Our (my) Gasol dream may be dead

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 5, 2007 11:33 PM CDT in News Comment 98 comments

One by one the candidates of the fabled 'star acquisition' are dropping out. Garnett's been traded to Boston, and now Memphis seems to be building around Pau Gasol as opposed to trading him, as evidenced by the acquisition of Gasol's countryman: Juan Carlos Navarro.

Blog-A-Bull pal Tom Ziller writes at Fanhouse:

this is a blow for Chicago if they were at all thinking about making another run at Gasol this coming season. Memphis wouldn't go get this guy without thinking they're keeping Pau around a while. This move, as much basketball sense as it may make, was made to placate the angry Gasol. Unless <s>hell freezes over</s> Kobe Bryant forces a trade to Chicago, the Bulls have struck out on all the big names they were hoping for.

John Hollinger has been critical of the Gasol non-acquisition since the trade deadline passed, and reiterated his point last week:

I'll say it again -- that was a ginormous mistake the Bulls made. They might win the East anyway, but they needed Gasol to have a legit shot at the whole enchilada....Gasol might be the most underrated player in the league at this point. He was exactly what the Bulls needed -- a post scorer who can pass and set up their jump shooters....Going to be very hard [to trade for Gasol midseason], actually, with all the BYC issues on their most desirable players and the lack of a P.J. -sized contract to throw into the pot. Also, one bigger problem: I don't think Memphis wants to trade him anymore.

At least he's been consistent. But at the time, the proposed trade (Deng+Brown+Thabo according to reports) could've killed the Bulls season even with getting Gasol. Nocioni was still hurt (and as we saw even when he came back he wasn't the same) so without a SF we'd all have front-row seats to the A-drain Griffin show, or worse yet more 3-guard lineups. Gasol's a better player than Deng, but the season could've went awry with the holes that trade would've opened.

So would it be worth potentially wrecking last season to have a potentially better roster this season? Hollinger seems to think so, but regardless of that opinion it's hard to call keeping Luol Deng a 'mistake'. A missed opportunity with palpable contracts, sure, but Luol isn't an asset that's going to lose value, whether that means becoming better than Gasol or not.

I really liked Gasol as 'the' acquisition, because I think he is underrated (as Hollinger says) as a player, and is both younger and cheaper than Garnett (or Jermaine O'Neal or something). It would've been nice, that's for sure.

But to reference the original point that the opportunity of getting a star player is lost (Elton Brand (and his opt-out after the season) is another now-unviable candidate), I don't think Pax wants a Garnett trade. He wants a Rasheed Wallace trade: a great player that can be had for spare parts. Gutting the team shouldn't be part of the plan, and with the team this close to contention I don't see it happening. It's not about acquiring big names, it's about upgrading the team. And it won't be until Pax is convinced that Hinrich/Deng/Gordon will never make it happen that this team gets broken up and remade around a star acquisition. And even then I don't think we'll see two out of the three getting shipped out for Kobe.

0 recs | Comment 98 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I agree

But the problem is that, a Rasheed Wallace trade was a once in a life time deal, I don't think we will see a type of deal like that ever happen again, the stars were aligned for Joe Dumars when he got Sheed. The closest deal that could of been like that would have been for Zach Randolph, we could of probably got him for Noah, and spare parts, but Zach isn't a Skiles player, he's Eddy Curry with off the court issues. Hopefully Paxson will be able to get the missing piece without breaking up the core.

by Wade.Jones on Aug 6, 2007 12:15 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

on the other hand

The Bulls 'spare parts' are actually a lot better than what went out for Rasheed.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 6, 2007 9:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

Thats why I think the Rasheed Wallace trade was a once in a lifetime deal, that we may never see again.

by Wade.Jones on Aug 6, 2007 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There was a reason Detroit got Sheed for so little

That would be because Rasheed is nuts. Let's face it, Portland was desperate to get rid of him; under normal circumstances no one would just give away a player with his talent (yes, I know he was traded to Atlanta first, but they acquired him simply to trade him and clear salary cap room). So if Pax is waiting for that kind of trade, then he's probably going to have to accept getting somebody with some "issues."

by Big D on Aug 6, 2007 1:25 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Actually

The Pistons got Sheed from Atlanta. Atlanta traded Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Theo Ratliff and Dan Dickau to get Rasheed for cap purposes. The trade that the Pistons acquired Wallace wouldn't have been accomplished if it wasn't for the help of Danny Ainge(Karma is funny everyone thought Ainge was dumb for helping the Pistons, now he has KG). The trade was Rasheed Wallace from Atlanta and Mike James from the Boston Celtics to the Pistons. Chucky Atkins and Lindsey Hunter to Boston, Bobby Sura, Zeljko Rebraca and Chris Mills from the Celtics to Atlanta . Both teams also got a first round pick.

by Wade.Jones on Aug 6, 2007 2:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The problem for the bulls...

and Paxson is that they have too many nice pieces and therefore the other GMs, when dealing with Pax, will try to get better value in return, more than when dealing with other NBA teams with less assets.

What we thought was a great asset for dealing, turns out to be the difficult part for Pax who, rightfully so, won't fall into the trap.

McHale, maybe (and not considering his Celtic roots reasons) prefered dealing with the Celts, because he felt that they were giving him all they could (they were fair). Chicago might have had a better deal in place, but if they really wanted (=if they were dumb) they could give even more than that.

The Game chose him !

by Diabolo on Aug 6, 2007 5:12 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

thats a really interesting point

by milesgmsu on Aug 6, 2007 10:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice topic.

Hollinger can call it a bad deal for as long as he wants to.The fact is that Tyrus Thomas is here to take the starting power forward position and become an impact player.

What the Bulls lacked mostly,in my opinion, is not a pure low post player but a someone that contributes in many aspects of the game.

That's what AllStars like Kevin Garnett do.

by koskinar on Aug 6, 2007 5:31 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

either way

Not going to bash Pax for not pulling the trigger. But a Loul/PJ + parts trade for Gasol last year would have made Bulls at least as good as they will be this year and possibly better in long term. Bulls didn't win East last year so even with Noc injury I don't think any downside last year should have effected the long term vision to do or not do the trade.

I think the problem seems to be that it seems easier to add a SF / Guard to the roster then a scoring post player so a player like Gasol looks desirable despite Deng playing well. Just have to hope Loul continues to improve and Bulls team improves around him and then that desire will go away

by NY Chicago Fan on Aug 6, 2007 6:25 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

This is the future...

and it could be bright !

From Draftexpress :

"It is almost impossible not to like the things that Thomas brings to the table as a player: intensity, passion, and unbelievable athleticism. Even in the Summer League, Thomas took no prisoners on the floor, and tried to get his hands on absolutely everything around the rim. With Joakim Noah now in toe, Chicago may have the most active frontcourt of any team in the NBA."

And Tyrus potential and upside seem quite big :
http://www.draftexpress.com/viewarticle.php?a=2201

The Game chose him !

by Diabolo on Aug 6, 2007 7:08 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Or...

maybe having JCN in Memphis helps with a deal of Gasol to Chicago, if they ship both JCN and Gasol.

Having JCN in the deal makes it easier for Chicago to part with, say, Ben Gordon :-).

Gasol and JCN for resigned Gordon, Tyrus and Duhon (don't know if that would work salary-wise).

The Game chose him !

by Diabolo on Aug 6, 2007 7:17 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

is Juan Carlos

going to score 1753 points this season?

by hscs on Aug 6, 2007 9:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gasol might.

Need new sig

by bullshooter on Aug 6, 2007 10:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gasol isn't going anywhere

and the sentiment that Gordon can be easily replaced is super wrong.

by hscs on Aug 6, 2007 10:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually,..

my point was that Gordon can't be easily replaced, but including JCN with Gasol in the deal would soften the loss to a certain extent.

The Game chose him !

by Diabolo on Aug 6, 2007 10:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I understood ya :)

let's see if JCN can play a bit or if he's the next Jasikaviskciskcisus.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 6, 2007 10:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jasikevicius can play...

just hasn't been able to prove it in the NBA.

For what reason ? Maybe because he is first and foremost a leader (and playmaker), and needs to be handed some responsibility to shine.

Maybe also because the NBA game is too athletic for his playing style (he's more suited for the FIBA game) ?

But anyone who has seen him play (let it be with a european club or with Lithuania during the Olympics or Worlds) knows that he can flat out play the game.

The Game chose him !

by Diabolo on Aug 6, 2007 10:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

fantastic

all I was referring to was his ability to play in the NBA. So far he's been a disaster.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 6, 2007 11:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

jasikevicius is a piece of garbage!

Playing with those silly Fiba rules and much shorter 3-point line helped this guy. Not to mention the court is much shorter. If he can't play in the NBA, that means he is not all that. If you don't prove it in the most elite league on the planet, you can't flat out play!

Profile Stats Splits Game Log News Fantasy Hollinger Stats

Career Averages Rebounds
YR TM G GS MIN FG FG% 3P 3P% FT FT% STL BLK TO PF OFF DEF TOT AST PTS
05-06 Ind 75 15 20.8 2.3-5.7 .396 1.1-3.1 .364 1.6-1.8 .910 0.5 0.1 1.5 1.4 0.3 1.8 2.1 3.0 7.3
06-07 Gsw 26 2 12.0 1.4-3.9 .366 0.5-1.7 .273 1.0-1.2 .871 0.5 0.0 1.2 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.8 2.3 4.3
... Ind 37 1 17.9 2.5-6.0 .412 0.9-2.3 .372 1.6-1.7 .922 0.4 0.0 1.6 1.4 0.3 1.0 1.3 3.0 7.4
G GS MIN FG FG% 3P 3P% FT FT% STL BLK TO PF OFF DEF TOT AST PTS
Totals 138 18 18.4 2.2-5.4 .397 0.9-2.7 .355 1.5-1.7 .908 0.5 0.0 1.5 1.3 0.3 1.4 1.6 2.9 6.8

Is it me or does Lebron walk like a duck?!

by GranvilleWaiters on Aug 7, 2007 12:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, but...

I did not propose a JCN for Gordon deal either, did I ?

The Game chose him !

by Diabolo on Aug 6, 2007 10:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

We are young, we are getting better and

we are good. Deng may be better than Gasol this year. TT may blossom to be a force at the upper echelon of the league. This team can be good for many years. During the season strange things happen and players become available. We have a shot at going to the finals. Let's not mess things up. If Memphis tanks this year maybe Gasol becomes available at a lower price. If not someone else could be available or our young guys develop to such an extent we do not want or need a trade to win a world championship.

by chgobr on Aug 6, 2007 8:23 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

semi-important (less important than A-Drain)

Gasol trade talks were shortened by his mid-December appearance, and Jerry West was already stealing office supplies and planning a trip to Hedonism. Paxson may have had a better shot at closing a deal if there was a GM worried about the next few seasons of Grizzsketball, and there was more time for one side to crack and give in.

by hscs on Aug 6, 2007 9:13 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

"So would it be worth potentially wrecking

last season?" Um, you mean a second round flameout against the Pistons that left a bad taste in everybody's mouth? Sure, it'd be tough to give up PJ, Deng and Thabo. But the Bulls would be clear cut favorites this year (which really doesn't mean anything.) However, as a small bonus for those of you lamenting the Noc deal, he would have to be included in any deal this year for salary purposes. It would take something like Tyrus, Thabo and Noc to match up salaries.

Need new sig

by bullshooter on Aug 6, 2007 9:59 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

who's speculated to be available?

Randolph, Garnett, and Gasol all seem to be staying on their new/old teams. Cleveland isn't going to move Gooden to the Bulls, and... well that seems to be it. The Bulls are stuck with Nocioni's lead-blowing ways at the moment.

by hscs on Aug 6, 2007 10:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gasol wasn't available this time last year

so I'm holding out that new names will crop up eventually.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 6, 2007 10:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly,,,

word is Patrick O'Bryant and Johan Petro might be available for a trade in February :-).

The Game chose him !

by Diabolo on Aug 6, 2007 10:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

J.O. maybe

But you have to be really hopeful considering no one trades away their 'star' until it's two seasons too late to get anything good back. Maybe that helps the Bulls who can't offer an enticing package of youth, draft picks, and expiring contracts anymore.

by hscs on Aug 6, 2007 10:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

well if that's the criteria

Gasol was never really available.

I think it's safe to say nobody wants Jermaine O'Neal here. To be honest I can't come up with a potential candidate either (Elton Brand may have been one until his injury), but hopefull I shall be.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 6, 2007 11:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

that criteria is based on

the weak returns for Iverson and Garnett, as well as the non-movements of Gasol and Kidd. I do think Gasol was available, given Memphis' alleged financial situation, and fans booing Pau after his polite trade request. Now I think Memphis ownership was more worried about ticket sales, and retaining their best player trumped rebuilding.

by hscs on Aug 6, 2007 11:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

well I just screwed up

present and past tense. Meh, I'll just leave deciphering it up to other people. Miles does it all the time.

by hscs on Aug 6, 2007 12:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

hey, you brought it up

So I'll bring you the 'thank god we rushed to sign Nocioni(?)' contract of the week:

Matt Barnes: 1 year, $3m

(yes this is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, there are different circumstances at hand.)

I still think a 5 year contract is poison in terms of trade talks, but all the more reason to wish Nocioni a good year. And maybe opposing GMs don't look at the gameflow stats. :-p

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 6, 2007 10:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

well then

I will continue to disagree. :-P

Need new sig

by bullshooter on Aug 6, 2007 11:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Deng/Brown/Thabo...

Was that really the deal for Gasol? I had thought/heard that it was significantly more.

You can't argue that keeping Deng was a bad "decision", but man, he's a lot easier to replace then a 7'0, 26 year old entering his prime.

Hopefully, that wasn't the proposal.

by EdNealy on Aug 6, 2007 11:16 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

ok, replace a 6'9" 22 year year old

not even entering his prime yet. Saying 'Josh Childress' will get you a 5-hour commenting suspension.

The deal may have included the '07 draft pick as well, if that makes you feel better.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 6, 2007 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You robbed me of

my Josh Childress thunder! The fact that Deng is 22 makes him unique and hopefully very unique. That said, you must admit that we're not developing many post players anymore and the 6'8 to 7'0 small forward is becoming ever popular.

If the '07 pick was included, I feel a bit better, but still thought that it was a deal surrounding 2 of the Bulls "big-4" (whatever that means now).

by EdNealy on Aug 6, 2007 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

it may have been

I think the initial reports were that West started with Deng+Gordon...but after-the-fact reports were closer to what I said above.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 6, 2007 12:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think your right.

The Deng,Brown,Thabo offer was supposedly what the Bulls were considering to Memphis.
Memphis was looking for Gordon & Deng, and more and reportedly wanted to give us Cardinal's contract as part of the trade.

Ye OldeBull

by OldeBull on Aug 6, 2007 2:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hopefully, Tyrus develops into a superstar.

He is the most promising player the Bulls have, if he stays healthy.

Has anyone heard anything recently about his knees? Has the tendinitis subsided? Is he still working out daily at the Berto?

by 1958ChiTown on Aug 6, 2007 11:51 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Prediction

Memphis will still suck and come January time, Gasol asks out again. I don't think his buddy being there will help him get over losing.

Just Opinions

by Option27 on Aug 6, 2007 12:48 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I'll put it in the prediction file

and we need somebody to keep monitoring the spanish press.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 6, 2007 1:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I monitor Ole (Argentina) and FIBA.com

remember Pau posted a message on his own website, just like Kobe.

by hscs on Aug 6, 2007 2:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also worth mentioning

Fisher was brought back to the Lakers and he and Bryant are good friends. I don't see Bryant going back on his demands.

Just Opinions

by Option27 on Aug 7, 2007 10:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

How about this trade

Conley, Gasol, and JCN (assuming he is any good) for BG, Hinrich, and Tyrus.

Need new sig

by bullshooter on Aug 6, 2007 12:57 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

stopped reading after 'conley'

come on.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 6, 2007 1:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

what?

I can't throw out an off-the-wall trade idea?

Need new sig

by bullshooter on Aug 6, 2007 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

sure you can

and then I can throw it out :)

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 6, 2007 1:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Trade Hinrich for Conley

Make that trade and Chris Duhon is your starting point guard with Conley getting 10 minutes a game as back up.

Ye OldeBull

by OldeBull on Aug 6, 2007 2:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I just

threw up a little in my mouth.

by sue369 on Aug 6, 2007 3:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

How about this trade?

Duhon and Noc for Greg Oden.

I think Portland would like their grindiness.

by Rick S on Aug 6, 2007 3:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

which part of that trade

do you think is crazy, other than it's a lot of player's that neither team is looking to move.

Need new sig

by bullshooter on Aug 6, 2007 5:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thank god this Gasol BS

is over. He's slow and doesn't play D.

by joejoeEnglish94bulls4ever on Aug 6, 2007 4:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

uggh

i shouldnt adress this comment, but most people would disagree with oyu and agree that you are just stereotyping him as a euro big man who plays no D. Have to play some D to pull down 9+ rebounds and get 2 blocked shots per game. And as far as I can tell, he gets up the court pretty fast for a center.

by Sambossanova on Aug 6, 2007 8:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

no, you have it all wrong

he's slow because he's white.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 6, 2007 8:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No he's

slow because he's lost a step or two.

by joejoeEnglish94bulls4ever on Aug 6, 2007 11:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not true

getting 9+ rebounds and posting 2 blocks a game has nothing to do with defense! He gets torched on the defensive end!

Is it me or does Lebron walk like a duck?!

by GranvilleWaiters on Aug 7, 2007 12:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Get over Gasol.

I just don't see that they see in Gasol. He ''was'' a nice scoring big man and yeah he got 20 and 9 ish but the last few years he's been hurt alot and I just don't think he's the player he was his first two seasons. I just hate the idea of trading for a slow injury prone big who really hasn't won in the NBA. Now you can list the facts, he plays in the West, his teams were bad but I don't care. I'd rather see Tyrus and Noah as Bulls.

by joejoeEnglish94bulls4ever on Aug 7, 2007 12:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

joejoe

you were doing such a good job of not letting that ignorance bubble up to the top. It's fine to rather have Noah and Tyrus stay Bulls, but you don't need to make yourself look stupid by ripping on a guy who's the best player on a team that has been better than the Bulls up until last season.

Need new sig

by bullshooter on Aug 7, 2007 8:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

in which said player missed two months.

Yes, of course.

by tyger1147 on Aug 7, 2007 9:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Better than us?

Based on what terms? Memphis has yet to make to the second round in franchise history. Even if they did that does not make Gasol infailable or a fit in system that emphasizes defense.

I am not saying we shouldn't have gotten Gasol but you are just as over the top in your statement as Joejoe. Does that make you ignorant?

"If you're not going to compete, then I'll dominate you." MJ

by Rankdog on Aug 7, 2007 1:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There's two conferences

one is much better than the other. Memphis played in the good one.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 7, 2007 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

and Memphis made it to the playoffs

3 years in a row. The Bulls only made it two of those years.

Need new sig

by bullshooter on Aug 7, 2007 2:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let me gather logic here..

Any team that plays in the Western Conference is automatically better than any of the Eastern Conference playoff teams? Its a shame the east won 2-3 of the years leading up to 07.

2004 Horrible didn't make the playoffs
2005 RPI 12th in the league lost in 1st round 4-2*
2006 RPI 15th in the league lost in 1st round 4-2**

*Curry and Deng missed the post season.
**Lost to NBA Champ Miami

2004 RPI 7th in the league lost in 1st round 4-0
2005 RPI 10th in the league lost in 1st round 4-0
2006 RPI 6th in the league lost in 1st round 4-0

3 Playoff appearances 0 playoff wins.

I will concede they were better in 2004 but arguments could be made for both 2005 and 2006. I can understand losing the series against a superior team but not one playoff win?

"If you're not going to compete, then I'll dominate you." MJ

by Rankdog on Aug 7, 2007 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

links would be nice

So according to RPI the Griz were better each season.

so the Bulls lose to NBA Champ Miami. The Griz lost to NBA Finalist Mavericks if they get one or two playoff wins against Dallas (or the Spurs or Suns, the two other teams they were swept by) that does it for you?

Although if your comparision between the West and East is merely who won the finals, then maybe that would be enough.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 7, 2007 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The east west conference comparison...

have exactly 0 bearing on head to head comparisons between two teams. If it did then the West would have won NBA title in all 3 years. That was my point.

The Griz have had a crappy team in all but 3 years of their existence. In one season they were clearly better than the Bulls the 2004 season. It could be argued in either direction in the other two instances depending on what numbers you want to throw into the mix.

"If you're not going to compete, then I'll dominate you." MJ

by Rankdog on Aug 7, 2007 3:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

except your only number

seems to be playoff victories.

And when this argument started you seemed indignant to even the suggestion that the Griz were better.

And we apparently agree that the finals results have no bearing on EastvsWest. But the West is better, so it does give the Grizzlies success more weight, and I'm guessing that's reflected in the RPI you quoted.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 7, 2007 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The are other numbers to compare

I just used playoff wins as a barometer. There are teams that are world beaters in the regular season but as soon as they face a team thats had time to prepare they get rolled. Their RPI suggests they should have played a lot better in the post season. Again I am not suggesting they should have won any of those series, but they should have put up a fight.

The flavor of Bullshooter's response was Memphis was clearly a superior team and Joejoe was ignorant to question their star player because of that.

"If you're not going to compete, then I'll dominate you." MJ

by Rankdog on Aug 7, 2007 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

First of all

joejoe made an ignorant statement. Second, if one team makes it to the playoffs three years out of three and another only makes it two, all things being equal I say the team that made it three times is the better overall team if neither did anything in the playoffs. Plus Memphis had better RPI numbers each and every year.

What exactly is your argument? The Bulls took two from the Wiz one year? Who decided to make today "Talk out of your ass Tuesday?"

Need new sig

by bullshooter on Aug 7, 2007 4:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Talking out my ass some more...

I believe BOTH your statements were over the top. The Bulls won 2 games without their leading scorer (Curry) and without Luol Deng. The Griz got swept. Their RPI were similar (12 and 10).

My point (aka argument) is you cannot clearly state the Griz were better in EVERY year leading up to '07. The only season in their history you could say the Griz were clearly the better team was 2004. None of which has to do with what Joejoe said in the first damn place.

"If you're not going to compete, then I'll dominate you." MJ

by Rankdog on Aug 7, 2007 4:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

from 03-04 to 05-06

the grizzles won 144 games. The Bulls won 111, plus 4 playoff games. I'd say the Grizzles were the better team over that time in totality mostly on the strength of that first season. However, the Grizzles had more wins in two of the three seasons. The teams split their 6 head to head meetings. BTW, I never said any year, I said over the three years together.

Need new sig

by bullshooter on Aug 7, 2007 9:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

0-12 is better than 4-12 right?

If thats what you base your opinion on I can't really argue... cause thats your opinion. Personally I say there is more than story than a culimative win-loss record over a set 3 year spawn. The set 3 span you set in order to take a pop shot at Joejoe. If you took 04-07 you wouldn't had a leg stand on or footstool to peer down and call people ignorant. Sadly if it had a Griz fan getting in your face with same points you would probably agree on the majority of what I am saying.

"If you're not going to compete, then I'll dominate you." MJ

by Rankdog on Aug 8, 2007 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you add in last year

they are about even. Joejoe left, are you going too?

Pushing comments to the right for a while now!!!-------------------->

by bullshooter on Aug 8, 2007 10:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nah

I am still talking out of my ass. Thanks for asking.

"If you're not going to compete, then I'll dominate you." MJ

by Rankdog on Aug 9, 2007 7:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The 04-05, and 05-06 Grizz

were very good defensive teams too, ranking 6th and 2nd in defensive points per 100 possessions.

by hscs on Aug 7, 2007 2:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Flip it for the Bulls.

The Bulls ranked 2 and 6 in those years in the same category.

"If you're not going to compete, then I'll dominate you." MJ

by Rankdog on Aug 7, 2007 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

gotta make this quick before hscs

hey, dog, you said "does not make Gasol fit in system that emphasizes defense."

He's saying the Griz did play good defense, not that they were better than the Bulls defense.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 7, 2007 3:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't have an answer for that.

The system Brown ran in Memphis had a lot to do with pace and rotating people off the bench. Brown had system of keeping players under 20 mpg. The question is what role did Gasol play in that system and what role would he be expected to play under Skiles? The numbers suggest that Memphis played good defense and Gasol fit in. So I probably jumped the gun a bit on that statement. But I still feel Joejoe is not ignorant to question Gasol's individual defense and whether he would fit into the Bulls system.

"If you're not going to compete, then I'll dominate you." MJ

by Rankdog on Aug 7, 2007 4:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

well, sure

but Othella Harrington fit in the Bulls defensive system, as did Eddy Curry. Basically it involves the bigs moving a lot and falling down when hit :)

I think Gasol would be fine even if he's not a good individual defender, and that joejoe just assumed he didn't play defense due to the perception of the soft euro. But that's me being a mindreader, which isn't fair either.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 7, 2007 4:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

and I have to mention this

you'd come off less confrontational if you didn't have that M.Jeff signature.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 7, 2007 4:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have to pay homage

to MJ. He is the reason I am a Bulls fan to start with. I grew up in NY and sports debates are always confrontational. Especially when your team beat the hell out of the hometown team every year in the playoffs. Now if I pulled for the Sox instead of the Yankees I wouldn't have made it past High School.

"If you're not going to compete, then I'll dominate you." MJ

by Rankdog on Aug 7, 2007 4:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

the czar coached 70 games in 04-05

all of 05-06, and Gasol played 30+ MPG in Hubie's 2 full seasons as head coach.

by hscs on Aug 7, 2007 4:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

and the Czar

set the world on fire with his fast paced style with Cleveland. It was the same system different coach. Slow it down force it into half court limit possessions. I question whether its good defense or more a reflection of style of play. Either way that style of play hasn't worked since the Syracuse Nationals won the title before the shot clock.

"If you're not going to compete, then I'll dominate you." MJ

by Rankdog on Aug 7, 2007 4:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

it stopped the other team from scoring

the Bulls are unique in the good defense/a lot of offensive possessions department. Most of the better defensive teams played in slow motion last season.

by hscs on Aug 7, 2007 4:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Damn statics and lies..

In football they often use opponents yardage to measure how good a defense is. The problem is often bad teams give up field position limiting the amount of yardage the opposing offense can gain. Sure you only gave up 300 total yards but you lost the game 50-3. I feel the same way about the "slow the pace" style of basketball. I hated it when the Czar ran it in Cleveland. It will win you a far amount of regular season games and make your defense look good. Its hard to dictate your style of play to a team that is locked into you for 7 games.

"If you're not going to compete, then I'll dominate you." MJ

by Rankdog on Aug 7, 2007 5:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

uh-huh

Defensive efficiency is an estimate of the number of points allowed per 100 possessions, so pace isn't a factor. Those Grizz teams had good defensive players, and while I wouldn't put Gasol in that category he has blocked a lot of shots in his career. Slowing down the game didn't help the defenses of Portland and the Knicks last season.

by hscs on Aug 7, 2007 6:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Apples and Oranges

There is a difference between slowing down the game and an offense that goes through the pivot. Memphis deliberately ran down the shot clock in an effort to drastically reduce possessions. Portland and NY ran post up offenses through Z-bo and Curry.

Basically they played better defense by playing crappy offense. Its akin to football team that dominates time of possession. You could argue that possession by 100 says they played great defense. However, you can't rule out pace, in a game based on rhythm. For evidence look no further than the Dallas/GS playoff series to see how tempo effects a game.

"If you're not going to compete, then I'll dominate you." MJ

by Rankdog on Aug 7, 2007 9:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Chicken/egg

"Basically they played better defense by playing crappy offense."

I think everyone else is saying the opposite. Memphis played slow precisely because it maximized their defensive strengths. Those teams had a number of defenders who excelled at keeping their man in front of them, but didn't turn you over (e.g. Shane Battier, James Posey). It made sense to run a slow scheme that maximized those grind-it-out talents.

Also, you need to brush up on your understanding of defensive efficiency. It's a method of control used to identify the rate (e.g. efficiency) at which a team scores or prevents scoring. Seeing as how raw scoring numbers have no measure of control, they aren't nearly as accurate.

Bullets Forever, your Washington Wizards blog.

by Mike Prada on Aug 8, 2007 1:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Since you are reading my mind.

I understand what defensive efficiency is but it does not measure offensive rhythm. In the case of Memphis they played a game here the held the ball offensively in order to reduce the amount of possessions per game. This reflected in both the amount their team scored and amount their opponent scores. It doesn't effect defensive efficiency directly in the way that is measured but it certain does effect the ebb and flow of a basketball game. For a team that is used to getting their offense with in the flow of the game it can be disruptive. My question is if the Memphis ran a system such as late 80s Detroit or Rileys Heat/Knicks of the 90s would they have produced the same type of defensive efficiency? If that answer is no then the production is more result of the system than the talent of the individuals in the system. My guess its a mix of both like you mentioned in your previous post. Swift/Battier are above average defenders.

In the end how did it help Memphis? They didn't win a single playoff game, fans stopped watching cause its dull, and now they are back in the crapper.

I believe that if the Bulls and Memphis had played a play off series in either 05 or 06 the teams would be evenly matched. Their RPI in 05 was nearly indentical.

Just off the wall thought it would be interesting to run a case study showing the average time per possession vrs points yielded per 100 possession.

"If you're not going to compete, then I'll dominate you." MJ

by Rankdog on Aug 8, 2007 3:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

how about offensive beat?

I have a metronome handy.

by hscs on Aug 8, 2007 4:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Huh?

"My question is if the Memphis ran a system such as late 80s Detroit or Rileys Heat/Knicks of the 90s would they have produced the same type of defensive efficiency? If that answer is no then the production is more result of the system than the talent of the individuals in the system."

I'm missing the differences between those teams and Memphis circa 2004-2006. All of those teams played slow, just like Memphis did. Perhaps the Riley teams played slow because they were built around a dominant center, while the Grizzlies played slow because they had excellent man defenders, an underrated post presence in Gasol, and several excellent spot-up shooters. The bottom line though is that both played slow.

The system failed because they stupidly cast guys like Posey and Battier aside, even though they were tailor-made for that style. They never made moves to upgrade the weak spots of that team. Posey and Jason Williams were replaced by the decrepit Damon Stoudamire, Stromile Swift (after leaving the first time) was replaced by Jake Tsakalidis, and Battier was replaced by the unproven Rudy Gay. That left it all on Gasol's shoulders, and when he got hurt, so to did Memphis' chances. They didn't fall apart because of the system; they fell apart because of shoddy personnel moves that eliminated some of the guys best fit to run that system.

And as far as fans not watching, that's because they play in Memphis. I seem to remember Riley's Knick and Heat teams being pretty popular despite that style.

Bullets Forever, your Washington Wizards blog.

by Mike Prada on Aug 8, 2007 4:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Titless

Like I stated earlier in this thread there is a difference between a team that intentional hold the ball on offense to slow the game to a crawl and a team that runs their offense through the post. One of the teams he sited were the '07 NY Knicks. The Knicks ran a post game but clearly did not try to slow the game with gunners Crawford and Starbury. NY routinely scored over the 100 mark.

Memphis and the Fratello Cavs ran offenses that held the ball instead of attempting to score or take advantage of mismatches earlier in the possession. Thats crappy basketball in my opinion and hardly works in the playoffs when teams have time to prepare for you. That is why Memphis had to rebuild because the system was not made for the playoffs. They were a flawed team full of role players with one true star in Gasol. Which is why when making my argument I posted their playoff record.

I still feel strongly defensive production of those Memphis teams was a reflection of the slow down system they ran as well is the talent of the individual players. I may have overstated my position earlier in the thread but I have long since been over that point.

"If you're not going to compete, then I'll dominate you." MJ

by Rankdog on Aug 9, 2007 7:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And to answer your final question

There definitely is a correlation between playing slow and having a strong defensive efficiency, but it's not absolute. Many teams play slow and have terrible DEs (hscs mentioned a couple earlier).

Bullets Forever, your Washington Wizards blog.

by Mike Prada on Aug 8, 2007 4:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I love

threads that are so long that replies are no longer indented any further to the right.

by Repeat Threepeat on Aug 9, 2007 6:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Like this one

It is very far to the right.

by Repeat Threepeat on Aug 9, 2007 6:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Check again.

Look at the teams he sited and tell me if they truely ran an slow downed offense.

"If you're not going to compete, then I'll dominate you." MJ

by Rankdog on Aug 9, 2007 7:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

they did

I already linked to the Knickerblogger Stats Page that shows team offensive and defensive efficiency, as well as offensive possessions in 06-07.

by hscs on Aug 9, 2007 8:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

All I want is a championship

I would be upset if we traded one of the core, but all that anger would be gone if we one a ring. Thats all I really want is a championship, I could care less of who is on the team if at the end of the season everyone is in Grant Park celebrating championship number 7. I think that is one thing everyone on here can agree about.

by Wade.Jones on Aug 7, 2007 2:24 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs