it's a much more delicate system*, and if one player fails to live up to his duties, the whole system crashes. With the superstar, if one player fails to live up to his duties, it wouldn't be difficult to find another player to fill his spot because the responsibility isn't that large. You just can't have the superstar be the one to crack under the pressure, for obvious reasons. That's why your superstar needs to thrive in big games. 

The problem is that most teams that have a superstar, lucked into them. Building a system without a superstar doesn't rely on luck, where as if you're trying to get a Dwyane Wade, Kobe Bryant or Tim Duncan type player, you're going to need to be really lucky, because those guys are incredibly untradeable. You would only get them in a draft, and like I said, you'd have to be real lucky.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

RoRo said:


> in general i like your rankings. but i do think it's hard to place a number on gordan and his 'clutchness'. overall his ranking is about right, but still in the fourth quarter i'm a-ok with him having the ball in his hands.
> 
> oh and out of curiosity how does minutes effect the rankings? the pistons were known to rely heavily on the starters whereas the bulls+skiles run a more equal opportunity rotation (so lower stats for everyone). in 04-05 only kirk avg more than 30 mpg, in 05-06 up to 3 people. Detroit has always had 5 people @ +30mpg.


I generally think if a player is better, he plays more. If two players are about equal, you play one a bit more and the other a bit less, so their per minute values should come out to pretty much the same (the main exception being guys like sweetney who tend to look very good in per minute statistics because it discounts foul difficulties).

Nonetheless, one interesting way to look at this would be to re-rank everyone based on their playoff performances. I'll do that and see how things rank out.


----------



## gregorius (Apr 26, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> Good point. At best, by that measure, we'd say Ben was a top 10 guy, overall. I do think the by-position comparison is valuable though, because in general if you're better than an opponent at a position, you've got an advantage.
> 
> I think you're right about the Bulls' ranking too, except maybe Gordon. He'll have to take a significant step to crack the top 15. I think he can, but it's no guarantee.
> 
> ...


I agree. It is valuable...nice idea in fact..

Just out of interest who are the 18 SG's you feel surpass BG?

Ray Ray
Kome
Joe Johnson
Wade
Hamilton
Carter
Ginobili
JRich
Redd

the you have the pushes...e.g.

Raja Bell
Ricky Davis
Hughes
Miller
Mobley
Wally World


then you have the guys who could be classed as G/F's e.g. Wells, Pierce, Gerald Wallace, TMac, Mags, SJax....for the record i'm classing these guys as SF's.


so thats 15 guys i've listed, 9 superior to Ben and 6 around the same level. Thats why i have him as a top 15 SG.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

People have this wrong. You don't need a superstar to win an NBA title. You need a superstar to be a Dynasty and win multiple titles. There are plenty of one-hit wonders in NBA history, that are a group of players who caught lighting in a bottle, and gimmicked their way to a title. But eventually people figure out their tricks, and they lack the imagination of a superstar to create new ideas.

Plus in this day and age, it's very hard to keep the large cores needed for ensemble cast repeats together. If you win a title with a group of players, those players are suddenly going to be very expensive to keep. And if you lose even one, as in the case of the 04 pistons, you are screwed.

Think of how expensive it is going to be to keep the Bulls core together if they become even a perenial 50 win team, let alone a championship team. Deng, Gordon, Hinrich, and Nocioni will probably all get way overpriced offers for them in free agency. Is tightwad moneybags going to want to pay that? Especially without a DNA test?

Where as a team like the Heat or Cavs will be able to lose their top role players and just replace them with cheaper younger replacements, provided the gm is not completely incompentent.

Look at the Spurs and Tim Duncan. When one guy ages and drops off, they replace him. They don't overpay anyone but their big three. Thus it is easier to reload over and over again, and make multiple runs at titles without going into full rebuild mode.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Well, the Bulls don't have a superstar. 

So some of you are going to have a lot of explaining to do when the Bulls win the next 3 NBA Championships.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

OK, I re-ran my ratings on the playoffs and indeed Dwyane Wade and Dirk Nowitski turned out to be two of the top five overall, so I suppose that'd be evidence that you do need a top five player.

I just went by the same positions they're listed at on dougstats.com, which is why there are lineup mismatches, but I think that generally is accurate, so I didn't bother changing them

The Bulls
1- Hinrich 6, Duhon 22
2- Gordon 8
3- Nocioni 4 (16th overall), Deng 17
4- Sweetney 16, Allen 25
5- Chandler 26

The Heat
1- Williams 16, Payton 20
2- Wade 2 (5th overall), Posey 18
3-
4- Walker 8, Haslem 10
5- Shaq 2, Mourning 18

The Pistons
1- Billups 5 (14th Overall), Hunter 25
2- Hamilton 7
3- Prince 8
4- R. Wallace 7, Mcdyess 11
5- B. Wallace 3

The Mavs
1- Terry 9, Harris 21
2- Stackhouse 16, Griffin 24, Daniels 27
3- Howard 10, Van Horn 28
4- Nowitski 1 (2nd overall)
5- Dampier 11, Diop 15

The Suns
1- Nash 2 (9th overall), Barbosa 17
2- Bell 10
3- Marion 2 (8th overall), Diaw 6, Thomas 11, Jones 26
4- 
5- 

---------------------

A few interesting things to note:
* Gordon played 41 mpg (the 14th highest in the playoffs) but was only the 39th most productive guy statistically. That tells me how dependent the Bulls were on his scoring (they had to keep him out there no matter what), and how much better they could be with a more potent set of weapons.

Another Gordon comparison. He was the #8 SG. Rip Hamilton was #7. He played the 30th most minutes per game and gave the 36th overall most productivity. He didn't do all that well either.

* Sweetney's overall statistical production was decent, but he couldn't stay on the court due to foul trouble.

* James Posey rated out as the 62nd best player overall. Deng as the 76th.

Looking forward:
The Bulls
1- Hinrich 6, Duhon 22
2- Gordon 8
3- Nocioni 4 (16th overall), Deng 17
4- Brown 25 (regular season), Sweetney 16, Allen 25
5- B. Wallace 3

The Pistons
1- Billups 5 (14th Overall), Hunter 25
2- Hamilton 7
3- Prince 8
4- R. Wallace 7, Mcdyess 11
5- Mohammed 16


--------------------------------------------

As far as SGs I'd take over Gordon, (talking about to play in any given game, not with respect to age, salary or other factors)
Kobe
Wade
Pierce
Carter
Allen
Richardson
Redd
Johnson
Manu
Branden Roy
Larry Hughes
Rip Hamilton
Jerry Stackhouse

Guys who I think are about the same. You could replace Gordon with these guys and get about the same result on the Bulls
Ricky Davis
Cuttino Mobley
Bonzi Wells
Jamal Crawford
Stephen Jackson
Mike Miller


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Kobe
Wade
Pierce
Carter
Allen
Manu

Guys on the same level

Richardson
Redd
Johnson
Rip Hamilton


FIXED


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

McBulls said:


> Well, the Bulls don't have a superstar.
> 
> So some of you are going to have a lot of explaining to do when the Bulls win the next 3 NBA Championships.


Well championship #1 will be in part from Thabo's divine powers. Championships 2 and 3 will because we have a superstar.










!!!!!!!!!


----------



## VC4MVP (Dec 30, 2005)

Ask the pistons if u need a top 5 player to win a title.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The Chicago Bulls haven't won an NBA title without a top 5 player.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

The Pistons were an exception to everything. If you look at the past 25 years or the league since the arrival of Bird/Magic, *EVERY* championship team had a Top 5 player and AT LEAST another perennial AS on the team. LA(Kareem, Magic, Worthy), Boston(Bird, Parish, Mchale), Philadelphia(Moses and Dr. J), Detroit(Isiah and Dumars), Chicago(MJ and Pippen), Houston(Hakeem and Drexler), SA(Duncan and D-Rob plus Manu later), LA(Shaq&Kobe), and now Miami(Shaq and Wade).

From our young core no one's even all that close to being an All Star yet and that isn't likely to change soon barring something totally unexpected. Is a declining Ben a lock to make the AS team the upcoming season w/ the emergence of Dwigh Howard? The talk of us being a championship contender w/ no stars and limited experience IMO is a joke. We got a solid young core w/ a DEEP bench that can get homecourt in the 1st round IF the guys play really, really well. That's the BEST case scenario to me.

Another thing that ticks me off is understating the HUGE importance of a good/great offense in winning championships. Since 79-80 only 3 CHAMPIONS(90 Pistons, 94 Rockets and 04 Pistons) weren't Top 10 in offensive efficiency for the year they won. Showtime LAKERS ranked 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 1st and 2nd during their 5 championships in the 80s. The Celtics were 6th twice and 3rd once. '83 Sixers were 5th. Detroit was 8th, 11th and 19th. *90's Bulls were #1 during 4 of their 6 championships*. #3 and #9 the other 2 times. The latter due to Pip missing half the season in 97-98. 00's LAKERS were ranked 6th, 2nd and 3rd. Spurs were #10, 6 and 8. Miami was 7th last season. The 2 most successful teams of the last 25 years(80's LA and 90's Bulls) never had a defense that outranked their offense.The _Defense Wins Championships_ mantra is only half true because you better be ELITE on the other end of the court too.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that the current Bulls aren't sniffing the champange until we GREATLY improve our offense(we were 8th worst last season), and I don't see that happening any time soon either given how the team's primary scorers are all jump shooters w/ low fg percentages.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

VC4MVP said:


> Ask the pistons if u need a top 5 player to win a title.


I'd rather ask Michael Jordan, Hakeem, Tim Duncan, and Shaq. See what they think.
Pistons were a fluke. Only won one title. If you want just one title, maybe the Bulls will luck into it one but they won't win multiple titles, and will have to start rebuilding again soon after winning that title.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

futuristxen said:


> I'd rather ask Michael Jordan, Hakeem, Tim Duncan, and Shaq. See what they think.


You should also ask Charles Barkley, Kevin Garnett, AI, Patrick Ewing, John Stockton, and Karl Malone. Not to mention coattail riders like Payton, Zo, and even David Robinson. 

My point is that there are no guarantees either way. There is no one formula. If you are fortunate enough to obtain a LeBron James or a Michael Jordan, then you go with that and build around him. If you can't acquire a player like that (most teams can't), then you have to go another route and do your best. Sometimes, that is good enough to win it all. Other times its not. 

Certainly having a top 5 player on your team is a good thing. I think we can all agree on that. But as current Lakers fans will tell you, far more is required and there are no guarantees.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> People have this wrong. You don't need a superstar to win an NBA title. You need a superstar to be a Dynasty and win multiple titles. There are plenty of one-hit wonders in NBA history, that are a group of players who caught lighting in a bottle, and gimmicked their way to a title. But eventually people figure out their tricks, and they lack the imagination of a superstar to create new ideas.


Whoa, wait a minute. I'll grant you that there have been some one-hit wonders, but you won't find any one-hit wonders without at least one superstar. In fact, from 1970 (I arbitrarily picked that year as it probably loosely coincides with some limited form of free agency) to 1997, every NBA champion had at least one player who was voted to the NBA at 50 All-Time team, and the champions since 1997, with the exception of Detroit, have all had players of that ilk -- Jordan, Pippen, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Wade, etc. 

Moreover, with the exception of Bill Walton, all of these team's superstars were *established *stars (as measured by All-Star appearances) when they won their rings, so it's hard to say that winning the title is what conferred superstar status upon the player.

Here's the list:

The Bucks in 1971 had Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (check out his stats with the Bucks sometime; they are insane) and Oscar Robertson. Not much more needs to be said.

The Lakers in 1972 (this was the only ring for that particular group) had Jerry West and Wilt Chamberlain. Let's just move on.

Golden State in 1975 had Rick Barry (and Jamaal Wilkes and Clifford Ray). 

Portland in 1977 had Bill Walton, who likely would have anchored multiple champions if not for injuries. They also featured Maurice Lucas, a five-time All-Star.

Washington in 1978 is a oft-dissed champion due to their pedestrian regular-season record, but they were not at all lacking in star quality. They had Wes Unseld (who won the MVP as a ROOKIE in 1969) and Elvin Freaking Hayes! Backing them up was four-time All-Star Bobby Dandridge.

EDIT:
Seattle in 1979 would be another example of the Pistons model -- lots of very good players, but no superstar.

The Sixers in 1983 were basically a lot like the 85 Bears, only better. It's almost inconceivable that they didn't win multiple titles--Moses and Dr. J were their NBA at 50 entries, and they rounded that out with Maurice Cheeks, Bobby Jones, and Andrew Toney. Sheesh. 

The rest of the champions since 1970 were ones whose stars were around for multiple rings, and the names are all in the pantheon: Reed, Frazier, Monroe, Havlicek, Cowens, Kareem, Magic, Worthy, Bird, McHale, Parish, Thomas, Jordan, Pippen, O'Neal, Drexler, Olajuwon, Duncan.

The Pistons seem to be the only outlier. I don't see Billups, Hamilton, Prince, Rasheed, or Ben making the Hall of Fame (or the equivalent of the 50-Greatest team). Maybe if Ben suffers no statistical drop-off for the next 4-5 years and wins multiple DPOYs and another ring or two. 



> Plus in this day and age, it's very hard to keep the large cores needed for ensemble cast repeats together. If you win a title with a group of players, those players are suddenly going to be very expensive to keep. And if you lose even one, as in the case of the 04 pistons, you are screwed.
> 
> Think of how expensive it is going to be to keep the Bulls core together if they become even a perenial 50 win team, let alone a championship team. Deng, Gordon, Hinrich, and Nocioni will probably all get way overpriced offers for them in free agency. Is tightwad moneybags going to want to pay that? Especially without a DNA test?
> 
> ...


I pretty much agree with all of this. I don't want the Bulls to throw up their hands and quit because we don't have a superstar, but it makes the job of building a championship team a near-impossibility, imo. From what I can tell, Detroit is the only team in the last 36 years to have won a championship without one, and they probably even wouldn't won it if there hadn't been so much petty bickering going on between the superstars on the opposition.

EDIT: as I was writing this, SPMJ was saying much the same thing, and much more efficiently.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Sometimes, that is good enough to win it all.


If by "sometimes" you mean "once in the modern era," then I agree.

:cheers:


----------



## gregorius (Apr 26, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> As far as SGs I'd take over Gordon, (talking about to play in any given game, not with respect to age, salary or other factors)
> Kobe
> Wade
> Pierce
> ...



You'd seriously take an untested rookie who's deemed to be 'solidly average' at everything and outstanding at nothing over Ben? Hell no mike, thats crazy..

and Craw is not (and never will be) Ben's equal.

other than that it appears you rank him similarly to me.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> If you can't acquire a player like that (most teams can't), then you have to go another route and do your best. *Sometimes, that is good enough to win it all.*


Only *ONCE* since the beginning of the 79-80 season.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

SPMJ said:


> Only *ONCE* since the beginning of the 79-80 season.


You and Scott successfully isolated one sentence in my post, but I'm afraid the larger point was missed. 

I'd also point out the rarity of being able to create a "Pistons" model. Its hard to get 4 allstar caliber players, and a 5th that is close to an allstar, onto one team at the same time. It requires a lot of luck and perfect timing. 

Were this as regular an occurrence as teams having a superstar (several teams achieve this each and every year), I suspect the # of examples of a more balanced, Pistons-esque roster taking it all would be greater. 

But if you guys are of the impression that I'm arguing having a superstar is < than not having one, you are mistaken. I'd trade every player on this team for LeBron James and start over from scratch if I could.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> You and Scott successfully isolated one sentence in my post, but I'm afraid the larger point was missed.


I didn't miss the point -- as I stated, I'm happy the Bulls are going another route and doing their best. It sure beats sucking every year and hoping to get lucky in the lottery.

I was merely disputing your choice of words to describe the likelihood of a positive outcome of this approach. Or you can look at my earlier post and tell me which teams from 1970 to 2006 did NOT have at least one top 5-type player on the roster.



> But if you guys are of the impression that I'm arguing having a superstar is < than not having one, you are mistaken. I'd trade every player on this team for LeBron James and start over from scratch if I could.


Me too. I've said as much before, and I took a lot of heat for it, but I'd do it in a second.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> But if you guys are of the impression that I'm arguing having a superstar is < than not having one, you are mistaken. I'd trade every player on this team for LeBron James and start over from scratch if I could.


And now we're back to the situation Krause faced after MJ retired, since its going to be difficult if not impossible to trade for Lebron James.

Are you content to hover around the 4-7 seed and maybe get home court advantage in the 1st round and maybe get to the 2nd or 3rd round or do you get really bad in an attempt to land Lebron? The Pistons Model is very difficult to recreate.

The Knicks picks changed this dynamic for the Bulls, who have the best of both worlds, avoiding the ruinous effect prolonged losing can have on an organization by being a scrappy 41-50 win team while still getting high lotto picks.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> I was merely disputing your choice of words to describe the likelihood of a positive outcome of this approach.


Fair enough. And you are right, so I'm not going to manufacture a dispute. 

It would be interesting to evaluate the landscape of the league during the actual year in which they won the championship to determine if they were a "top 5" player at the time. 

They probably were, so its probably not worth the effort. But the one that jumped out at me was, coincidentally, another Piston. Zeke. Certainly one of the all-time greats. But I always thought of those champion Bad Boys teams as a true unit.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> The Knicks picks changed this dynamic for the Bulls, who have the best of both worlds, avoiding the ruinous effect prolonged losing can have on an organization by being a scrappy 41-50 win team while still getting high lotto picks.


and this is why i'm content with the bulls current situation. 
we have a potential lottery pick on the horizon. it's good because it's unlikely that curry will become a top 5 player. 

also in staying competitive, you never know what may happen. the pistons were always competitive in the eastern confernce. but back people joked that the western conference playoffs were the real nba championship games. but somehow dumars made the right moves and built the right combo to knock out the Lakers. is this repeatable? who knows for sure, but at least the bulls have the option to try something like this down the line.

and in staying competitive with a young core you give yourself options. not too long ago the heat looked to be rebuilding around brand/odom/butler. they lost brand to the Clips. but they stayed competitive and odom had his best year. so with odom+butler+grant the heat were able to land the disgruntled Shaq from the Lakers. could something like this play out with say KG (not into forecasting, but he's the biggest name out there with potential to be traded).


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> And now we're back to the situation Krause faced after MJ retired, since its going to be difficult if not impossible to trade for Lebron James.


No we aren't. I assume you mean the second retirement. If so, the situation then and now aren't even remotely similar. 



> Are you content to hover around the 4-7 seed and maybe get home court advantage in the 1st round and maybe get to the 2nd or 3rd round or do you get really bad in an attempt to land Lebron?


It depends. This team is still incredibly young with a variety of current and future assets at its disposal. Right now, I'm content to make steady improvement in the playoff picture and maybe even hit a roadblock or two. It takes time. I've given my MJ/Scottie playoff history lesson before to remind people how hard it was to get over the top even for the greatest duo ever, so I won't do it again. 

Look how long it took Stockton/Malone to even reach the Finals. 

When it isn't good enough is when you have an aging team with little room for improvement due to that age, their solid year in/year out record, and the lack of cap flexibility. When you hit that point, reality needs to set in and the team needs to be re-evaluated. It happens all the time. But patience is required. 

Continuing to blow it up and suck in the hopes that you back into LeBron James is not the way to do things. 



> The Pistons Model is very difficult to recreate.


I agree. But I think the Bulls are in a unique enough situation that they may be able to do it. If I get time later, I'll explain why.



> The Knicks picks changed this dynamic for the Bulls, who have the best of both worlds, avoiding the ruinous effect prolonged losing can have on an organization by being a scrappy 41-50 win team while still getting high lotto picks.


Well, actually, I might not need to explain too much. You've hit on a large part of it right here. The Bulls are uniquely positioned.

You nailed the Knicks part of it perfectly, so I won't add to that. 

But the Bulls have three other things that are very unique going for them that lead me to believe that they could emulate the Pistons "many stars/no superstars" model for success. 

First, even before the Knicks thing, they drafted 3 lottery picks in 2 years all of which are already wonderfully productive/proveably effective and look to continue to improve quite a bit in the coming years: Hinrich/Gordon/Deng. This does not happen to an NBA team very often. 

Second, literally stealing Nocioni in free agency at the same time the 3 referenced lottery picks were acquired. I liken this to the surprisingly successful acquisition of Chauncey Billups - a guy who was out there for the taking, Dumars took him, and he flourished in an unforseen way. 

Third, shortly after the acquisition of this core, signing Ben Wallace. I liken this to Detroit obtaining Rasheed Wallace to mix in with its surprisingly successful core. 

Then, of course there is the less significant, but important smaller move of finding a second round steal in Chris Duhon. Again, all at the same time.

The uniqueness here is the temporal factor. All of these things happened together so quickly that the Bulls didn't have time to get good enough to ruin their draft positioning or access to free agency money through re-signing these guys to their extensions. 

Add two more lottery picks into the mix with Thabo/Thomas and what most of us predict to be a third one next year via Zeke, and you have a slightly different, but equally unique, series of events beginning to unfold much like they did in Detroit. Moreover, we will have more young assets to package into a consolidation trade to maybe add that "superstar" that Detroit never did. 

Its possible. And when its possible, one has to wait and see.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Just so I understand everyone's opinion...

Many here feel that --
The Bulls will not be able to win a series against Cleveland because they have LBJ?
The Bulls will not be able to win a series against Miami because they have at least 3 HOF players?
The Bulls will not be able to win a series against New Jersey because they have 2 or 3 superstars?
The Bulls may not even be able to win a series against Boston or Orlando because of their superstars?

Or maybe what your mean is that the Bulls could win one or two of those series; maybe even the eastern conference title, but they could not beat a superstar laden western conference team for the championship like Dallas, San Antonio or Phoenix (not to mention LA)?

Barring injury, I bet none of the above teams will look forward to meeting the Bulls in a playoff series.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> It would be interesting to evaluate the landscape of the league during the actual year in which they won the championship to determine if they were a "top 5" player at the time.


I sort of quickly looked at that, and that's why I said that in most cases, the all-time great/s on title-winning teams was/were an established superstar -- i.e., had they come close to their statistical peak and made All-Star teams.

The answer in just about every instance was "yes," and the exceptions were close enough (Walton). Guys like Barry and Hayes and Unseld had been doing it for years and years. 



> They probably were, so its probably not worth the effort. But the one that jumped out at me was, coincidentally, another Piston. Zeke. Certainly one of the all-time greats. But I always thought of those champion Bad Boys teams as a true unit.


They were a true unit, and it's highly debatable whether he was a top-5 player at his peak. But they really did lean on Isiah for scoring/playmaking in the clutch, to the extent that I don't know if they'd have won two titles and seriously contended for 2 more if you replaced him with a high-quality peer like John Stockton or Kevin Johnson. He was a transcendent, one-of-a-kind crunch-time leader as a player -- it's that quality that's led to people continuing to offer him jobs despite his failures to meet expectations or failures, period.

And one edit -- there has been a previous example of the Pistons model. The 1979 Sonics, who had several great players having career years, but no "franchise" player. Their window slammed shut as soon as that Magic Johnson guy got drafted.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> No we aren't. I assume you mean the second retirement. If so, the situation then and now aren't even remotely similar.


They are similar in placement in the conference terms. Assuming Pippen would have stuck around, I think that Bulls team would have been around 3-4 in the East but not contenders for the title, which seems like around where the Bulls will be. Perhaps the Bulls are closer to 7-4, but its a similar situation when the Knicks picks are removed from the equation. 

Just like a rotten team, we’re dependent on hitting the lotto or swinging a major deal for a superstar to get elite, unless we manage to recreate the Pistons Model. We do have more assets to play with than most rotten teams though. And, our assets could have slightly higher values do to association with a 40-50 win team vs being part of one of the worst teams in the league.

I'm not advocating a blow up by any means, given the Knicks picks. But, given that lotto picks often time take years to develop, the Bulls need to make a decision on “win the title now” or “win the title later” and I still don’t see the case for “win the title now” unless there is radical improvement. Given the investment in Wallace, I think a trade should be made to bring in another all-star level player to combine with our now more seasoned core… whatever of it would remain after said trade.

Wallace is a "win the title now" move. Wait and see is a "win the title later" move. It seems difficult to accomplish the goal (win the title) when the major moves seem to conflict in time frame. But, there is always the element of luck that could change things radically.



> I've given my MJ/Scottie playoff history lesson before to remind people how hard it was to get over the top even for the greatest duo ever, so I won't do it again.
> 
> Look how long it took Stockton/Malone to even reach the Finals.


I realize it can take a long time. But, we need a MJ, Scottie, Stockton or Malone type player. Those guys are some of the greatest players ever to play the game. We don't have that right now. We have a gang of average to above average players and a bench all-star in Wallace. Even he, as good as he is, is a far cry from Malone, Pippen, etc. That's the frustrating thing... even with a consolidation trade, we're going to need a garnett type, IMO.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm not advocating a blow up by any means, given the Knicks picks. But, given that lotto picks often time take years to develop, the Bulls need to make a decision on “win the title now” or “win the title later” and I still don’t see the case for “win the title now” unless there is radical improvement. Given the investment in Wallace, I think a trade should be made to bring in another all-star level player to combine with our now more seasoned core… whatever of it would remain after said trade.


Yeah, this is the problem. The Bulls are still a significant player away from being a contender. They have the potential means of getting that player either via a seasoned Tyrus Thomas (as much as I like him, he's not a Magic-style impact rookie) or next year's draft pick. Between bringing those players along, re-signing our own FAs, and counting the sands in Ben Wallace's hourglass, I think it's just too difficult of a juggling act to pull off the Pistons model.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> First, even before the Knicks thing, they drafted 3 lottery picks in 2 years all of which are already wonderfully productive/proveably effective and look to continue to improve quite a bit in the coming years: Hinrich/Gordon/Deng. This does not happen to an NBA team very often.


Year 4 of Hinrich and year 3 of Deng, Gordon coming up this year.
Will any contend for all-NBA honors? How about even the all-star team? 

I expect stars from lotto picks.



> Second, literally stealing Nocioni in free agency at the same time the 3 referenced lottery picks were acquired. I liken this to the surprisingly successful acquisition of Chauncey Billups - a guy who was out there for the taking, Dumars took him, and he flourished in an unforseen way.


I agree with this. A great move by Paxson. 




> Its possible. And when its possible, one has to wait and see.


It is possible. But, we need to convert the lotto picks/assets into stars in some way. Either by organic or inorganic growth.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> They are similar in placement in the conference terms. Assuming Pippen would have stuck around, I think that Bulls team would have been around 3-4 in the East but not contenders for the title, which seems like around where the Bulls will be.


But that team was old as dirt. Ours is tele-tubby young. With 2nd worst team in the league's pick coming our way next summer. One team was on its way down, another on its way up. 



> Perhaps the Bulls are closer to 7-4, but its a similar situation when the Knicks picks are removed from the equation.


Why would I ever, ever remove the Knicks picks from the equation? 



> Just like a rotten team, we’re dependent on hitting the lotto or swinging a major deal for a superstar to get elite, unless we manage to recreate the Pistons Model. We do have more assets to play with than most rotten teams though.


Also, unlike most rotten teams our team isn't rotten. 



> I'm not advocating a blow up by any means, given the Knicks picks.


And given Hinrich, Deng, Gordon, Nocioni, and Ben Wallace. 



> But, given that lotto picks often time take years to develop, the Bulls need to make a decision on “win the title now” or “win the title later” and I still don’t see the case for “win the title now” unless there is radical improvement. Given the investment in Wallace, I think a trade should be made to bring in another all-star level player to combine with our now more seasoned core… whatever of it would remain after said trade.
> 
> Wallace is a "win the title now" move. Wait and see is a "win the title later" move. It seems difficult to accomplish the goal (win the title) when the major moves seem to conflict in time frame.


We all know that saying a "trade should be made to bring in another all-star level player" isn't the same as actually finding another team willing to make said trade. 

Regardless, I think winning now and later aren't necessarily mutually exclusive concepts. I truly and honestly believe the Bulls have just as good a chance at playing in the 2007 Finals as Miami, Cleveland, or Detroit. 



> But, there is always the element of luck that could change things radically.


Luck has already changed things radically. See Eddy Curry trade. More luck would be awesome. Every championship team in history has been blessed with a large dose of it. 



> I realize it can take a long time. But, we need a MJ, Scottie, Stockton or Malone type player. Those guys are some of the greatest players ever to play the game. We don't have that right now. We have a gang of average to above average players and a bench all-star in Wallace. Even he, as good as he is, is a far cry from Malone, Pippen, etc. That's the frustrating thing... even with a consolidation trade, we're going to need a garnett type, IMO.


Okay. Lets just go get a guy like that then. Should be easy enough.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Whats this entire Pistons model thing?

Look at the early 2000 Sacramento Kings and Portland Trailblazers, two teams built in the "pistons model". The only difference is that the Pistons were the only ones out of those teams that went on to win the title. But Portland was a 4th quarter collapse away from the Finals, and the Kings would have been in the finals if Bibby didn't foul Kobe with his face. They were close, and probaly would have won the title if they went. We definitely can win with the amount of talent we have, Kirk, Ben, and Nocioni are severely underrated on this board.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> No we aren't. I assume you mean the second retirement. If so, the situation then and now aren't even remotely similar.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


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

Wait & see is all there is in August.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Wait & see is all there is in August.


I think it's not without worth to examine past NBA champions, note that all but two in the last 36 years have had at least one future Hall-of-Famer, and that the future Hall-of-Famer(s) had reached a level close to his statistical peak prior to the championship season, and juxtapose that with the conspicuous absence of a future Hall-of-Famer on the Bulls roster.

I'm not saying we have to wave a white flag in August. But let's not count rings, either.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

sloth said:


> Whats this entire Pistons model thing?
> 
> Look at the early 2000 Sacramento Kings and Portland Trailblazers, two teams built in the "pistons model". The only difference is that the Pistons were the only ones out of those teams that went on to win the title. But Portland was a 4th quarter collapse away from the Finals, and the Kings would have been in the finals if Bibby didn't foul Kobe with his face. They were close, and probaly would have won the title if they went. We definitely can win with the amount of talent we have, Kirk, Ben, and Nocioni are severely underrated on this board.


Ifs and buts, horseshoes and hand grenades.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> But that team was old as dirt. Ours is tele-tubby young.


Only if Ben Wallace is "old as dirt." The core (pippen, kukoc) would have been Wallace's age.



> With 2nd worst team in the league's pick coming our way next summer. One team was on its way down, another on its way up.


The Pippen team's down would be likely better than next season's "up."






> Why would I ever, ever remove the Knicks picks from the equation?


You shouldn't. Just like a bad team,its our best chance to become elite.



> Also, unlike most rotten teams our team isn't rotten.


But both won't win the title next season.







> We all know that saying a "trade should be made to bring in another all-star level player" isn't the same as actually finding another team willing to make said trade.


Picking up the phone is a good first step.




> Regardless, I think winning now and later aren't necessarily mutually exclusive concepts.


Anything is possible. Is it a probable path to success? Maybe we'll get lucky.




> I truly and honestly believe the Bulls have just as good a chance at playing in the 2007 Finals as Miami, Cleveland, or Detroit.


Only if SHAQ or Wade get hurt. 




> Okay. Lets just go get a guy like that then. Should be easy enough.


Or we can try to recreate the Pistons Model.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> I think it's not without worth to examine past NBA champions, note that all but two in the last 36 years have had at least one future Hall-of-Famer, and that the future Hall-of-Famer(s) had reached a level close to his statistical peak prior to the championship season, and juxtapose that with the conspicuous absence of a future Hall-of-Famer on the Bulls roster.
> 
> I'm not saying we have to wave a white flag in August. But let's not count rings, either.


Not counting rings, but not conceeding defeat either. The Bulls were a good team last year, and will be much better this coming year. We all know the reasons : 
-- Wallace is a major addition to the front line. 
-- PJ Brown is probably as good as Chandler -- for at least this year. 
-- Sweetney and Nocioni are in their contract years. 
-- Allen has another year of experience with the team.
-- Deng, Gordon and Duhon are entering their third years -- i.e., they are still improving.
-- Hinrich is starting for the USA team, so he's not chopped liver. Next year he'll play point guard for the Bulls -- which can only be an improvement.
-- Two lotto rookies have been added. It would be quite unusual if both made little contribution to the team.
-- Some nice other pieces were added that are probably better than the pieces lost (e.g., Khryapa for Songalia; Griffen for Pargo)

Exactly what is the downside for this team (compared to last year?). Nada. They don't even cost as much as last year's team (although we'll pay 10% more for tickets).

IMO the sum is greater than its parts. The Bulls have the makings of a damn fine team. They can play with the best in the east and west. And they will probably be getting better after next year's draft. 

BTW Wallace is a star near the peak of his game. If the Bulls go on a winning streak while he's here, he'll be in the HOF (i.e., granted superstar status). So I guess the statistical requirement will have been met if the Bulls win.

Sophmoric cynicism aside, why can't the Bulls compete for the championship (superstar or no)?


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Sloth made a very good point about the Blazers and Kings being the Pistons model before the Pistons came. I was a huge fan of that Blazers team that SHOULD have won the NBA finals. But, I think we are not as good as those teams. The Blazers team could have filled half an All-Star team roster. We are not there yet. We really need one or two guys to take it to another level. I'm looking at Gordon and Deng. 

We need Gordon to become our go-to scorer CONSISTANTLY this year. I know we are good at spreading the ball around etc, but if he can improve to a solid 20-22 ppg, it will be critical. It'll open it up for the rest of the team. As long as he does this within the offense. Second, Deng needs to become a bigger impact. I know he is still young, but he is a key player. He has the understanding of the game and the fundamentals to take it another step. He has posted some 18/10 games before, and we need something like that. 

I think Hinrich is already there. I hope he shows significant improvement coming back from playing with the World team, but the other guys need to step it up. We have been a solid team, but to go from playoffs to championship contending, an extra step needs to be taken. I believe Gordon and Deng hold that final piece if we are to compete *for the ring * this year and next.

The X-Factor of course if our new rookies can have the impact of our 2004 draft. If the two rookies can make a Gordon/Deng impact during their rookie year, then we can easily become the next Blazers/Kings/Pistons.

Also, while I think the Knicks will get us another lotto pick, I dont like to bank my chances on something I cannot control. I'll consider start to think we'll get a lotto pick for sure just after the All-Star break (if their record is that bad).


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Only if Ben Wallace is "old as dirt." The core (pippen, kukoc) would have been Wallace's age.
> 
> The Pippen team's down would be likely better than next season's "up."


Oh, brother. 

This is who would have been coming back after Jordan's retirement, and their ages when the 98/99 season would have started:

Scottie Pippen - 33
Toni Kukoc - 30
Luc Longley - 29 
Ron Harper - 34
Steve Kerr - 33
Jason Caffey - 25
Scott Burrell - 27 
Dennis Rodman - 37 
Randy Brown - 30 
Dickey Simpkins - 26 
Rusty Larue - 25 
Bill Wennington - 35 
Jud Buechler - 30 
Joe Kleine - 36

And you compare this roster, in quality and age, to the current Bulls roster in the sense that it puts Paxson into a position to make a Krauseian evaluation circa 1998?



> And now we're back to the situation Krause faced after MJ retired, since its going to be difficult if not impossible to trade for Lebron James.


Come on dude, you don't really believe that.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Ifs and buts, horseshoes and hand grenades.


Atomic bombs don't have to be all that accurate.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

The Bulls window is very small here. Don't they kind of need to win a title in the next three years, or they won't at all?

Ben Wallace will eventually start to decline. A lot of these multiple lottery picks are going to be up for contracts, and if the team is any good, they'll command top salaries. Paxson could lowball Curry, but if you think that negotion was tenous, wait until Ben Gordon and Luol Deng come up for negotions. Ben believes he is a superstar whether Skiles wants to play him like one or not. And he'll expect to be paid like one. Deng the same way. But are you going to break the bank for Deng if you have Nocioni and Thabo? So does that mean Deng walks? You know Hinrich is a lock for a max contract. Nocioni is going to get high dollar, there's a lot of teams that would love to have him. Not a max player, but more than the MLE.

Will the Bulls pay max contracts to:
Hinrich
Gordon
Deng
Wallace
and
Nocioni

In addition to paying the lottery pick price of Tyrus Thomas, AND possibly another pick from New York.

And you've still got Duhon who is making a nice little bit of change.

The Pistons model worked economically because the players were locked up to pretty good deals when they broke through. So for the most part it timed out right for them. But the Bulls could be in a situation that by the time the players peak, they'll all be up for contracts, and big ones at that.

What is that going to do to the overall depth of the Bulls?

I think the Bulls will/should consolidate a lot of their assets into an actual superstar.

They should make a serious push at Vince Carter next summer if they can't get KG.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Oh, brother.
> 
> This is who would have been coming back after Jordan's retirement, and their ages when the 98/99 season would have started:


Well, a several of those guys were FAs, and/or were traded anyway, so...



> Come on dude, you don't really believe that.


The Bulls wouldn't necessarily have brought all those guys back if they brought back Pippen. Obviously they didn't as it turned out. They could conceivably have attempted to keep Pippen and Kukoc, jettison most of the other guys and get younger.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> Well, a several of those guys were FAs, and/or were traded anyway, so...
> 
> 
> 
> The Bulls wouldn't necessarily have brought all those guys back if they brought back Pippen. Obviously they didn't as it turned out. They could conceivably have attempted to keep Pippen and Kukoc, jettison most of the other guys and get younger.


That isn't what he was talking about. And even if were, it makes the comparison to the current team - which doesn't have a bunch of old players to jettison so as to start over - even more tenuous. 

If you agree with k4e, say so. But I don't think you do. 

Do you think that our current situation is comparable to that of the post-Jordan-retirement Bulls of 1998? That was his point.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Well, a several of those guys were FAs, and/or were traded anyway, so...
> 
> 
> 
> The Bulls wouldn't necessarily have brought all those guys back if they brought back Pippen. Obviously they didn't as it turned out. They could conceivably have attempted to keep Pippen and Kukoc, jettison most of the other guys and get younger.


i don't think pip wanted to help rebuild. that's why he pushed for the Houston trade, so he could team up with sir charles and the dream. he could've been traded anywhere but krause played nice and sent him to houston for roy rogers and 2nd round pick.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

RoRo said:


> i don't think pip wanted to help rebuild. that's why he pushed for the Houston trade, so he could team up with sir charles and the dream. he could've been traded anywhere but krause played nice and sent him to houston for roy rogers and 2nd round pick.


Perhaps, but the Bulls, even after re-signing Pippen to what he got in Houston would have had significant cap space (I think about $7M) in a time when the MLE was only $1.75M. Thus, they probably would have been an attractive FA destination and had a fair shot of skipping rebuilding entirely if they made good choices.

Of course, it doesn't matter at all if you simply use the money poorly and make bad draft choices, which is what Krause did.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> *That isn't what he was talking about.* And even if were, it makes the comparison to the current team - which doesn't have a bunch of old players to jettison so as to start over - even more tenuous.


Yes it was.

Once again, I was only comparing the two teams on a position in conference basis and a "win now" vs "win later" decision basis, as I clearly stated in the post. 

The core of a team is what's most important anyway. The Othellas, Pikes and Songalias of the world come and go and it makes little difference. The core of that Bulls team would have been the same age as Ben Wallace, and we all pretty much agree that Wallace has a couple above-average years left in him.

Krause had two options... keep the core of Pip, Kukoc, maybe Rodman and fill in the blanks. Probably be around the 3rd or 4th best team in the East. Or blow it up and start over. This landed us Brand and Artest, who are two of the best players in the league now when sane. 

If the Bulls are not a "win the title now" team, which many feel they are not, then we're banking on our young players and lotto picks to develop and be a contender in 3 years or so, which was the Krause approach.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)




----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> The Bulls window is very small here. Don't they kind of need to win a title in the next three years, or they won't at all?
> 
> Ben Wallace will eventually start to decline. A lot of these multiple lottery picks are going to be up for contracts, and if the team is any good, they'll command top salaries. Paxson could lowball Curry, but if you think that negotion was tenous, wait until Ben Gordon and Luol Deng come up for negotions. Ben believes he is a superstar whether Skiles wants to play him like one or not. And he'll expect to be paid like one. Deng the same way. But are you going to break the bank for Deng if you have Nocioni and Thabo? So does that mean Deng walks? You know Hinrich is a lock for a max contract. Nocioni is going to get high dollar, there's a lot of teams that would love to have him. Not a max player, but more than the MLE.
> 
> ...


You don't honestly think all those guys will fetch the max? Hinrich will be locked up to a nice deal 8-9 million for starters after the championships. Ben Gordon is the only one with max potential that I could see, and thats if MJ wants to go after him.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> The core of a team is what's most important anyway. The Othellas, Pikes and Songalias of the world come and go and it makes little difference.


I agree. 



> The core of that Bulls team would have been the same age as Ben Wallace, and we all pretty much agree that Wallace has a couple above-average years left in him.


But the core of our Bulls team is not the same age as Ben Wallace. Wallace is the same age as Wallace. No one else is. Hinrich, Noc, Du, Lu, Thabo, Thomas, and Gordon are all 25 years old or younger (Noc may be 26)

Where is the similarity? It ends with Ben. 



> Krause had two options... keep the core of Pip, Kukoc, maybe Rodman and fill in the blanks. Probably be around the 3rd or 4th best team in the East. Or blow it up and start over. This landed us Brand and Artest, who are two of the best players in the league now when sane.


But how is that 33, 30, and 37 year old "core" comparable to our core? Its just not. 



> If the Bulls are not a "win the title now" team, which many feel they are not, *then we're banking on our young players and lotto picks to develop and be a contender in 3 years or so, which was the Krause approach.*


So keeping our current core in place now is the same approach that Krause took when we started over from scratch in 1998? Okay. 

I actually am surprised that this is a discussion. I can't see how anyone could logically agree with you. Adding Ben Wallace and two lottery picks to a 41 win playoff team full of developing youngsters is the same as trading off a geriatric team in an effort to tank and become the worst team in the league? 

Staggering.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay said:


>


Is he getting stripped by Pike?

Yikes!

LOL


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Staggering.


:clown:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I actually am surprised that this is a discussion. I can't see how anyone could logically agree with you. Adding Ben Wallace and two lottery picks to a 41 win playoff team full of developing youngsters is the same as trading off a geriatric team in an effort to tank and become the worst team in the league?


In both cases, the lotto picks becoming stars is the key. "Win Later." Krause chose win later over being #3-4 in the east for a few years. Paxson appears to be choosing “Win Later” if he does not consolidate assets into another star before Wallace ages past his star years. 

Or maybe we’ll just get lucky again.

The interesting difference is that the Bulls don't have to be awful to earn lotto picks. The Bulls could afford to regress and be a middling .500 unit last year and not pay the price that kind of season usually incurs. Treading water. The Knicks picks can save us from Grizzles East.



Or we can trade assets for a legit star to pair with Wallace before he loses his star power with age. "Win Now"


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> But the core of our Bulls team is not the same age as Ben Wallace.


Depends what you mean by core. You are right, the core of our undersized, .500 team last year was younger than Wallace. If Hinrich, Deng, Nocioni, Gordon project out to Pippen, Malone, Stockton types that can really be the core of a champion, then we do have it. I see them as good but not great players. Ron Harper types on a champion. Vinne Johnson. But, there is still some unexplored upside. 

Tyrus seems like he has the best tools though to be such a player. Banking on the lotto picks. "Win Later"


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Tyrus seems like he has the best tools though to be such a player. Banking on the lotto picks. "Win Later"


pax:
win some now, win it all later.

krause:
lose it all now, win it all later.

the end goal is the same. the approaches different.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Perhaps, but the Bulls, even after re-signing Pippen to what he got in Houston would have had significant cap space (I think about $7M) in a time when the MLE was only $1.75M. Thus, they probably would have been an attractive FA destination and had a fair shot of skipping rebuilding entirely if they made good choices.
> 
> Of course, it doesn't matter at all if you simply use the money poorly and make bad draft choices, which is what Krause did.


that was used on ron mercer.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

RoRo said:


> pax:
> win some now, win it all later.
> 
> krause:
> ...


If that was Pax's plan, the championship strategy hinged on the Knicks picks being high lotto picks. 

Win a little may be more fun than lose a lot, but it does not really mean anything. Ask a Memphis fan.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> In both cases, the lotto picks becoming stars is the key. "Win Later." Krause chose win later over being #3-4 in the east for a few years. Paxson appears to be choosing “Win Later” if he does not consolidate assets into another star before Wallace ages past his star years.
> 
> Or maybe we’ll just get lucky again.
> 
> ...


seems to me that it's not as cut-and-dried as "Win Now" or "Win Later". We're probably going to win a fair number of games and maybe a playoff series or two if I had to guess. While I see your implicit point that only one team can "Win" each year and unless everything breaks our way next year, it won't be us, I don't think that means we're specifically in "Win Later" mode. I think Pax believes in a "winning breeds winning" type of thing. That's something Krause sort of ignored when he raced to the bottom after 98. He thought if he just tanked for a couple years and put a bunch of "potential" guys in a mixing bowl along with hopefully a fullboat FA or two, we'd magically be awesome again. He didn't factor into his thinking that several years of losing might create a team full of losers, even if they are talented. I know from having argued with you about things like this for so long that you probably don't put as much stock into this dynamic as I do and that's OK. But I think Paxson watched the post-dynasty years and saw that we kept pinning our hopes on our lottery pick or the enticement of C. Space a couple times while we were going 17-65 or whatever each year and realized that there must be a better way to do it than that. No matter how bad you are, you only have a 20-something percent chance at the #1 pick and that's often (though clearly not always) the one you need to get the surefire franchise player. 

in response to your post after this one, I think you're underrating our core comparing them to 3peat Harper or the Microwave, but that's just my opinion. You said you expect stars from lottery picks, but I look at the draft picks Paxson made and he didn't pass up any stars to get the guys he got, so I think it's a little unreasonable to expect him to draft instant stars in slots where there weren't any to be had. I spose you could argue that he should have traded up, but that's armchair speculation at this point. We couldn't have gotten the pick for Lebron under any circumstances besides winning the lottery, anyhow.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Win a little may be more fun than lose a lot, but it does not really mean anything. Ask a Memphis fan.


I imagine the Memphis fans are enjoying their 1st round playoff team far more than they were when they were winning 20-25 a year, though.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Organizations win championships, not players like Jordan and Pippen. Of course.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I imagine the Memphis fans are enjoying their 1st round playoff team far more than they were when they were winning 20-25 a year, though.


At some point though, you usually need that lotto talent to get you to the title.

That's why they traded Battier for Gay. They were tired of being Grizzles West.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> If that was Pax's plan, the championship strategy hinged on the Knicks picks being high lotto picks.
> 
> Win a little may be more fun than lose a lot, but it does not really mean anything. Ask a Memphis fan.


i think that's one part of pax's plan. with the players thomas put togeather he imagined late lotto at the least. high lotto a bonus.

the ultimate goal is winning (of course) but i think pax's decisions so far gives the bulls more options. lotto, young talent to do a consolidate trade, etc. competitive teams are more attractive, that's one of the reason's wallace came aboard.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> seems to me that it's not as cut-and-dried as "Win Now" or "Win Later". We're probably going to win a fair number of games and maybe a playoff series or two if I had to guess. While I see your implicit point that only one team can "Win" each year and unless everything breaks our way next year, it won't be us, I don't think that means we're specifically in "Win Later" mode.


I'm just going to have to go back to typing "win the title now" instead of "win now." : ) The goal is to win the title, IMO. If your goal is to win next year, you are trying to "win the title now." Otherwise, its "win the title later." I don't think the Bulls are gunning to win the title next season. If that were the case, I don't think Paxson would be standing pat with this group for the upcoming season.





> I think Pax believes in a "winning breeds winning" type of thing. That's something Krause sort of ignored when he raced to the bottom after 98. He thought if he just tanked for a couple years and put a bunch of "potential" guys in a mixing bowl along with hopefully a fullboat FA or two, we'd magically be awesome again. He didn't factor into his thinking that several years of losing might create a team full of losers, even if they are talented. I know from having argued with you about things like this for so long that you probably don't put as much stock into this dynamic as I do and that's OK.


I put stock in that dynamic. Honestly. But you need the horses. Paxson did a great job with the dynamic that you are speaking of. Skiles as well. So did Jerry West and Hubie Brown, IMO.

Krause's mistake was not having enough stock in that dynamic. And myriad other miscalculations.



> But I think Paxson watched the post-dynasty years and saw that we kept pinning our hopes on our lottery pick or the enticement of C. Space a couple times while we were going 17-65 or whatever each year and realized that there must be a better way to do it than that. No matter how bad you are, you only have a 20-something percent chance at the #1 pick and that's often (though clearly not always) the one you need to get the surefire franchise player.


Perhaps, but Paxson guaranteed playoffs in his first year. He didn't think he had a 20 win team on his hands. 

The sad thing is that you do almost always need to have one of those franchise players.... unless you are going to try and recreate the Pistons Model.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

RoRo said:


> i think that's one part of pax's plan. with the players thomas put togeather he imagined late lotto at the least. high lotto a bonus.


Actually, Paxson compared getting the Tyrus Thomas lotto pick as "found money."

He didn't think it was going to go down the way it did.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Actually, Paxson compared getting the Tyrus Thomas lotto pick as "found money."
> 
> He didn't think it was going to go down the way it did.


Maybe. My personal feeling is that Pax knew it could go down the way it did, but kept it classy with quotes like that.

With Pax's ability to evaluate talent and thinking he got the gem of this draft, I sure hope he is right. Jay Bilas had Tyrus as the #1 player on his overall board. One thing I do wonder, where would Tyrus go in the 2007 draft?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

RoRo said:


> that was used on ron mercer.


That sort of gets to my point of using the money wisely 

Actually though, Mercer wasn't signed until the following year. That year we signed up Brent Barry and sat on the rest of the cap space.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Perhaps, but Paxson guaranteed playoffs in his first year. He didn't think he had a 20 win team on his hands.
> 
> The sad thing is that you do almost always need to have one of those franchise players.... unless you are going to try and recreate the Pistons Model.


Pax probably took the job partly because he (and nearly everyone else) thought that Bulls team was a pretty good team and he'd have an easy job of tweaking and adjusting, not the overhauling he decided to do (but we've been over that material QUITE enough). That was a long winded way of agreeing with you, in any event.

Yeah, having the superstar is usually essential. No disagreement here. But what should teams that don't have one do? Not show up? Paxson is trying to put the best product he can out there (now and in the next few years IMO), and actually went out and got the closest thing to a superstar he could with the cap space. And we do have one more outside chance at landing a franchise player via the draft with the swap. Considering that we simply didn't get a chance to draft Lebron or Howard, and couldn't/didn't move up for Wade, I think Pax is doing the best he can to make us a good, possibly elite team. Perhaps there is a chance to trade for KG or someone like that, but you have to decide whether what we give up is worth it. KG, Wallace, and some unknowable fraction of our remaining core might not have any better chance to win a title than our current cast does, and we'd be in serious trouble in a few years when those guys are starting to really age and we don't have a way to replenish the ranks. If I were in Pax's shoes, yeah, I'd be calling McHale every time the Wolves lose by double digits this season, but I don't think I'd pull the trigger unless it was a really good deal for us. You always mention Grizzlies East when saying you don't think our stable of young players can get over the top. Being Wolves East is no better.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> If that was Pax's plan, the championship strategy hinged on the Knicks picks being high lotto picks.
> 
> Win a little may be more fun than lose a lot, but it does not really mean anything. *Ask a Memphis fan.*


Amen brother...

See also Portland, SacTown, the Mourning led Heat, the Ewing led Knicks, etc.

History has shown that the only way you win an NBA title without a top 5 talent is if you get lucky and face an injured opponent. Detroit would be an after thought if Dwayne Wade and Karl Malone do not get hurt. In the NBA, when it comes down to it the better players are going to make plays.

The Detroit path is a path of extreme frustration and is very highly luck dependent.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Yeah, having the superstar is usually essential. No disagreement here. But what should teams that don't have one do? Not show up?



Do exactly what the Bulls are doing, put yourself into position to get one by draft, free agency, or trade. There are very few available through free agency. Through trade it has to usually e forced by the player (see Shaq, T Mac). The draft is a crap shoot.

I think the Bulls should hope the T Wolves tank early and grab KG near the deadline and see if Hinrich, Gordon, Nocioni, KG, Wallace can win a title. I think it is quite possible even with losing some depth which is very overrated especially now that the playoffs are so spread out due to TV.


----------



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

RoRo said:


> pax:
> win some now, win it all later.
> 
> krause:
> ...


This is how I look at it:

Pax:

Can get a team to competence, but ultimately doesn't get a team championships.

Krause:

Puts the finishing touches on somewhat talented teams, but can't make a team competent.

Anyway, per the thread question: yes, you do need a top 5 player. But then I start thinking: what exactly determines a top 5 player ?

We don't have a top 5 all-around player.

What we do have is a top 5 clutch player. And the most well-known clutch players usually have a thing or two to do with winning big games. How does that factor ?

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=285408


----------



## gregorius (Apr 26, 2005)

McBulls said:


> Just so I understand everyone's opinion...
> 
> Many here feel that --
> The Bulls will not be able to win a series against Cleveland because they have LBJ?
> ...



Miami and Cleveland are the only teams that worry me in the near future. Det look like their decllining, the rest either are'nt good enough (NJ) or are in transition (Indy).

I feel we match up well with Miami and Cle, neither are particularly good teams and our depth is superior to both. But they have 1 'superstar' each...and therein lies the problem. Stern has made it obvious he wants Wade v LBJ to be the next big rivalry. After the poor ratings for the Spurs v Pistons finals he appeared to accelerate the growth of both young players by instructing refs to give them calls MJ did'nt get at such a young age (or stage of his career), as a result we ended up with inflated stats and 2 apparent legendary players (sic)..both guys would surely have become superstars eventually, there was no need to hand it to them....

We may well be the wrong kind of team (hard working, defensive minded) to succeed in Sterns new NBA vision. And thats a shame. I hope i'm wrong, but i figure it'll be extremely tough to muscle in on the perennial Cle v Mia ECF in the next 10 years.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

gregorius said:


> Miami and Cleveland are the only teams that worry me in the near future. Det look like their decllining, the rest either are'nt good enough (NJ) or are in transition (Indy).
> 
> I feel we match up well with Miami and Cle, neither are particularly good teams and our depth is superior to both. But they have 1 'superstar' each...and therein lies the problem. Stern has made it obvious he wants Wade v LBJ to be the next big rivalry. After the poor ratings for the Spurs v Pistons finals he appeared to accelerate the growth of both young players by instructing refs to give them calls MJ did'nt get at such a young age (or stage of his career), as a result we ended up with inflated stats and 2 apparent legendary players (sic)..both guys would surely have become superstars eventually, there was no need to hand it to them....
> 
> We may well be the wrong kind of team (hard working, defensive minded) to succeed in Sterns new NBA vision. And thats a shame. I hope i'm wrong, but i figure it'll be extremely tough to muscle in on the perennial Cle v Mia ECF in the next 10 years.


In the eastern conference Miami and Cleveland do seem to be the teams to beat. 

Miami obviously has an aging problem, but if Shaq and Zo can still perform at a high level the Bulls will have a hard time with this team. Miami does has a superstar -- Shaq. It also has several other rapidly aging all-stars. Wade is a very good player, but IMO overrated; particularly by referees. Take away the phantom fouls and he is not much better than Arenas or many other guards in the league. Comparing him to Jordan is a travesty of rhetoric. He doesn't jump as high, shoot as well, pass as well, rebound as well or defend as well. 

Cleveland will be a threat to win it all as long as Z is healthy -- which means maybe one or two years. LBJ is a legitimate superstar, but that team won't win it all without the big man unless Hughs or someone else shows more than they have in the past.

The Bulls now have a center who can at least partially neutralize Shaq and Z. So I like the Bulls chances against both of these teams. Not that it will be easy or a sure thing, but those who dismiss the Bulls chances of beating them because they haven't traded half of their talent for a fading superstar like Garnett or Carter are on the wrong track.

The bottom line is that the nominal chances of winning an NBA title are 1 in 30. That means that after six championships the Bulls have used up their quota for about the next 140 years. So Kucoc4ever and other nay-sayers have the advantage of the odds when they downplay the Bulls chances. In any given year, the odds are that the Bulls, or any other team will not win a championship. Teams like Miami that load themselves up with all-stars have better odds; but even they need a little help from the referees to win it all.

That said, I like the Bulls chances...now and in the future. The two most important positions on the team -- center and point guard -- are manned by great players. The team is young, talented, well-motivated and deep at every position. Defense wins championships, not superstars. Superstars can be defended by teams, and we have the makings of a great defensive team.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

McBulls said:


> In the eastern conference Miami and Cleveland do seem to be the teams to beat.
> 
> Miami obviously has an aging problem, but if Shaq and Zo can still perform at a high level the Bulls will have a hard time with this team. Miami does has a superstar -- Shaq. It also has several other rapidly aging all-stars. Wade is a very good player, but IMO overrated; particularly by referees. Take away the phantom fouls and he is not much better than Arenas or many other guards in the league. Comparing him to Jordan is a travesty of rhetoric. He doesn't jump as high, shoot as well, pass as well, rebound as well or defend as well.
> 
> ...


I'm having a hard time accepting this since Shaq had a better series against the Pistons than he did against the Bulls in the playoffs. And in the regular season. In fact, Shaq pretty much seemed to go out of his way to abuse Wallace every time he had the chance.

Z was shut down in the playoffs, but as it turns out, he posted slightly better numbers against the Pistons in the regular season than he did against the Bulls.



> So I like the Bulls chances against both of these teams. Not that it will be easy or a sure thing, but those who dismiss the Bulls chances of beating them because they haven't traded half of their talent for a fading superstar like Garnett or Carter are on the wrong track.


I'd like our long-run changes better if we hadn't traded away a young player for an old player and used our cap space better on "a fading superstar" like Wallace.

That, I think, is the operative point. The Bulls chose to trade off some long-run potential for short-run gain. OK, that's understandable. But they didn't get enough short-run gain to really get them anywhere now and they gave up enough long-run potential that they may well not get there in the future either.



> The bottom line is that the nominal chances of winning an NBA title are 1 in 30. That means that after six championships the Bulls have used up their quota for about the next 140 years. So Kucoc4ever and other nay-sayers have the advantage of the odds when they downplay the Bulls chances. In any given year, the odds are that the Bulls, or any other team will not win a championship. Teams like Miami that load themselves up with all-stars have better odds; but even they need a little help from the referees to win it all.


If you have the advantage of the odds, it strikes me you're not being pessimistic, but realistic.



> That said, I like the Bulls chances...now and in the future. The two most important positions on the team -- center and point guard -- are manned by great players. The team is young, talented, well-motivated and deep at every position. Defense wins championships, not superstars. Superstars can be defended by teams, and we have the makings of a great defensive team.


The historical evidence seems overwhelmingly against this, but for the record I'd go along with that given that you've got a good, deep team all hitting their prime (which we don't have) and a potential star or two to boot (which we do have).


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> I'm having a hard time accepting this since Shaq had a better series against the Pistons than he did against the Bulls in the playoffs. And in the regular season. In fact, Shaq pretty much seemed to go out of his way to abuse Wallace every time he had the chance.


When Shaq is on his game (and he was in the Pistons series) your only hope is to find a way to double team him without having him destroy you with assists (which he is good at). Nobody, including Wallace, can defend him one on one when he is playing well. The Pistons elected to try to guard Shaq one-on-one, which was a mistake. They were simply outcoached. The Bulls did reasonably well against Shaq because of good team defense. Wallace is an improvement over Chandler in that regard. He'll still need help, but he can hold his position as well as anyone and he's quick enough to make inside passes difficult. 

The good news about this matchup is that Payton, Mourning, and Shaq are a year older and their time is almost up.



> Z was shut down in the playoffs, but as it turns out, he posted slightly better numbers against the Pistons in the regular season than he did against the Bulls.


Same story here. Wallace can only improve the Bulls defense against this guy. 



> I'd like our long-run changes better if we hadn't traded away a young player for an old player and used our cap space better on "a fading superstar" like Wallace.


I agree. Nothing wrong with adding the fading superstar, but giving away Chandler looks like a short-sighted mistake to me. If the kid continues to languish in NO, then this move might look good, but if he plays like he did two years ago or better... 

Of course no-one thinks Chandler will ever be a top 5 player, so letting him go should not be a concern to those who would trade the entire team for a few seasons of superstar help.



> If you have the advantage of the odds, it strikes me you're not being pessimistic, but realistic.


If realism dominated our behavior, no-one would buy lottery tickets or bet on horses at the track. And no-one would ever go to a Cubs game.

It should be sufficient for a sports fan to know that his favorite has a fighting chance to win it all. The Bulls have a fighting chance even without a top 5 player.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> It should be sufficient for a sports fan to know that his favorite has a fighting chance to win it all. The Bulls have a fighting chance even without a top 5 player.


this statment says it all; all 7 of these pages are meaningless if the naysayers who volley random musings about the "superstar" theory can't agree on this and wait for the season to begin so as to then have a new "concern" to question.


----------



## gregorius (Apr 26, 2005)

McBulls said:


> In the eastern conference Miami and Cleveland do seem to be the teams to beat.
> 
> Miami obviously has an aging problem, but if Shaq and Zo can still perform at a high level the Bulls will have a hard time with this team. Miami does has a superstar -- Shaq. It also has several other rapidly aging all-stars. Wade is a very good player, but IMO overrated; particularly by referees. Take away the phantom fouls and he is not much better than Arenas or many other guards in the league. Comparing him to Jordan is a travesty of rhetoric. He doesn't jump as high, shoot as well, pass as well, rebound as well or defend as well.
> 
> ...



I admire your optimism man but that comes off as real naive. Miami barely played a lick of D (minus Zo) last year yet they won it all with Wade averaging an insane amount of FT's.

Its all about entertainment. The best team (i.e. Dallas) does'nt always win.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Win a little may be more fun than lose a lot, but it does not really mean anything. Ask a Memphis fan.



Memphis can win. That's why they play the games. last year a highly flawed team won it all. it came together late.

last year's Bulls came together late. you enjoy calling it that ".500 team" in order to prove your point, but at the end of last year we playing as well as anybody, with no bigs playing like bigs.

the team, as constructed now, can win it all. that's not to say they are favored, but we wouldnt be favored by adding Drew Gooden either. adding him, and playing him a lot, would mean we'd have a little more offense and a little less defense.



i'm all for adding an 6'10" offensive superstar. i'd be all for trading our 'win laters' (Tyrus, Chicago Bull Greg Oden) for that. so is pax. but we cant. that doesnt mean we cant win a championship now. it is possible, and we will play the games.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

I'd also say Clevland and Miami are the only teams that worry me. 

Nobody can stop Shaq, but Ben can do a better job than what we had last year, PJ will help as well. Chandler played alright d on Shaq, but couldn't stay in the game, I like the 2 new vets to do a better job. Between Tyrus and Sef, I bet one of them will be a nice change of pace defender on James.

Considering Miami didn't really change their team at all and how well we did last year in the playoffs, I am very optimistic. Clevland's only significant addition was SBrown, so all of the Cavs hopes of improving are on the shoulders of James and maybe Varejao.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

gregorius said:


> I admire your optimism man but that comes off as real naive. Miami barely played a lick of D (minus Zo) last year yet they won it all with Wade averaging an insane amount of FT's.
> 
> Its all about entertainment. The best team (i.e. Dallas) does'nt always win.


I admit that I found the NBA finals very difficult to watch. It was possibly the most biased officiated series since Webber & Co. at Sacramento were screwed in the playoffs against LA a few years ago. If I were a Dallas fan, I would not be able to resist paranoid delusional conspiracy posts. 

That said, I thought Miami played pretty good D in the series. They certainly frustrated Nowitski.


----------



## gregorius (Apr 26, 2005)

McBulls said:


> I admit that I found the NBA finals very difficult to watch. It was possibly the most biased officiated series since Webber & Co. at Sacramento were screwed in the playoffs against LA a few years ago. If I were a Dallas fan, I would not be able to resist paranoid delusional conspiracy posts.
> 
> That said, I thought Miami played pretty good D in the series. They certainly frustrated Nowitski.



If by 'frustrated' you mean 'fouled' then sure i agree. They got away with bully boy/bodying tactics on Dirk only the likes of Bowen get away with...and you're right it was a sickening spectacle. You could predict what would happen in every game.

Lol most Mavs fans I know are pretending the 2006 playoffs did'nt happen. Their still bitter over what went on


----------

