# OT: Gooden signs three year deal with Cavs



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2549112




> Gooden's representative, Calvin Andrews, told ESPN.com on Monday that his client has agreed to terms with the Cleveland Cavaliers on a *three-year contract worth about $23 million.*
> 
> -----
> 
> "It was a long negotiation, but ultimately Danny Ferry was very fair and professional throughout the process," Andrews said of the Cavaliers' general manager. "At the end of the day, Drew is very excited to re-sign with what he feels is a team on the cusp of a championship. He feels he has found a home with the Cavaliers."


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Well, that makes getting past Cleveland if we were to meet them in the playoffs just that much tougher.

Good signing by Ferry.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Wow, that's a pretty low figure.

Not too many years either.

Sigh.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

For better or worse, Paxson gave every indication that he wasn't really interested. It's a strong decision -- he's shown a methodology and isn't just throwing money into free agency. Now we'll see if he's right or not.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Howe can we blame Paxson for not obtaining a player that he had no means of obtaining other than via a sign and trade, which is dependent on the cooperation of the original team in question, something which they had no intention of doing when they could just re-sign him like this?

Have I missed something here? Are we to have thrown $60 million at Gooden instead of Ben?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I wonder if Clev would have been interested in a S+T for Chandler, since we were dumping him anyway.

Sure, we'd be trading him within the division, but many here feel Chandler is a piece of crap anyway, so it would doubly aid in our efforts to win the division next year.

I wonder if Paxson carries an emergency Iridium phone on the beach. I’d like to hear what he has to say.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I'm not sure about the frontloading/back loading of the Gooden and NeNe contracts... but it looks like on a per year basis a NeNe/Gooden combo costs about the same as having Ben Wallace.

Wallace is likely the better "win now" option. I'm not sure if he's on a "win now" team though.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm not sure about the frontloading/back loading of the Gooden and NeNe contracts... but it looks like on a per year basis a NeNe/Gooden combo costs about the same as having Ben Wallace.



Would you prefer Nene/Gooden? I would not.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Would you prefer Nene/Gooden? I would not.


Next year?

PJ/Wallace vs Gooden/Nene?

Assuming all are healthy, its a toss up, IMO. I'd lean slightly towards Nene/Gooden.... if all are healthy.

2 years from now, Gooden/Nene will be better.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Oh cool, so we should have offered Nene $64 million to beat Denver's ludicrous $60 million?

Where's this going to end?











(I probably should have added a "total DPOY awards" column)


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I think the only one who won't eventually regret the Nene deal will be Nene.

I like Gooden, but I don't think there was ever serious consideration that he was going somewhere else. It was just a matter of Ferry coming up to the magic number.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm not sure about the frontloading/back loading of the Gooden and NeNe contracts... but it looks like on a per year basis a NeNe/Gooden combo costs about the same as having Ben Wallace.
> 
> Wallace is likely the better "win now" option. I'm not sure if he's on a "win now" team though.


That seems about the jist of things to me. 


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

And Sham... I don't see anyone blaming Paxson for not _getting _him. I see some discouragement with the fact that Paxson didn't appear to _try_ and get him (or anyone else, in the grander scheme of things).


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Next year?
> 
> PJ/Wallace vs Gooden/Nene?
> 
> ...



I disagree, only because I think Wallace is head and shoulders above those other guys as an individual player. With his age, I suppose it remains to be seen how long he'll remain an elite (defensive) player. He seems to keep himself in very good physical shape, so my hope is he won't be too hampered by injuries or slowed by age in a couple of years. Obviously, if he declines quickly, then the Gooden/Nene combo would be better. I'm not sure that's going to happen in 2 years, however, but it may in 4 by the last year of Wallace's deal.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Sham said:


> Oh cool, so we should have offered Nene $64 million to beat Denver's ludicrous $60 million?



Given that so much of that money is paid several years in the future, it remains to be seen if Nene will ever be a rip off.

Only if his injury hampers him, or if he gets hurt again.

Next season.... 8 mil for Nene and 7 mil for Gooden is a pretty good deal.

16 mil for Wallace is already considered "overpaying."


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> And Sham... I don't see anyone blaming Paxson for not _getting _him. I see some discouragement with the *fact* that Paxson didn't appear to _try_ and get him (or anyone else, in the grander scheme of things).



I think that's a fairly liberal use of the word "fact." I think it's a "fact" that we don't know whether Paxson phoned Cleveland or other teams in search of another player. I do understand that there haven't been any reports recently indicating that Pax was going after Gooden, and maybe the absence of those reports shows Pax wasn't interested, but I don't know that for sure.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> 16 mil for Wallace is already considered "overpaying."



And $60 million for Nene ISN'T?

Can you look at the whole picture instead of the half you like please? Thanks.






> I see some discouragement with the fact that Paxson didn't appear to try and get him (or anyone else, in the grander scheme of things).


Does Ben Wallace not count as "anyone else"? Or did Paxson not stake his claim early as to who he wanted this offseason, get them all, and then a couple of others to boot? Cos I coulda sworn that's what happened.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Given that so much of that money is paid several years in the future, it remains to be seen if Nene will ever be a rip off.
> 
> Only if his injury hampers him, or if he gets hurt again.
> 
> ...



Sure, but acquiring Nene isn't just acquiring him for next year. It seems to me that many think that Nene is being overpaid as well over the life of his deal.

It is also of note that Wallace's salary goes down over time while Nene's goes up, significantly.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Sham said:


> And $60 million for Nene ISN'T?
> 
> Can you look at the whole picture instead of the half you like please? Thanks.


Not for the amount they are paying next season.

For the remaining seasons, you'll have to look at what they are paying him and see how it stacks up with what the other Cs in the league are making.

Given the premium paid for height.... if Nene remains healthy it will be a fair contract.

I guess your complaint is that they locked him up for several years. There is risk involved in doing that, I agree. When those future payments are discounted to today’s dollars though, its no longer a "60 million dollar deal" in the way you are using it.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Sure, but acquiring Nene isn't just acquiring him for next year. It seems to me that many think that Nene is being overpaid as well over the life of his deal.


If Nene remains healthy, I doubt people will consider him overpaid.

He's getting paid 8 mil next year. Given the premium paid for height... an above average level of production will make him a good deal.

If the knee is trashed, of if he gets injured again, then you are paying too much.



> It is also of note that Wallace's salary goes down over time while Nene's goes up, significantly.


Which makes Wallace's contract worth even more, since the bulk of the payments are up front. That seems fairer though, since his productivity will likely decline with age.


Personally, I think there is risk in signing Wallace as well. Age risk for one. Two, you are paying for a player that is only effective on one half of the court. Three, I'm not sure how much of Wallace's accolades are due to being a product of the starless Pistons model that won the NBA Title once. I hope he can bring those winning ways to the Bulls. I just remember how the non-MJ members of the Bulls title teams went to other teams for a premium price, and how they really didn't put any of the teams they were on over the top... except for Pippen in Portland. Even Pippen didn't make a huge impact in Houston though.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> Given the premium paid for height.... if Nene remains healthy it will be a fair contract.



My arse it will.

And your exact same logic applies to Ben Wallace. We paid the second highest amount spent on any current center.......for the fourth best center. (Before you shout - Shaq, Yao, Amare). Something with which I am entirely comfortable.

Whereas the Nuggets spent the 9th highest amount (Shaq, Ben, Yao, Amare, Ilgauskas, Camby, Chandler, Dalembert) on a second stringer who played 3 minutes last year.

But, like, you know, whatever. I'd rather have Nene too. So much younger. Younger > better.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

This might make for interesting message board conversation, but the reality of the situation is Nene stayed put where he was and so did Gooden, and I don't recall too many credible reports that either were close to being moved elsewhere, to us or to any of the other 29 teams in the league. I think Denver and Cleveland wanted their players back, and both players wanted to stay where they were.

I know there is such a thing as an "offer you can't refuse" but short of that, I think things shook out about as expected.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> I wonder if Clev would have been interested in a S+T for Chandler, since we were dumping him anyway.


chandler for gooden *would* have been a downgrade imo. further the cav wanted a pg, so pax wouldn't have appeared wise for giving a division rival a pg and a center (backup or not) in any kind of S&T

wallace is a superior player to all three (gooden, chandler and nene), now and in the future (though i agree that it remains to be seen what the future holds for ben); i've always felt gooden and his reps held him in higher regard than the rest of the league. if gooden had been a UFA he would have signed with someone else for the same money (maybe even the bull); the cav held all the cards with respect to the S&T; that's why he remains a cav.

and FWIW, i believe tyrus thomas *and* luol deng will be a superior players than gooden in the blink of an eyelash; you read it here first. 

lastly, getting past the cavs shouldn't be a major concern of the bull; particularly since the cav didn't win anything last year and are hoping that a year's maturity will be their greatest upgrade. isn't that what the bull did last year?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Sham said:


> My arse it will.


I guess we're at an impasse on this one.

If you don't think 8 million is a fair price for what Nene broght to the table production wise in 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, then I guess we're watching a different league.




> And your exact same logic applies to Ben Wallace. We paid the second highest amount spent on any current center.......for the fourth best center. (Before you shout - Shaq, Yao, Amare). Something with which I am entirely comfortable.
> 
> Whereas the Nuggets spent the 7th highest amount (Shaq, Yao, Amare, Ilgauskas, Chandler, Dalembert) on a second stringer who played 3 minutes last year.


How many centers are making 8 million or higher next season?




> But, like, you know, whatever. I'd rather have Nene too. So much younger. Younger > better.


Noone is saying this.


I'd rather have Wallace over Nene next season as well. The argument is Nene/Gooden vs Wallace/PJ. Then there is a short term / long term argument. Then there is the money argument. We're spending, what, over 10 million more next season for Wallace/PJ as well.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> lastly, getting past the cavs shouldn't be a major concern of the bull


whoa


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

The problem is that comparing the Wallace acquisition to the potential acquisition of Nene and Gooden is like comparing apples to oranges.

Wallace was unrestricted, and the Bulls didn't have to trade anything to get him. Admittedly, his acquisition essentially motivated the Chandler trade for PJ Brown & 2 2nd rounders. 

But the Bulls would have had to trade something of quality to Denver or Cleveland to get either of the two quality restricted free agents. MAYBE they would have taken Chandler in trade -- maybe not. My guess is that they and the Bulls had their opportunity when the Bulls were shopping Chandler to NO. 

My guess is that the Bulls wanted Wallace, period. Nene would have been a very expensive unproven acquisition. They didn't try to get Gooden in addition because PJ Brown is a cleaper long-term option and Chandler will be playing for a western conference team. Presumably they figure to get a center for the future (4 years from now) in next year's draft and resign PJ to one year contracts until that kid developes.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> How many centers are making 8 million or higher next season?


Several. But Nene is now tied into the 9th biggest contract for any center.

Shaq - 5 year, $100 million extension.
Ben - 4 years, $60 million
Yao - 5 years, $73 millionish max
Amare - same
Ilgauskas - 5 years, $53 million
Camby - 6 years, $65 million
Dalembert - 6 years, $64 million
Chandler - 6 years, $63 million
*Nene* - 6 years, $60 million


Even crippingly overpaid people like Raef LaFrentz (7 years, $63 million), Erick Dampier (7 years, $69 million) and the insatiable Eddy Curry (6 years, $54 million) get less than Nene.






> If you don't think 8 million is a fair price for what Nene broght to the table production wise in 2003-2004 and 2004-2005,


He's played 56 games his last two years. The one year that he played in 77 games starting all 77, he put up 12 and 6.

Is 12 and 6 worthy of $60 million?

Apparently so. :whoknows:


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

McBulls said:


> The problem is that comparing the Wallace acquisition to the potential acquisition of Nene and Gooden is like comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> Wallace was unrestricted, and the Bulls didn't have to trade anything to get him. Admittedly, his acquisition essentially motivated the Chandler trade for PJ Brown & 2 2nd rounders.
> 
> ...



All excellent points.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'd rather have Nene over Wallace next season as well.



Straight up? I find this shocking.

This is a guy who has averaged 10.7 points, 6.2 rebounds, and 2.16 turnovers per game and who has shown very little improvement in the three years he played before his injury.

And Wallace is a multiple DPOY winner who has averaged roughly 8 points, 13 rebounds, and a little over 1 turnover during his time with Detroit.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Sham said:


> Several. But Nene is now tied into the 9th biggest contract for any center.


Fine. Next year he's getting paid 8 mil. Not overpaid if healthy and gives the Nuggets when he gave them in previous years.





> He's played 56 games his last two years. The one year that he played in 77 games starting all 77, he put up 12 and 6.
> 
> Is 12 and 6 worthy of $60 million?
> 
> Apparently so. :whoknows:



He also gets a lot of steals and takes charges. Good passer as well. He also can run the floor.

Big men get paid a premium for not being complete stiffs. Some people are sickened like this and would rather go with the cheaper "hunks of meat" approach. The sad thing about this strategy is it leads to Luke Schencher being on your team and getting knocked out of the playoffs in the 1st round.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Straight up? I find this shocking.


LOL. A shocking typo. I corrected the OP.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> .
> Big men get paid a premium for not being complete stiffs. Some people are sickened like this and would rather go with the cheaper "hunks of meat" approach. The sad thing about this strategy is it leads to Luke Schencher being on your team and getting knocked out of the playoffs in the 1st round.


OK. You win. I have to admit I'd rather pay a huge contract for Nene's potential than have Luke Schencher on my team.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Personally, I think there is risk in signing Wallace as well. Age risk for one. Two, you are paying for a player that is only effective on one half of the court. *Three, I'm not sure how much of Wallace's accolades are due to being a product of the starless Pistons model that won the NBA Title once. I hope he can bring those winning ways to the Bulls. I just remember how the non-MJ members of the Bulls title teams went to other teams for a premium price, and how they really didn't put any of the teams they were on over the top... except for Pippen in Portland. Even Pippen didn't make a huge impact in Houston though.*


Whoa, whoa, whoa. 

I actually think there is some merit to the argument that Nene/Gooden could theoretically be a better option for our team than Brown(or what Brown yields if anything)/Wallace in the long run. 

I've always liked Nene and believe that in the right circumstances he can be a very good big man. Though I agree with Tom that this is more speculation and that Nene and Gooden likely weren't going anywhere except via trade since they were both restricted. And then it wouldn't be Brown/Wallace vs. Nene/Gooden. It would be Brown/Wallace/everyone else we got to keep by not trading them vs. Nene/Gooden/roster that lacks those traded players. 

But why do we need to be so pessimistic about Wallace when, in fact, almost everyone including you was jacked about it 6 weeks ago? Now I read alot - not just about the fact that Chandler was traded to make room for his salary - but about the quality of his play. 

You are now even comparing Ben Wallace to the Steve Kerr's, Luc Longley's, Jud Buechler's, Ron Harper's and Randy Brown's of the Bulls days. Ben Wallace is a multiple allstar, mulitiple all nba team award recipient, and multiple DPOY. I mean, come on. 

And the fact that he was able to individually excel amidst a "starless Pistons model" supports the notion that he will succeed elsewhere - it does not detract from it. This becomes a concern for role players leaving the star model, like we saw with Chicago and, later, the Lakers. Remove the star, remove the effectiveness of the role player. 

The argument is illogical in every way, from every angle, and degrades Ben Wallace's substantial individual accomplishments.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

McBulls point is spot on though.

There is risk involved in landing Gooden AND Nene, and we likely would have paid more than when they signed for with their original teams.... and dithering around could lead to disaster... not landing any of these guys.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Big men get paid a premium for not being complete stiffs. Some people are sickened like this and would rather go with the cheaper "hunks of meat" approach.



I suppose this is hypocritical of me to bring this up, but is thi snot what we did with Chandler?

How well did that go?




> Next year he's getting paid 8 mil. Not overpaid if healthy


Given that he's never turned into an 82 game season, missed all of last season, and a third of the one before......I ain't banking on that "if" becoming reality.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> LOL. A shocking typo. I corrected the OP.



Oh, haha. Ok. Disregard my post. 

:biggrin:


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

George Karl has a history of getting teams to over pay players and then having teams regret it. they will indeed regret the Nene signing.

As for Gooden - the Cavs got them at their price. They still wanted him, but not at the Nene price. Gooden was running out of options and he knew it. The Cavs controlled everything here unless Gooden wanted to take the risk of just signing a one year deal.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I'm wondering what Denver should worry more about with Nene -- the ACL tear that he suffered 3 minutes into the season last year, or lingering effects from the back injury from the previous season? Both? Neither?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> You are now even comparing Ben Wallace to the Steve Kerr's, Luc Longley's, Jud Buechler's, Ron Harper's and Randy Brown's of the Bulls days. Ben Wallace is a multiple allstar, mulitiple all nba team award recipient, and multiple DPOY. I mean, come on.


But, there was a high premium paid for the Pippens and Kukocs as well, and those guys didnt' deliver the goods.

Pippen in Houston with Drexler and Barkley.
Kukoc in Philly was expected to be instrumental in getting AI deep into the playoffs.
Did BJ Armstrong help Golden State much? He was a starter on an all-star team if I recall with the Bulls.

The lesser players you decided to claim I was "comparing to Wallace" are clearly poorer players. I think those players, with Wallace included, received a premium in their pay package from the subsequent team they played on due to being part of a champion. That's the only way I'm comparing them. 



> And the fact that he was able to individually excel amidst a "starless Pistons model" supports the notion that he will succeed elsewhere - it does not detract from it. This becomes a concern for role players leaving the star model, like we saw with Chicago and, later, the Lakers. Remove the star, remove the effectiveness of the role player.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Sham said:


> How well did that go?


His production was one of the main reasons we managed to finish .500 and make the playoffs?

Yes, he had a slow start to the season. 

We could have decided not to play Chandler at all and see what the affordable Luke Schencher would bring.



> Given that he's never turned into an 82 game season, missed all of last season, and a third of the one before......I ain't banking on that "if" becoming reality.


OK. Perhaps the Nuggets would have been better served by not paying him and going the Luke Schencher route.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

There sure is a lot of sound and furry in this thread over Gooden. My goodnes, it is rocks for brains Drew Gooden. Beyond the fact that some are overrating him, he is a player Skiles wouldn't play. He has no jib.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> His production was one of the main reasons we managed to finish .500 and make the playoffs?
> 
> Yes, he had a slow start to the season.
> 
> We could have decided not to play Chandler at all and see what the affordable Luke Schencher would bring.


Why do you love players we no longer have, even if you hated them when they were here?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Sham said:


> Why do you love players we no longer have, even if you hated them when they were here?


What ex-Bulls do you think I "hated?"

The only one that comes to mind is Ron Mercer. Perhaps EROB.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'd rather have Wallace over Nene next season as well. The argument is Nene/Gooden vs Wallace/PJ. Then there is a short term / long term argument. Then there is the money argument. We're spending, what, over 10 million more next season for Wallace/PJ as well.


Ummm, Tyrus?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> Ummm, Tyrus?



Either way he's on the team.

And, he's a young, raw player.

If he can contribute Amare style this year, we may have a shot.

Its more likely he comes into his own when Big Ben is fading into the sunset.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Next year?
> 
> PJ/Wallace vs Gooden/Nene?
> 
> ...


Ummm, Tyrus?


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Either way he's on the team.


Just making sure you remembered that we have a young value piece in the frontcourt.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> Ummm, Tyrus?



http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3912377&postcount=44


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> Just making sure you remembered that we have a young value piece in the frontcourt.


Yah. He is a value. Let's hope he's ready for heavy contribution in a playoff run this season, since this season’s Ben Wallace is likely the most effective Ben Wallace we’re going to see, barring injury.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

Well, I think that was a pretty glaring omission. Made twice. Just saying.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> But, there was a high premium paid for the Pippens and Kukocs as well, and those guys didnt' deliver the goods.
> 
> Pippen in Houston with Drexler and Barkley.


Pippen played pretty well in Houston. He was 15/6/6 and 2 spg in 40mpg. That whole team was just too old. 



> Kukoc in Philly was expected to be instrumental in getting AI deep into the playoffs.


Kukoc isn't comparable to Ben Wallace. And Kukoc just didn't fit well in Philly as evidence by going for 20/5/5 the rest of the season once he was traded to Atlanta. 



> Did BJ Armstrong help Golden State much? He was a starter on an all-star team if I recall with the Bulls.


Neither is BJ Armstrong. 



> The lesser players you decided to claim I was "comparing to Wallace" are clearly poorer players. I think those players, with Wallace included, received a premium in their pay package from the subsequent team they played on due to being part of a champion. That's the only way I'm comparing them.


The lesser players and these players - who other than Pippen are also "lesser" than Wallace. And you stated your concern that they couldn't get their teams "over the top" as a way to compare them to Wallace. 

These guys simply weren't the caliber that Wallace was/is. Its a poor analogy. Especially since one player comes from the "starless Pistons model" and the others come from the definite "two mega-star model".



> My argument is that there is a premium paid for players from winning teams, and that premium may not always be justified. It remains to be seen. In Wallace's case, the only success he's had is as a member of a successful yet "starless" group of players. In basketball, changing the individuals of a group greatly changes the dynamics ... and how that unit performs, IMO. That's why I don't put a lot of weight in those individual +/- ratings.
> 
> Wallace may largely be a product of being part of a very effective 5 man group. The end of season popularity contests reward winning.... and that group won. It remains to be seen if he can earn his now superstar wage and be instrumental in the Bulls winning a championship.
> 
> I doubt Wallace would have all those popularity contest accolades you trumpet if he was a member of the Atlanta Hawks the last four years. I also doubt he’d be pulling in 16 million this year.


Right, because leading the league in rebounding, block shots and being in the top 10 in steals - as Wallace was known to do - aren't the types of things that get you individual accolades even though almost no one else in history had ever produced like that. 



> If this is "illogical in every way".... so be it.


Comparing Ben Wallace the the throw away role players from a mega-star oriented dynasty is illogical. The only reasonable comparison is Pippen who played very well in Houston and then was instrumental in turning a young Portland team into a contender.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> Well, I think that was a pretty glaring omission. Made twice. Just saying.



Its irrelevant since there are more than enough minutes for 3 good big men and the comparison was Nene/Gooden vs Wallace/Brown.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its irrelevant since there are more than enough minutes for 3 good big men and the comparison was Nene/Gooden vs Wallace/Brown.


. . . . although its a fantasy comparison because the acquisition of those guys would have almost certainly required trades.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

...


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

their teams wanted them so they stayed. why keep arguing about this? we are nearing the point where we'll get around to talking about each and every non-Bull frontcourt player in the league and wish they were here instead of Ben Wallace. 

hopefully we can get all that done by the opener.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its irrelevant since there are more than enough minutes for 3 good big men and the comparison was Nene/Gooden vs Wallace/Brown.



Sure, but again, the comparison _isn't or at lest shouldn't be_ Nene/Gooden vs. Wallace/Brown.

It should be:

Nene + Gooden - players lost in trades for Nene/Gooden

vs.

Wallace + Brown - Tyson Chandler


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Pippen played pretty well in Houston. He was 15/6/6 and 2 spg in 40mpg. That whole team was just too old.
> 
> 
> 
> Kukoc isn't comparable to Ben Wallace. And Kukoc just didn't fit well in Philly as evidence by going for 20/5/5 the rest of the season once he was traded to Atlanta.


Jalen Rose was 22/4/5 with the Bulls. He played pretty well too I guess.

Neither Pippen or Kukoc carried their champion success to their subsequent team.



> The lesser players and these players - who other than Pippen are also "lesser" than Wallace. And you stated your concern that they couldn't get their teams "over the top" as a way to compare them to Wallace.
> 
> These guys simply weren't the caliber that Wallace was/is. Its a poor analogy. Especially since one player comes from the "starless Pistons model" and the others come from the definite "two mega-star model".


I thought I clarified this in the post you were responding to. Yes, guys like Randy Brown should not be compared to Ben Wallace in terms of basketball production. My point is that a premium is placed on their services based on their championship success. Guys like Wallace get superstar money while not being superstars. Guys like Brown and Jud remain in the NBA for years when they are really just below average players. Both types carry a premium.





> Comparing Ben Wallace the the throw away role players from a mega-star oriented dynasty is illogical.


Depends on how I'm comparing them. Once again, I'm certainly not saying that both types have similar impact on the court. I thought I clarified this in the post you are replying to. If you read the OP as reading that "Randy Brown will put us over the top" then I didn't communicate my thoughts well enough. I do think guys like Jud and Randy stuck around for years, and Pippen and Kukoc get bigger deals, due to their success with the champion Bulls. Success they were never able to recreate.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> Sure, but again, the comparison _isn't or at lest shouldn't be_ Nene/Gooden vs. Wallace/Brown.
> 
> It should be:
> 
> ...


And if the players traded to acquire those guys didn't include Chandler, I think he still would have been traded for Brown or somewhere else if there was another taker. 

It was a salary dump. That isn't all it was, but its certainly a big part of what it was.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> . . . . although its a fantasy comparison because the acquisition of those guys would have almost certainly required trades.


Chandler is one piece of said trades.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Sure, but again, the comparison _isn't or at lest shouldn't be_ Nene/Gooden vs. Wallace/Brown.
> 
> It should be:
> 
> ...


I agree there is a value to just signing Wallace due to it being the simpler transaction to make.

Chandler would likely be the key guy in one of the S+Ts for one of those two.

I wonder if Clev matches an offer for Gooden if we add 2.5 mil a year. We'd still be paying Nene/Gooden considerably less than Wallace/Brown. We probably would lose out on having THE HAWK as our 12th man though.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> It was a salary dump. That isn't all it was, but its certainly a big part of what it was.


Oh yah, that's right.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Jalen Rose was 22/4/5 with the Bulls. He played pretty well too I guess.


You certainly think he did. 

And thats a valid point for the Kukoc comparison, but not Pippen. Of course, while Kukoc and Rose may comparable at that stage in their respective careers, neither is comparable to Wallace. Which is kind of the point. 



> I thought I clarified this in the post you were responding to. Yes, guys like Randy Brown should not be compared to Ben Wallace in terms of basketball production. My point is that a premium is placed on their services based on their championship success. Guys like Wallace get superstar money while not being superstars. Guys like Brown and Jud remain in the NBA for years when they are really just below average players. Both types carry a premium.


But that wasn't the extent of your comparison. You rightly point out that they were paid a premium, but your concern was that they couldn't change the direction of the team that acquired them. That is the key point. 

We all agree that we overpaid. 



> Depends on how I'm comparing them. Once again, I'm certainly not comparing that both types have similar impact on the court. I thought I clarified this in the post you are replying to.


You are changing your comparison, which is fine. You must have simply misstated it originally. If we aren't worried about comparing their production, then who cares? 

Are you talking about salary concerns? Are you rooting for the suits and the various estates of old guys whose names I don't know? 

Sure, Wallace was paid a premium. Good.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> I wonder if Clev matches an offer for Gooden if we add 2.5 mil a year.


Who knows?



> We'd still be paying Nene/Gooden considerably less than Wallace/Brown.


For one year.


----------



## taurus515th (Oct 13, 2005)

The combo i would have liked to c was a Ben Wallace/Nene combo. Ben Wallace > Tyson Chandler and Nene > Curry a know a lot of people will argue with me with that one but i really believe so. 

A lot of people know i am a big Nene fan because like everytime someone posted about who would solve our post-presence problem i always said Nene. To me, i think getting Nene and Drew Gooden would b a BAD idea 4 one we r basically signing 2 free agents that play the same position and if Nene got one amount Drew Gooden would have wanted it too even if Nene is a better player then Gooden. To me, Nocioni is a better player than Drew Gooden. In just about every stat except 2. Nocioni is averaging more than him. Yes i know stats dont always mean someone is better but yet it sometimes does mean that. 

With the addition of Ben Wallace alone we r able to beat everyone n the east imo without a post-player.

But to me i wish Paxson would have gotten the Ben Wallace and Nene combo and probably if he did we would have gotten Nene a little bit cheaper mayb around 45-50 million instead of 60.

I would love it if Nene came back more explosive then himself in the mix so people can stop saying he was overpaid when their r a lot of more people overpaid then him and nobody says anything. 

Nene Mix - http://youtube.com/watch?v=q0JBqMiIsAQ. 

Nene is no more overpaid then Chandler was and when Paxson gave him 63 million. then a lot of yall said he should have stayed when he has never at the end of the season averaged 10 n points or rebounds and especially if hes a 7'1 player that has been n the league 5 years, when u have players 6'7 and 6'8 averaging 10+ rebounds a game at the end of the season.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> You certainly think he did.


I was happy to see Rose go, although I wish we didn't have to dump Marshall and saw no harm in keeping Rose on the team for a couple months in an attempt to dump him with less of a cost.



> And thats a valid point for the Kukoc comparison, but not Pippen. Of course, while Kukoc and Rose may comparable at that stage in their respective careers, neither is comparable to Wallace. Which is kind of the point.


Depends on how I'm comparing them. Pippen > Wallace > Kukoc > Armstrong > Randy Brown in terms of basketball... but all, IMO, had a premium attached to them based on their championship success.



> But that wasn't the extent of your comparison. You rightly point out that they were paid a premium, but your concern was that they couldn't change the direction of the team that acquired them. That is the key point.


Yes it was. Come on RonCey, even this simpleton could not really think that Randy Brown could change the direction of any team, unless you decided to play him heavy minutes and then it would be in a negative direction.





> You are changing your comparison, which is fine.


No, I don't think I am.

This is the passage you decided to hammer away on.



> Three, I'm not sure how much of Wallace's accolades are due to being a product of the starless Pistons model that won the NBA Title once. I hope he can bring those winning ways to the Bulls. I just remember how the non-MJ members of the Bulls title teams went to other teams for a premium price, and how they really didn't put any of the teams they were on over the top... except for Pippen in Portland. Even Pippen didn't make a huge impact in Houston though.


Whatever ambiguity there is in this was cleared up in the 2nd post. 




> You must have simply misstated it originally. If we aren't worried about comparing their production, then who cares?


My point is that there is age risk associated with Wallace. There is also the risk that Wallace was part of a winning group, not a true star level player. I think the Bulls are paying a premium for Wallace since he was on a championship team. I hope he can carry over his Pistons level of production and success to the Bulls. And I'm not only talking about a financial premium, but an expectations premium as well, for the top level guys like Pippen and Wallace. 

The Rockets found out with Pippen that its not necessarily the case. To a lesser degree, and he was paid less for a reason, the Sixers found out the same thing with Kukoc.

The reason I was bringing this up to begin with is that there is risk associated with Wallace. There is risk associated with Nene. Less risk with Wallace, IMO, although I'm not a doctor. But, Nene is paid considerably less as well. For good reason.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

How'd Washington and Orlando do with Wallace in his most athletic prime?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> My point is that there is age risk associated with Wallace. *There is also the risk that Wallace was merely part of a winning group, not a true star level player.* I think the Bulls are paying a premium for Wallace since he was on a championship team. I hope he can carry over his Pistons level of production and success to the Bulls.


This is from Ben Wallace's NBA.com bio:

2006 All-Defensive Team 
2005-06 NBA Defensive Player of the Year 
Selected to fourth All-Star team 02/09/06 
Surpassed 7,000 career rebounds and 1,500 career blocks on 01/18/06 vs. Atlanta 
2005 All-Defensive Team 
2004-05 NBA Defensive Player of the Year 
Finished the season as the only NBA player ranked in the Top-5 in blocks and Top-25 in steals in 2005 
*Became the fifth player in NBA history to record 100 blocks and 100 steals in five consecutive seasons in 2005 * 
Became the franchise’s all-time blocks leader vs. Seattle (3/16/05), surpassing Terry Tyler 
2005 All-Star Reserve 
2004 All-Defensive Team 
2004 All-NBA Second Team 
Three-time NBA All-Star 
2003 All-NBA Second Team 
2002-03 NBA Defensive Player of the Year 
Won NBA Player of the Week honors (3/17-3/23) in 2002-03 
2002 All-NBA Third Team 
Named the 2001-02 NBA Defensive Player of the Year 
Named to the NBA All-Defensive team in 2001-02 
Named by USA Basketball as a member of the USA team that will compete at the World Basketball Championships in Indiana during the 2002 summer 
*One of four players in NBA history to lead the league in rebounds and blocks during the same season (01-02) - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 1975-76, Bill Walton 1976-77 and Hakeem Olajuwon 1989-90* 
Led NBA in rebounds and blocks in 2001-02 
Set a franchise record for blocks (278) in a season (2001-02) - Bob Lanier had 247 in 1973-74 
Led the 1999-2000 Magic in rebounding (8.2, 20th in the NBA) 
Corralled a career-high 28 rebounds twice against the Boston Celtics on 3/24/02 and the Toronto Raptors on 4/17/01 
Grabbed a game-high 12 rebounds, in his first career NBA start, against the Indiana Pacers on 1/27/98 
Made his NBA debut, grabbing 10 rebounds in 19 minutes, against the Orlando Magic on 11/1/96 

This doesn't evidence a star level player worthy of his allstar nods and awards? 

Just the product of a system? 

Arguably two of the best three seasons of his entire career were 2000/2001 and 2001/2002. That was before *all of* Richard Hamilton, Tayshaun Prince, Chauncy Billups, and Rasheed Wallace arrived. Not just some or one, but none of this "starless" lineup was around when Ben was doing major damage in the NBA. 

And in the third of those three seasons 2002/2003: Rasheed wasn't there, Prince played 10 mpg, and Chauncy wasn't anywhere near the level of player he is today. 

Ben Wallace has been Ben Wallace for a long time. He does it. The system doesn't do it for him. The system was in part built the way it was because Ben was already Ben. 

Question his age? Fair enough and certainly reasonable. But lets not downplay what he has done and who is responsible for those accomplishments.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> One of four players in NBA history to lead the league in rebounds and blocks during the same season (01-02) - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 1975-76, Bill Walton 1976-77 and Hakeem Olajuwon 1989-90





Ben Wallace has no business being compared to Kareem, Hakeem or the MVP level Bill Walton.

Completely different ballpark. Not even close. 

Ben Wallace only helps you on one end of the court.

Its an interesting factoid, but an insult to Hakeem and Kareem. Heck, its an insult to the MVP level Bill Walton as well... who dropped in 19 ppg.

When Ben Wallace was most dominant the Pistons were swept out of the playoffs by the New Jersey Nets.

On one end of the court, Wallace is as good as its gets. He’s below average on the other.



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


When I think Ben Wallace I think of comparisons like in his prime Mutombo or Dennis Rodman, although Rodman wasn't the shot blocker Wallace is. Do you think I'm undervaluing him?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

This puts a dent in my Anderson Verejao march to glory. But it's a good move for the Cavs team. Got Gooden for the price they wanted, so they maintain the powerful frontcourt from last year, while upgrading at point guard.

There's really not much you want to do when you are a 50 win team, who had Larry Hughes miss most of the previous year, and a second year coach who has a system that takes 3 years to fully implement. The Cavs are doing a good job of becoming the Jr. Spurs.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> How'd Washington and Orlando do with Wallace in his most athletic prime?


The Wizards sucked. 

The Magic actually overachieved to a 41 win season with what was considered one of the worst rosters in the entire NBA, earning Doc Rivers NBA coach of the year. Ben Wallace started 81 games, led the team in rebounding, was second in blocks, and third in steals.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Ben Wallace has no business being compared to Kareem, Hakeem or the MVP level Bill Walton.
> 
> Completely different ballpark. Not even close.
> 
> ...



How can something that's just an objective stat be an "insult" to anyone?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Ben Wallace has no business being compared to Kareem, Hakeem or the MVP level Bill Walton.
> 
> Completely different ballpark. Not even close.
> 
> ...


You are ignoring the point, which is that he is what he is because he made it that way. He is not a product of a system, because he has been who he is in several systems. 

I know he isn't in the same ballpark as those guys due to his offensive limitations. But that isn't what I was saying. Indeed, I didn't say anything at all. I highlighted an evidently rare accolade of his - a defensive one. 

You are just changing the subject. 



> When I think Ben Wallace I think of comparisons like in his prime Mutombo or Dennis Rodman, although Rodman wasn't the shot blocker Wallace is. Do you think I'm undervaluing him?


I think you are deliberately downplaying his value through poor analogies and stated concerns that he is the product of a system who happens to have won "popularity contests" and not an individual talent who has earned everything he has accomplished. 

Yes. That is precisely what I think.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I was happy to see Rose go, although I wish we didn't have to dump Marshall and saw no harm in keeping Rose on the team for a couple months in an attempt to dump him with less of a cost.


Something had to be done fast. Paxson was pissed as hell at Rose and several other players on the team. Rose had managed to get his friend Cartwright fired. Skiles had just been hired. No way Rose and Skiles would have gotten along. He would have sat on the end of the bench Tim Thomas style while his trade value declined with Paxson's blessing. My guess is that Paxson & Skiles both agreed to get rid of him immediately whatever it took. What it took was Marshall (with JYD in return).



> Depends on how I'm comparing them. Pippen > Wallace > Kukoc > Armstrong > Randy Brown in terms of basketball... but all, IMO, had a premium attached to them based on their championship success.


A veteran all-star with championship experience is worth a premium to a young team with little playoff success and no all-star leadership.

On the other hand, I have trouble with the idea of paying a premium for guys like Nene and Gooden, who have never accomplished anything of note.



> My point is that there is age risk associated with Wallace. There is also the risk that Wallace was part of a winning group, not a true star level player. I think the Bulls are paying a premium for Wallace since he was on a championship team. I hope he can carry over his Pistons level of production and success to the Bulls. And I'm not only talking about a financial premium, but an expectations premium as well, for the top level guys like Pippen and Wallace.
> 
> The reason I was bringing this up to begin with is that there is risk associated with Wallace. There is risk associated with Nene. Less risk with Wallace, IMO, although I'm not a doctor. But, Nene is paid considerably less as well. For good reason.


Wallace will be 31. Big men often play well past 35, and most do quite well between the ages of 30-35, provided they avoid the chronic knee, foot and back degeneration that plague big men in the NBA. Wallace has avoided injury so far, and his great conditioning and relatively small stature makes it more likely that he will continue to perform reliably at a relatively high level over the next four years than more fragile big men like Nene.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I think you are deliberately downplaying his value through poor analogies and stated concerns that he is the product of a system who happens to have won "popularity contests" and not an individual talent who has earned everything he has accomplished.
> 
> Yes. That is precisely what I think.


Wallace is an all-NBA defensive center who does not give you much on offense.

Is there a better modern-day comparison than Mutombo in your mind?

Other than the championship luster on Wallace, I don't see much of a difference, other than Mutomobo making the all-star team 7 times in career. Actually, Mutombo was a better scorer than Wallace, especially early in his career.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Wallace is an all-NBA defensive center who does not give you much on offense.



I suppose. But it's not like he only makes the all-defensive team. He is an NBA all-star, regardless of the deficiencies you see in his game.


How many centers in the NBA do you expect to be better than Ben Wallace this upcoming season (not just on one side of the floor, but overall)? Stated another way, for this upcoming season, what centers would you rather have?

Shaq? Yao? Bueller? Bueller?


I would likely take Shaq over Wallace, although Shaq isn't quite what he used to be and only seems to be slowing down (much moreso than Wallace). I'd probably take Yao. That's it, off the top of my head.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Wallace is an all-NBA defensive center who does not give you much on offense.
> 
> Is there a better modern-day comparison than Mutumbo in your mind?
> 
> Other than the championship luster on Wallace, I don't see much of a difference.


Just forget it. You are just changing the subject. 

You wrote what you wrote and its obvious to anyone who read this thread that you were putting a downward spin on what Wallace has done with this career by suggesting that he was comparable to Non-Pippen Bulls' castoffs and was the product of a system moreso than an individual star. 

I've responded to those arguments of yours in full and I'm not going to continue while you wander away from one argument to another. 

If you want to now compare him to Deke, then cool. I think they both won DPOY 4 times. I'd take either one of them in the middle in their productive years.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

McBulls said:


> On the other hand, I have trouble with the idea of paying a premium for guys like Nene and Gooden, who have never accomplished anything of note.


I don't think 8 million for Nene and 7 million for Gooden is much of a premium.

Unless Nene gets hurt or they just go EROB on their teams, I think those $ amounts are fair to low for the productivity they provide.

The years are a risk with Nene. Gooden agreed to only a three year deal though!



> Wallace will be 31. Big men often play well past 35, and most do quite well between the ages of 30-35, provided they avoid the chronic knee, foot and back degeneration that plague big men in the NBA. Wallace has avoided injury so far, and his great conditioning and relatively small stature makes it more likely that he will continue to perform reliably at a relatively high level over the next four years than more fragile big men like Nene.


This is a good point. There has already been a drop-off in performance between Wallace of 3 years ago and Wallace of last year. Let's hope the downward trend does not continue.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Gooden used to have such a box of rocks in his head it was sad but I noticed last season he really started to play a lot smarter. You can put me down as a guy who thinks Gooden might even be better than Nene next season...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Just forget it. You are just changing the subject.
> 
> You wrote what you wrote and its obvious to anyone who read this thread that you were putting a downward spin on what Wallace has done with this career by suggesting that he was comparable to Non-Pippen Bulls' castoffs and was the product of a system moreso than an individual star.


Walllace is a top defensive player who was on a championship level team. I'd compare him to Rodman and Deke. 

I also think that players from champion-level teams get premium treatment due to their association with winning titles... and that winning titles does not necessarily carry over to the next team they are on. The price and expectations are higher for players like Pippen, Wallace, Kukoc.... much less so for Randy Brown or Buechler... although these guys stick around for years in the league as well... and might even get a multi-year deal when they are really replacement level players.





> I've responded to those arguments of yours in full and I'm not going to continue while you wander away from one argument to another.


I think I've been consistent. You've been responding to an argument that I was not making... that somehow I'm comparing Randy Brown to Ben Wallace in any way other than both of them having a premium attached to them due to association with champions. Clearly Ben Wallace is the much better player.

Wallace is not a SHAQ type superstar. He's a really good defensive player and rebounder like Deke and Rodman. He also was on a team that won the NBA title once.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Wallace is an all-NBA defensive center who does not give you much on offense.
> 
> Is there a better modern-day comparison than Mutombo in your mind?
> 
> Other than the championship luster on Wallace, I don't see much of a difference, other than Mutomobo making the all-star team 7 times in career. Actually, Mutombo was a better scorer than Wallace, especially early in his career.


My examples aren't modern-day, but it is interesting how many championship teams were anchored by big men who were not the focus of the offense, but made their contributions primarily on the defensive end.

Bill Russel is, of course the prime example, and is probably the player you wanted to avoid people mentioning.

But his contemporary rival, Chamberlain only succeeded in winning a championship when he moved to LA and focused on rebounding, defense and passing instead of offense.

One of my all-time favorite players was Wes Unseld, who was perhaps a bit better offensively than Wallace. But his main strength were his abilities to defend the paint, rebound and trigger the fast break.

Even Kareem Jabbar was more successful (team-wise) when Magic Johnson and teamates took the burden of scoring away from him.

In fact, I think it's likely that more championship teams had centers who were not the first or second scoring options on the team than those who had centers with less important offensive roles.

So, I'm not disturbed at all that Wallace is not a great scoring threat. I do wish he would hit a greater percentage of his foul shots, since that weakness can have a negative impact on the outcome of close games in the fourth quarter.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I don't think 8 million for Nene and 7 million for Gooden is much of a premium.
> 
> Unless Nene gets hurt or they just go EROB on their teams, I think those $ amounts are fair to low for the productivity they provide.


I agree that their salaries this year are quite reasonable (although the six year contract for Nene is worrisome). But I doubt that the Bulls could have attracted them away from their teams without paying a premium above those numbers, similar to the premium they had to pay for Wallace.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I think I've been consistent. You've been responding to an argument that I was not making... that somehow I'm comparing Randy Brown to Ben Wallace in any way other than both of them having a premium attached to them due to association with champions.


That is simply not true. You noted the premium and their ability to impact the team that acquired them - i.e. production. You (and DaBullz eventually) also suggested that Wallace was a system player:



> Three, I'm not sure how much of Wallace's accolades *are due to being a product of the starless Pistons model* that won the NBA Title once. I hope he can bring those winning ways to the Bulls. *I just remember how the non-MJ members of the Bulls title teams went to other teams for a premium price, and how they really didn't put any of the teams they were on over the top... except for Pippen in Portland*. Even Pippen didn't make a huge impact in Houston though.


and 



> But, there was a high premium paid for the Pippens and Kukocs as well, and those guys didnt' deliver the goods.
> 
> Pippen in Houston with Drexler and Barkley.
> Kukoc in Philly was expected to be instrumental in getting AI deep into the playoffs.
> Did BJ Armstrong help Golden State much? He was a starter on an all-star team if I recall with the Bulls.


Again, discussing production. 



> In Wallace's case, the only success he had is as a member of a successful yet "starless" group of players. In basketball, changing the individuals of a group greatly changes the dynamics ... and how that unit performs, IMO.


Again, suggesting he's a system player even though Wallace has produced at that high level with multiple different units. 



> Wallace may largely be a product of being part of a very effective 5 man group. The end of season popularity contests reward winning.... and that group won.


Again, and now calling his achievements "popularity contests" as opposed to acknowledging them as hard fought and earned accomplishments. 



> I doubt Wallace would have all those popularity contest accolades you trumpet if he was a member of the Atlanta Hawks the last four years.


Same thing. 

Then you called this achievement an insult to the select few of others who accomplished it because Ben Wallace can't score:



> One of four players in NBA history to lead the league in rebounds and blocks during the same season (01-02) - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 1975-76, Bill Walton 1976-77 and Hakeem Olajuwon 1989-90


So, it is what it is in black and white. I'll let the readers decide for themselves where you were coming from.


----------



## Pain5155 (May 28, 2006)

You know wats funny, at the bulls forum u get 500+ replies about gooden resigning, at the cavs forum u only get 6.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

frankly put, this entire thread is much ado about nothing.......gooden's done nada to deserve much more than he got. the cav was hoping to get him for less and they did; whoopdedamndoo......i'll still take the bull over the cav mano a mano except for the edge given to them by lebron. i stand by the assertion that the cavs *are not * who the bull should be gunning for......

let's see how the season plays out.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Pain5155 said:


> You know wats funny, at the bulls forum u get 500+ replies about gooden resigning, at the cavs forum u only get 6.


Wait till Wilcox agrees with someone.

I'm simply amazed at the levels some will go to put a negative spin on the Bulls when another team signs another player that the Bulls weren't even close to being in the market for AND at the same time, deride the signing of, argueably, the top free agent of this year.

Ben Wallace is an overpaid system player while Nene is some sort of productive value even though he played a grand total of three (or so) minutes last season and isn't healthy yet. Gooden is some sort of otherworldly player even though Anderson Varejo will be getting the nod over Gooden and Gooden is dummer than a bag of hammers.

All this somehow reflects poorly on the Bulls even though Wallace is 10X the player Nene or Gooden are.

Got it.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

McBulls said:


> My examples aren't modern-day, but it is interesting how many championship teams were anchored by big men who were not the focus of the offense, but made their contributions primarily on the defensive end.
> 
> Bill Russel is, of course the prime example, and is probably the player you wanted to avoid people mentioning.


Russell scored 15 ppg in his career and during his MVP years (wallace will never be the NBA MVP) he was scoring 17-19.

Wallace is flat out bad on offense. We're not talking about being the focal point. We're talking about being competent.




> But his contemporary rival, Chamberlain only succeeded in winning a championship when he moved to LA and focused on rebounding, defense and passing instead of offense.


I never saw Wilt play, but in his first 3 years with LA he scored 20, 27 and 20 ppg.

He may have concentrated on getting better at defense and passing... but Wallace is Chandler like in his lack of offensive skills.

EDIT: Looking at the history, I see that Wilt won the title when he only scored 15ppg and he was 35 years old. Two years later he was no longer playing basketball. His lower scoring probably had a lot to do with diminishing skills. Perhaps not though, I didn't see him play.





> In fact, I think it's likely that more championship teams had centers who were not the first or second scoring options on the team than those who had centers with less important offensive roles.
> 
> So, I'm not disturbed at all that Wallace is not a great scoring threat. I do wish he would hit a greater percentage of his foul shots, since that weakness can have a negative impact on the outcome of close games in the fourth quarter.


And, once again, we're not talking about being the 1st option or 2nd option. Wallace is the 5th option. He's to be avoided on offense. He's a liability on offense.

I'm glad Wallace is a Bull. Given the current makeup of the team, I'm not sure we have the horses to contend for the title next year. I think we're going to have to hope the rookies develop, Ben stays productive as he ages and the other guys continue to improve and we make a run in a couple years. 

Either that or Paxson pulls off a blockbuster.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Again, suggesting he's a system player even though Wallace has produced at that high level with multiple different units.


Wallace is a great rebounder and shot blocker. He's a "champion" b/c he was part of a system. The Pistons Model.






> Again, and now calling his achievements "popularity contests" as opposed to acknowledging them as hard fought and earned accomplishments.


All star votes and end of season awards have popularity contest and winners bias elements to them. Much more flawed than the metrics you choose to bash. Being part of that winning system certainly played a large role in winning those popularity contents. 





> Then you called this achievement an insult to the select few of others who accomplished it because Ben Wallace can't score:


Comparing those players to Ben Wallace is an insult, unless you say that 1/2 the time they are on the court they are comparable and 1/2 the time its not even close.


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

Funny how people so quickly forget the monster Ben Wallace was before Rip, Chauncey, and Prince.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Wallace is a great rebounder and shot blocker. He's a "champion" b/c he was part of a system. The Pistons Model.
> 
> All star votes and end of season awards have popularity contest and winners bias elements to them. Much more flawed than the metrics you choose to bash. Being part of that winning system certainly played a large role in winning those popularity contents.
> 
> Comparing those players to Ben Wallace is an insult, unless you say that 1/2 the time they are on the court they are comparable and 1/2 the time its not even close.



Isn't everyone a champion because they were part of a system, a.k.a. a TEAM???

Being on good teams helps you become an All-Star and DPOY, yes. Oh, and doesn't being a good player help you win championships in the first place? Yeah, I thought so. Oh, and leading the league in blocks and rebounds isn't a nice, detached, objective "metric" by which you can judge him?

Ron never said Ben is as good as Kareem. He just pointed out a statistic, which is something you love to do and bash others for criticizing. How come it's ok for you to post about stats and not others?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Isn't everyone a champion because they were part of a system, a.k.a. a TEAM???


True, although Ben was a cog in the superstar-less Pistons Model.

Other champions are anchored by the greatest players ever to lace them up, such as MJ, Shaq, Hakeem, etc.



> Oh, and doesn't being a good player help you win championships in the first place? Yeah, I thought so. Oh, and leading the league in blocks and rebounds isn't a nice, detached, objective "metric" by which you can judge him?


Wallace is a great defensive player. Mutombo-esqe, although poorer on offense.




> Ron never said Ben is as good as Kareem. He just pointed out a statistic, which is something you love to do and bash others for criticizing. How come it's ok for you to post about stats and not others?


Its an interesting stat. Goes to show how good Wallace is at blocking shots and grabbing rebounds. It also helps show how much better players like Walton and Hakeem were since they played both ends of the court. That's why they were MVPs though.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

FanOfAll8472 said:


> Funny how people so quickly forget the monster Ben Wallace was before Rip, Chauncey, and Prince.


And before Sheed.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> True, although Ben was a cog in the superstar-less Pistons Model.



Ok, but what is the _significance_ of that? Does it make his contributions more or less important or noteworthy? If the Pistons lacked a true superstar player, then wouldn't Wallace's relative contribution to the team need to be greater rather than worse?




kukoc4ever said:


> Other champions are anchored by the greatest players ever to lace them up, such as MJ, Shaq, Hakeem, etc.
> 
> Its an interesting stat. Goes to show how good Wallace is at blocking shots and grabbing rebounds. It also helps show how much better players like Walton and Hakeem were since they played both ends of the court.


Yes, it shows how good Ben is at those skills. I was asking why it's "insulting" to point out the company he shares in his ability to block shots and grab rebounds. 

I agree, Wallace is not as good as Walton or Hakeem. This, to me, is not much of a criticism of Wallace.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> True, although Ben was a cog in the superstar-less Pistons Model.
> 
> Other champions are anchored by the greatest players ever to lace them up, such as MJ, Shaq, Hakeem, etc.


You don't make any sense. Aren't the current Bulls a superstar-less model? Shouldn't Wallace fit right in if that's the case? You keep making these pseudo-arguements about Pippen and Kukoc and such that they were lesser players after leaving the _superstar led_ Jordan Bulls. Jordan made others around him better. That's true. Who was around Wallace to make him better? Could it be that Wallace's prescence helped make Billups, Hamilton and Prince better?

You keep changing the landscape to suit whatever point you're trying to make and then when it's challanged (very effectively by The Penguin I might add), the story changes. Now all of Ben Wallaces accomplishments are "popularity contests" yet Nene and Gooden who are, apparently, not very popular, are better players. Come back here when either Nene or Gooden have even one thing under their name in the list that Ron Cey provided of Wallace's popularity accomplishments.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

jnrjr79 said:


> Ok, but what is the _significance_ of that? Does it make his contributions more or less important or noteworthy? If the Pistons lacked a true superstar player, then wouldn't Wallace's relative contribution to the team need to be greater rather than worse?


I imagine the significance is that Wallace isn't a true superstar like those guys are, which makes any comparison a bit of a stretch.

I don't think much of Gooden so this signing doesn't bug me. That said, I do like Chris Wilcox, and if this is the approximate market value for Wilcox I think we ought to go after him.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

jbulls said:


> I imagine the significance is that Wallace isn't a true superstar like those guys are, which makes any comparison a bit of a stretch.




It still doesn't answer what I think is a relatively straightforward question.


Is Ben Wallace's past performance with the Pistons a greater or lesser accomplishment because that team lacked a superstar player?


I mean, if the Kukoc's premise is that the guys who played with Jordan went to other teams and underperformed, then wouldn't Wallace, who did not play with a player of Jordan's caliber, be less likely to underperform now with his new (also superstar-less) team?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

jbulls said:


> I imagine the significance is that Wallace isn't a true superstar like those guys are, which makes any comparison a bit of a stretch.


But no one compared them as equals. That was a cut-and-pasted portion of his NBA.com bio and it relates only to defense.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Aren't the current Bulls a superstar-less model?


We lack a superstar. 



> Shouldn't Wallace fit right in if that's the case?


Uh, yah. Never said otherwise.




> You keep making these pseudo-arguements about Pippen and Kukoc and such that they were lesser players after leaving the _superstar led_ Jordan Bulls.


I never said they were lesser players.



> Jordan made others around him better.


True.




> That's true.


Yes.



> Who was around Wallace to make him better? Could it be that Wallace's prescence helped make Billups, Hamilton and Prince better?


I doubt it. When Wallace was at his most effective his team was swept by the Nets in what was considered to be one of the weaker Eastern Conferences on record. Remeber, this was the Eastern Conference era where a scrub like Jalen Rose could be the best player on a team that made it to the NBA Finals. That's how pitiful the East was then. Jalen Rose made it to the Finals. Wallce at his best could not even beat the Nets.




> You keep changing the landscape to suit whatever point you're trying to make and then when it's challanged (very effectively by The Penguin I might add), the story changes.


I disagree that my story has changed.




> Now all of Ben Wallaces accomplishments are "popularity contests"


All? No. End of season awards and all-star voting are biased by popularity though. Do you disagree? They are also biased by being a member of a winning team.



> yet Nene and Gooden who are, apparently, not very popular, are better players.


Never said that either one is better than Wallace. I said that next season Gooden/Healthy Nene is comprable to PJ Brown/Ben Wallace and down the road Gooden/Healthy Nene will likely be better than PJ Brown/Wallace..



> Come back here when either Nene or Gooden have even one thing under their name in the list that Ron Cey provided of Wallace's popularity accomplishments.


Wallace is better than either. Never said otherwise.

Come back here when you've read the posts.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Ok, but what is the _significance_ of that? Does it make his contributions more or less important or noteworthy? If the Pistons lacked a true superstar player, then wouldn't Wallace's relative contribution to the team need to be greater rather than worse?


They are as significant as the contributions of a Mutombo or Rodman, IMO.






> Yes, it shows how good Ben is at those skills. I was asking why it's "insulting" to point out the company he shares in his ability to block shots and grab rebounds.
> 
> I agree, Wallace is not as good as Walton or Hakeem. This, to me, is not much of a criticism of Wallace.


We all know what he's good at.

We also know he can't score.

Asset on one end of the court. Liability on the other. Let’s hope the other Bulls can carry his weight on offense.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I doubt it. When Wallace was at his most effective his team was swept by the Nets in what was considered to be one of the weaker Eastern Conferences on record. Remeber, this was the Eastern Conference era where a scrub like Jalen Rose could be the best player on a team that made it to the NBA Finals. That's how pitiful the East was then. Jalen Rose made it to the Finals. Wallce at his best could not even beat the Nets.


You don't think it's possible that blocking shots, grabbing a bunch of rebounds, and not needing the ball on offense is likely to make the players around you better? Really?



kukoc4ever said:


> All? No. End of season awards and all-star voting are biased by popularatty though. Do you disagree? They are also biased by being a member of a winning team.


Sure, they are biased to a degree. However, MVPs usually are stud players.

Also, your argument seems to suggest that being a member of a winning team doesn't somehow reflect that the player performed well. I mean, _of course_ end of season awards tend to go to players on winning teams. Winning teams tend to have better players overall. Of course there are exceptions, but speaking in generalities, don't you think the teams with the best players win?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> They are as significant as the contributions of a Mutombo or Rodman, IMO.



This still isn't what I'm asking, though. I'm asking if the fact that he was surrounded by good players, but not superstars, makes his individual contributions to the team more or less significant. Would his number be better or worse if he played with superstars? When you say he's the "product of a system," I am wondering whether or not that is a criticism. Do you think if he played on a team with a superstar that he would contribute less? Doesn't the fact that he is coming to a superstar-less team moot that point if that's the case?

It's just a question. I'm trying to understand what you're driving at by discussing Ben within the context of the so-called Pistons Model.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> You don't think it's possible that blocking shots, grabbing a bunch of rebounds, and not needing the ball on offense is likely to make the players around you better? Really?


Ever try winning a basketball game when you are playing 4 on 5 on one end of the court?

Do you really think that does not make it more difficult? Really? 

And I think there is a lot more to the skill of making the players around you better than grabbing rebounds and blocking shots. Superstars like MJ, Hakeem and the like did this. Guys like Rodman, Wallace and Mutombo.... perhaps, but not to the same degree by any stretch. If Wallace has this gift, we'll see it this season I would think. I'd expect a deep run into the playoffs.





> Of course there are exceptions, but speaking in generalities, don't you think the teams with the best players win?


No... I think the best team wins though.

The starless Pistons Model was the perfect example. None of those guys are top 10 NBA players.... but they were a great team. 

But, in the NBA, more often then not, the superstar led teams win in the end.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> When you say he's the "product of a system," I am wondering whether or not that is a criticism. Do you think if he played on a team with a superstar that he would contribute less? Doesn't the fact that he is coming to a superstar-less team moot that point if that's the case?


I would not take it as a criticism. I don't think if Wallace is on a losing team like the Hawks that he's as heralded as he is, especially if you choose to use the popularity contest votes as your metric. I also don't think Wallace is a superstar like a SHAQ in the way he can basically put a franchise on his back and lead the way.

The Pistons were a superstar less team. Wallace was an important part of this superstarless team. They could not win without him. The popularity contest awards though often go to the winning/popular players.


As for him coming to the Bulls, I think the dynamic that the starting 5 of the Pistons had is difficult to manufacture or attempt to re-create. Let's hope it happens here in Chicago, since we sure don't have a superstar on the roster.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Ever try winning a basketball game when you are playing 4 on 5 on one end of the court?
> 
> Do you really think that does not make it more difficult? Really?
> 
> And I think the skill of making the players around you better has a lot more to do with grabbing rebounds and blocking shots. Superstars like MJ, Hakeem and the like did this. Guys like Rodman, Wallace and Mutombo.... perhaps, but not to the same degree by any stretch.


Well, I think there's a balance to be struck. People complain all the time about some teams "not having enough basketballs," meaning it's possible that you can have a team that is too scoring-oriented and therefore does not share the ball. Ben averages about 8 points a game. Is that significantly worse than championship-era Cartwright/Longley/Rodman? It seems like those teams won just fine with some non-scoring bigs. 

Heck, Rodman won championship after championship during his career. Although he was not offensively-oriented (though more skilled than Ben, I would concede), his teams won a lot of championships. The 4 on 5 issue didn't seem to be much of a hinderance then.





kukoc4ever said:


> No... I think the best team wins though.
> 
> The starless Pistons Model was the perfect example. None of those guys are top 10 NBA players.... but they were a great team.
> 
> But, in the NBA, more often then not, the superstar led teams win in the end.


I agree with this. I didn't realize it was your position, and I stand corrected.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I doubt it. When Wallace was at his most effective his team was swept by the Nets in what was considered to be one of the weaker Eastern Conferences on record. Remeber, this was the Eastern Conference era where a scrub like Jalen Rose could be the best player on a team that made it to the NBA Finals. That's how pitiful the East was then. Jalen Rose made it to the Finals. Wallce at his best could not even beat the Nets.


Yes, swept in the 2nd round of the playoffs (by the eventual conference champs) after a 50 win season. 

And the lineup was:

Chucky Atkins
Jerry Stackhouse
Michael Curry
Cliff Robinson
Ben Wallace

Not very intimidating.

Is that the starless unit that you fear Ben may have needed to be so productive? Or were you referring to the different starless unit the following year that still won 50 games? Or the yet again different starless unit the year after that that took the championship?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> *As for him coming to the Bulls, I think the dynamic that the starting 5 of the Pistons had is difficult to manufacture or attempt to re-create.* Let's hope it happens here in Chicago, since we sure don't have a superstar on the roster.


But Ben Wallace's individual contributions to a 5 man unit aren't difficult to recreate. He's been consistently providing them to multiple different 5 man units for years. In other words, *his * production has never been contingent on who his teammates are. Once Ben arrived, he stayed. And he stayed with a variety of different casts around him.

If your argument is that the better the cast, the better the result. Them, um, duh. I can say that about the seasons of Kobe, LeBron and Dwyane Wade too.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> If your argument is that the better the cast, the better the result. Them, um, duh. I can say that about the seasons of Kobe, LeBron and Dwyane Wade too.


I stated my argument about 4-5 pages ago. That's the one you decided to jump all over and started bringing the production of Randy Brown vs Ben Wallace in to the mix, which was not at all what I was talking about.

After that, its been nothing but tangents.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Back a bit closer to the topic, I expect Seattle to react to the Gooden deal and to sign Wilcox to a 3 year 24-26 million dollar deal before the weekend.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> How'd Washington and Orlando do with Wallace in his most athletic prime?


It's pretty interesting to see how the Pistons did too.

Ben's first year there they were 30-52.

Their second year they were 50-32. What changed?

They added Cliff Robinson... an athletic but perimeter oriented big man who was a good foil to Wallace.
They got bounced in the second round.

The next year they were 50-32 as well, but got to the conference championships after trading Stackhouse for Rip Hamilton and Chauncy Billups. They got swept by the Nets that year in the Conference Finals.

The year after, they upgraded from Robinson to Rasheed, and added Prince and they won it all.

Since then, with pretty much the same group, they lost in the Finals and then lost in the conference finals. 

Anyway, it seems that Ben's production might not depend on his teammates, but that's not really the important thing. What's important is his team's production, and that requires you put the right sort of players around him. Ben may get his 7, 11, and 2 every night, but we need to have four other guys who can put us over the top with him.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> But no one compared them as equals. That was a cut-and-pasted portion of his NBA.com bio and it relates only to defense.


I understand that. That said, a better comparison might be to compare Wallace to defensively dominant bigs who struggled on the offensive end of the court. Comparing him to the greats and saying "but forget about the offense part" just makes things blurry IMO.

It's hard to say how much Chamberlin, Russell etc would've impacted their teams if they'd been dreadful on offense. It's easier to look at guys like Mutumbo in his prime, and examine the impact they had on their teams.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Back a bit closer to the topic, I expect Seattle to react to the Gooden deal and to sign Wilcox to a 3 year 24-26 million dollar deal before the weekend.


I have a feeling Paxson doesn't share my enthusiasm about Wilcox, but I really like him for the following reasons:

1. He can score in the post.

2. He's young and getting better.

3. He's a big enough body to play minutes at center.

4. He's been very productive both times he's been given minutes over the past two seasons.

Does he have mental lapses? Sure, but so does Drew Gooden. I think Wilcox has a much higher ceiling than Gooden, and is going to wind up being the better pro. I would be thrilled if we could land him for 3 years 23-26 million, and I wouldn't hesitate to give up Sweets or Duhon in the process.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Who cares?

Gooden's not scaring anybody, on the other hand, the KING is.

His supporting cast is still weak.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

I want to ask the people that support the Wallace signing if they were happy they missed out on Antonio Davis in 2001.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Jamel Irief said:


> I want to ask the people that support the Wallace signing if they were happy they missed out on Antonio Davis in 2001.


Bulls fans don't have very much to cheer about that happened in 2001. There were a lot of stupid moves and non-moves made by Jerry Krause at about that time. I recall that he tried to sign Davis, but Toronto made a much larger offer -- which they later came to regret so much they took on Jalen Rose's bad contract just to get rid of him. All in all, it is not a happy history for Toronto or Chicago.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> I want to ask the people that support the Wallace signing if they were happy they missed out on Antonio Davis in 2001.



Yeah cos the parallels are so similar,what with all Antonio Davis's DPOY awards.

:raised_ey





> Back a bit closer to the topic, I expect Seattle to react to the Gooden deal and to sign Wilcox to a 3 year 24-26 million dollar deal before the weekend.


Seattle's had that on the table for a while as a compromise to the initial difference in negotiations between them and his agent. Not sure what this does for Wilcox's chances of accepting that.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Anyway, it seems that Ben's production might not depend on his teammates, but that's not really the important thing.


That isn't important? I think its kind of important. 



> What's important is his team's production, and that requires you put the right sort of players around him.


Besides Shaq perhaps, who does this not apply to? Every player in history has played on teams that accomplished less with lesser players. 

Once Shaq left, Kobe missed the playoffs and then got bounced in Round 1 the next season. It seems to be more "obvious" than "important" that the better Ben's teammates, the better Ben's teams. 

But you said "right sort" which I guess doesn't necessarily mean better. So who was the "athletic but perimeter oriented big man who was a good foil to Wallace" on that surprising Orlando team he played for? Was it Bo Outlaw or John Amaechi? 

Regardless, I guess its a good thing the Bulls have athletic and perimeter oriented power forwards like Nocioni, Thomas, and perhaps Deng to play with Wallace. Brown is more of an elbow/baseline big man as well. 



> Ben may get his 7, 11, and 2 every night, but we need to have four other guys who can put us over the top with him.


Of this, there can be no doubt. Of course, this does not render him a "system player" who relies on a particular group of guys to succeed individually. 

But true, with better players around him his teams have done better. I think you will find this to be a remarkably consistent trend throughout the history of the NBA with most players.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> That isn't important? I think its kind of important.


OK, I'm glad you think that. Ben's production Ben's production in and of itself isn't important to me at all, except insofar as it relates to Bulls wins.



> Once Shaq left, Kobe missed the playoffs and then got bounced in Round 1 the next season. It seems to be more "obvious" than "important" that the better Ben's teammates, the better Ben's teams.
> 
> But you said "right sort" which I guess doesn't necessarily mean better. So who was the "athletic but perimeter oriented big man who was a good foil to Wallace" on that surprising Orlando team he played for? Was it Bo Outlaw or John Amaechi?


:clown: If you were to allow that in some absolute sense, Tyson Chandler were slightly better in abstract terms than PJ Brown, I suspect you would still argue that Brown was still superior in the context of which guy is better to play next to Ben Wallace.



> Regardless, I guess its a good thing the Bulls have athletic and perimeter oriented power forwards like Nocioni, Thomas, and perhaps Deng to play with Wallace. Brown is more of an elbow/baseline big man as well.


I guess. It's also quite possible they simply have 3 good small forwards and one old power forward to play with him, which, of course, is better than some fits while not being ideal.



> Of this, there can be no doubt. Of course, this does not render him a "system player" who relies on a particular group of guys to succeed individually.


No, that's a misunderstanding of the question. He is not a "system player" in the sense that his individual success depends on a particular group of guys. He may be a "system player in the sense that his team's success relies in a particular group of guys. Meaning that they have particular skills, not just "are better", though cetaris parabis, being better obviously helps.

But true, with better players around him his teams have done better. I think you will find this to be a remarkably consistent trend throughout the history of the NBA with most players.[/QUOTE]

:clown:


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Sham said:


> Yeah cos the parallels are so similar,what with all Antonio Davis's DPOY awards.
> 
> :raised_ey


Just curious, but do you see the parallels now?

Older big man that relies on athleticism... signed to a monster deal during his downfall and the team is regretting in the second season?

Go look up Davis numbers following that big contract.

Just curious, because I want to see if people still are happy with that signing instead of keeping Chandler.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

Why is there an 8 page thread about Gooden on the bulls forum?


----------

