Battle plan
by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 22, 2007 10:34 PM CDT
in News
Email
PrintSo now we know that the Bulls are picking #9. Not the most coveted position, but a spot with some value.
However it seems like more of a value to a bad team. I still think the pick should be packaged in a trade, and that's not only out of laziness in terms of 'scouting' draft prospects, heh.
Clearly, the big hole on this team is the power forward spot, and more specifically one that can post up his opponent for a high-percentage shot (or foul shot). But despite talks about how much better of a draft this coming one is compared to last, Tyrus Thomas has a better chance of being that then some of the names tossed around at #9.
So instead of getting another young unproven chance at that result, I still think it's better to go for a proven commodity. The Bulls can start with that pick and expiring contracts like Duhon (~$3.25m) and Khryapa (~$2m), and/or signing and trading Nocioni and use that salary to upgrade the pick into something that can be that final piece to the lineup. If they have a chance at aquiring somebody really special (like Pau Gasol...it's a short list) then you can consider giving prospects like Tyrus or Thabo.
During the next 4 weeks Pax should be looking for a guy not making too much money (i.e., KG and O'Neal being out out due to cap logistics) and not too old, and use this pick to get a prime-time starting frontcourt player. Sitting on this team and adding another young guy isn't a bad fallback plan if no deal comes together, but the effort should be made. In one of the greatest-hyped drafts ever that #9 pick may get some bad team (or taxed-out team) starry-eyed, allowing a good team like the Bulls to add that one missing piece.
221 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Oh, and WE should use those same 4 weeks
off the top of my head some pseudo-star bigs who may be available (and remember the Bulls can easily weasel their way into a 3-team deal with that pick), in no particular order:
Marion
Lewis
Nene
Odom
Randolph
Kirilenko
Okur
by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 22, 2007 10:42 PM CDT reply actions
Randolph might be alright
NO!
by joejoeEnglish94bulls4ever on May 22, 2007 10:54 PM CDT up reply actions
Randolph's contract IS huge
And it runs through 2011. Do you want to make that much of a commitment to a guy like that? Supposedly Skiles likes him (he probably has a soft spot for ex-Spartans who have had problems with the law), but Randolph scares me, even putting aside his off-the-court problems. He's had conditioning problems, he doesn't guard anyone, and when you add the big contract in it makes it worse.
you forgot to add
by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 22, 2007 11:03 PM CDT up reply actions
figured I'd put this here
You guys should know that Green and Hibbert are announcing tomorrow at 1 PM whether or not they are staying in the draft and signing an agent or not.
Personally, I still think they stay but who knows at this point. I just think it makes too much sense for them to wait unti next year's draft where they will both almost assuredly go top 3-5 and maybe #1 for Hibbert.
Randolph = R. Wallace?
by goldengod on May 22, 2007 10:48 PM CDT reply actions
every player from those Portland teams
by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 22, 2007 10:51 PM CDT up reply actions
Too bad Portland has Randolph and Miles
How about a Noc Sign-and-Trade for Pzrybilla? He's not much, but I'd rather have him than Noc at the same price. Don't know if that even works.
I have no idea how NBA salaries work actually.
really
by bullshooter on May 22, 2007 11:03 PM CDT up reply actions
Thank God the Bulls didn't sign him last summer
What was it before that?
It's only three clicks away
by bullshooter on May 22, 2007 11:13 PM CDT up reply actions
Don't be an asshole.
And I still don't know where to find previous season's PERs.
basketball-reference.com
by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 22, 2007 11:19 PM CDT up reply actions
Don't be a smacktard
by bullshooter on May 22, 2007 11:30 PM CDT up reply actions
So his 15.3 and 15.5
But saying he's horrible because he had a 7.4 and then it was because he was hurt, without mentioning his previous seasons is pretty smacktarded if you ask me.
two more clicks
by bullshooter on May 23, 2007 12:07 AM CDT up reply actions
luke is 7-feet
Przybilla has 4 years (one of those is a player option) left on his deal, no thanks. I'd rather let Noc walk than sign/trade him for Przybilla.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 22, 2007 11:18 PM CDT up reply actions
I am for trying to get Z-Bo
There are a bunch of free agent PG's
by bullshooter on May 22, 2007 11:34 PM CDT up reply actions
maggloire is a FA
by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 23, 2007 8:50 AM CDT up reply actions
Oh!
quite the opposite
NO!
by joejoeEnglish94bulls4ever on May 22, 2007 10:55 PM CDT up reply actions
A little off topic, but I just want to say that it
The Blazers have a ton of true talent now. Roy, Aldridge, Miles, Randolph, Oden/Durant. They can win a championship with that talent in the next five to seven years.
Meanwhile, in my uniformed, amateur opinion, I can't see the Bulls winning a championship in that same time period with the current roster.
The management of an NBA team is entirely simplified when a team acquires a superstar in the draft. The GM merely needs to protect the superstar and tinker with supporting cast. Unless you are Kevin McHale, you should be consistently in the hunt. Maybe you won't win, but you'll be right there.
I admit I am taking a slightly cynical view here, but I am tired of watching a team that, at times, reminds me of The Little Engine That Could. I want to root for a "superstar"! At least it would be entertaining.
I am not that excited about the nine pick or the available free agents/trades (aging stars and glorified role players who will cost too much to obtain).
Maybe Tyrus can break out.
JMO.
some suggestions to alleviate the pain
-remember that the Blazers still play in the West.
-remember that Pax likely feels the same way you do about the 'little team that could.'
-Tyrus has a good chance of being exceptional.
-don't whine so much. We have Kirk Hinrich instead of LeBron James. Oh well.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 22, 2007 11:00 PM CDT up reply actions
Well, the word "beautiful"
I'll be more precise. I wish the Bulls had a player who was considered one of the best fifteen or twenty in the league. Or a guy who was generally expected to develop into one of the best fifteen or twenty. Basically, a guy with amazing physical talent, size, and skill.
I believe Pax does share some of my concerns about the team. But I don't see a lot of great options for him.
I guess that is my theme tonight. A lot of it is luck, which can be frustrating.
by 1958ChiTown on May 22, 2007 11:17 PM CDT up reply actions
It is...
But the Bulls got extremely lucky with Jordan. And they got fairly lucky (depending on how much credit you think their scouting department should get) with Scottie Pippen.
I agree. I was bummed out about not getting Oden or Durant. The fact is, though, had they got Oden, the Bulls would have been the favorites from 2009-2014.
And, of coure, there are always the Gilbert Arenases or Michael Redds or whomever else that a team has passed on.
Carlos Boozer, Nene? Guys that were on the block but no one wanted?
Besides, like I said, surefire superstars (which is what you want) are rare. Kobe wasn't one. Neither was Wade. Nowitzki? Nash? These guys aren't what you're looking for either.
Man... just looking over it, you have to go back five or six years until you really start to see some studded drafts. Is that because they were better players? Or because those guys have developed?
http://www.nbadraft.net/history.asp
It's nothing new...
Same with the Lakers. They got lucky in Kobe. But they added Shaq.
You're grossly underestimating a 20-year-old and a 22-year-old's potential to break out, imo.
And I don't know how Portland got the Roy pick, but they did well in acquiring him. They could have gone other ways, but he's no superstar.
Oh, and finally... this team isn't "the little engine that could" by luck. The GM and coach have turned it into that. Whether you thought they were any good or not, the following players were all Bulls and they were/are exciting: Chandler, Curry, Crawford, Brand, Artest.
Skiles and Paxson aren't looking to put together a purely exciting team. They want won that they think can win, and win consistently. The Bulls will do that. They won't be below 50 wins for the next five years. Have you gotten so spoiled that, that isn't good enough?
Wow...
Basically, it's no secret that if a team has a legitimate superstar, a great coach and a good GM, that it will compete year-in and year-out for a title.
But a "legit" superstar is hard to come by. There's one maybe every other year. So what to do then? You build a team that will win a lot and win consistently. The Bulls will do that. They might never be favorites to win to win it all (or only one or two years), but what's that matter anyway? Who is?
I don't see how they CAN'T be like the Pistons over the next five to six years. I really don't think it's too much to say that one "impact" player (my pick would be Gasol) could put the Bulls on a 55-win, 1 or 2 seed pace in the East.
Let me be very clear that a team that wins
By the way, that is a very bold prediction for the NBA. Five years is an eternity.
I can't fault managament for discarding any of the players you listed, other than Brand.
by 1958ChiTown on May 22, 2007 11:09 PM CDT up reply actions
There's only been 7 different teams...
Look, I want the team to win championships, too. But if they can get one I'll be happy.
And didn't you just predict the Blazers were going to be getting title shots in 3-5 years?
That's a bit of a false dichotomy.
Personally, I think a team that consistently wins 50 during the regular season but consistently fails to win playoff series or championships is a perpetual mediocrity.
There were a bunch of Cleveland teams during the late 80's and early 90's that fall into that category.
Obviously, you should try to gauge the progress a team is making. This year, the Bulls almost won 50 and made the second round of the playoffs. For this team, that's a marginal success. But replicating those results over the next five years would not be a success. I presume Paxson's goal is to build a team that wins a championship. That's the goal. Falling short of that over a number of consecutive years is not success.
by 1958ChiTown on May 22, 2007 11:39 PM CDT up reply actions
And if they make it...
Granted, I want them to win 17 titles in the next 5 years. But I understand the value of having a "superstar" or somehow getting around that being the Detroit Pistons.
NBA championships are rare. It's the ultimate goal, of course. But falling short of it isn't a failure. And I still don't understand how you don't have them getting out of the second round.
And I know Matt and Jax
And I know I'm making your original point about it being "luck" as to who gets the superstars. But I'm just trying to say, the fact that your team doesn't get a Shaq, Duncan, Jordan, etc. and will have to fight hard for its championships, if they get there at all, shouldn't be seen as failing. 100% success? Of course not. But certainly not a failure.
Besides...
huh?
I'd deal the whole roster for LeBron, personally. Like you said there's a lot of luck involved, which is why I try not to get too down on the fact that the Bulls don't have a top-5 (or even top-20) player. In the meantime try and build the best team you can.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 23, 2007 8:52 AM CDT up reply actions
Superstar "term", not team
wasn't complicated
I read 'team', not 'term'. Apologies.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 23, 2007 1:17 PM CDT up reply actions
comeon matt be reasonable
Great-Great?
by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 23, 2007 9:01 AM CDT up reply actions
I do, too.
And FWIW, good teams do not win championships, not in the past 30 years. Name one good team that did. Great teams do. And only 2 of the past 25 championships did not have a truly remarkable player on its team in that player's prime. '04 Pistons, '06 Heat. Maybe that's indicative of how the NBA is changing. I don't know.
Duncan sneaks in when Shaq wins it? So maybe one of the best power forwards isn't quite as good (or possibly his team isn't) as one of the greatest centers ever? Yeah, go figure.
Obviously, a great-great, super-duper-star has to have a good team around him. That's a given. And for you to imply that I think superstars can win without good teams, either a) shows how well I've done in convincing everyone I'm a complete moron (I don't know a lot, but I'm not an idiot) or b) how little you actually read my comment.
I know you like to think a team with all very good players can win it, and maybe in today's game they can; we'll have to see if the game has changed that much.
But the facts are (and I'm still waiting for your statistical refutation of this and not just snarky comments) that only 1 of the past 25 champions didn't have one of the fifty greatest players on it. That says something to most people. For whatever reason, it doesn't to you.
And yes, I doubled the greatness. A.I. is great. But he's not in the same class of Michael Jordan or Shaq or Duncan. I'm sorry if you can't see the degree of goodness there.
Iverson is an inefficient ball hog.
The same goes for Deng, and to a certain extent Hinrich (he is older), but Gordon hasn't reached his potential, and if he finally gets a handle on passing and ball protection things should go swimmingly. Or should I say starringly?
by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 23, 2007 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions
My argument is way less about the Bulls.
that isn't my argument
by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 23, 2007 2:43 PM CDT up reply actions
And I agree...
I guess I'm in the middle--or at least saying something that you won't. I acknowledge that any team that isn't going to win a championship, either needs a) 1 or 2 incredible players or b) a team of FAR above average players and a good team-centered offense/defense (3 out of 27).
I'm unsure that the Bulls can have a). But I believe they can reach b). Big improvements by Deng, Gordon and Thomas are needed, though. I guess I'm not as certain as you that it's a certainty. But I think it's definitely more of a possibility than 1958 allows.
You know what you're doing?
by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 23, 2007 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Not really.
The Bulls will be good, and about the only slightly better than now if they stand pat and only mildly improve as individuals. If they improve a lot as individuals, they will improve a lot as a team. They could be a great team.
You say there's "no formula" for a championship team. I say a team needs to have a player is capable of a Top 5 PER. There have been a less than 20% exception.
You still have not shown any reason to believe that a team that doesn't have a player who is "one of the best" should have a reasonable expectation to win a championship. Unless it's the Pistons.
There is a formula. Just because you don't buy it doesn't make it less true.
You do realize
by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 23, 2007 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions
Follow the points.
Your statement implies I said a Top 5 PER player gets a team championship.
Your statement-spinning skills are awesome!
A team also needs to be lucky,
by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 23, 2007 4:18 PM CDT up reply actions
Anyway...
One thing is certain: like you, I have much hope for this team going forward.
You're misusing a stat
by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 23, 2007 4:38 PM CDT up reply actions
Not really.
Nope
It takes good players, whether it's one, two, three, or even... I'll dare say it... five. Never four though, it just won't work.
by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 23, 2007 6:22 PM CDT up reply actions
Poor mind reader?
I know you like to say "it takes good players" but that's the biggest piece of shit cop out there is. Every player in the NBA is a good player. They wouldn't be there if they weren't. Some are better than others. Some are a LOT better than others. You can continue to call them good so that it fits your argument, but it doesn't change the facts. For whatever reason, you don't like superlatives when talking about players. But Tyron Lue is a good player. So is Ben Gordon. So is Kobe Bryant. So was Raef Lafrentz. So was Shawn Bradley. You could win a championship with that team. No one else could.
I can't believe I'm arguing this. I really do get the feeling you're just "arguing" just to do it. You've said nothing but the same two things over and over. "Teams need good players" "Bulls will get better" But they already have good players. How did they not win this year?
Someday I'll learn and not respond. One at a time, you knock them down with your lack of insight.
"How did they not win this year?"
by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 24, 2007 7:19 AM CDT up reply actions
Good/great is all relative.
Don't be lazy
I'm thinking of changing my signature to "show your work" or "in order to be right, you have to know why."
by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 23, 2007 6:33 PM CDT up reply actions
Pretty much a guarantee
PER
by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 23, 2007 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions
No, it's not.
But Win Shares are, and I already threw those up.
I don't know what you mean
by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 23, 2007 4:12 PM CDT up reply actions
Fine, eschew the term "superstar."
The Bulls do not have a player that would generally be considered one of the best 10 in the League. And they don't have anyone who is generally expected to develop into one of the top 10 players in the League. They just don't.
With one exception, all championship teams from the last 27 years have had at least one player who would be considered one of the best 10 in the League at the time of the championship.
Imagine that Paxson had the opportunity to trade Gordon for any other player in the League (no other considerations, just a one for one trade, ignoring League salary rules, etc.). Obviously, he would take any of the following:
Dirk
Nash
Wade
LeBron
Kobe
Amare
Duncan
Yao
McGrady
Arenas
Carmello
Bosh
Paul
Howard
I could probably come up with a list of 20 other players Paxson would probably take in a one for one trade for Gordon.
The fact is that the Bulls don't have a single player in the Top 40 for season PER. Not one. Luol is 46 and Gordon is 56.
The Bulls don't have a great player. And history demonstrates it is difficult to win a championship without one.
To further that...
Duncan was at four this year. And if the Pistons win... well, apparently they've figure it out. I hope the Bulls do, too.
That's crazy
by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 23, 2007 2:34 PM CDT up reply actions
Not only are there better players than Gordon,
Gordon is not an elite player.
And I am not certain that it has anything to do with age or experience. I think it has more to do with physical talent. Gordon is short and lacks explosive jumping power and lateral quickness. How is experience going to cure those shortcomings?
I don't know where to locate historical PER's, but it would be interesting to see if any player in the last 27 years has had a sub-20 PER for his first three seasons and then gone on to become an elite player.
Honestly, ask yourself this, PaxJax. If Portland called tomorrow and said they would trade the number one pick in the 2007 draft for Ben Gordon, do you think Paxson would take that? I think there is a strong probability he would jump at that deal, despite the fact that Oden and Durant have never played a single second in the NBA. Like the Logo said, those guys are can't-miss prospects because of their physical attributes.
elite players
"Like the Logo said, those guys are can't-miss prospects because of their physical attributes."
by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 23, 2007 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions
Interesting...
Scottie...
However, Scottie had the physical attributes (length, explosive jumping power, etc.) that Ben Gordon seems to lack.
I honestly don't see how Gordon is going to cure his deficiencies with experience.
Conversely, I could see a guy like Tyrus ascending to elite status because of his athleticism. It seems that experience should help one develop a basketball skill set, but no amount of experience is going to cure physical shortcomings.
yes
by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 23, 2007 3:06 PM CDT up reply actions
There's no reason to get hung up
I'm willing to wait and see with Gordon and Deng.
by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 23, 2007 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions
I should say
by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 23, 2007 3:08 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't have insider,
by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 23, 2007 2:52 PM CDT up reply actions
the preseason projections
Either way since more 20-24 year olds improve their PER you can assume that the forumla will project Deng and Gordon to as well.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 23, 2007 3:04 PM CDT up reply actions
bad boy teams would fall in that idea
nbadraft.net did a study on this a few months back, and the numbers seem to indicate that you need at least 2 of the top 150 players of all time to win a chip; Det didnt have it in 04, arguably not in 89 or 90.
and the bulls dont have a great player yet....but ill take deng over most players in the nba at this point; kids only 22 working off one legit off season.
IThomas/Pistons
by NY Chicago Fan on May 24, 2007 12:22 AM CDT up reply actions
Let's take one.
I'm guessing you'll call the stat pointless or something, but I'd start there. Career PER's might be another one.
I think superstar is a valid term when so many are called stars--would really great work--or very, very, very good--sorry, but I'm not lumping Gordon being good in with a Kobe being good--one is obviously better.
Obviously, having a superstar, or even two, guarantees a championship. Never said it did. And they'll have to have good to very good players around them. No doubt.
How about this for a definition of superstar: someone who does an incredible job of producing more for his team's wins than the average good player.
Hah! Whatever.
FWIW...
Can Thomas develop a better scoring game, and to a lesser extent, a passing game and be a "quadruple threat" like Marion? Can Gordon develop the consistent driving ability/willingness to give his game another 4-7 ppg? Can Deng get the post moves and a decent 3-pt shot to do the same? Can Hinrich maintain is good shooting ways he had this season?
I think there is a possibility of all these questions being answered in the affirmative. If a few of them are answered, I think they'll keep ahead of the improving Eastern Conference teams like Orlando, Toronto, etc. If they're all answered, depending on who's brought in via trade/draft, I think they'll become an upper echelon team across the whole NBA.
there aren't exceptions,
by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 23, 2007 2:40 PM CDT up reply actions
Talent-challenged?
You're being really ignorant just to argue. You haven't brought one fact or logical argument to this. If you think the Bulls have enough talent right now, without significant improvements by the players it has (which, is to say, would be more than what they have now), than you're wrong. Plain and simple.
Haaaaaate people who can't change their mind; especially when they don't have facts to back their arguments. Haaaaaaaaaaate it.
The Bulls are young. It's a fact.
by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 23, 2007 2:54 PM CDT up reply actions
That's true.
what we know or not
by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 23, 2007 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions
Agreed...
I, along with him, am willing to wait on this team. But not as sold on it as he is.
the Bulls need a lot of things
by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 23, 2007 3:31 PM CDT up reply actions
(admittedly I mostly skimmed this little tiff)
PaxJax is right that these labels are only made after-the-fact. KG has lost his superstar luster because his team sucks. If Carmelo were in the East instead of LeBron, maybe he's more of a star than he is now.
BUT, it's a completely legitimate discussion whether one thinks any of these Bulls will eventually get to a star level, or more specifically their team gets to a championship level thus retroactively naming them stars.
But it's just what we think and guess from watching these guys play and those similar to them. While nobody can be fully sure if the current Bulls players will reach these accolades, you can still have a strong opinion on how you think things will turn out, good or bad.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 23, 2007 3:00 PM CDT up reply actions
Don't knock Portland
by ChrisRobin on May 23, 2007 12:43 AM CDT up reply actions
bear in mind that oden hasn't played
that's what pisses me off about the draft; no one is a sure thing. While I may get flak for this, salary situation aside, if you had given me an option for a 2nd level PF (someone like boozer) versus oden, you take hte for sure production; not the hope that oden will pan out
remember the candy man, kwame, the twin towers...they were can't miss and look at em now
Jerry Krause says,
I hope there's a GM that values the #9 pick enough to trade a proven commodity.
I'm glad kids can't come straight out of high school now. It's a better comparison of talent in college, and your franchise isn't depending on an 18-yr old to become the face of the franchise. I wish they had to be 3 years removed like the NFL.
Blazers are set for the next
by joejoeEnglish94bulls4ever on May 22, 2007 10:56 PM CDT reply actions
No sure thing
by Freethefro on May 22, 2007 11:00 PM CDT up reply actions
Three years til Lebron moves it to Chicago
lebron changes to number 32?
The departed
wow basketball
by joejoeEnglish94bulls4ever on May 22, 2007 10:59 PM CDT reply actions
Let me be the contrarian
Look at that list above. Marion isn't a fit for this Bulls team, he has no postup game to speak of. Lewis is another perimeter player who wants a huge deal. Nene might be a fit, but he's making 10+ mil for the next 4 years. Kirilenko's not a postup player either. Randolph might be the guy, but his salary is almost as big as Gasol's, so why not just go for Gasol and skip the baggage. The point is, there aren't any really good options out there right now.
Exactly
I'm very wary of Randolph, plus, its not just post offense we need -- we also need frontcourt size. If you plug TT in at the 4, the Bulls have a front line where no one is over 6'9". That's just not tall enough and the Bulls will continue to struggle against teams with big frontcourts. Randolph doesn't help at all in that department.
If I were Paxson, I'd be thinking 2 things. First, if there is a guy that I think can be a special talent in the league (like Yi, if you believe that about him), I move up and try to get him. Barring that, I want a center. This is where a guy like Hawes is intriguing. He is only 19 and probably not ready for primetime. Let him backup Wallace and get 10-15 minutes a night. By all accounts, he should be offensively productive in the post. By the playoffs, he may be a guy that can play alongside either TT or Wallace at times and serve as the post threat to create room for shooters and carry some of the load when the jumpers aren't falling. Then in 3 years, Ben is gone and you have a seasoned 22 year old 7 footer with a post game. May not be a bad way to go.
While the draft is a crap-shoot to an extent, Pax has shown a good nose for good players. I feel pretty confident that the Bulls could add a significant piece through the draft, and I'd prefer that rather than an overpriced mid-tier vet.
Can Hawes pass?
The minute he stepped on the court
Absolutely
by goldengod on May 22, 2007 11:12 PM CDT reply actions
Didn't know if you guys caught this from Chad Ford
That was posted in his first official mock draft with the lottery balls finally set. I was just wondering what you guys thought about moving up to get Yi and how much you'd estimate we'd have to sacrifice to move up say to the number 5 slot, where Boston is already openly shopping the pick. (I live in Boston and Ainge was already on FSN saying they'd be entertaining trade options.)
I personally would like to see them try this and/ or maybe try buying one of the Suns two late first round picks, in the event that they are trying to sell them for cash like they did last year with the Celtics (they ended up drafting Rondo). With that pick they could draft someone like Daequan Cook (Insider) who is like a taller version of BG7 who plays better D.
That would free the Bulls up to trade BG7 and Noce (in a S&T) if need be for whatever we need to plug up any holes that leaves.
I have a lot of ideas dancing in my head so I apologize if it came out disjointed.
by fundamentallysound on May 22, 2007 11:31 PM CDT reply actions
Don't worry.
I'd have no problem with Yi
If Pax likes Yi then that
Balance agains the "window"
It frustrates me that Pax is saying the biggest needs that the team needs to fill are interior scoring and athleticism. Uh... where have I heard that before? Oh right: last year. As much as I would love for the Bulls to take a shot at Yi, I'd rather the team make some moves to add the pieces that the Bulls need to legitimately contend for a title next year.
I Think U R Looking Out the Wrong Window
So what did Pax spend $60M for?
If Paxson was willing to just wait on the core, he would have gone after a cheaper post player. Instead, he went big for a player he felt was key to bringing a title to the Bulls. I understand he's weighing the medium and long-term for the Bulls, but $60M says he should weigh the medium term more. If not, signing Wallace was moronic.
Not exactly going out on a limb here,
Obviously, signing Big Ben was an effort to get better, not just in the position upgrade sense but in that team "swagger" department. On the other hand, it wasn't a break the bank, buy a championship now type of move (a la our favorite friends, the Heat).
So, the goal is both to compete for championships "now" -- while allowing for the fact that the team has a hole inside, so "now" may be a year or two off -- but also continue to be competitive long after Big Ben rides into the sunset.
That's interesting
The team with the most chips now and ability to move is Atlanta. If Conley is their guy, I don't think they have to take him at three.
by bullshooter on May 22, 2007 11:46 PM CDT up reply actions
why yi for seattle
I was going more along the lines
Do you only have access to blogabull for 30 minutes at a time, three days a week? You go through and comment on every thread and even in the middle of the thread and disappear again for 2 days.
The Bulls should trade Nocioni for
by joejoeEnglish94bulls4ever on May 22, 2007 11:52 PM CDT reply actions
Could probably pull it off
Noc doesn't get you the 5 or even the 15th
Is Oden a for sure superstar?
I have problems thinking that these two are for-sure. If Oden is Ewing, they will mire in being good for the next decade maybe, unless their other talent is substantial. Durant reminds me a lot of mcGrady, and he can't get out of the first round. Am I missing something?
Yes
Durant & Oden are just different
by GranvilleWaiters on May 23, 2007 1:11 PM CDT up reply actions
never such a thing as sure things
difference between Mcgrady and Durant is huge
by GranvilleWaiters on May 23, 2007 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions
Durant has only played in college...
Durant
Tyrus Thomas
maybe in a couple of years. I kind of wanted to see thomas guard the perimeter more this year and see how he handles that.
by Sambossanova on May 23, 2007 7:58 PM CDT up reply actions
Thomas on the perimeter
But if you're referring to guarding wing players, then I think he's going to have be able be a 3 on the offensive side, unless we keep Nocioni, play them together, and switch their offensive/defensive spots. There could be some power forward stiffs that Noce could handle against teams that have good wing threats, and we could see Ty take them on without having to kill ourselves offensively. Otherwise, I can't see removing Ty from his shot-blocking position down low and replacing him with Deng - why force a mismatch when it doesn't exist?
it's not a bad spot to be in
A decent player will be available at the 9 spot. Thabo will be better, Tyrus will be better, Kirk will hit the weights, and so will Luo. I'm with Pax on the whole idea of incremental change this offseason. They don't need a blockbuster trade.
by jai on May 23, 2007 12:01 AM CDT reply actions
No, not weights for Kirk
Kirk
Tough to lead when you can't breathe
Or maybe . . .
Nick Collison?
But expect plenty of suspense in the five weeks until the June 28 NBA draft.
General manager John Paxson will weigh whether the Bulls' top need--a large, interior scorer--can be met with that first-round pick or whether he needs to scour the trade market aggressively to land an established NBA player.
"That will be an option I'll certainly explore," Paxson said.
Of course, it takes two teams to tango in the trade market, so that option could be easier said than done.
Still, it's a safe bet Paxson will inquire on longtime Bulls favorite Nick Collison's availability now that the Sonics jumped to No. 2 and will land either Greg Oden or Kevin Durant.
post scorer?
Although if Sonics get Durant I would think they would keep Nick. He is player that doesn't need the ball to help you out and Durant and Allen will be taking all the shots. If anything I would see Sonics trading Lewis.
by NY Chicago Fan on May 23, 2007 12:12 AM CDT up reply actions
You're right
by bullshooter on May 23, 2007 12:15 AM CDT up reply actions
They can't get a dime for Lewis
but those are the only teams
So if Lewis wants to go to another team and wants his big long-term contract his agent will have to find a sign/trade mate with the Sonics.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 23, 2007 10:23 AM CDT up reply actions
you resign darko after lewis to save $$$
no he doesn't
by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 23, 2007 4:12 PM CDT up reply actions
It might help kirk
well im done with batman like hit-effects
I think Nick signed
He just bought another house in Seattle too.
I don't think it's that much
They've got him making about $6 million a year through 2011, so that's a pretty reasonable contract. Not that he'd be a huge difference-maker, but he'd definitely be an upgrade over PJ Brown.
I heard the
It might be just an estimation by Hoopshype too.
too Iowa-y
I don't feel too good knowing that he's a 'longtime Bulls favorite', though.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 23, 2007 8:58 AM CDT up reply actions
boston-chicago trade
bulls get- paul pierce, 5th pick
celtics get- 9th pick, ben gordon, duhon and nocioni (sign trade for 7million)
or some crap like that.
One can only dream.
The other dream was that phoenix got the hawks number pick and that theyd trade away amare ina three way with minn and chicago and we end up running pick and rolls with amare instead of pj brown next year. Kirk would have to work on his alley oop passing skills with amare/tyrus leaping all over the place.
so Pierce
Probably start him at SG
I don't know
Heard The Phoenix Trade Rumor
never heard the PHO rumor
by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 23, 2007 10:00 AM CDT up reply actions
A little disappointed
Brewer
Kirk
Brewer
Deng
Wallace
Gasol
Lets see the Pistons exploit match-ups now!!!!!
It's actually a Washington Post report...
I guess the top of the draft isn't set in stone. Even at 1,2 with reports that Portland values Durant more.
Well, you can't believe any 'value' crap
Last year, everyone knew Noah was the pick. Did his game really drop off dramatically? Did he get worse, slower and lose his leaping ability? No. As his teammates, Al Horford and Corey Brewer (or, as the draft-hypers refer to them, "the next Karl Malone and Scottie Pippen") improved, Noah didn't need to shoot as much. His numbers were essentially the same with small changes compared to the season after which he was the absolute #1 pick in the draft. Like I said, we're dealing with lemmings here.
by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 23, 2007 9:58 AM CDT up reply actions
I just posted the 'rumor.'
I just wanted to note that the draft picture will change as agent-less prospects remove their names from the draft pool.
Portland
let's whip out the giant frickin cojones
perhaps not
Seattle already has petro, sene, swift as 7 footers, and a shit ton of PF (wilcox, collison, brown, and fortsen). So the logical idea is to move some of their big men to amke room for oden
bulls were high on sene last year...might get him cheap for a guy like Du or Noch who would fit in with seattle.....
or....seattle does something crazy and trades down the pick....enter bulls
well, there goes that
by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 23, 2007 9:58 AM CDT up reply actions
If this is the battle plan, we're going to lose
Would the Bulls do this? They do still need a post-player to get them over the hump and have Chris Duhon to play the point.
Hinrich is a great fit in that he can start at the point and also shift to the two and play alongside Kyle Lowry. (He's also on a long-term contract that DECREASES over time.) With the two lottery picks, you rebuild your frontcourt, taking a four (Yi, Horford, or Brandon Wright) at pick # 4 and a five (Noah or Hawes) at pick #9.
At least the ugly rumor that "Duhon could start for a lot of teams" is still alive.
by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 23, 2007 12:28 PM CDT reply actions
rockit
by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 23, 2007 12:48 PM CDT up reply actions
Looks like Memphis
PLEASSSSSSSSSSSSE
by joejoeEnglish94bulls4ever on May 23, 2007 7:13 PM CDT up reply actions
By the way
I thought that title went to the Bulls. . . hmm
Maybe Bulls just get to graduate
I thought they looked
by joejoeEnglish94bulls4ever on May 23, 2007 7:14 PM CDT up reply actions
pax weighs in
podcast up on the mainpage - talk of development, the contract talks with Luol and Ben, and how team builds.
nope, he didn't
I do like the light-hearted banter about Kirk, and the cash bar at his wedding.
by KT on May 23, 2007 3:20 PM CDT up reply actions
BG is in the process
I thought that too.
Uh oh.
Noah is a winner
But highly skilled big men who can run the floor, play with passion, pass effortlessly, handle the ball far better than someone his size should, defend around the basket and do all the little things are far more valuable to NBA teams than a guy who's No. 1 marketable skill is scoring (on inferior competition in college but not so much in the league).
Seriously, if Noah's available anywhere after Greg Oden and Kevin Durant, the teams that passes on him is absolutely NUTS!
I'm glad Noah is getting some love
He's not a perfect fit for the Bulls now because we have alot of guys who do the "other" things, but we really need post scoring. Still, if Pax drafts him, I'll be excited because it would mean Pax is convinced. And if Pax is convinced, I'm convinced.
The comment above
by bullshooter on May 24, 2007 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions
The thing about Noah
But still, I find it hard to turn down a guy with all the tools that we need, like Hawes. Or, maybe Yi. I'm just saying that there is the chance of making a big mistake here.
by Craig Hodges Explosion 3000 on May 24, 2007 2:35 PM CDT up reply actions
This made me feel optimistic
Heinsohn comments
Is Roy Hibbert staying?
by DannyRange on May 23, 2007 4:37 PM CDT reply actions
Winning a championship
In a recent SI article, one of the writers reminded us of a simple fact: In the last 20 years, almost all the NBA championships have been won primarily because of just 8 players (the usual suspects: Jordan, Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, Bird etc). In other words, superstars, usually big men, win championships. I would take that one step further: it usually takes a tandem of a superstar + another great player (Magic-Kareem; Shaq-Kobe; Shaq-Wade; Jordan-Pip).Duncan's dominance in the playoffs seems to reinforce this trend.
As Bulls fans, this is annoying and hard for us to acknowledge, since it seems to doom us to a championship-less near term future, because it is clear that none of our current players, despite their All-Star potential, is a transcendent super-star. It is also annoying because as fans we like to analyze things, and a truism such as 'superstars win championships' seems too simplistic. But the evidence seems to suggest it is reality.
Therefore, honestly, our best chance of winning a championship is to land a big name player in the next 3-4 years (LeBron; Wade etc). That is virtually impossible to plan for, so in the next best case, we have to try and replicate the Detroit model, one of the few exceptions to the superstar rule, and hope that small ball really is the way of the future (I am not convinced yet).
All of this is a long winded way of saying that we have a narrow window of 2-3 years: we have to trade our pick and try and get a veteran post player who can make an immediate impact like a Gasol. Then hope that we can win as a team. Taking a 'potential' pick and hoping that our team can develop together over 3-4 years to get us a championship in 4 years is not going to work. By then the next big superstar (either Oden, Durant or LeBron) will be dominating yet again.Of course, I would love to be wrong about this.
by bullsfaninbigapple on May 24, 2007 12:53 PM CDT reply actions
gah!
by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 24, 2007 1:03 PM CDT up reply actions
That would imply...
...that all those teams were contenders before they got their superstars. In most cases I don't think that was true. I think these teams were very fundamentally built around their superstars, rather than the stars just taking them over the top.
by bullsfaninbigapple on May 24, 2007 1:20 PM CDT up reply actions
no
by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on May 24, 2007 1:38 PM CDT up reply actions
Paxson is
Battle plan is
remember
by joejoeEnglish94bulls4ever on May 24, 2007 2:34 PM CDT reply actions
Speculation
Possibly Collison? WHat is the value of Collison to SEA? Varrejao? Basically who is the best inside presence on the market for that combo? Could we trade up with Boston maybe?
Use the number 9 to draft Noah. He immediately becomes the tallest guy on our team. Starting number 4... isn't that what we need? I think it is narrow minded to limit our potential starting power forward of the future to a guy that needs to have a dominant offensive game coming out of college. I also think that for a hard working guy with a high basketball IQ, and great passing ability, he will be able to exploit the paint which is what we need. imagine the offensive boards and tip ins. We have scorers in Gordon and Deng and Noah is a great passer. Plus Noah is dynamic and would be great next to Ben Wallace. SO yes, definitely take this guy if he is on the board. Hopefully he is still on the board at 9. Maybe even trade up using the above trio and the 9 pick to get the 5 from Boston?
This off season we need 2- 3 players:
A starting power forward 6'10 at least
A back up power forward/center hopefully a 7
footer
A point guard that is not Duhon
by Zac23 on May 24, 2007 10:35 PM CDT reply actions
Noah?
Dont compare us with pheonix please
Also from what i read, noah is tyson chandler with more b-ball iq. Now i like tyson chandler, but with tyrus thomas and ben wallace, i dont think another chandler (even if he is a smarter version) is needed.
Plus the bulls like to boast defense leads to good offense, and i think noah might pick up fouls with his passionate game play.
never saw ty c in him
by California Al on May 26, 2007 8:47 AM CDT up reply actions
The Tyson Comparison
Agreed his iq is high, but so is his energy level. In order for iq to be effective (this is speaking generally) i think emotions have to be down some (cant think straight if your happy, excited, angry, sad...etc)
So i think despite his intellegence, until he gets a handle on things, he might be a...mikki moore type player?? Dont know if its good or bad...but i think he really is just a shot blocking, ball dunking, in your face kind of player. And thats good!
Alas, the bulls have that guy in T2 (the terminator), had that guy in tyson chandler (except ty c was a bit bigger and a bit stronger), and most importantly comes down to not what the bulls need. At least not now i think.
Horford
Horford:
http://www.nbadraft.net/admincp/profiles/alhorford.html
Wright:
http://nbadraft.net/admincp/profiles/brandanwright.html
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Jeremy Lin’s teammate snaps a picture of his famous couch
- Dwight Howard picks a strange time to ask for more fourth quarter shots
- Spike Lee texts to thank the coach that cut Jeremy Lin before seeing him play
- LeBron threatened to beat up a heckler. You gotta problem with that, tough guy?
- Jason Whitlock apologizes for his unfunny Jeremy Lin comment on Twitter
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
