# This team is average at best.



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

I dont think the Bulls are anywhere near the elite in the East, Sure they have a much better record at this time then they have had last season, but the Bulls are just an average team. This is a team with no legit leader, this is a team that coached like a college team (not a bad thing but not going to make them any better), this is a team whose 2 highest scorers are bench players. 
Sure this is a team that can sneak into the playoff's but they are far from a team that can win in the playoffs. 

Ben Gordon is a very good player who is going to get better but Iam starting to think thats its not going to be with the Bulls. Iam more impressed with the future of the Raptors over the Bulls future. I Understand that its still early in the season, but this team never shows you anything close to being a team that can compete for a championship. The best thing the Bulls can do right now is to consistently give Ben and Deng 35+ minutes a game, Gordon needs to be in the game more then just at the end of the first quarter and 5 minutes of the second.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

thebizkit69u said:


> Iam more impressed with the future of the Raptors over the Bulls future.


u can't be ****** serious man....


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

The ROY said:


> u can't be ****** serious man....


 Chris Bosh
Charlie Villanueva
Joey Graham
Jose Calderon 

Granted I love Loul Deng, but it seems like Gordon is allways going to be playing behind Duhon. SO yeah i think If Toronto can keep all their young players are going to have a very bright future.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Chris Bosh
> Charlie Villanueva
> Joey Graham
> Jose Calderon
> ...



Meh. It would not surprise me one little bit if Bosh bolts after this season.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I agree we are not elite. But we are young and can grow together. Young with cap space and picks! 

Ah, no. Toronto may be building something but we are futher along. I like our team.


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

thebizkit69u said:


> I dont think the Bulls are anywhere near the elite in the East, Sure they have a much better record at this time then they have had last season, but the Bulls are just an average team. This is a team with no legit leader, this is a team that coached like a college team (not a bad thing but not going to make them any better), this is a team whose 2 highest scorers are bench players.
> Sure this is a team that can sneak into the playoff's but they are far from a team that can win in the playoffs.
> 
> Ben Gordon is a very good player who is going to get better but Iam starting to think thats its not going to be with the Bulls. Iam more impressed with the future of the Raptors over the Bulls future. I Understand that its still early in the season, but this team never shows you anything close to being a team that can compete for a championship. The best thing the Bulls can do right now is to consistently give Ben and Deng 35+ minutes a game, Gordon needs to be in the game more then just at the end of the first quarter and 5 minutes of the second.


I dont' think anyone has put the Bulls among the elite nor title contender during last season, in the summer, or this season. We are just an up coming team. We just want to make the playoffs again this year and build from there. I think you forgot where we were last year. It's a big improvement. Once Curry was traded, people were predicting us not making the playoffs - so i am quite happy with the team.

As far as you being impressed with the Raptors than the Bulls, it's your opinion. Dont' mean to be rude, but it shows ur NBA knowledge. The Raptors have 2 young players - other than that, they have nothing - they will not have capspace to sign anyone. All of their long term contracts are bad - worst than the Knicks. That says something. Also, Bosh will likely leave the team. The Raptors need to do something quick in the next year.


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

:banghead: 

Of course the Bulls aren't one of the elite teams, they are still putting the pieces together. What the Bulls are right now is a first round playoff team, made up of players who have been in the NBA for only two or three years. Plus they potentialy will have lottery picks over the next two years and a whole lot of cap space. This team is far from being set in stone.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Let's remember where we were in 2003-2004! 

23-59.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

PD said:


> As far as you being impressed with the Raptors than the Bulls, it's your opinion. Dont' mean to be rude, but it shows ur NBA knowledge. The Raptors have 2 young players - other than that, they have nothing - they will not have capspace to sign anyone. All of their long term contracts are bad - worst than the Knicks. That says something. Also, Bosh will likely leave the team. The Raptors need to do something quick in the next year.


 The Raptors have one player who every other GM in the NBA would take over anyone on our team period. The Raptors also have Charlie V who in his first year is almost more productive then the expensive Tyson Chandler in his fifth YEAR! IF Bosh stays the Raptors are not going to have to worry so much about Cap Space because Bosh is going to be something special and Charlie V is also going to improve. Also, Calderon looks like hes going to be a very solid PG. 

The Bulls remind me kinda like the T-Wolves, everyone here is exited about making the playoffs but the Bulls just dont have enough to win a series right now and unless they get a legit superstar then i dont see them winning a series anytime soon. Its just the truth.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Its just the truth.


You're right.

Ok everyone...lets close up shop. Stop watching the games, stop posting about the team. No sense in it...cuz we stink.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

If the Raptors future is so much better, why'd we beat them?


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

I remember those days in college when I'd go out drinking on Wednesday nights and just get hammered, I miss those days.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Mikedc said:


> If the Raptors future is so much better, why'd we beat them?


LOL I am talking about the Future! Man you guys on here God forbid anyone question where this team is going in the future. The Bulls beat the Raptors because the Raptors SUCK right now, But the truth is they are going to get another lottery pick, they will have a chance to draft either Morrison or Gay if they declare. 

Iam not saying that the Bulls stink, but they arent anything special. Last year you saw the great defense and you saw Ben Gordon show flashes of being something very special, this year you see a team that lost a step on defense and lost Curry.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> LOL I am talking about the Future! Man you guys on here God forbid anyone question where this team is going in the future. The Bulls beat the Raptors because the Raptors SUCK right now, But the truth is they are going to get another lottery pick, they will have a chance to draft either Morrison or Gay if they declare.
> 
> Iam not saying that the Bulls stink, but they arent anything special. Last year you saw the great defense and you saw Ben Gordon show flashes of being something very special, this year you see a team that lost a step on defense and lost Curry.



Lost a step on D? Did Kirk, Duhon, etc. all get slow in their old age? I mean, I don't think the loss of AD makes us _that_ much worse on D.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

The Raptors have a more impressive future? I am going to have to say I disagree...........

1. Not a good market from a players standpoint. Players there won't get endorsements(Carter did, but he also jumped over a 7 footer for a dunk). 

2. No One wants to play in Canada, yeah we have talked about Bosh, but also future free agents and rookies up for extensions.

3. Calderon is not that good, he will never be an above average starter.

4. Nueva and Bosh play the same position.

5. Their GM (not sure if there has been a change the last couple years) has made some very bad decisions in the past. So far this year it looks like he made some good moves (the draft and James) but they are still 4-16.

6. They don't have our cap next year.

7. They have a stupid team name. We wear red.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Hey I think the Raptors are a cool name.

Anyways, everything i say is based on IF the Raptors can keep their young studs. And yess the Bulls have lost a step on Defense Last year the Bulls held opponents to 93 ppg on .422 fg%, so far the Bulls have struggled to keep any team under 100 points, Bulls opponents are averaging 97 ppg on .444 fg %.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> The Raptors have one player who every other GM in the NBA would take over anyone on our team period. The Raptors also have Charlie V who in his first year is almost more productive then the expensive Tyson Chandler in his fifth YEAR! IF Bosh stays the Raptors are not going to have to worry so much about Cap Space because Bosh is going to be something special and Charlie V is also going to improve. Also, Calderon looks like hes going to be a very solid PG.
> 
> The Bulls remind me kinda like the T-Wolves, everyone here is exited about making the playoffs but the Bulls just dont have enough to win a series right now and unless they get a legit superstar then i dont see them winning a series anytime soon. Its just the truth.


I also think that every GM would take Bosh over any of our guys, but the same could be said for Detriot.

Cap space is always an issue. One man can't win by himself, and in a small market like Toronto, it means a whole lot. The owner will not be willing to go over the luxery tax threshold until they look like a contender, which may take forever building the team soley on draft picks.

Whats wrong with being excited about a team full of young guys who have yet to reach their potential making the playoffs? We have just gotten this thing started whereas the T-Wolves really are going to have a hard time adding to their team. Unless we get the 6 spot or very lucky I don't think we will go second round either, but Toronto will be lucky to be the second worst team in the league.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Hustle said:


> Whats wrong with being excited about a team full of young guys who have yet to reach their potential making the playoffs?.


 Do you really think that Tyson Chandler will get much better?
Do you think Kirk Hinrich will improve that much more then he is?
Do you think Duhon will really be anything more then a decent player?
Will Gordon stay here or will he be traded like so many other of our young players have been.
I do believe that Deng will be special.

But other then that Most of our Young guys like Kirk, Nocioni, Duhon and Chandler arent going to get much better then they allready are.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Do you really think that Tyson Chandler will get much better?
> Do you think Kirk Hinrich will improve that much more then he is?
> Do you think Duhon will really be anything more then a decent player?
> Will Gordon stay here or will he be traded like so many other of our young players have been.
> ...


You sure about that? 

Lets say for arguement sake you are right. Well then we add to this core with our 2 draft picks this year. We add another player with cap space then go on! That is why I am not getting excited with this team.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

thebizkit69u said:


> I dont think the Bulls are anywhere near the elite in the East, Sure they have a much better record at this time then they have had last season, but the Bulls are just an average team. This is a team with no legit leader, this is a team that coached like a college team (not a bad thing but not going to make them any better), this is a team whose 2 highest scorers are bench players.
> Sure this is a team that can sneak into the playoff's but they are far from a team that can win in the playoffs.
> 
> Ben Gordon is a very good player who is going to get better but Iam starting to think thats its not going to be with the Bulls. Iam more impressed with the future of the Raptors over the Bulls future. I Understand that its still early in the season, but this team never shows you anything close to being a team that can compete for a championship. The best thing the Bulls can do right now is to consistently give Ben and Deng 35+ minutes a game, Gordon needs to be in the game more then just at the end of the first quarter and 5 minutes of the second.


It doesn't take alot to see that we are not as good as Detroit, Indiana or Miami. To me average is great after all the years of suffering we have had. I really like winning games and haven't gotten used to it yet. Competing and being a strong team with the players we have is a good foundation for success in the future. We are one star player from being elite. However we get that player (free agency, draft, trade) doesn't matter. We have that flexibility. I don't think too many people think we can win in the playoffs at this point, but who cares? I want to win games and continue building.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> LOL I am talking about the Future! Man you guys on here God forbid anyone question where this team is going in the future. The Bulls beat the Raptors because the Raptors SUCK right now, But the truth is they are going to get another lottery pick, they will have a chance to draft either Morrison or Gay if they declare.
> 
> Iam not saying that the Bulls stink, but they arent anything special. Last year you saw the great defense and you saw Ben Gordon show flashes of being something very special, this year you see a team that lost a step on defense and lost Curry.


Yep we lost a step and curry. Curry's team is five games behind us. We are 11-10, last year at this time we were, 6-15. Five games better and yet Toronto has a better future?

You are entitled to your opinion thebizkit69u, but then again so are those who disagree. 

We may get a lottery pick as well. Add a lottery pick to us and what do you have?


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

thebizkit69u said:


> Do you really think that Tyson Chandler will get much better?
> Do you think Kirk Hinrich will improve that much more then he is?
> Do you think Duhon will really be anything more then a decent player?
> Will Gordon stay here or will he be traded like so many other of our young players have been.
> ...


I would agree if all of our players are on huge immovable contracts, and we had no cap space and no draft picks in the future. But since we do, the fact that we are a winning team with good, but not great players is a testament to Skiles and Paxson for building a winning attitude.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I'd rather have Bosh than any player on our team.

You can always pick up gritty guards and dive for loose ball players via free agency or in a trade.

Mike James is as good as any of our guards right now, except for Hinrich... and the gap is not that huge on that front.


----------



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

I remember when we traded Curry most of you people on here acted like we were gonna go back to below .500 or something.

Now the same few of you still find reasons to be pessimistic, which doesn't cease to make me wonder whether you guys aren't Knick fans in disguise or something.

Let's be honest, no one expected the Bulls to even be competing after losing not one but TWO big men. And yet we've beaten the Spurs and the Rockets, two teams with probably the 2 most dominant big men in the game right now. And we're over .500 in probably the toughest division there is.

Finally we have no all-stars on this team. Guys are getting injured left and right. Yet somehow we're getting it done.

Again, sometimes you naysayers just amaze me. This team is right where it should be. We keep this pace, it'll be perfect for the offseason where we will be competitive enough to attract the missing link, yet we'll still be able to offer more money that most clubs, and bingo, we're set.

I like to think of us as in the same position as the Miami Heat the year before Shaq rolled in. They were already a playoff team, just not a contender yet.

Dare I say...Ben = Wade right now? You give us that key missing big guy, and suddenly Ben is able to take his game to that next level because he's got that extra confidence knowing that he has a reliable big man to clear the way for him to attack more often.

Scary. And yet, it could be our future.

-Z-


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'd rather have Bosh than any player on our team.
> 
> You can always pick up gritty guards and dive for loose ball players via free agency or in a trade.
> 
> Mike James is as good as any of our guards right now, except for Hinrich... and the gap is not that huge on that front.


 give me Duhon, Ben over Mike James. 

Pargo x double minutes = Mike James. I want to see Pargo on a crappy team and let's see what he can do now.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Grass is greener on the other side, I guess. 

Hinrich, Deng, Duhon, Gordon, Chandler and Duhon isn't brighter than Bosh and Charlie V? Hard to believe. 

I agree this team will hover just above average until we cash in some of our young depth to bring in a superstar.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

anorexorcist said:


> Now the same few of you still find reasons to be pessimistic, which doesn't cease to make me wonder whether you guys aren't Knick fans in disguise or something.



:cheers:


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

The problem is that we want the satisfaction of last years massive improvement all over again. That's not happening this season.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'd rather have Bosh than any player on our team.
> 
> You can always pick up gritty guards and dive for loose ball players via free agency or in a trade.
> 
> Mike James is as good as any of our guards right now, except for Hinrich... and the gap is not that huge on that front.


Mike James is as good as Duhon and Gordon? Come on k4e, you can't possibly believe that. James has some okay stats THIS YEAR on an absolutely terrible team, he was dealt for Rafer Alston last year. You don't think Rob Babcock would deal James straight up for Gordon or Hinrich? He'd do it in a heartbeat.

The Raptors stink. With Bosh or without. It's disapointing to me to hear people who know better trivialize our backcourt players as "gritty guards who dive for loose balls". Let's deal Chris Duhon for Mikes James, he's averaging 15 PPG!


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

OK, is this thread a tribute to the late, great Richard Pryor, one of the funniest MFers ever to walk the planet who passed away last weekend?



> Mike James is as good as Duhon and Gordon


There is no way on God's green earth that the above statement isn't a joke, it's just not even remotely possible.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

11-10, not stellar, not crap. Average at best? Not a bad description.

But if you take a guy's PER divided by his shoe size, he might be leading the league in something.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Do you really think that Tyson Chandler will get much better?
> Do you think Kirk Hinrich will improve that much more then he is?
> Do you think Duhon will really be anything more then a decent player?
> Will Gordon stay here or will he be traded like so many other of our young players have been.
> ...


Chandler will get better. Offensivily he will never be good, but he has proven he can be one of the top inside defenders and rebounders in this league. I believe his improvement will come in the form of consistantsy as he gets into better shape and is eventually put next to another legit big guy.

Kirk has improved every year. Saying he's not going to get better is like saying Jordon didn't get better after his rookie season, where he put up nearly his career averages. 

No Duhon won't be an allstar, and I doubt Pax or anyone else wants him and Kirk to be the future backcourt. I don't think we are relying upon him to be anything more than he is now. That being said he is what 23, yes he will get better. And if he sticks around he will be the best backup point in the league.

I for one think Gordon will be traded at some point, but I also think that he was way overrated last year and is going to have a tough time leading any backcourt ever. But if Toronto loses Bosh, well the two are not even comparable. If we trade Gordon we may just get an upgrade. If the Raps trade Bosh................ it may very well lead to a change of venue.

How many players peak at ages 22-23? I doubt any of their stats get way higher than they are now, but to say a team full of young guys have no room for improvement on a individual basis or as a whole is just assinine.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> 11-10, not stellar, not crap. Average at best? Not a bad description.


I got swept up in the Toronto comparision, but I wouldn't call us average at best, just average.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

What we are is fortunate, a playoff team that is under the salary cap and has two first round draft picks, we're in a pretty good position. Now if we are average next year and the year after... that's when i'll be disappointed.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> 11-10, not stellar, not crap. Average at best? Not a bad description.
> 
> But if you take a guy's PER divided by his shoe size, he might be leading the league in something.


Well technically, 11-10 would be .0238 above average, .500 being average.

And I think that Songaila leads the NBA in FG% (.750) this week for players who have averaged at least 10 shots per game since Monday. :biggrin:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Mike James is as good as Duhon and Gordon? Come on k4e, you can't possibly believe that. James has some okay stats THIS YEAR on an absolutely terrible team, he was dealt for Rafer Alston last year. You don't think Rob Babcock would deal James straight up for Gordon or Hinrich? He'd do it in a heartbeat.
> 
> The Raptors stink. With Bosh or without. It's disapointing to me to hear people who know better trivialize our backcourt players as "gritty guards who dive for loose balls". Let's deal Chris Duhon for Mikes James, he's averaging 15 PPG!


James does not turn the ball over, is a good rebounder from the guard spot and is an effective scorer. He did the same for Mil/Hou last year and is continuing his good play for the Raptors. He's a much more complete player than Gordon at this stage and is a better scorer than Duhon. He's an adaquate defender as well. 

I'm tired of hearing of good players on bad teams getting bashed around here. I felt the same way when we had Elton Brand on the team and he would be passed over for the all-star game. Just because a player is on a bad team does not invalidate what they are doing out there. There's a reason everyone in the league covets Chris Bosh, even though the Raptors are losing.

James is not a great player... but he plays better than Ben Gordon at this point. Gordon has more upside though.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I wonder what gordons numbers would be if he played for the Raptors? Then, the bashing would be the fact that Paxson could have had him but missed the opportunity.(last sentence was a general statement not directed at anyone poster.) 

I like James, but imo Gordon is better and will continue to improve.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> James does not turn the ball over, is a good rebounder from the guard spot and is an effective scorer. He did the same for Mil/Hou last year and is continuing his good play for the Raptors. He's a much more complete player than Gordon at this stage and is a better scorer than Duhon. He's an adaquate defender as well.
> 
> *I'm tired of hearing of good players on bad teams getting bashed around here.* I felt the same way when we had Elton Brand on the team and he would be passed over for the all-star game. Just because a player is on a bad team does not invalidate what they are doing out there. There's a reason everyone in the league covets Chris Bosh, even though the Raptors are losing.
> 
> James is not a great player... but he plays better than Ben Gordon at this point. *Gordon has more upside though.*


James is a 30 year old vet in his 9th NBA season, and is scoring 5 points above his career average. He is an unlikely building block for the future of the Raptor. Given that his current numbers are marginally better than Gordon's, but that already Gordon's career numbers are already better than James', how can you honestly make the statement that "Mike James is as good as any of our guards right now, except for Hinrich" and not expect people to disagree? 

...and what does that statement even have to do with the future of the Bull vs. the future of the Raptor?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> I wonder what gordons numbers would be if he played for the Raptors? Then, the bashing would be the fact that Paxson could have had him but missed the opportunity.(last sentence was a general statement not directed at anyone poster.)
> 
> I like James, but imo Gordon is better and will continue to improve.


Lumping people into groups or addressing made up factions is the same thing, IMO, but I'm no board moderator.

If Gordon could be much more effective in a different system, then the Bulls should consider employing it. If we're sitting on this great, game-altering talent in Ben Gordon, we should fully exploit him.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Wow, I didn't realize that averaging 2.9 rebounds in 34.6 minutes made a player a good rebounder from the guard spot.

Duhon averages 3.2 rebounds in 33.4 minutes, I guess he's a very good rebounder from the guard spot. I had no idea Du was such a good rebounder.

I guess maybe that's why the Raptors signed Duhon to an offer sheet over the summer?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Wow, I didn't realize that averaging 2.9 rebounds in 34.6 minutes made a player a good rebounder from the guard spot.
> 
> Duhon averages 3.2 rebounds in 33.4 minutes, I guess he's a very good rebounder from the guard spot. I had no idea Du was such a good rebounder.


Last season James was the 10th best rebounding PG in the league.



> I guess maybe that's why the Raptors signed Duhon to an offer sheet over the summer?


Is Babcock an idiot or isnt' he?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

truebluefan said:


> We may get a lottery pick as well. Add a lottery pick to us and what do you have?


Wait, I think I've heard this one before. A bull with balls?


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Agree:

Right now, we are an average team.

-- Actually, I think we're a slightly above average team, but.........close enough. 

Disagree: 

-- That won't change in the future.

As of right now, I'd say we're in a pretty decent position to make it change. We have a good crop of coachable young players who have proven that they're capable NBA players, who should continue to get better in the foreseeable future. We should also have around 16-20 million in capspace, a draft pick this year that looks to be in the lottery, and possibly another lottery pick after that. No one knows what may come of all that, but I think it gives a decent chance to substantially improve our team.

-- That the Raptors have a brighter future than us.

I don't think we're particularly close to a championship right now, but I think we're a lot closer than the Raptors are.

-- That Mike James is better than any of our guards.

Like others have said, Mike James is an okay guard who is putting up okay numbers because he is on a terrible team. I wouldn't trade any of Chris, Kirk, and Ben for him, and I wouldn't think twice about it.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'd rather have Bosh than any player on our team.
> 
> You can always pick up gritty guards and dive for loose ball players via free agency or in a trade.
> 
> Mike James is as good as any of our guards right now, except for Hinrich... and the gap is not that huge on that front.


Just curious, but about three weeks ago, weren't you calling Chris Duhon the best guard on our team??


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

rosenthall said:


> -- That Mike James is better than any of our guards.
> 
> Like others have said, Mike James is an okay guard who is putting up okay numbers because he is on a terrible team. I wouldn't trade any of Chris, Kirk, and Ben for him, and I wouldn't think twice about it.



1.) Nobody is saying James is on the same level as Hinrich.

2.) James played better than he is now on the Raptors for the playoff Rockets last season.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

The current Bulls most certainly are merely a marginally above average team. Just like last year. I don't dispute that. But the Bulls *situation* is anything but average. That's what this thread is about, isn't it? The future? In order to evaluate the future of a team, one must look at for more than the individual talent level of the current players on that team.

What is the depth of talent?

What is the diversity of the talent?

What is the chemistry of the talent?

What are the contracts of the talent?

What is the desirability to potential trade partners of the talent?

What is the team's capspace situation?

What is the stability of the coaching/management of the organization?

What future draft picks does a team have stockpiled/depleted?

What country/state/city does that team reside in? (It matters a little bit. Maybe it shouldn't, but it does.)

And there is probably a lot more to it than even that. But given that analysis, the Bulls situation going forward appears to be way above average to me. In fact, I'd call it very bright. I'd call it favorably comparable to/better than *almost* (there are obvious exceptions) every other team in the NBA.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Lumping people into groups or addressing made up factions is the same thing, IMO, but I'm no board moderator.
> 
> If Gordon could be much more effective in a different system, then the Bulls should consider employing it. If we're sitting on this great, game-altering talent in Ben Gordon, we should fully exploit him.


where did I lump people into groups? 

Has some posters bashed paxson in the past for not getting this player or that player? Yes, some have. That's all I meant by that. And I was not insinuating the very same posters would do it again had we not chosen Gordon. It could have been someone else.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

rosenthall said:


> Just curious, but about three weeks ago, weren't you calling Chris Duhon the best guard on our team??


He was, wasn't he?


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Lumping people into groups or addressing made up factions is the same thing, IMO, but I'm no board moderator.
> 
> .If Gordon could be much more effective in a different system, then the Bulls should consider employing it. If we're sitting on this great, game-altering talent in Ben Gordon, we should fully exploit him





> Gordon could be much more effective in a different system, then the Bulls should consider employing it. If we're sitting on this great, game-altering talent in Ben Gordon, we should fully exploit


Why should we do that? trade him so he could be better on a bad team? We could very well be sitting on a game-altering talent. This is just his second season here.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Wynn said:


> James is a 30 year old vet in his 9th NBA season, and is scoring 5 points above his career average. He is an unlikely building block for the future of the Raptor. Given that his current numbers are marginally better than Gordon's, but that already Gordon's career numbers are already better than James', how can you honestly make the statement that "Mike James is as good as any of our guards right now, except for Hinrich" and not expect people to disagree?
> 
> ...and what does that statement even have to do with the future of the Bull vs. the future of the Raptor?


Good point! I never looked at the career stats at all.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> Why should we do that? trade him so he could be better on a bad team? We could very well be sitting on a game-altering talent. This is just his second season here.


I'm not demanding a trade. I'm just saying that is Gordon truly is a burgeoning NBA superstar, then we should fully exploit his talents. He certainly does not look like one playing for the Bulls in our current system.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Lumping people into groups or addressing made up factions is the same thing, IMO, but I'm no board moderator.
> 
> If Gordon could be much more effective in a different system, then the Bulls should consider employing it. If we're sitting on this great, game-altering talent in Ben Gordon, we should fully exploit him.



Isn't this missing the point? I think the idea was that Gordon would put up big numbers on the Raps because the Raps are bad and he would therefore see more PT and shots there. I don't want to speak for TBF, but that's the way I understand it.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm not demanding a trade. I'm just saying that is Gordon truly is a burgeoning NBA superstar, then we should fully exploit his talents. He certainly does not look like one playing for the Bulls in our current system.


Maybe we could get Mike James for him? :wink:


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm not demanding a trade. I'm just saying that is Gordon truly is a burgeoning NBA superstar, then we should fully exploit his talents. He certainly does not look like one playing for the Bulls in our current system.


Again, this is year two and yes I agree, he is not a superstar but who said he was? I know I never said he was. I just think he is better than James. Wasn't he injured recently? Maybe that has something to do with his recent play. He has had some good games before he was injured. He has been inconsistant.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Isn't this missing the point? I think the idea was that Gordon would put up big numbers on the Raps because the Raps are bad and he would therefore see more PT and shots there. I don't want to speak for TBF, but that's the way I understand it.


When I'm looking at stats, I'm looking at per-minute stats for the mostpart, so playing time does not enter into it as much.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> When I'm looking at stats, I'm looking at per-minute stats for the mostpart, so playing time does not enter into it as much.


Yeah, but that still doesn't matter. Look at it at its most basic. When a good player plays on a really sucky team, that good player is likely to play a more major role. When a good player plays with other good players, he is likely to see his role be comparatively less. This is not an absolute, but I think it's true generally.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Maybe we could get Mike James for him? :wink:



LOL.

If we made this trade at the start of the season, how worse off do you think the Bulls would be right now record wise? I fully agree that Gordon has more years ahead of him to improve.

Duhon and the current production of Gordon is not all that irreplaceable.


In his last 10 games, Gordon has totaled more than 1 rebound 2 times. He has not blocked a shot all season. He does not average even 1 steal a game. He has one of the worst rebound rates in all of basketball.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Yeah, but that still doesn't matter. Look at it at its most basic. When a good player plays on a really sucky team, that good player is likely to play a more major role. When a good player plays with other good players, he is likely to see his role be comparatively less. This is not an absolute, but I think it's true generally.


I don't think that Gordon is in a situation where if he was a truly great player, he would be held back.

He's not surrounded by stars. As our own GM pointed out yesterday, he's surrounded by role players. The Bulls want very, very badly for him to become a star. Its there for the taking, if he can do it.

I think the "good player on bad team" argument is used too much and is too much of a knee jerk. I didn't like it when Brand and Artest were Bulls, when Brand was a Clipper and I don't like it much now. 

I understand your point, I just don't think it applies to Gordon. He's not surrounded by greatness. The Bulls are praying he steps up. He's been given every opportunity to do so.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Wait, I think I've heard this one before. A bull with balls?


Technically that'd be redundant. Without balls he (it?) would be a steer....


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> If we made this trade at the start of the season, how worse off do you think the Bulls would be right now record wise?


I don't know that it would have impacted things one way or the other.



> Duhon and the current production of Gordon is not all that irreplaceable.


I absolutely agree with that statement as it relates to Gordon. In fact, I'm convinced that he's not only "replaceable" but that he will in fact be replaced. Well, "replaced" might not be the best word for it, but I do expect Gordon to be traded either this year or next.



> In his last 10 games, Gordon has totaled more than 1 rebound 2 times. He has not blocked a shot all season. He does not average even 1 steal a game. He has one of the worst rebound rates in all of basketball.


You'll get no argument from me. He's a scorer, and not much else at this point in his career. I've said that from day one. I like Gordon and I'm glad he's on the Bulls. But at this point he has his limitations, and they are obvious.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Wynn said:


> Technically that'd be redundant. Without balls he (it?) would be a steer....


Yeah, I know. But I just really wanted to write it.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I don't think that Gordon is in a situation where if he was a truly great player, he would be held back.
> 
> He's not surrounded by stars. As our own GM pointed out yesterday, he's surrounded by role players. The Bulls want very, very badly for him to become a star. Its there for the taking, if he can do it.
> 
> ...




I didn't said great. I only said good. It is painfully obvious the Bulls are lacking _current_ greatness. I think both Deng and Gordon have the possibility of being great players down the line. But currently, they are not yet great players, and so merely other good players can have an impact on their respective roles.

Toronto, on the other hand, is flat bad, so good players would have an expanded role.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I didn't said great. I only said good. It is painfully obvious the Bulls are lacking _current_ greatness. I think both Deng and Gordon have the possibility of being great players down the line. But currently, they are not yet great players, and so merely other good players can have an impact on their respective roles.
> 
> Toronto, on the other hand, is flat bad, so good players would have an expanded role.


I think Deng is leaps and bounds ahead of Gordon at this point.

Deng is already one of the better SFs in basketball, IMO.


I'm not convinced about your argument about players on Toronto.

Currently, Gordon has a usage rate that is 4 points higher than Gordon's, its just that he's more effective. Gordon is being used more, per minute, on the Bulls than James is being used on the Raptors.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> LOL.
> 
> If we made this trade at the start of the season, how worse off do you think the Bulls would be right now record wise? I fully agree that Gordon has more years ahead of him to improve.
> 
> ...


It's not clear to me why you're bringing up the rebouding rates of point guards so much in this thread, but this year Mike James is average 2.9 boards a game in 34.6 minutes. Gordon is averaging 2.2 in 27.6. That's essentially identical. Ben's also averaging more steals than James in less minutes. He's averaging roughly 25% fewer assists per minute, but James plays more point. If you're trying to prove that Gordon is a scorer who doesn't do much in the way of steals, assists and boards, Mike James is the wrong comparison point...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> It's not clear to me why you're bringing up the rebouding rates of point guards so much in this thread, but this year Mike James is average 2.9 boards a game in 34.6 minutes. Gordon is averaging 2.2 in 27.6. That's essentially identical. Ben's also averaging more steals than James in less minutes. He's averaging roughly 25% fewer assists per minute, but James plays more point. If you're trying to prove that Gordon is a scorer who doesn't do much in the way of steals, assists and boards, Mike James is the wrong comparison point...


James has a higher rebound rate than Gordon currently does... but yah...its a dropoff from last year.

My only point is that the current production of Gordon is easily replaceable.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> James has a higher rebound rate than Gordon currently does.
> 
> My only point is that the current production of Gordon is pretty replaceable.



Really?

Comparing Gordon to James is kind of crazy in my opinion. Sure, current production could look similar. But that's a total red herring. Look at the stages of their respective careers. Do you really think they have even remotely similar ceilings?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Do you really think they have even remotely similar ceilings?


No, and I made sure to say that in my first post.

There is also no guarantee that Gordon will ever be anything more than an average player.

The fact that he's shown little improvement in his 2nd year to this point, and that he's a player with considerable college seasoning, is troubling.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Of course it is replaceable. So was Crawford and Curry. Other people step up or we trade for someone to take his place. 

James is replaceable in Toronto.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> So was Crawford and *Curry.*


Who replaced Curry on our team?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Who replaced Curry on our team?


Uh-oh.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

interesting. Gordon is average. Wasnt he sixth man of the year in his rookie season? Is that what is considered as being average? I am just asking. And no I do not think he is a star. 

His scoring is down .5 from last year.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> James has a higher rebound rate than Gordon currently does... but yah...its a dropoff from last year.
> 
> My only point is that the current production of Gordon is pretty replaceable.


Statistical comparisons with Mike James aside, I think Gordon has improved tremendously as a defender and when his shot comes around (which is happening - he's averaging 14.8 PTS in 28.2 MPG and 45% shooting in December) he's going to be very, very good. His ability to create and score offensively is vital to this team's success.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Who replaced Curry on our team?


Lock the thread!


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> No, and I made sure to say that in my first post.
> 
> There is also no guarantee that Gordon will ever be anything more than an average player.
> 
> The fact that he's shown little improvement in his 2nd year to this point, and that he's a player with considerable college seasoning, is troubling.


Ah, ok. My oversight.

There's no guarantee anyone will ever be anything. I think Gordon showed lots of flashes of brilliance in his first year. I mean, he won the 6th man and was runner up for ROY. Just because he hasn't been dominant in 20-ish games so far this season doesn't mean much to me. Improvement is often more gradual than this.

By the way, I think for those looking with a critical eye, it's apparent that Gordon's defense has improved a good deal from last year to this one.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> interesting. Gordon is average. Wasnt he sixth man of the year in his rookie season? Is that what is considered as being average? I am just asking. And no I do not think he is a star.
> 
> His scoring is down .5 from last year.


Yah, he won the popularity contest. Lotsa SportsCenter time, clutch play (and pretty much only clutch play), college pedigree (aw… Emeka and Gordon won awards in their first year… what a great story!) and new guy syndrome will do that.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Who replaced Curry on our team?


Ok kk4e, you know what my point was. Focus. Gordon is replaceable. As for curry we are scoring more points than we did with him. Your point to start with was gordons numbers is replaceble. I was agreeing with you and using current examples to do so. So was Currys so was crawfords.We do not miss eddys production or else we would be scoring a lot less.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Lock the thread!


lol, no need to. I only brought those names up in agreement with what kk4e saidabout Gordons producton. 

Now if it esculates from here, it's possible. 

I was not trying to start a war.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yah, he won the popularity contest. Lotsa SportsCenter time, clutch play (and pretty much only clutch play), college pedigree (aw… Emeka and Gordon won awards in their first year… what a great story!) and new guy syndrome will do that.


Congrats to Ben on the popularity contest win!

He also single-handedly won about 10 games in the 4th quarter last year.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> Ok kk4e, you know what my point was. Focus. Gordon is replaceable. As for curry we are scoring more points than we did with him. Your point to start with was gordons numbers is replaceble. I was agreeing with you and using current examples to do so. So was Currys so was crawfords.We do not miss eddys production or else we would be scoring a lot less.


Curry brings more to the table than points. We're a worse team defensively for some reason. Was the creaky 'ol AD really that dominant a defensive force?

Gordon is replaceable this season by a guy like Mike James, for the most part. Players like Mike James are pretty easily acquired.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> interesting. Gordon is average. Wasnt he sixth man of the year in his rookie season? Is that what is considered as being average? I am just asking. And no I do not think he is a star.
> 
> His scoring is down .5 from last year.


Nice way to put that into perspective. He's got more defensive pressure this season...and he doesn't seem to have quite developed the ball-handling skills that the team asked him to work on.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Who replaced Curry on our team?


Sweetney. If you do the per-48 min comparison, they're both very similar (in so far as Mike James and Ben Gordon are similar).


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Congrats to Ben on the popularity contest win!
> 
> He also single-handedly won about 10 games in the 4th quarter last year.


I agree. 

What about the other 3 quarters of the game?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Sweetney. If you do the per-48 min comparison, they're both very similar (in so far as Mike James and Ben Gordon are similar).


Someone should call Paxson up about his interview on THE SCORE yesterday.

Apparently we don't lack size.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Curry brings more to the table than points. We're a worse team defensively for some reason. Was the creaky 'ol AD really that dominant a defensive force?
> 
> Gordon is replaceable this season by a guy like Mike James, for the most part. Players like Mike James are pretty easily acquired.


We're a worse team defesively because Eddy Curry and Antonio Davis are better defenders than Mike Sweetney and Darius Songaila. Chandler's slow start hasn't helped matters.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yah, he won the popularity contest. Lotsa SportsCenter time, clutch play (and pretty much only clutch play), college pedigree (aw… Emeka and Gordon won awards in their first year… what a great story!) and new guy syndrome will do that.


popularity? So that means the people in the past were not deserving? Kinda like miss congeneality?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> popularity? So that means the people in the past were not deserving? Kinda like miss congeneality?


Was Steve Nash really the best basketball player in the NBA last season?


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Someone should call Paxson up about his interview on THE SCORE yesterday.
> 
> Apparently we don't lack size.


Not having AD is a pretty big loss. I agree. Thanks for avoiding my point though.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> We're a worse team defesively because Eddy Curry and Antonio Davis are better defenders than Mike Sweetney and Darius Songaila. Chandler's slow start hasn't helped matters.


And Chandler's slow start, IMO, as a lot less to do with breathing issues and a lot more to do with the players he's surrounded by.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Not having AD is a pretty big loss. I agree. Thanks for avoiding my point though.


What "intangibles" does Gordon bring to the game?

Ah, so it is all on AD. What a defensive force! The Knicks should play him more.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Was the creaky 'ol AD really that dominant a defensive force?


AD would add a lot to our defense and toughness right now, yes.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Curry brings more to the table than points. We're a worse team defensively for some reason. Was the creaky 'ol AD really that dominant a defensive force?


Frankly, it is more AD than Eddy, that is for sure. However, Eddy was playing some passable man defense last season and I do think we miss his big body some.




kukoc4ever said:


> Gordon is replaceable this season by a guy like Mike James, for the most part. Players like Mike James are pretty easily acquired.


First: No, he is not. Second: You said _this season_. Well, that's not the way you build a franchise, is it?


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> And Chandler's slow start, IMO, as a lot less to do with breathing issues and a lot more to do with the players he's surrounded by.


He played well the last two games after that inhaler.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Was Steve Nash really the best basketball player in the NBA last season?



Most valuable is not the same thing as best.


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I agree.
> 
> What about the other 3 quarters of the game?



This year, Ben seems to be distributing his scoring throughout all quarters. He hasn't had a "Ben Gordon" fourth quarter since about the first week or so of the season. His scoring, I believe, is about the same. And we've won more games.


I agree that we don't miss Curry. We definitely don't miss Crawford. I think it's only a matter of time for our power forwards to pick it up on defense. Songalia and Sweetney are playing well on offense, they should hopefully start playing well on thte other end too.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> He was, wasn't he?


Didn't Duhon boldly declare last year "I am the best point guard in the NBA?"? Wait, that was Marbury.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> First: No, he is not. Second: You said _this season_. Well, that's not the way you build a franchise, is it?


All I've ever said was "this season." Long term, I'd rather take a chance on Gordon getting better than he currently is, which is a pretty average player.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Most valuable is not the same thing as best.


I hate this sports argument more than any other sports argument.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> What "intangibles" does Gordon bring to the game?
> 
> Ah, so it is all on AD. What a defensive force! The Knicks should play him more.


Wha? Where did I mention Gordon? I would just like for you to do a Sweetney/Curry statistical comparison so we can conclude that they're both similar players based on their statistics (because you've determined that Mike James is better than [or similar to?] Ben Gordon based on statistics).


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm not demanding a trade. I'm just saying that is Gordon truly is a burgeoning NBA superstar, then we should fully exploit his talents. He certainly does not look like one playing for the Bulls in our current system.


I like Gordon too, but is he really a better player than the 03-04 Ronald Murray?


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I agree.
> 
> What about the other 3 quarters of the game?


I have no idea how to respond to this. Gordon had a nice rookie season. This is taking the glass half empty view to scary new extremes. I'm glad we have a guy who consistently comes up big in the clutch, was top 5 in the league in double digit 4th quarters and won us a bunch of games. If he played every quarter like he played the 4th last year he'd be and all star - and who knows, maybe that'll happen. As it is he's much better than Mike James, and he's not easily replacable.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> All I've ever said was "this season." Long term, I'd rather take a chance on Gordon getting better than he currently is, which is a pretty average player.



Well, then you need to change your topic. Talking about just this season is frankly irrelevant.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> And Chandler's slow start, IMO, as a lot less to do with breathing issues and a lot more to do with the players he's surrounded by.


I agree - I've said a bunch of times that I think we need Chandler to primarily play the 4.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I hate this sports argument more than any other sports argument.



It doesn't make it any less true. The MVP award is relative to the circumstances of your own team. That's just the way it is.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Wha? Where did I mention Gordon? I would just like for you to do a Sweetney/Curry statistical comparison so we can conclude that they're both similar players based on their statistics (because you've determined that Mike James is better than [or similar to?] Ben Gordon based on statistics).


Right, but the long, athletic body that Curry provides, and his ability to draw a double team, are all intangibles that I think benefit Curry. Did you watch the 1st quarter of the Miami game this week?

Curry's PER is 1.7 points higher than Sweetney's right now, and he plays a position where productive talent is scarcer.

James was a productive, STARTING guard for a good playoff team last season.

Paxson is saying we lack size for some reason. And I think Paxson is aware that Sweetney is currently a Chicago Bull, right? Perhaps he was solely talking about AD.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Who replaced Curry on our team?


Mike Sweetney is now our starting center, so I would say he replaced Curry on our team.

23.5 min, 47.4 FG, *63.1 FT, 6.6 reb, 1.1 ast, 1.9 TO*, 0.4 stl, 0.8 blk, 11.3 pts

24.6 min, *54.6 FG*, 61.1 FT, 5.9 reb, 0.3 ast, 2.6 TO, *0.5 stl, 1.1 blk, 13.0 pts*


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Well, then you need to change your topic. Talking about just this season is frankly irrelevant.


Shall we bump the "season is a wash" thread then? 

I made sure to say right off the bat I was only talking about this season and that Gordon has more upside.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> I like Gordon too, but is he really a better player than the 03-04 Ronald Murray?


As of now, that's about what he is. Or a poor man's Bobby Jackson.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Shall we bump the "season is a wash" thread then?
> 
> I made sure to say right off the bat I was only talking about this season and that Gordon has more upside.



And I'm saying talking about this season isn't the right way to look at a franchise.

Did you ever realistically expect to win a title this year? It's about making progress. It's about watching a team develop. 

Those who demand instant gratification are destined for a life of perennial disappointment.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Curry brings more to the table than points. We're a worse team defensively for some reason. Was the creaky 'ol AD really that dominant a defensive force?
> 
> Gordon is replaceable this season by a guy like Mike James, for the most part. Players like Mike James are pretty easily acquired.


Um kk4e, that may be true, but you are talking about Gordons production and make no mention of these other things you bring up about Curry. And yes, AD was that good on defense last year. *Far* worse team defensively? yes by 4 points a game if you go by what we did by seasons end, but we are still ahead of what we were last year at this time defensively, and we improved to 93 pts a game, so you telling me we have no hope for improvement at all? This time last year we were right at 96 pts a game being allowed and we were 6-15. Now we are at 97. So comparing the two at exact same point in the season? We are worse by 1 point and I assume we will get better as the season goes on, we did last year. 

Currys rebounds were replaced.

But we are talking about Gordon. No he is not replaceable by mike James.And yes guys like mike james are easliy acquired.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Can we _please_ stop with the baiting and just talk about basketball? And I don't want to hear protestations "What, me?" All the different sides of this debate need to keep the debate focused.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Right, but the long, athletic body that Curry provides, and his ability to draw a double team, are all intangibles that I think benefit Curry. Did you watch the 1st quarter of the Miami game this week?
> 
> Curry's PER is 1.7 points higher than Sweetney's right now, and he plays a position where productive talent is scarcer.
> 
> ...


Sweetney is not an adequate replace for Curry IMO. He's a nice player, but we miss Eddy's size.

Can we please stop talking about Mike James? He averaged 25.6 MPG for a team that got bounced in the first round of the playoffs and then got dealt for Rafer Alston. I don't hate James, I think he's okay - but it's not like he's ever going to be a vital cog on a championship team.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

...


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Was Steve Nash really the best basketball player in the NBA last season?


Doesn't matter what I think a lot of people thought so. Using your logic, does that make Nash 'average." 

and no this is not an attack. And no I am not saying Gordon is as good as nash either. I am trying to understand your rationale.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Right, but the long, athletic body that Curry provides, and his ability to draw a double team, are all intangibles that I think benefit Curry. Did you watch the 1st quarter of the Miami game this week?


Have you seen Curry play? I think Curry's lack of desire to play defense, poor basketball IQ, and lack of passing skills negate those built-in advantages. 



> Curry's PER is 1.7 points higher than Sweetney's right now, and he plays a position where productive talent is scarcer.


They're both post players. Sweetney plays center for us and has enough size to guard opposing centers as well.



> James was a productive, STARTING guard for a good playoff team last season.


I don't really know why you keep bringing up Mike James. I never said I agreed or disagreed with your comparison.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

All I have to say is that *Wynn!* is apparently the only one here smart enough to not try to milk a bull.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

I don't really know why you keep bringing up Mike James. I never said I agreed or disagreed with your comparison.[/QUOTE said:


> Obviously you've never seen Mike James rebound.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

ok we are average as a team...but as I said in the first part of the thread we can improve in the future with the flexibility we have. And we are in better shape than we were in 2003-2004.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> Doesn't matter what I think a lot of people thought so. Using your logic, does that make Nash 'average."
> 
> and no this is not an attack. And no I am not saying Gordon is as good as nash either. I am trying to understand your rationale.


No, I just hesitate to use the end of season awards all that much, especially one like 6th man of the year, to mean much of anything.

I would have rather seen Chandler get that award last season, if a Bull was going to get it.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> All I have to say is that *Wynn!* is apparently the only one here smart enough to not try to milk a bull.


You can't milk a bull? Darn! So much for that.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> You can't milk a bull? Darn! So much for that.


That's one hangunder you probably shouldn't grab.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> They're both post players. Sweetney plays center for us and has enough size to guard opposing centers as well.


Perhaps. Paxson disagrees apparently.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I don't think that Gordon is in a situation where if he was a truly great player, he would be held back.
> 
> He's not surrounded by stars. As our own GM pointed out yesterday, he's surrounded by role players. The Bulls want very, very badly for him to become a star. Its there for the taking, if he can do it.
> 
> ...


Maybe BDG will change his screen name to KirkDengGo. :biggrin:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I have no idea what points are trying to be made in this thread.

We're average or close to it by the very definition. WRT the future, I see us with quite a few more future assets to add than the Raptors, at least in the near term.

WRT Ben Gordon vs. Mike James, I'd have to agree, unfortunately, that Gordon isn't much different than James at this point, and that's cause for concern, but the Bulls have several other guys going on besides Ben.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Perhaps. Paxson disagrees apparently.


I think you misunderstand Paxson's statement. The Bulls need more size. No doubt. He's right. But that isn't simply a "Curry better than Sweetney" statement. Its a Songaila/Sweetney smaller than AD/Curry statement. Its a team statement.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> I think you misunderstand Paxson's statement. The Bulls need more size. No doubt. He's right. But that isn't simply a "Curry better than Sweetney" statement. Its a Songaila/Sweetney smaller than AD/Curry statement. Its a team statement.


right. We gave up one true center and one PF/C for two PFs who are a tad on the short side for the position. Good thing we have two picks and cap room to add size in the relatively near term...and good thing that Sweets can provide some interior offense when he's not in foul trouble.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I think you misunderstand Paxson's statement. The Bulls need more size. No doubt. He's right. But that isn't simply a "Curry better than Sweetney" statement. Its a Songaila/Sweetney smaller than AD/Curry statement. Its a team statement.


OK.

But, if we had Curry in place of Sweetney, I doubt that Paxson would be complaining about team size as much as he is.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> OK.
> 
> But, if we had Curry in place of Sweetney, I doubt that Paxson would be complaining about team size as much as he is.


I wholeheartedly agree. Curry most certainly is bigger than Sweetney.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> I wholeheartedly agree. Curry most certainly is bigger than Sweetney.


Are you sure? :biggrin:


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> All I have to say is that *Wynn!* is apparently the only one here smart enough to not try to milk a bull.


hehehe.... 

You're right, I will never again try to milk a bull!



_...but through the experience I gained valuable wisdom!_


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Mike Sweetney is now our starting center, so I would say he replaced Curry on our team.
> 
> 23.5 min, 47.4 FG, *63.1 FT, 6.6 reb, 1.1 ast, 1.9 TO*, 0.4 stl, 0.8 blk, 11.3 pts
> 
> 24.6 min, *54.6 FG*, 61.1 FT, 5.9 reb, 0.3 ast, 2.6 TO, *0.5 stl, 1.1 blk, 13.0 pts*


I'll tell you, though, the difference between the two is much less than I thought it would be. We do miss the size of Big Ed. Other than that, Sweets comes pretty close to replacing his numbers. Even giving Curry the benefit of the doubt because of his injuries and being out of shape, we need to remember that the balance of this trade is coming in the next two drafts. *Right now* the trade appears to be slightly in favor of New York. *Right now* Big Ed and AD are giving more to the Knick than Sweets and TT are giving to the Bull. I'll even predict that *down the road* Big Ed will be a marginally better player for the Knick than Sweets is for the Bull.

In defense of the trade, though:

Sweets costs a LOT less than Ed. Even in his next contract, should we choose to re-sign.

This summer we get a lottery pick, likely top 8 or better, to help replace Ed's production.

Next summer we get to trade our pick (I'll guess 20-25) for that of the Knick (I'll predict top 10).

So the question is whether Sweets and two lottery picks are enough to replace Curry.

The other question is whether any of this has to do with Toronto having a more promising future than the Bull.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> No, I just hesitate to use the end of season awards all that much, especially one like 6th man of the year, to mean much of anything.
> 
> I would have rather seen Chandler get that award last season, if a Bull was going to get it.


So cutting to the roots of this discussion: Who do you think should be GM, and who do you think should be coach or what kind of coach should they hire to improve the team?


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

Wynn said:


> Next summer we get to trade our pick (I'll guess 20-25) for that of the Knick (I'll predict top 10).


People that want a superstar must realize the most superstars (top 5 player) are drafted not traded for,
Paxson may have just got us a ticket in the Oden Sweepstakes. I'll take that chance however small it might be (i.e new york not making the playoff and winning the lottery in 2007).


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

darlets said:


> People that want a superstar must realize the most superstars (top 5 player) are drafted not traded for,
> Paxson may have just got us a ticket in the Oden Sweepstakes. I'll take that chance however small it might be (i.e new york not making the playoff and winning the lottery in 2007).


 Wow I never expected this post to have so many replies. Anyways, who is to say that Greg Oden is going to be a superstar? IMO he looks good in HS but the man dint look as good as Taylor Hansborou (sorry for spelling). Alot of the lottery pick stuff is still up in the air, there is absolutly no guarante that the knicks are going to tank it for 2 straight years, so far they have beaten us and that was without Curry, second there is still talk that they are in the Artest talks and if they get him the Knicks are a better team then us. Atleast with the Raptors your pretty much sure that they will get a shot at the number 1 pick in the next two seasons.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> OK.
> 
> But, if we had Curry in place of Sweetney, I doubt that Paxson would be complaining about team size as much as he is.



Remember, it's Curry and AD we're missing, not just Curry. AD provided a better presence as a big defender. Eddy was a bigger contributor on the offensive end, but a lot of that has been replaced by Sweetney.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Remember, it's Curry and AD we're missing, not just Curry. AD provided a better presence as a big defender. Eddy was a bigger contributor on the offensive end, but a lot of that has been replaced by Sweetney.


I agree we miss both.... although AD is on his last legs.

I also don't think Paxson would be on the radio complaining about team size if we had Curry in place of Sweetney.

Sweetney is a nice, below-the-rim power forward. I appreciate what he brings to the table. Its different than Curry though. He's not a center. Watching SHAQ and Zo toy with Sweetney really brought this to light. I've seen Curry hang with SHAQ... and one game I remember off the top of my head he even outplayed him.

Sweetney had a seemingly impressive 7 rebounds in 21 minutes in that game. But we seemed outclassed in the paint by Miami's big men.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> Remember, it's Curry and AD we're missing, not just Curry. AD provided a better presence as a big defender. Eddy was a bigger contributor on the offensive end, but a lot of that has been replaced by Sweetney.


 I dont know, man Eddy Curry is averaging more points then Sweets, he would lead our team in Blocks, he only averages 1 less rebound then Sweets and Curry still has a much much much better FG% then Sweets. As for AD hes solid defensively but its not like hes an all world defender. Now that Chandler is down the Bulls are going to REALLY miss Curry.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

GB said:


> So cutting to the roots of this discussion: Who do you think should be GM, and who do you think should be coach or what kind of coach should they hire to improve the team?


Hmmmm.. good question. I'll have to survey the NBA landscape for an answer to that one.

If you could have the choice of anyone, would it be Paxson and Skiles?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Hmmmm.. good question. I'll have to survey the NBA landscape for an answer to that one.
> 
> If you could have the choice of anyone, would it be Paxson and Skiles?


Jerry West and Sloan or Phill.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Sweetney is a nice, below-the-rim power forward. I appreciate what he brings to the table. Its different than Curry though. He's not a center. Watching SHAQ and Zo toy with Sweetney really brought this to light. I've seen Curry hang with SHAQ... and one game I remember off the top of my head he even outplayed him.


Perhaps. Skiles disagrees apparently.



> Skiles, when reminded the Bulls used to guard Miami's Shaquille O'Neal with former Bull Eddy Curry: "Well, that never worked very well anyway."


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Perhaps. Skiles disagrees apparently.


Skiles was not around during the game I'm talking about.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Skiles was not around during the game I'm talking about.


So Curry being able to defend against Shaq was a one-time occurrence?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> So Curry being able to defend against Shaq was a one-time occurrence?


Its been a long time since I've seen SHAQ toy with our team like he did at the start of Tuesday's game. Sweetney didn't have a prayer. All this was in his first game back from injury mind you.

I'd also like to see us at least be able to score against SHAQ and Zo on the other end of the court. Not be forced to do most of our damage big man wise from the perimeter. We didn't seem to have much of that going on against the Heat.

SHAQ usually gets his. It was not just SHAQ on Tuesday though, it was Zo as well.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its been a long time since I've seen SHAQ toy with our team like he did at the start of Tuesday's game. Sweetney didn't have a prayer. All this was in his first game back from injury mind you.
> 
> I'd also like to see us at least be able to score against SHAQ and Zo on the other end of the court. Not be forced to do most of our damage big man wise from the perimeter. We didn't seem to have much of that going on against the Heat.
> 
> SHAQ usually gets his. It was not just SHAQ on Tuesday though, it was Zo as well.


Oh man did Shaq and ZO kill us. Especially ZO who just did whatever he wanted in the post. Another thing that Irks me about some of these Bulls fans is that when Chandler had a decent game against Toronto everyone including Red Kerr was like OH thats the Chandler we miss, OH hes back, OH Chandler was Great. IMO Chandler had a bad Dwight Howard game. Chandler is so overatted its not even funny.


----------



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

some of what ive seen in this thread really makes me wanna thank Ron Cey for his new one.

with that said, i'll bump my 1 B.S. (1 year before shaq) argument that I used for the heat, and saying that Gordon right now = Wade at that time, and that the bulls team now is pretty equal to the heat team of then.

What u guys think?

-Z-


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Hmmmm.. good question. I'll have to survey the NBA landscape for an answer to that one.
> 
> If you could have the choice of anyone, would it be Paxson and Skiles?


Based on what they have done so far, there is no reason to let them go. So yes. 

Don't forget...Reinsdorf _does_ have the choice of anyone available on the market.


Put another way: If Paxson is as successful in moving the team from point B to point C as he was in moving the team from point A, when he took it over, he'll never, ever be without an NBA job except by choice. He'll be on everyones mind as one of the answers to your question quoted above. Skiles is already on his way too.

I expect Skiles to continue to mellow out as his roster matures and it's talent grows, while his X's and O's and ability to get the maximum from his team grows with it... and I only expect Paxsons draft eye to sharpen even as his picks come later and later in the draft...and I'd expect an increase in his (weak) ability to win back more talent in his trades.

Larry Brown, Phil Jackson, etc all started somewhere lower than where they are now and made plenty of mistakes too. I imagine we'd have had two factions back in the early 90's too: A Doug Collins faction and a Phil Jackson one.

A Charles Oakley and a Horace Grant one.

A Stacey King and Luc Longley one.

A Craig Hodges and a Steve Kerr one (that would have been particularly nasty)


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its been a long time since I've seen SHAQ toy with our team like he did at the start of Tuesday's game. Sweetney didn't have a prayer. All this was in his first game back from injury mind you.
> 
> I'd also like to see us at least be able to score against SHAQ and Zo on the other end of the court. Not be forced to do most of our damage big man wise from the perimeter. We didn't seem to have much of that going on against the Heat.
> 
> SHAQ usually gets his. It was not just SHAQ on Tuesday though, it was Zo as well.


Alonzo Mourning's performance was more troubling to me than Shaq's. Shaq kills everyone, that's fine. Mourning is a slightly above average offensive center at this point, and we cannot be letting guys like him go off - but without some kind of personnel change I don't see how we're going to fix this. Chandler shouldn't be guarding 5's all the time, and Mike Sweetney is a 6'8'' 4 with minimal lift, even moderately talented 7 footers are going to threaten the 20 point barrier on a regular basis against us.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Sweetney had a seemingly impressive 7 rebounds in 21 minutes in that game. But we seemed outclassed in the paint by Miami's big men.


I'd be interested to know which team is NOT outclassed by Shaq, Zo, 'Toine, and Haslem -- not to mention Doleac sitting there for depth.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

I hadn't read the first nine pages of this thread. This is the first tiem I have read any of it, and went straight to page ten.


AND WOULD YOU BELIEVE IT!!!! It's about Eddy effing Curry!!

Wow!



In the words of Bill Simmons, that was so predicctable, I predicted it.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

ShamBulls said:


> I hadn't read the first nine pages of this thread. This is the first tiem I have read any of it, and went straight to page ten.
> 
> 
> AND WOULD YOU BELIEVE IT!!!! It's about Eddy effing Curry!!
> ...


Over half of it was about Gordon


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Fine, but look where we are now. Why does everything have to be about Curry, Paxson, and the New York bloody Knicks?


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

that was my fault. KK4e said we could lose gordon and his production and not affect the team. I agreed and used Curry and crawford as examples and the thread has never been the same since then.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ShamBulls said:


> Fine, but look where we are now. Why does everything have to be about Curry, Paxson, and the New York bloody Knicks?


Nobody told you?

Well, I'm not really authorized to give away the secrets, but the "Chicago Bulls" at the top of the page is really just a front for "The New York Knicks/Eddy Curry Board".


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> that was my fault. KK4e said we could lose gordon and his production and not affect the team. I agreed and used Curry and crawford as examples and the thread has never been the same since then.




And to think I wished you a happy birthday. :eek8:


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

add jamal crawford...

I dont mind discussion about these players, but it behooves me as to why we do not talk about Rose, Brand, Miller, Artest. Marshall and others with the same passion as we do Curry and Crawford. 

oh well. 

Anyway, for the third time...of course we are average. Beats being cellar dwellers.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

ShamBulls said:


> And to think I wished you a happy birthday. :eek8:


I know I dont deserve it. I never thought what repercussions mentioning Curry would do. I thought both guys were a good comparison for the arguement that losing a top scorer does not hurt us as bad as one would imagine and low and behold, it got off topic quick!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> add jamal crawford...
> 
> I dont mind discussion about these players, but it behooves me as to why we do not talk about Rose, Brand, Miller, Artest. Marshall and others with the same passion as we do Curry and Crawford.
> 
> ...


I think it is because people invested in the young players when they joined the team as draft picks. Expectations were set and people wanted to see them grow to meet those expectations.

Rose, Brand, Miller, Artest, Marshall, Blount, and so on, only played for the Bulls for a year or two. Crawford and Curry were billed as part of the 3 Cs and as saviours of the team and people bought into it. Crawford and Curry also played for the team for 4 years.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> that was my fault. KK4e said we could lose gordon and his production and not affect the team. I agreed and used Curry and crawford as examples and the thread has never been the same since then.



FYI, that is not exactly what I said at all.

I said you could replace Gordon with another average guard like Mike James so far this season and we would not be much of a difference in W-L record, IMO.

Focus.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

truebluefan said:


> add jamal crawford...


Well, like I said, I'm not authorized to give away the secrets, so I didn't give them ALL away... :biggrin: 



> I dont mind discussion about these players, but it behooves me as to why we do not talk about Rose, Brand, Miller, Artest. Marshall and others with the same passion as we do Curry and Crawford.
> 
> oh well.
> 
> Anyway, for the third time...of course we are average. Beats being cellar dwellers.


People seem to have forgotten that in Pippen's and Grant's second season, the Bulls won 47 games and started the year 11-10. But for some reason, if Deng and Gordon and Duhon and Nocioni don't win 60 and go to the NBA Finals in their second seasons, they are a huge failure.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> People seem to have forgotten that in Pippen's and Grant's second season, the Bulls won 47 games and started the year 11-10. But for some reason, if Deng and Gordon and Duhon and Nocioni don't win 60 and go to the NBA Finals in their second seasons, they are a huge failure.


But like you said in another thread, its all about expectations.

Last year we had 47 wins and were the 3rd best team regular season record wise in the east.

All our players are another year older, games should be more mature, should be better. We lost a couple of players but replaced them with what many consider to be comparable if not superior players.

If we finish with 41 wins and the 8 seed, that's a step back.

And, based on the division standings, fair or not, we are still cellar dwellers.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> People seem to have forgotten that in Pippen's and Grant's second season, the Bulls won 47 games and started the year 11-10. But for some reason, if Deng and Gordon and Duhon and Nocioni don't win 60 and go to the NBA Finals in their second seasons, they are a huge failure.


People seem to have forgotten #23 was real reason for hope for the future. I don't see anything close to #23 in the current mix.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> People seem to have forgotten #23 was real reason for hope for the future. I don't see anything close to #23 in the current mix.


I don't see a #33 either. I don't even see a #54.

I see a #7, but that #7 should be hanging from the rafters already.  Ok, maybe not.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> People seem to have forgotten #23 was real reason for hope for the future. I don't see anything close to #23 in the current mix.


In that season, #23 put up 32.5 pts, 8.0 reb and 8.0 ast, and many people thought the Bulls would never win anything because "MJ was just a scorer who didn't make his teammates better".

In fact, when we finally did win it all in 1991, MJ was the first player who led the league in scoring and won the NBA title in like 20 years (maybe more).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> In that season, #23 put up 32.5 pts, 8.0 reb and 8.0 ast, and many people thought the Bulls would never win anything because "MJ was just a scorer who didn't make his teammates better".
> 
> In fact, when we finally did win it all in 1991, MJ was the first player who led the league in scoring and won the NBA title in like 20 years (maybe more).


We know better now, of course. Looking ahead you surely can use this hindsight as a reasonable clue.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> We know better now, of course. Looking ahead you surely can use this hindsight as a reasonable clue.


Only now it's the opposite.

Back then, it was believed that a team couldn't win a title with the NBA's leading scorer, because it hadn't happened in over 20 years.

Now, a lot of people think you can't win an NBA title without a "superstar", despite the fact that the Pistons just did it 2 years ago.

Who thought Ben Wallace would become the league's best defender?

Who thought Tayshaun would be such a great pro (besides me)? :biggrin: 

Who thought 'Sheed could ever control his temper?

Who thought Billups could be a floor general?

Who thought Parker and Manu would become such special players from the end of the first round and the second round?


So yeah, I can use the hindsight as a reasonable clue that a lot of people don't know what the hell they are talking about (including myself sometimes).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

There's considerable and measurable evidence that teams that win championships do have one of the top players in the game, and that teams with depth and "really good" talent win enough games to not have high draft picks to get over the hump.

Of course, there's some chance that this mold can be broken, but it's not something I would recommend betting the farm on.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> There's considerable and measurable evidence that teams that win championships do have one of the top players in the game, and that teams with depth and "really good" talent win enough games to not have high draft picks to get over the hump.
> 
> Of course, there's some chance that this mold can be broken, but it's not something I would recommend betting the farm on.


And 15 years ago, there was considerable and measurable evidnece that teams that win championships absolutely did not have the NBA's leading scorer on their team.

There is also considerable and measurable evidence that players who are only "solid role players" in their 2nd NBA season can develop into elite players.

Molds are broken all the time, I wouldn't bet the farm on any of them. 

There is one mold that seems to completely withstand the test of time, however- teams that win titles play great defense, and they play team ball, and they play hard all the time.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

ShamBulls said:


> Fine, but look where we are now. Why does everything have to be about Curry, Paxson, and the New York bloody Knicks?



The common denominator in it all is...


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Darko says Bump.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Gordon is replaceable this season by a guy like Mike James, for the most part. Players like Mike James are pretty easily acquired.





jnjr79 said:


> First: No, he is not.





jbulls said:


> As it is he's much better than Mike James, and he's not easily replacable.





truebluefan said:


> But we are talking about Gordon. No he is not replaceable by mike James.And yes guys like mike james are easliy acquired.





jbulls said:


> Mike James is as good as Duhon and Gordon? Come on k4e, you can't possibly believe that.


...... just looking over the box scores tonight and was wondering....


who has been the better basketball player this season, Mike James or Ben Gordon?

James' numbers are pretty surprising this season.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> ...... just looking over the box scores tonight and was wondering....
> 
> 
> who has been the better basketball player this season, Mike James or Ben Gordon?
> ...


I'd say James, although it's not that far off. Gordon's been trying to translate his individual game into the team system. James has pretty much been given the green light being the only go-to scorerr on his team. That's also with James playing out of his mind for his talent level and Gordon playing simply average for his.

I know this isn't what you are getting at, but I'd much rather have Gordon, even though James is playing better this season.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> ...... just looking over the box scores tonight and was wondering....
> 
> 
> who has been the better basketball player this season, Mike James or Ben Gordon?
> ...


If you want to keep comparing Ben Gordon, who just turned 23 and has been instrumental in winning the last two games, to a 30 year old journeyman having a career year on a very bad team, go ahead. Yes James has been better statistically this year. Hooray. At 23 James wasn't even in the league. At 25 he was busy putting up 2.8/1.3/0.9 for the Miami Heat in 8 minutes a game. Want to deal them straight up? I'm sure Toronto would be all ears, they're currently 26-50. Drool over James and Bosh all you want, that team sucks.

We're on the verge of making the playoffs in large part because Ben had a huge 16 point 4th quarter against Indiana, and set the tone with 17 first half points against Philadelphia. Let's enjoy it.

Maybe we should've taken Andre Iguodala with the 3rd pick in the Gordon draft. After all, Iggy's scored 14 points and shot 3 for 14 over the last THREE Sixers games. There's really nobody else you can even make an argument for in that draft...


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

James is 30. I am happy he is playing well. Will Gordon be the same at age 30? I hope not.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Oh yah, I forgot to mention, it seems clear that James has had a much better season than Gordon this year.

PER
Gordon: 13.8 (112th in NBA)
James: 19.6 (28th in NBA)

EFF
Gordon: 11.53
James: 18.6

TS%
Gordon: 51.8%
James: 57.6%

Let's hope as Bulls fans that Gordon makes the dramatic improvements in his game necessary to match the production that James gave the Raptors.


----------



## jetsrule923 (Mar 25, 2006)

i just hope as a bulls fan that gordon never gets to play all the garbage time minutes that james has enjoyed this season

i will be happy as long as gordon continues to have a much better clutch time shooting percentage than james like this season .463 to .420


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Oh yah, I forgot to mention, it seems clear that James has had a much better season than Gordon this year.


No, you didn't... so at this point it's needless repetition.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

This is so incredibly petty.


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

kukoc4ever said:


> Oh yah, I forgot to mention, it seems clear that James has had a much better season than Gordon this year.
> 
> PER
> Gordon: 13.8 (112th in NBA)
> ...


Aren't those just useless stats that don't really justify the level of talent either player has. I mean, James has played the bulk of the minutes at the guard spots for Toronto, and he has had good production. Gordon has switched from coming off the bench to the starting lineup and back to the bench and is still getting 16.3 ppg, I believe. That's amazing in my book.

And remember, Gordon is still only 23! He's got years ahead of him, while James only has a couple good years left in him. Maybe he has more years left, but right now Gordon is better.

Oh, and one more thing, check out how many game-winning shots James has had in his ENTIRE career compared to Gordon in only TWO seasons. Actually, not even two full seasons yet. Gordon has a unique ability to score in clutch situations and make big baskets. If you don't believe me, look up the Indiana game the other day, and tell me if Gordon didn't play great in the last quarter. I'm telling you, Gordon has more upside than James, and has something that James doesn't have: a clutch factor!

So..... Gordon > James

And that's that from my POV.


----------

