BlogABull roster evaluation: take two
(Here is take one, although this isn't meant to use a similar format or anything...)
With Derrick Rose (or Beasley, of course) coming into the fold, it truly changes the dynamic of how this roster will be assessed.
Rose will be 20 years old by the time the season starts, and I think age is both an easy and useful way to group the roster once you get beyond the castoffs and contract filler (Duhon, Simmons, Brown, Nichols, Curry...maybe Gray):
Tyrus Thomas: 22
Luol Deng: 23
Joakim Noah: 23
Aaron Gray: 23
Thabo Sefolosha: 24
Ben Gordon: 25
<<<great chasm of age and shame>>>
Drew Gooden: 27
Kirk Hinrich: 27
Andres Nocioni: 28
Larry Hughes: 29
Separating the roster that way is biased and somewhat arbitrary, but it also coincides with the general consensus of when NBA players are either before or at their prime.
I'm not suggesting that Aaron Gray is more valuable than Drew Gooden because he's younger. However I do think that Paxson needs to think in terms of age relative to Rose (or Beasley, of course!). Merely adding a top-flight talent to the roster (and a coach that doesn't hate that roster) will work wonders, but the goal is to get a championship contender together when Rose (or....forget it: Rose.) is ready to lead them to that title. The old idea of 'the core' should be gone, with a new one forged from that first group of players, yet to hit their prime.
That long-term outlook can be tied into the more immediate goal of eliminating some roster glut, a problem that existed even before the lottery was won. I'm not suggesting getting rid of everyone at their prime (pretty nice to have nobody past it, I must say) for picks and cap space. This team is young enough already and teams do need veterans. But when Paxson is, smartly, exploring a trade to consolidate talent, those in the second group should be the ones moved, even if it's only to free up roster space, salary, and minutes. The Bulls can take in-prime talent back, as long as it's a result of fewer bodies with fewer contract years.
As always, if it's a deal for an upgrade, those yet to have hit their prime are then also in play (starting with Gray and Thabo, and work up from there). But beyond picking the right guy (Rose!) at #1, Paxson has work to do with this roster. There's too many players who need minutes and money. And as a side benefit, any shuffling of the deck further distances the franchise from last season.
5 recs |
396 comments
Comments
"The Bulls can take in-prime talent back, as long as it's a result of fewer bodies with fewer contract years."
Yes, as long as we have the cap space in 2010 to make a decent run at an historic unrestricted free agent class.
Don't call me doughboy!
by Khalid El-Amin on
Jun 16, 2008 11:40 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
This seems to favor the 'Trade Hinrich' camp...
and I definitely don’t mind that.
I would love to trade Hughes for literally nothing – I’m not sure what team if any would actually take him (cross your fingers…maybe the Knicks – Isaiah would’ve taken him).
by swede2287 on
Jun 16, 2008 11:44 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
What are the cap rules if we buy out his contract?
Don't call me doughboy!
by Khalid El-Amin on
Jun 16, 2008 11:49 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I have no idea.
It’s worth looking into though. I liked when the Blazers bought out Steve Francis – they had a #1 pick and a young team and they didn’t want Stevie Franchise anywhere near them. I’d like to cast off Hughes like they did. But I don’t know how the numbers would work.
by swede2287 on
Jun 16, 2008 11:55 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
How a Larry Hughes buy-out would affect the cap:
As per this website, a buy-out counts against the cap in the same proportion and for the same number of years as the salary does. So it would all depend on the agreed amount of the buy-out. Larry will have two years left on his contract, next season and the year after that, valued at $12.8M and $13.7M respectively, for a total compensation of $26.5M. In percentages, he’ll get 48.3% of his expected salary the first year and 51.7% of his expected salary the second year. Whatever the amount of his buy-out, those same fractions of the total will count against the cap over the two years he would have been on our payroll. That means that if we buy him out for the full amount, the effect on our cap would be exactly the same as if he were on our roster. If he agrees to less money, however (which is customary with buy-outs, I think), we would be lessening his impact on the cap. For instance, if the agreed buy-out was for $18M, 48.3% of that (or $8.7M) would still be on our cap the first year, and 51.7% (or 9.3M) would be on our cap the next. At least that’s the way I read it.
This, of course, assumes that Larry’s salary is fully guaranteed. I did a little bit of searching but couldn’t find any details on the extent to which Larry’s salary is NOT guaranteed. It is possible that his salary is only guaranteed for injury and illness and not for “lack of skill,” or it might be guaranteed at a percentage of the total. If only part of his salary were guaranteed, it might be better simply to waive him.
by arjoseph on
Jun 18, 2008 5:43 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i'd
like to see a hughes & thomas for zach randolph scenario… i’m sure d’antoni wants to unload 1 or his 2 lumbering big men. it makes the knicks quicker, and it clears space in the backcourt for the bulls, and gives the bulls another legitimate post scoring option. although it also gives them a nice new carcinogen to deal with.
by leeac on
Jun 17, 2008 12:13 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
sorry i couldn't stomach Z-BO
even if we got rid of Hughes.
And Thomas is the child BaB never had, so I wouldn’t suggest him in trade talk (unless its for a superstar).
Z-BO is a cancer and shouldn’t touch our young team.
by swede2287 on
Jun 17, 2008 12:17 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That's one trade where we get worse
We’d be better off keeping Hughes and his 2010 expiring contract. Randolph would add more years, more salary, and more headaches. Putting his character around Thomas, Rose, and Noah would pollute the locker room as well.
We should want no part of Zach Randolph except as an intermediary passthrough device to facilitate a trade to another team.
by NBA Observer on
Jun 17, 2008 9:01 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
NO TO DAT DEAL!!!!
Tryus will be better off with a point guard that can break down a defense
CHICAGO MANE!!!!
by YEP on
Jun 17, 2008 9:04 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
PS: Randolph and crew reportedly destroyed a nightclub
last month in Portland.
Randolph unique skillset will still attract suitors. I just don’t know if there are enough Isiah Thomas’ in the NBA anymore.
by NBA Observer on
Jun 17, 2008 9:34 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Zach Randolph just got in a fight in Portland....with gang members
Yes, that’s the veteran leadership we are all about!
Seriously, if a team thinks a 20/10 guy is that detrimental to team success that they trade him for a mediocre role player (Frye), and another player they just intended to buy out (Francis), I don’t think the Bulls should ever in a 10000 years consider acquiring Zach Randolph.
by Ozzie Montana on
Jun 17, 2008 9:45 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Is that you?
Donny Walsh is undercover
by TRiCioNeRo on
Jun 17, 2008 12:49 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yeah, Zach Randolph is a stud
That’s why the Bucks GM was fired for even trying to acquire him.
by Ozzie Montana on
Jun 17, 2008 1:50 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
To be fair...
Portland also got a trade exception from sending three guys (Fred Jones being the third guy) for only two guys. That was a key part of the deal, as that trade exception + $3M was used to get James Jones and Rudy Fernandez for free.
But yeah, the Randolph and Dickau for Frye part is pretty extreme. Randolph has no trade value right now since he’s overpaid (with three more years on his contract) with the “cancer” label. Add in the negative intangibles from his (lack of) defense…
by poster on
Jun 17, 2008 2:49 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
for a buyout
the player’s contract still sits on the cap, it just frees up the roster spot
by carlirvington on
Jun 17, 2008 8:23 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That's interesting that you attributed value with age...
at least for the most part. I hadn’t thought of it like that – but it makes sense.
I appreciate that Duhon is considered the castoff and not a part of the equation.
I’m guessing you believe it would be smart to sign both Gordon and Deng and sign-and-trades aren’t likely.
Of the “veterans”, I’d most want to hold onto Gooden and maybe Noc.
I’m a huge fan of us building a title contender – through running a tight budget and saving money where we can. The model franchises aka Spurs have shown the importance of managing the salary cap and being efficient.
It will be interesting to see how Pax plays this.
by swede2287 on
Jun 17, 2008 12:03 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Sure...
But that Model franchise also has Tim Duncan, maybe the best power forward ever.
Pretty easy to build around that, especially when they got role player guys like Finley (who had previously been bought out for major dollars) for veteran’s minimum because he wanted to win a title.
It’skind of which came first, the chicken or the egg scenario. Win games and decent role players will come for less if they think they’ll win a ring. Also having a legit big man superstar always helps.
Wasn’t that how the dynasty Bulls kind of did it too? Although they didn’t have the burden of a salary cap I think.
Don't call me doughboy!
by Khalid El-Amin on
Jun 17, 2008 12:32 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That's all true.
But they are a model franchise for running an NBA franchise and dealing with the salary cap. That’s all I said – don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone argue that.
The Bulls will soon have their player to build around – Rose. They now need to clean up salary situations so we can put the right, young pieces to hopefully build a title contender.
by swede2287 on
Jun 17, 2008 12:46 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think it's also great
to see these players grouped by age. When they eventually decide that they will not get the value they would want for the number one pick in a trade and then use that pick to sign Rose or Beasley, they will realize that whether they like it or not they will be rebuilding(they probably already have all this figured out). Because the new focal point of the franchise will not be ready to contend for anything except for maybe a first round playoff exit. So it is VITAL that they put good, young, hopefully hard working players around him that can grow into something special. And echoing what has been said, minutes are almost as important as talent. You need to be able to play these young guys (right Jim Boylan?) and develop them and not be pressured into playing veterans just cause they’re making money and have a track record. And to respond to something that was posted elsewhere on this page, under NO CIRCUMSTANCE should they go after Zach Randolph! Randolph is the poster child for the type of player that we don’t need and need to avoid like the plague. The minute that Portland got the first pick they were trying to figure out a way to get him as far away from Greg Oden as possible.
by Juiceboxjerry on
Jun 17, 2008 2:00 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i
would argue that a player like gooden is non-expendable at this time with this team and with this potential future core, unless, of course, the bulls find themselves well out of playoff contention near the end of next season, or another team dangles a more productive 4 in return (unlikely). gooden is the closest thing the bulls have to a post ‘presence’, and he is a solid, if unspectacular, 4 who can log productive minutes at the 5. if your idea of the future #1 options at PF and C are thomas and noah, the bulls will need almost continual insurance at those spots as these two have not proven that they can string together a few good games, let alone be consistently productive over the course of a season (understanding noah was in his first season).
i’m not in disagreement with your analysis for a future core, but i don’t think gooden is as expendable as people seem to think he is. he’ll be in the last year of his contract, but if the bulls smell playoffs, the bulls would be remiss to move him to free up roster space, salary or minutes.
by leeac on
Jun 17, 2008 12:09 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
yes
solid but unspectacular.
adding a Derrick Rose might make his game look much better.
his contract is very movable, however.
he’s a legit pro on the low post—our ONLY legit pro on the low post.
Pax would be remiss to deal him.
by Orlando Woolridge on
Jun 17, 2008 1:05 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That's like saying Paxson would have been remiss to deal Joe Smith
last season. Gooden’s can be a decent player, but there’s a reason Cleveland traded him. Just because Gooden has a post move or two doesn’t mean he should be posting up regularly either. He’s one of the most valuable trading chips and doesn’t fit the long term picture. There’s no reason to hold on to him if Paxson can get something in return and move longterm contracts.
formerly sbulls
by Scotter on
Jun 17, 2008 2:00 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Gooden is 27, Joe Smith is 33.
That age gap alone makes that comparison tough. I completely agree with leeac & Woolridge- Gooden is a solid guy to have on the roster right now and I think we’ll have a hard time moving him for something better. Besides, him having “a post move or two” means he has 2 more post moves than the rest of the roster.
by smash! on
Jun 17, 2008 7:07 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
He's also on expiring deal, which means if your going to waste
this year on feeding Gooden in the post then he has to be resigned. We’re right back to the Boylan era then. There seems to be this confusion here that post scoring is automatically this wonderfully efficient method of scoring. It’s not, especially when it’s a third tier post player like Gooden. Did Boylan posting Gooden actually make the team better on offense? I haven’t seen any evidence of that.
formerly sbulls
by Scotter on
Jun 17, 2008 11:57 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
In fact, I don't think Gooden's that good'n the post.
I saw him fumble the ball away at the rim way too many times.
Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky
by alec on
Jun 17, 2008 12:00 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Good point
He isnt good at all 3rd tier is about right I wouldnt even have him in the top 25 in the post
by TRiCioNeRo on
Jun 17, 2008 12:56 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I like your arrangement.
If, as you say, the guys in the second group are the ones you want to move, that also helps you define your market/trading partner, namely, any team that thinks it’s ready to win right now.
A "win now" team will want in-prime talent that’s playing right now at its peak. For that talent, they will be more willing to trade away a talented but not yet fully developed player…OR an older, past his prime player that the Bulls could turn into a year-end salary dump.
Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky
by alec on
Jun 17, 2008 12:44 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I'd guess the latter's more likely
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jun 17, 2008 8:43 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
In the very first Rose-Beasley thread
I made a comment about how in drafting Rose we need to recognize that our window for a Championship will be “pushed back” a few years, and that all personnel decisions will now need to reflect the revised window of opportunity. Needless to say, I agree with Matt on his similar point, although I disagree about the approximate prime years of an NBA player and I would not hesitate to retain a 27- or 28-year old player who might be 30 or 31 when our window of opportunity would “open”. (Don’t take this to mean that I want to retain Gooden, Kirk, or Noce – I want them gone, but not because of their age).
I have an Excel file that includes a graphical representation of the Bulls depth chart, with ages and projected level of performance, as well as salary data, that I’d be interested in uploading and sharing if I could figure out how that stuff works. The graphic is nearly identical to the Tufte-like infographics that Nate Silver has used to analyze baseball franchises over at Baseball Prospectus. I put it together when I couldn’t sleep on the night of July 3, 2006, after the Ben Wallace signing was announced, and I’ve maintained it ever since. (Hopefully the excitement generated from the Derrick Rose selection will be better served than the Wallace nightmare!).
If someone can point me in the right direction regarding the file uploading/embedding, I’ll try to post it in a Fanpost at some point. Thanks.
Parental Advisory - Explicit Content
by Jivas on
Jun 17, 2008 3:36 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I wouldn't say I'm hesitant to keep a player that age
just that they shouldn’t be hesitant to deal a player that age.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jun 17, 2008 8:44 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Ever used Google spreadsheets?
You can make those files publicly available. I don’t think everything is compatible with Excel, especially charts. However, there is also the Microsoft Office Live website that reportedly does allow you share Excel files, full file details and all, with the public.
by NBA Observer on
Jun 17, 2008 9:05 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Thanks, NBAO
I’ll have to look into it sometime. Between work and two separate vacations the next couple of weeks, I’m not sure I’ll have the chance to do this. HOWEVA, it’s really something that is germane at any point during the offseason, so I suppose posting the graphic after all offseason moves wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world.
Parental Advisory - Explicit Content
by Jivas on
Jun 17, 2008 10:35 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Sad to admit
But Noce needs a change of address. I love his hustle but soured on him last year as his offensive game was very selfish with a shoot-first attitude. Gooden was as advertised: A couple of great games followed by one where he disappeared. But I think he can help the Bulls and improve his game with a strong point guard (Rose) leading the way.
by chetwalkerssweatsocks on
Jun 17, 2008 6:27 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Agree
He’s the most likely to be traded this summer in my mind. Unless Pax can get a legit big man for Hinrich and Gooden, I don’t think either of them goes anywhere. Hughes’ contract keeps him in the fold, unfortunately. That leaves Noce. In my opinion, he won’t be a better backup option than Thabo at the 3, and he won’t be a better backup option than Gooden at 4.
You guys think we can get Elton Brand for Noce and the trade exemption?
by Ceasaleo on
Jun 17, 2008 8:29 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
think it doesn't work
can’t combine the trade exception for a player…and that trade sucks for the Clippers.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jun 17, 2008 8:45 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think Noch...
will play better depending on how Vinny coaches him…everybody played selfish under Boylan
CHICAGO MANE!!!!
by YEP on
Jun 17, 2008 9:08 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Get Miami involved
They want Brand. I really don’t want him on the Bulls. But the Heat could also be interested in Hinrich and Nocioni. If Brand is moving, say to the Heat, would the Clips have interest in Hinrich AND Nocioni.
I don’t know who we get back in these scenarios. I like to start spec trades with the player I want to acquire rather than the player I want to move.
by NBA Observer on
Jun 17, 2008 9:24 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i was going to say
who would we get back in that scenario?
miami = blech
by Jaina on
Jun 17, 2008 9:25 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Bulls
Bulls get Maggette, Shawn Livingston’s knee caps and (Miami) Daequan Cook (outside shot SG).
Heat get Hinrich, Brand
Clippers get Jason Williams, Noc, either or a combination of Ricky Davis(expiring), Udonis Haslem or Shawn Marion (and he can choose to opt out)
by exult463 on
Jun 17, 2008 5:58 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Any trade we make has to be an upgrade trade
You want to trade two players for three? We don’t need to stockpile MORE talent. We need to convert some of our somewhat-valuable guys into a smaller quantity of more-valuable guys. I think our best bet will be a two-for-one or a three-for-two to get very quality starter-level people (i.e., in any deal involving Brand, WE WANT BRAND, not the other scraps the Clips want to unload).
by arjoseph on
Jun 18, 2008 6:22 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I like the idea
but in practice it doesn’t work so well. Just because certain players have not yet hit their ‘prime’ doesn’t mean anything spectacular is going to happen once they do.
e.g. Ben Gordon will still be way undersized for his position two years from now. I guess you could say that he could work on his handles and his defense but if he doesn’t have them by now, he never will. As much fun as he is to watch (when hes taking good shots), hes just as painful to watch when hes taking bad shots.
Aaron Gray has always been big and slow; that was his game in college. Joakim Noah has always been a hustle player, and thats what we drafted him for.
Everyone seems to be down on this roster because of this past season, but I think its a huge overreaction. We had contract trouble with both “star” players before the season started, trade rumors involving just about the entire team as the season got going, one coach who decided trashing his team was better than coaching them, and another coach who had no clue what he was doing. Throw in all the hissy-fits with players, and the fact that we had two of the most overpaid players in the league on our team (Wallace/Hughes), and I’m surprised we won 33 games.
No matter who we draft (Rose or Beasley), if the team does well next year, it will be because of a fresh start for these same players who had us thinking about making it to the finals a year ago.
by darksmokepuncher on
Jun 17, 2008 6:35 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
This illustrates the true new core
which most of us here at BaB already figured to include Ty, Thabo, and Noah. Aaron Gray can take his ball and go home, though.
What the roster also illustrates is that you likely have your starting five in place with Rose, Thabo, Deng, Ty, and Noah. And while I’d love to see a deal involving a package of Hinrich and Gooden, I think you’re going to have to deal one from the new core on top of this to avoid further exacerbating the existing issue of a roster glut. So I think the Bulls will have to use the second tier of older players in combination with one of the young core in order to upgrade that starting five. Something like a Hinrich, Deng, and Gooden for a Carmelo Anthony would address this by replacing Deng with a much better 24-year old SF and actually freeing up some playing time for others on the roster.
by messwiththebull on
Jun 17, 2008 9:21 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
well, that's an upgrade deal
I’d say at least start with a package of Hinrich and Gooden just to get one player back.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jun 17, 2008 9:26 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Agreed
I’d take greater cap relief than Gooden alone would provide in return for those two guys. The key is to limit the amount of bodies received in return, or if there will be a potential for duplicity, make it a upgrade without sacrificing youth.
by messwiththebull on
Jun 17, 2008 9:33 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I agree that we'll probably *have* to trade of the premium core players
As much as I don’t want to. We all have a great talent of making realistic-sounding trade offers that include some combination of our secondary players for something of great value. However, most NBA teams are far too savvy for such a deal, and will insist on one of the premium players to be included if anything of real value was to be provided in the deal.
Parental Advisory - Explicit Content
by Jivas on
Jun 17, 2008 10:39 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Would it be productive to add to this post
a list or an invitation of debate in terms of what positions or players we would want to add to the Bulls roster?
We could discuss moving existing players all day and still be at the same start point. What we need to add to the discussion is the players or positions we want to acquire.
At what position are we strong? At what position are we weak? What kind of player do we want coming off the bench? Do we want scoring? What kind of scoring? Outside shooters? Cutters? Do we want defense? Do we want rebounding?
I think there are clubs that need a starting point guard in Hinrich and would give up some of their stronger bench production and future picks/fillers to get him. I also think there are clubs that will give up a starter that has the future starter already on their bench in order to shore up their bench by acquiring Nocioni.
I think our biggest need, moving beyond the draft where we select Rose, is the front court at PF and Center. I think we have our starters in Thomas and Noah, but after that it is Drew Gooden and Aaron Gray. Two players that interest me are Pryzbilla and Chris Wilcox.
If snley reads this, there are ways we can use the #1 overall pick to arrange the lottery selections to our favor. There are lottery teams that have real needs that cannot be met with selections in this draft. The club might just take the best player available anyway, but we can speculate with our #1 pick on who we might select as a way of moving Beasley down the board, other players up the board, so that another team acquires a player at a position they already have an existing player so to make that player more likely to be traded.
For example, if you can engineer a move of Beasley down to #4 then the Sonics select him and Wilcox becomes trade material. If you move one player down then other players move up. Memphis at #5 has many needs. One of their biggest needs is a bench. Chapu to Memphis for ??? It’s a contract dump. Want Brian Cardinal?
These are speculative moves. My theme here is get us talking about major moves between multiple teams as a way of using the #1 overall pick, and our 1.7 percent luck of certainty, into a 1.7 chance at advancing to the 2nd round of the 08-09 postseason.
by NBA Observer on
Jun 17, 2008 9:21 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't think they need much
just an opportunity to play often and together. That’s why I’m not that hung up on what we get back, as long as Hinrich/Gooden/Noc/Hughes are moved for fewer bodies and contract years. As opposed to an obsession with finding the right mid-level big man.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jun 17, 2008 9:28 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Agreed.
Anything positive* they can get from that older tier is what they should go for. For those guys, Paxson shouldn’t be looking to “win” trades, only to position the team better for the future.
*positive = less years, younger/more potential, draft picks, more harmonious personalities, etc.
by tyger1147 on
Jun 17, 2008 9:32 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Tell me one reasonable scenario how the Bulls "engineer" moving Beasley down the board.
Until you do that, you’re bordering on ridiculous. People have called you out, and you’ve yet to say how the Bulls can actually accomplish this. Unless it’s shown as reasonably possible, then to answer your first question: “No. It’s not productive to do that.”
by tyger1147 on
Jun 17, 2008 9:28 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
OTOH, I do like the idea of getting into more concrete trade ideas.
cranscape and I got into this a few days ago. It’s one thing to just speculate everything on theory, but let’s also talk about some “real”, reasonably possible, concrete, etc. ideas that could actually happen.
by tyger1147 on
Jun 17, 2008 9:30 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Once tyger calls you out and
decides you are not allowed to speculate like everyone else does here you are pretty much screwed. I wouldn’t bother with him unless you got a copy of Tyger’s Guide to Posting in easy reach.
by cranscape on
Jun 17, 2008 10:27 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Wow. I didn't think we had a disagreement like that.
I guess we’re not allowed to disagree on this site at all anymore, for fear of someone’s feelings getting hurt. Speculation is obviously fine, but I’d like to at least have a practical idea of what someone actually means.
But if you want to jump on the NBAO bandwagon, by all means….
by tyger1147 on
Jun 17, 2008 10:36 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Can you name the trades from last season that were practical?
Please tell me you think Kwame Brown, Javaris Crittendon, Aaron McKey, and picks for Gasol was a practical, reasonably concrete trade proposal that was executed.
Nobody knows how deals will shake out. Variables are in play that lead to poor decisions, rushed decisions, and desperate money saving decisions.
Ben Wallace and Ben Gordon for Amare Stoudamire and Raja Bell wasn’t happening. But Shawn Marion and Marcus Banks for Shaq did.
by NBA Observer on
Jun 17, 2008 10:40 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Well, give me something, though.
Don’t just say: the Bulls should influence the rest of the draft w/ their deceptiveness. At least give an example how. It took you like 30 comments (previous and here) to at least come up w/ something.
by tyger1147 on
Jun 17, 2008 10:53 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
for example...
saying: “The Lakers should trade for a star-like big man to replace Bynum, but they shouldn’t give up anything” is one thing. And it’s a stupid thing. Saying, however: “The Lakers might be able to trade for Gasol on the cheap if they can play the cap situation right” is something completely different.
Maybe I’m arguing semantics and am the only one seeing things like this. The former is pretty much “un-discussable” because of its vagueness. The latter can, at least, be discussed in some manner.
by tyger1147 on
Jun 17, 2008 10:57 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
agreed.
I haven’t been following this little post battle very closely, but I agree with this…
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 11:03 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Based on past
shrewdness (or lack of it) from the Bulls it is likely any team but us could orchestrate something like that. Though with VDN’s GM experience perhaps Pax’s lack of deal making will be offset a bit.
The statement above is all speculation. I claim no concreteness nor have the ability to back it up with insider information.
by cranscape on
Jun 17, 2008 10:59 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Can you clarify your example?
I don’t see how, by announcing they’re going to draft Rose, the Bulls could possibly manipulate where Beasley is drafted behind them. Or are you suggesting the Bulls draft Beasley only to deal him to Seattle for the #4 and Wilcox?
We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look.
Ronald Reagan
by snley on
Jun 17, 2008 9:29 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
we must all wait
for NBAO to actually ‘see’ the trade before it happens first. Then he’ll come down from the mountaintop and let us all know.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jun 17, 2008 9:33 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Bring me a virgin
and not one of those “recertified virgins”.
;)
by NBA Observer on
Jun 17, 2008 9:53 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Heat getting Mayo
Riley won’t draft Beasley to play for the Miami Heat. He may select him, but for another club. Beasley doesn’t fit the Riley profile. He prefers bigs that he can dump it into the post in a half court set that won’t give nullify every make with a giveaway bucket at the other end. Beasley’s D will take away whatever he gives you.
Riley does like Brand who is also a little undersized in terms of height, but Brand is wide and offensive player do not move around him to get to the rim with ease. If they score on Brand it’s by hitting jumpers or running moves, but predominantly via lower percentage shot attempts.
Moving down the board. If Miami isn’t drafting Beasley to play for the Heat, for whom is he drafting him? You have to ask who wants Beasley? Wolves at #3? Sonics certainly at #4. Memphis definitely at #5.
Are the Wolves going to take in Beasley when Kevin McHale spent an entire season of moves to build around Al Jefferson? Does he want another offensive power forward that will yield whatever he produces? McHale isn’t drafting Beasley to play for the Wolves. Back in the Riley saddle. Does he let Beasley slide and just take the player that the Wolves actually need in Brook Lopez? Could he take Bayless and add yet another combo guard to a roster that already has 4 of them? The Wolves could use a PG that can shoot the three merely as a decoy to dump it into low post beast Jefferson. Keep the perimeter defender on the PG. Hinrich does that. Telfair does not. Can you pair Bayless with Foye/McCants? They all do the same thing.
Still with me or already abandoning ship?
by NBA Observer on
Jun 17, 2008 9:48 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Wouldn't Minnesota just draft Mayo if Miami passed up on him?
He seems like a logical fit, their wing players aren’t exactly spectacular.
by Ozzie Montana on
Jun 17, 2008 9:52 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Right.
The problem is, Mayo has only agreed to work out for NY, Miami, Chicago and L.A.Clips.
McHale is trying to get Mayo to agree to see the Minnesota staff if they all fly down here to Chicago, but I haven’t seen that Mayo’s representation has agreed to that yet.
There seems to be more of the Yi stuff from last year going on this year than ever before. Memphis, for example, may be forced to take Kevin Love—simply because he has sounded amenable to playing there.
Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky
by alec on
Jun 17, 2008 10:03 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That's crazy...
Not that I’m doubting you, but did Mayo come out and say he wouldn’t play in Minnesota?
Don't call me doughboy!
by Khalid El-Amin on
Jun 17, 2008 10:37 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
No, not said
but clearly conveyed. Declining to work out for a team is what, the “Steve Francis Treatment”. I’m sure someone did this before Steve Francis did this to the Vancouver Grizzlies.
by NBA Observer on
Jun 17, 2008 10:41 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
can't remember who
but i know there was a high profile person who forced a trade well before steve francis.
by Jaina on
Jun 17, 2008 10:50 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
John Elway maybe?
Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky
by alec on
Jun 17, 2008 11:03 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
John Elway didn't want to go to the Vacouver Grizzlies?
I don’t blame him.
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 11:04 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
David Thompson?
But didn’t he just play in the ABA or something?
Don't call me doughboy!
by Khalid El-Amin on
Jun 17, 2008 11:06 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Kobe Bryant...
Traded for Vlade Divac.
Don't call me doughboy!
by Khalid El-Amin on
Jun 17, 2008 11:10 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
there's also the 'Yi' treatment
where they drafted him anyway, and he got over it.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jun 17, 2008 11:03 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
In retrospect...
I would imagine the Bucks wish they drafted somebody else.
Don't call me doughboy!
by Khalid El-Amin on
Jun 17, 2008 11:05 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
looks like
it’s happening to MJ and Larry Brown too
by NormVanBeer on
Jun 17, 2008 11:07 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Ah ha...
There was Jaina’s example… Kobe Bryant!
Masterminding trades even as a high schooler. He should have won executive of the year. Best GM ever.
Don't call me doughboy!
by Khalid El-Amin on
Jun 17, 2008 11:09 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i was actually going to say
i think it was longer ago than kobe. and that i think alec wins – it might be john elway!
however, i found this article while trying to search for what i was talking about…. hilarious.
by Jaina on
Jun 17, 2008 11:15 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That's awesome.
Great find Jaina, good thing those Nets didn’t get stuck with that Bryant kid.
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 11:22 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Oh dear...
Kerry Kittles over Bryant! That had to be the beginning of the end for Calipari. Not that it would have been immediately clear that Bryant was a budding star, but when your franchise is resting on the shoulders of Kittles… Well…
Don't call me doughboy!
by Khalid El-Amin on
Jun 17, 2008 11:23 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Not as bad as Bowie over Jordan
But, holy shit that’s just horrible luck.
by Ozzie Montana on
Jun 17, 2008 1:55 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Nothing is as bad as Bowie over Jordan...
Probably the single worst missed pick of all time.
At least Houston can take solace in the two titles with Hakeem, but Portland… Well… Hindsight is 20/20.
Don't call me doughboy!
by Khalid El-Amin on
Jun 17, 2008 5:39 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Picking Kwame Brown...
OVER ANYBODY>>>>THATS A MISTAKE MAN!!
On Behalf of Sue, Wjb, Bullshooter, and all the other Hinrich fans...Ill keep the Hinrich Hope coming...There will be light....
by piccolomair on
Jun 18, 2008 1:23 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Wow,
Even kevin Love is trying to dictate who drafts him.
by RogersPark Kris on
Jun 17, 2008 11:23 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yep
But he also may have commitments from teams drafting 1-8 to select him. He also may not want to expose himself in a workout.
Love probably just has a draft promise already in place so he’s only working out for teams drafting before that promise or a few slots after it.
by NBA Observer on
Jun 17, 2008 11:27 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
"got over it"
by having Herb Kohl, et al, travel to China to 65@267731.htm”>resolve it.
by NBA Observer on
Jun 17, 2008 11:12 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I probably confused you
Here’s my draft board by definition of which team wants which player.
1) Bulls;Rose
2) Heat; Mayo
3) Wolves;B. Lopez
4) Sonics;Beasley
5) Grizzlies;best player on the board
This is my draft board based on whom the team will draft. Note that I think that after the player is drafted a trade will be announced a few picks later with the players final destination.
1) Bulls;Rose
2) Heat;Beasley
3) Wolves;Mayo
4) Sonics;Bayless
5) Grizzlies;No freaking clue(needs low post scoring, rebounding, likely K. Love)
Any less confused?
by NBA Observer on
Jun 17, 2008 10:17 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It makes more sense...
...but no more clear on how the Bulls can influence this.
by tyger1147 on
Jun 17, 2008 10:23 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Lopez over Beasley?
I don’t see any team in the league doing this. I think they would just play Jefferson at the 5, or trade out of the pick.
Plenty of teams will want Beasley, so they can get better value through trade then B. Lopez.
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 10:44 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
or even beasley at the 3
since he’s got a good jumper.
by gman2849 on
Jun 17, 2008 10:45 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
He could definitely work there.
Minnesota would be ecstatic if he fell to them, and I doubt they would even pursue a trade.
Don't call me doughboy!
by Khalid El-Amin on
Jun 17, 2008 10:49 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Especially after watching Hoiberg's body language at the draft lottery,
you could tell he really wanted to be in that top 2. If the Heat somehow decide to just pass on Beasley instead of trading down, I don’t see any way that Minnesota passes on him.
Plus he played for K-State in Manhattan, so he’s used to playing on teams that suck in the middle of nowhere! ;)
Here's to what was suppose to be the most exciting offseason in years, but has instead spiraled downward into pitiful morass of indecision. Cheers!
by wjb1492 on
Jun 17, 2008 10:52 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Hoiberg...
He almost dropped his teddy bear :(
Don't call me doughboy!
by Khalid El-Amin on
Jun 17, 2008 11:04 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Interesting that in neither of these scenarios...
Do you have the Bulls taking Beasley, yet you insist that we keep this big secret (although obvious to you) until just moments before the draft.
As if Miami will be scrambling to start looking at footage of this new kid “Beasley” when somehow Rose is no longer available at the 11th hour.
David Stern: And with the first pick of the draft the Chicago Bulls choose Derrick Rose from Memphis.
Long silent pause in the Miami draft room…
Pat Riley: Wait, what just happened?
Micky Arison: I think they said Derrick Rose.
Pat Riley: That can’t be?
Micky Arison: You told me they wouldn’t pick him!
Pat Riley: How was I supposed to know he would go #1? He was #2 on Draft express for months!
Micky Arison: #2… That’s our pick you idiot!
Pat Riley: Crap, maybe we better start looking at footage of this Beasley kid… Or wait, maybe OJ Mayo… Oh screw it all to hell let’s just go with Kenny George and call it a day.
Micky Arison: Kenny George?
Pat Riley: Sure, I haven’t seen him play yet, but he’s 7 foot 7!
Micky Arison: Perfect, we need that kind of size next to that shrimp Marion!
Pat Riley: Yes, score another round for Riley baby!
Don't call me doughboy!
by Khalid El-Amin on
Jun 17, 2008 11:38 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
discussion leaps
This might help you.
http://www.blogabull.com/2008/6/16/553272/blogabull-roster-evaluatio#6806085
by NBA Observer on
Jun 17, 2008 11:41 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Oh man...
I read that too, it’s still a bunch of blog conjecture. Riley (and everyone else) will be ready no matter what we do, count on it.
Don't call me doughboy!
by Khalid El-Amin on
Jun 17, 2008 11:43 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Good lord
Did you read it? Because I never say Riley or any other club will be playing marbles with Mickey Arison like you did.
by NBA Observer on
Jun 17, 2008 11:52 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Maybe not...
But you have more than implied that we have ultimate control of the draft by not letting on who we’ll pick first… Yet everytime we’ll pick Rose.
Just because you are the only one here who can see the future doesn’t mean that other teams won’t be ready for it.
Don't call me doughboy!
by Khalid El-Amin on
Jun 17, 2008 11:56 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
At least this is what I was able to decipher...
From these cryptic tea leaves you keep leaving around here.
Don't call me doughboy!
by Khalid El-Amin on
Jun 17, 2008 11:59 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I can't see the future
and we don’t have ultimate control. We just have GREATER control by way of our 1.7% chance.
We’re holding pocket aces. What do we need to do to get every other player to tell us what they’re holding. We posses the means to tilt the table in our direction. Why tell anyone what we’re holding?
by NBA Observer on
Jun 17, 2008 12:05 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
But, everybody knows we have either the King or the Ace, so they have already planned accordingly.
It’s not like they aren’t capable of planning for two different situation’s.
Nobody thinks we are taking anybody but Rose or Beasley, so we hold very little mystique.
I guess we don’t need to tell anybody what we’re holding, but to act like there is some great mystery is a bit presumptious.
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 12:13 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
HOOOOOOWWWWW?!?!?
You still haven’t explained how the Bulls hold any greater control, and further… how it even benefits the Bulls.
by tyger1147 on
Jun 17, 2008 12:13 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Read my comments
I’ve avoided replying to yours and chosen to reply to others because you are acting like an ass. Or maybe a windbag.
The differences between those terms are negligible. The good news is that the terms are temporary.
by NBA Observer on
Jun 17, 2008 1:49 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'll concede this argument...
But only because I don’t want you travel back through time and beat me up on my way to kindergarten.
In all seriousness though NBAO, I really don’t think the Bulls should be all that concerned with what happens after us. Sure we can have greater control (marginal difference at best), but we are already the kid with the microscope standing over the ant mound.
Holding our cards till the last possible second only means that the next two teams have to work out two or three players instead of one… Which they would probably do anyway.
Don't call me doughboy!
by Khalid El-Amin on
Jun 17, 2008 12:14 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Brook Lopez stock appears to have dropped significantly...
I don’t see him being picked as high as 3.
Plus – obviously the Wolves want Mayo if you think they will pick him ahead of Lopez.
So you’re saying that these team would trade for their desired players? The Heat for Mayo, the Sonics for Beasley, the Wolves for Lopez….
Don’t see that much trade action happening.
by swede2287 on
Jun 17, 2008 11:44 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
A short list
Jeff Green wasn’t drafted by the Sonics.
Brandon Roy wasn’t drafted by the Blazers.
Tyrus Thomas wasn’t drafted by the Bulls.
Brandon Wright wasn’t drafted by the Warriors.
More trades occur on draft day than anticipated. This year seems to show a higher rate of trade speculation on draft day. It may pan out to produce even less than prior years.
by NBA Observer on
Jun 17, 2008 11:54 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
need brook lopez sounds
an awfully lot like portland needs sam bowie.
beasley is probably never gonna be michael jordon, but I think he’ll beat the crap out of lopez in talent…
by gman2849 on
Jun 17, 2008 10:04 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Agreed...
IMO the talent level isn’t even close.
Don't call me doughboy!
by Khalid El-Amin on
Jun 17, 2008 10:38 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The talent gap is wide
But Glen Taylor’s leash on McHale is not. Taylor has been eating McHale’s mistakes for some time now. It’s do or die for Kevin in Minnesota.
Does McHale get fans in the Target Center with Beasley at a position they already have a budding all-star or does he get them there by selecting players that will make the Wolves competitive so they can, you know, win games.
by NBA Observer on
Jun 17, 2008 10:44 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If his leash were that short, he would be in win now mode. So he would trade for the pick (Beasley) for a proven veteren.
Or he would make Glen Taylor some quick cash by selecting Beasley and selling some season tickets.
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 10:46 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
in spite of not being the best fit
having Beasley will win them more games than having Brook Lopez.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jun 17, 2008 10:50 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
And be a much bigger draw for fans than B Lopez!
Here's to what was suppose to be the most exciting offseason in years, but has instead spiraled downward into pitiful morass of indecision. Cheers!
by wjb1492 on
Jun 17, 2008 10:53 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
exactly...
And the manner in which they win them would be fun to watch (IE: fans would pay money to sit there).
I watched A TON of Pac 10 basketball this year (my brother went to U of A and he stayed with me for about two months). Lopez has SIZE, but he is boring as hell to watch.
Beasley would win them some games and fill the seats. Just play him at the 3 or move Jefferson over to the 5.
Don't call me doughboy!
by Khalid El-Amin on
Jun 17, 2008 10:53 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
right, it's not that difficult
if it winds up not working eventually…the horror! two young offensive machines! Minnesota surely wouldn’t be able to escape that mess. Okay, McHale would manage to screw it up, but as a general rule that team needs talent, anywhere.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jun 17, 2008 10:55 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think even I would even
want to watch some of their games : )
by gman2849 on
Jun 17, 2008 10:55 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
sorry about the quick unedited
post
by gman2849 on
Jun 17, 2008 10:56 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
hah,
You got so excited about watching Timberwolves games that you couldn’t type straight.
Imagine what they would do in Minny if the Wolves got Beasley…
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 10:57 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Also, I'm not sure that Mchale has a leash...
If he ddn’t get fired for the Joe Smith fiasco or the KG trade, then honestly what’s it going to take?
Don't call me doughboy!
by Khalid El-Amin on
Jun 17, 2008 11:03 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Who we take #1?
We take Derrick Rose. We just keep that in the Al Gore lockbox until our 150 seconds have expired after Stern opens the draft.
I don’t think 2-5 have any doubt that the Bulls take Rose #1 overall. But there’s no reason we should give them this confirmation now unless we’re talking about engineering trades.
by NBA Observer on
Jun 17, 2008 9:51 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
What's the point of keeping it secret?
You give me a rundown of how you see the draft running picks 2-5. I still don’t see where the Bulls have influence other than simply taking Rose off the board. The potential trades that could be available will be there whether everyone knows the Bulls take Rose or are simply guessing they will take Rose.
We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look.
Ronald Reagan
by snley on
Jun 17, 2008 10:07 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think he meant...
...by somehow getting involved and getting Elton Brand to the Heat (so they don’t take Beasley) and/or Hinrich to the Wolves. Although, I wish he would have just said that, if it’s what he’s thinking. Sheesh. What a windbag.
Can I get a thesis statement next time?
by tyger1147 on
Jun 17, 2008 10:11 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think so...
That’s what I got too.
But it definitely could have been said in a much less cryptic fashion.
It also seems like one of those things that is just feasable enough to be an idea on a blog or message board, and has no pratical chance of happening.
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 10:16 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Does time and a time constraint have any value?
Does a club make better decisions with two weeks of time or 2 minutes of time?
Does a time constraint help or hurt our chances of making favorable moves in moving Hinrich or Nocioni or both?
I’m trying to make other clubs make decisions to get back on the boat while they’re already at the edge of the plank. I wouldn’t mind if they jumped into the water and we throw them a lifeline after the fact.
I don’t see any real advantage in making public commitments now to the player we will draft unless we agree to deals in principle prior to the draft.
by NBA Observer on
Jun 17, 2008 10:34 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Going into the draft keeping a secret that's pretty easy to guess at isn't worth much.
You could say that the Bulls have 2 choices and at worst there’s a 50/50 shot they go either way. More realistically, those odds weigh heavily in Rose’s favor. As such, even if the Bulls surprised everyone and go with Beasley, there won’t be “oh crap, they screwed up our draft board and we don’t know what to do” moments. Being in this situation, it would behoove Paxson to come out and say “Rose is our guy, we are ready willing and open to talk trade about the rest of our roster starting now.” If you can’t take advantage of catching someone off guard, then make them compete and give yourself as many options as possible. After all, if the Bulls wait until the last minute, they’re just as likely to end up making a trade they didn’t want.
We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look.
Ronald Reagan
by snley on
Jun 17, 2008 11:23 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
What do you guys think about T-Mac?
So assuming, we draft Rose and create a glut of semi-talented guards, I think we clearly need a tall 2 guard with proven scoring ability. Of course those guys aren’t really on the market, so you might have to buy low.
I think Tracy McGrady is the perfect fit. A proven scorer, great long defender, and a team leader. I understand the knock on his playoff record, but like i said, you have to buy low somewhere, and that happens to be his defining weakness right now. (Even though, in his defense, he played absolutely great this postseason. They lost because theyre not a very strong team otherwise, and you can’t get by that in the West)
It looks like a mix of Hinrich/Hughes/Gordon for McGrady and Chuck Hayes works under the cap (or at least can be the basis of a deal). What about a sign and trade of Hinrich and Gordon for McGrady and Hayes (or anyone)?
by ChrisG on
Jun 17, 2008 10:00 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
McGrady...
The things I have read lately from Houston say that McGrady could have been had at the deadline last year, but for some reason the Rockets no longer want to trade him.
Which means, it would take a really good deal to get it done. And I don’t think they would consider taking Hughes back to be any part of a really good deal.
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 10:04 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
McGrady if healthy hell yeah....
but i dont know about him being a great defender or even a leader…if he was a great leader he wouldve been out the first round by now….i’ll trade Gordon(sign and trade)/Gooden/Hughes for McGrady and a throw in player if i knew he could play a full season
CHICAGO MANE!!!!
by YEP on
Jun 17, 2008 1:10 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
McGrady makes sense...
I never gave it much thought, even though I’ve seen it floated around here before. But the reason it makes sense to me now is because you can give up more bodies than you get back.
I’d want to give up a combination of Hughes, Gooden, and Cedric Simmons w/ future draft pick/ or swap. Allow Tyrus and Noah to defend the rim, have Deng and Mcgrady’s length on the wings, and the quickness of Rose keep the opposing PG in front of him. When T-mac misses his 30 games, Kirk and Thabo will take more of those minutes.
A nine man rotation completed w/ Kirk, BG, Thabo, Noc…. Gray, 2nd rd pick, MLE signing, fill out the active roster. I can roll with that.
by kingj41 on
Jun 17, 2008 2:53 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
T-Mac is one of my favorite players
Dating back to his Magic days, but he is a career choker and more delicate than Charles Barkley when he finds out his fridge is nearing empty.
If we aren't careful, the leanness we now feel will be the starvation of those we serve.
by Chi 'Till I Die on
Jun 17, 2008 6:37 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Trades...
Here’s how I feel about the players I have seen suggested for trades…
I would like: Maggette, Marion, Brand, Carmelo, #9 Pick (Charlotte)
I would be curious about: Jermaine Oneal, Jason Richardson, Michael Redd,
I don’t Want: Zack Randolph, Shaq, Gilbert Arenas, McGrady
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 10:13 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Which player interests you at #9?
I presume you’d want that pick to select a player that will be on the opening day roster.
by NBA Observer on
Jun 17, 2008 10:30 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't know...
I follow the NBA pretty close, but not college ball.
Usually for a couple months before the draft, I study up on the players projected to be top twenty. But this year, I haven’t. Just studied Rose, Beasley, and Mayo.
But Larry Brown likes players who play tough and have a good attitude, and he doesn’t like rookies, plus, they are having issues because players don’t want to go there for workouts.
Maybe he would take Noc or Kirk in some kind of package.
So I figure that the scouting department could probably find somebody helpful there.
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 10:35 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
trades...
I would also like: Camby,
I would be curious about: Chauncy
I don’t Want: Jermaine Carmelo Arenas
by gman2849 on
Jun 17, 2008 10:34 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
hmmn...
I always liked Marcus Camby, and wouldn’t mind bringing him here if we didn’t give up too much. But I don’t think he would still be on our team when the rest of the core reached their peak.
Chauncy would be great, but I don’t see Joe D wanting anything we offer, the impression I got was that he wanted to make a superstar type trade.
But those are two more good names…
I see the reasons not to want Carmelo, but I still think having one dynamic scorer, that is a similar age to our core, would be great. So if he is available, I think we should make a run for him. ( I don’t actually think he is available though)
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 10:41 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Camby helps us get deeper into the playoffs now
which gives our young group more experience
and probably costs us hinrich (they could really use a point to dish to mellow) and maybe gooden.
that’s a win win in my book.
by gman2849 on
Jun 17, 2008 10:59 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
yeah, good point.
It’s not bad. It’s not my favorite possible move, but I can see your point.
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 11:01 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Dumars has said he will only trade his core
if it gets him a superstar.
by swede2287 on
Jun 17, 2008 11:49 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I love Camby
but I’m not a big fan of him on our team. He’d bring defense and energy – but little in the area of inside scoring. But if that trade helps our contract situation, I’d be fine with it.
by swede2287 on
Jun 17, 2008 11:52 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
what Camby could do
He can sit out in Cartwright territory on the baseline at 15’ to accept passes from penetrating guards. Primarily his position is a decoy to draw his defender out of the paint to create a lane to penetrate. When the defender leaves Camby to help he’s wide open for a shot he makes.
Noah and Grey don’t really have that jumper that pulls there man out of the paint. The defensive three seconds rule forces their defender to come out to the perimeter to guard them and shield the lane off a screen.
by NBA Observer on
Jun 17, 2008 1:56 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Let's see how this team looks after Rose (or Beasley) fits in.
Some players we may want to move now could florish as Rose/Beasley develop. If it is Rose, TT could benefit. With Rose penetrating, Gordon may find himself open and flourish. Hinrich may also be better. Same can be said for Thabo. We need to do a deal since we have too many bodies. I say wait until we see the Rose/Beasley impact.
by chgobr on
Jun 17, 2008 10:17 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
yeah... I might agree.
I was really gung-ho for trades when the season ended, and then even more after the lottery, , but now that I’ve given it the John Paxon treatmeant (Think about it from every possible anlge forever) I am thinking that prudence isn’t always so bad.
I think we should probably make a medium sized trade, like Nocioni for an expiring contract at a position of need. But then hold off until the deadline.There seems to be some benifits…
If VDN plays up-tempo then hopefully players like Kirk and BG will have some inflated stats for the first few months of the year.
By the deadline, Rose will be a bit more adjusted to the pro game. Kirk can start the season at the point and Rose plays heavy backup minutes. This keeps up Kirk’s value and helps transition Rose.
Gooden’s contract will be a great expiring deal, and Hughes will be seen as a soon to be expiring contract.
VDN will have a good idea of who is willing or able to fit into the new system and who isn’t.
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 10:31 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Except...
I do think that if we can get Marion, Maggette, or Brand now, then we should trade now.
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 10:36 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Well, you're just being logical. That's no fun.
Seriously, I do agree. I just see a big difference between intentionally targeting guys/contracts to dump (addition by subtraction), Larry Hughes is the extent of my definite list, although I’m on the fence with Noc right now. Other than that, I’d be happy going into the season with the team as is and taking a harder look as the trade deadline approaches.
I’m sure people will think it’s out of some devotion for Kirk, but if the consideration is just what benefits him then a trade this summer is in many ways preferable to a trade midseason. But I don’t believe that a rookie PG – even the godlike Derrick Rose – is best served by being thrown into a starting spot, particularly with a very young team (and coach). Yes, he should get plenty of minutes. Yes, the kids should get a chance to play together a lot to start developing chemistry and/or identifying who does/doesn’t play well together. But the Bulls aren’t far off from the days of competing well, and there’s a whole new feel to the team with the new coach and Ben Wallace out.
I just think a slightly slower transition is preferable – if the kids show progress like everyone hopes, that transition can be mid-season.
Here's to what was suppose to be the most exciting offseason in years, but has instead spiraled downward into pitiful morass of indecision. Cheers!
by wjb1492 on
Jun 17, 2008 10:49 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't think being thrown in the fire hurts Derrick Rose
it could hurt the team, but the Bulls would be better served not to care if it does in the short term.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jun 17, 2008 10:53 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If you can guarantee that fans won't flip out on him if he struggles and Beasley doesn't,
or the coaching staff doesn’t give him the Tyrus treatment, or he doesn’t have even a mini-crisis of self-doubt, then sure, no problem.
Here's to what was suppose to be the most exciting offseason in years, but has instead spiraled downward into pitiful morass of indecision. Cheers!
by wjb1492 on
Jun 17, 2008 10:57 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
agreed.
Chicago has a media system that tears down it’s players about as often as possible. Plus, a team that’s already having plenty chemistry issues.
And he plays the position that takes the longest to adjust to the NBA.
I hope he could handle starting from Day 1, but don’t want to risk it if he can’t.
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 11:00 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
well define the risk
the only risk is to Rose. If the team struggles, that’s not much of a risk. They stink now anyway.
Rose is a rookie, toughest position, adjustment….he also has a very good chance of being better than Hinrich right now. Hinrich was terrible last year, it’s not a lofty goal.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jun 17, 2008 11:03 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Define the risk...
I think the risk with any high pick, in any sport, is that they bust.
The draft is far from a sure thing, and while the NBA seems to do better than the NFL, there is never a guarentee that these players will be as great as they could be.
It’s our job to take make the transition as smooth as possible. I don’t think Rose will get much better just becuase he plays the beginings of games until the deadline.
I think it might help him make a transition, if he plays often against the other teams second string, and with the make-up of our roster, he can still get 24 minutes a night, and play plenty with our other young players to develop all important familiarity and chemistry.
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 11:11 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
?
Rose is a rookie, toughest position, adjustment….he also has a very good chance of being better than Hinrich right now. Hinrich was terrible last year, it’s not a lofty goal.
It seems like you just listed 2 or 3 reasons supporting my position, and then 1 to support yours.
Besides, Hinrich had a bad year, along with the rest of the team, but this is a new year, with a new coach, and a new system. So I’m not convinced that Kirk will start next year the way he finished last year.
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 11:43 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
you may have had more reasons
but I don’t think that even combined they’re solid enough.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jun 17, 2008 12:44 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
But...
wasn’t your only reason because he should get minutes to develop…
I’m suggesting he play about 24 a night, in an even split with Kirk.
How many more do you think he needs?
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 1:16 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
he should get as many as he can
and play with the team’s best players, against the best competition.
Instead of limiting Kirk’s minutes to 24 (I really don’t think that will go well), if he’s gone it can be spread amongst Gordon, Thabo, Hughes, and generic backup PG X
here’s a new theory: what about protecting the fragile rookie coach?
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jun 17, 2008 1:52 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The PG takes the longest to adjust?
I always thought it was the PF and C due to the bruising contact, 82 games, and elite defensive schemes.
Even Dwight Howard complained for a full two seasons about this.
by NBA Observer on
Jun 17, 2008 11:30 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
yeah...
I’ve never had to adjust to the NBA game, so I guess I don’t know for sure.
But that’s what I keep reading.
I would guess that the point is the more difficult mental adjustment. And the bigs have the more difficult physical adjustment.
Since Rose already has an NBA body and athleticism, I think the mental is the adjustment we are more worried about.
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 11:38 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The mental game is difficult
But it’s more of you vs you. When you’re getting every bone in your body beat up by proven NBA bigs it’s demoralizing. You can’t think when everything hurts.
The PG can be pressured to take away their ability to scan the floor, but that will be difficult to do against Rose with just one defender. He’s too fast with the ball so if you miss the trap your defense is screwed. The defense will likely want Rose to set up a half court and then take away his options.
The NBA might start seeing better defense applied to these prospect PGs early in their careers to take away the learning experiences. When you watch Chris Paul and Deron Williams operate now you really notice how well they adjust to the schemes against them. It takes new players to add to their growth(Peja), but developing early is the critical component. If you overload the rookie right away you might be extending their growth period from 2 years to 3 years.
by NBA Observer on
Jun 17, 2008 11:50 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
heh, sure
The success of Tony Parker, Chris Paul, Deron Williams, and Devin Harris will lead to defensive adjustments to attack young, developing point guards earlier in their careers to delay their growth sooner rather than scheme against it by the time they are All-Stars.
by NBA Observer on
Jun 17, 2008 11:58 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
your sound like you are debating yourself...
The PG takes the longest to adjust? I always thought it was the PF and C due to the bruising contact, 82 games, and elite defensive schemes.
...and then…
The success of Tony Parker, Chris Paul, Deron Williams, and Devin Harris will lead to defensive adjustments to attack young, developing point guards earlier in their careers
We we’re discussing whether or not to start Rose from day one, and then you seemed to jump in, and after several posts, your point seems to be that it’s really hard for point guards, power forwards, and centers to adjust to the league.
So, thanks for your observations.
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 12:08 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
We're still on the same page
Your thesis question appeared to me to be a misunderstanding of my other question.
All I really said was that I didn’t agree that the PG position was the most difficult position for a rookie in the NBA. I always thought the paid minds determined it was power forwards and centers that were the most difficult positions to adjust to as they traditionally have the height, but need to add the weight, strength, and experience of getting roughed up by the 80 other players that play the same positions.
Then you wrote “I would guess that the point is the more difficult mental adjustment. And the bigs have the more difficult physical adjustment.”.
I agreed with this and just offered a supporting reason as to why I agree with it.
I then offered a reason why the mental is still difficult for the PG and offered some short term past examples.
When you asked for a thesis I presumed you were asking for a definitive statement on THAT last position in which I had elaborated.
by NBA Observer on
Jun 17, 2008 1:41 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Okay...
Now I get it. Thanks. That was helpful.
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 1:47 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The trouble is, when I talk to you, I have no idea of what we’re talking about it. And, clearly, I’m not the only one who feels that way.
I have no problems with your thesis, it’s just that it was apropo of nothing.
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 12:21 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
"you can't think when everything hurts"
haha sorry – but you talk like you’ve experienced the fatigue of an NBA season.
by swede2287 on
Jun 17, 2008 11:57 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
A lot of BAB readers say similar things
It’s my frame on matters. What it really is is a summary that circumstances in the NBA aren’t all that different from thousands of other arenas in which humans compete under an agreed set of rules for a limited number of conquests.
My profile tries to explain my methods. It too can be edited for clarity.
by NBA Observer on
Jun 17, 2008 12:01 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm experiencing mental AND physical fatigue...
Right now.
Don't call me doughboy!
by Khalid El-Amin on
Jun 17, 2008 12:02 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
actually
you have a point, pundits apply those crutches to both positions. I suppose the only agreement is that wings take the shortest to adjust.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jun 17, 2008 12:45 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
"slashing" wings, too?
giving more anecdotal credence to Scotter’s jumpshooter theory, at least in a roundabout way.
Hypothesis: Wings typically have the best raw skills (combination of athletic ability & length/height) that they can utilize upon entering the NBA. PG’s, shooters and big men must typically must rely on skills more to be dominant. And those take time to develop and/or translate. Or something else similarly made up in my mind.
by tyger1147 on
Jun 17, 2008 1:15 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
works for me.
also, big men usually aren’t so big when they enter the league.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jun 17, 2008 1:53 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yeah, I'd only add
that “utility” big men don’t need that much time to adjust, either. Think Michael Ruffin (or, for those who rememer, Ed Nealy). The guy is just there to do some dirty work rebounding and defending, and it seems to me that a modicum of athleticism would give you that right off the bat—no need to learn polished post moves at big-man camp.
Big men who are expected to become scorers, though, I agree—they do take some time.
"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris
by bullhockey on
Jun 17, 2008 4:47 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
meh
we knew Tyrus was more of a project. Rose has to be a sure thing, so if he’s prone to such concerns than there’s a bigger problem.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jun 17, 2008 11:01 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
yeah...
if he’s prone to such concerns than there’s a bigger problem.
Right, but with any draft pick, there might be that bigger problem, and if there is, and you handle it well, they could get over it.
Deng looked solid till last year, then we realized he was prone to such concerns. Rose might be as well, so no reason to risk starting his career off with a possible lack of confidence or a feeling of been unnessesarily overwhelmed.
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 11:19 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
it's still a pretty weak argument in my opinion
sort of like putting Ben Gordon on the bench so we have to wait until the real team shows up. Why wait on making Rose the starter and full-time PG?
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jun 17, 2008 11:29 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I guess the difference is that I don’t think the Bulls win any more games by starting Rose for the first two months instead of Kirk.
And, I don’t think it helps his development any. In fact, it think it’s plausible that the pressure might slightly hinder his development.
Now, if your saying trade Kirk, cause he has so much value right now. And start Rose, then fine, becuase that helps the team out by presumably bringing in another good player.
But I don’t understand putting Kirk on the bench, which hurts his value, to start a rookie day 1, when I think the pressure could hinder the rookie.
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 11:33 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't think they lose any more games by starting Rose either
and it helps his development because he’ll play. That’ll be the big hurdle in development, getting playing time.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jun 17, 2008 12:47 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
He would play anyway...
If we draft Rose, and let Duhon walk, we have two point guards on the Chicago Bulls.
Rose should get plenty of minutes regardless. Some of the other hurdles in development are, confindence, endurance, adjustment to more talented opposition… I think not thrusting him into the lineup day one can help with several hurdles.
The discussion is whether to start him or Kirk at the begining of the season…
I say, start Kirk until Rose is playing like a better starting point guard. If that’s day 2, then fine.
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 12:56 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
boo, I'm all for entitlement-minutes
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jun 17, 2008 1:01 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You don't learn to play like a starting PG by playing off the bench.
You learn by actually being the starting PG. You can’t simulate that in practice or 15-20 minutes as the backup.
formerly sbulls
by Scotter on
Jun 17, 2008 1:01 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think you can...
Play Rose and Kirk at a pretty even split.
Rose would be playing about 24 minutes a game, calliing plays, getting used to the system, getting used to the players, getting used to a longer season… and after a few months (the trade deadline) he would be more ready to be a productive NBA starting point guard, because he would already be a productive NBA point guard.
Plus, Kirk would still have some decent value, so you move Kirk for a better peice and Rose starts the next ten years…
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 1:09 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
but also
he’d be playing with worse players.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jun 17, 2008 1:16 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
For a little...
I think if he played in this split, he would play with everybody.
If he is the first off the bench, he will still get time with all of our best players… especially since there isn’t this team is so deap and without an all star.
For example, if Gooden starts, he gets a little time with Gooden, and a lot of time with Tyrus…
Doesn’t that sound benificial?
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 1:19 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
not as benefitial
as starting. And it’s really a matter of whether the risks of starting outweighs that benefit. You think it does, and I don’t.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jun 17, 2008 1:20 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
plus doesn't this partly sabotage the season?
if the team couldn’t handle contract extensions and fantasized Kobe rumors, how is Hinrich supposed to perform knowing he’ll be traded at the deadline? It’s like the whole year will be spent waiting for the other shoe to drop.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jun 17, 2008 1:19 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That's a good point.
Sort of…
But as soon as we draft Rose Kirk will be in that position. He will know he isn’t the Point of the future,
So, is it any worse to start him for a while? It would help increase his value, and maybe another team will trade for him and declare him their answer at point.
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 1:30 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That's my biggest problem with it.
It likely insures the continued presence of Kirk’s mopey side. And that doesn’t help Kirk’s trade value either.
formerly sbulls
by Scotter on
Jun 17, 2008 1:30 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think benching Kirk...
for a player who has never played in this league, and giving Kirk as little minutes as possible, ensures his mopeyness.
by kidronmusic on
Jun 25, 2008 1:31 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Usually,
In almost any job, during training, you would work your way into the position.
The general concensous is that transitions are easier made if you take a little at a time.
Now, obviously, Rose is highly qualified for this job, so I’m not saying bring him along at a snails pace. But I do think it would be good for his game and his confidence if he were able to make the transition to the NBA game against other teams 2 string point guards. Once he masters that, promote him.
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 1:14 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The NBA isn't any other job.
Of course he’ll struggle at 1st. But, I can’t think of a single example of a high lottery pick that was destroyed by the pressure of starting. You think these kids haven’t already been under tremendous pressure to perform?
formerly sbulls
by Scotter on
Jun 17, 2008 1:35 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
busts...
I don’t have the time to do the research right now…
But I will say that for most busts, it’s a combination of things that cause them to not reach their potential.
For some, they should have never been picked where the were… (Darko)
For others, they couldn’t handle the situation they were in (Tyson Chandler, who got a lot better in smaller market New Orleans)
I’m not the first to say that there is a negitive side to the pressure of starting for a team in Chicago.
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 1:40 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Darko rode the pine...
For just about his entire time under Larry Brown. That definitely seemed to effect his confidence as a player in the NBA. We’ll never know what kind of player he would have been if he actually played his rookie year, and he obviously shouldn’t have started in Detroit, but that was more because of the players in front of him. If Detroit could go back and do it again I’m sure they would pick differently.
Don't call me doughboy!
by Khalid El-Amin on
Jun 17, 2008 1:47 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You're right...
A high lottery pick should be ready (at least mentally) to start. That is to say the pressure of starting shouldn’t be their downfall.
There are however PLENTY of NBA players chosen as high as #1 who have no business starting at all. Michael Olowakandi and Kwame Brown come to mind, but I doubt that had much to do with their role in the rotation as a rookie.
I agree, we should start Rose (or Beasley) immediately IMO. If for no other reason than to find out what kind of player he is against top level talent.
Don't call me doughboy!
by Khalid El-Amin on
Jun 17, 2008 1:41 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Like Matt said
if that just happens to be Rose, then the bulls are in trouble no matter what
by gman2849 on
Jun 17, 2008 1:50 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Agreed...
And at least we’ll know sooner than later.
Don't call me doughboy!
by Khalid El-Amin on
Jun 17, 2008 1:51 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
BG has proven something in the NBA
Here's to what was suppose to be the most exciting offseason in years, but has instead spiraled downward into pitiful morass of indecision. Cheers!
by wjb1492 on
Jun 17, 2008 11:36 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Is your position...
Start Rose, bench Kirk, hope that Rose adjusts very quickly and can handle the pressure, and that Kirk still has value after getting benched day 1 in favor of a rookie and playing a lot less.
That’s a pretty weak argument. Cause worse case scenario, if it doesn’t work…
Rose is overwhelmed, with shaken confidence, Kirk is mopey and has his confidence shaken. Kirk has no trade value, and Rose is looking like a bust getting eaten alive in the press by vulture assholes like Jay Mariotti.
If my scenario doesn’t work, then worst case…
Rose is playing better than Kirk by the deadline, we trade Kirk for a team that needs a point guard who can play D, we start Rose… Rose gets a confidence boost and steps into the starters role to continue his adjustment and development.
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 11:51 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think the consensus position is more
Draft Rose, since he’s the #1 pick he clearly needs to start, therefore Kirk must be traded before the season starts.
My position would be if there is a Kirk trade that makes great sense for the team, pull the trigger. In that case, Rose basically has to start because there won’t be another viable option, so you deal with the learning curve. OTOH, if there isn’t a Kirk trade that makes great sense, you don’t trade him just to trade him now, take advantage of letting Rose ease into it, and look for a trade mid-season or next off-season depending on Rose’s development.
Here's to what was suppose to be the most exciting offseason in years, but has instead spiraled downward into pitiful morass of indecision. Cheers!
by wjb1492 on
Jun 17, 2008 12:14 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Then we sir, have the same position.
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 12:17 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think it's Ma'am...
Blogabull... So Fresh and so Clean Clean!
by Goostafer on
Jun 17, 2008 12:18 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
sorry...
Inadvertant Sexism rears it’s ugly head.
Sorry.
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 12:26 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
No prob, it happens often on sports blogs
I’m not sure Ma’am is much better – doesn’t that sound like some elderly librarian?
Here's to what was suppose to be the most exciting offseason in years, but has instead spiraled downward into pitiful morass of indecision. Cheers!
by wjb1492 on
Jun 17, 2008 12:28 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
What's wrong with being
an elderly librarian?
There could be some of those on here… ya never know…
"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris
by bullhockey on
Jun 17, 2008 4:51 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Nothing,
and no offense intended to the rabid-Bulls-fan-elderly-librarian crowd here, or elsewhere.
I’m just not one, and being Ma’am’d sort of makes me feel like one.
Here's to what was suppose to be the most exciting offseason in years, but has instead spiraled downward into pitiful morass of indecision. Cheers!
by wjb1492 on
Jun 17, 2008 5:02 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Could have been worse...
I’m pretty sure I told her she had a man crush on TT during the season.
We are all guilty of it at one point or another.
Don't call me doughboy!
by Khalid El-Amin on
Jun 17, 2008 12:31 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Believe me, I've heard worse
I switched to not intentionally sharing my female status after some very sexist encounters (not here) -
I don’t mind people knowing, by any means, I just like people to give my thoughts a chance on their merits instead of assuming I’m an idiot based on my sex.
Here's to what was suppose to be the most exciting offseason in years, but has instead spiraled downward into pitiful morass of indecision. Cheers!
by wjb1492 on
Jun 17, 2008 12:36 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If it's any consolation...
I just assume we are ALL idiots (regardless of sex) just by virtue of being here.
Don't call me doughboy!
by Khalid El-Amin on
Jun 17, 2008 12:37 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Not that I (or anyone) have any authority to judge...
I include myself in said statement btw.
Don't call me doughboy!
by Khalid El-Amin on
Jun 17, 2008 12:44 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
All is too strong a word because
none of the female posters here come anywhere close to belonging among the numerous true idiots that post here.
formerly sbulls
by Scotter on
Jun 17, 2008 12:58 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Some idiots are bigger than others...
Again, myself included.
Much like this blog, it’s all subjective.
Don't call me doughboy!
by Khalid El-Amin on
Jun 17, 2008 12:59 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
well...
Your thoughts have merit with me.
by kidronmusic on
Jun 17, 2008 12:37 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
What's wrong with being
an idiot based on your sex?
Of course, I would know nothing about acting like an idiot based on my sex…
"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris
by bullhockey on
Jun 17, 2008 4:53 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
This isn't the learning curve of a young NFL QB.
Rose should step into the starting lineup immediately.
Chris Paul started in 78 of his 78 games as a rookie.
Deron started 47 of his 80 games as a rookie. – The Bulls have historically shown greater tolerance for playing rookies than Utah
That’s the company that I put Rose in.
by swede2287 on
Jun 17, 2008 12:30 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
yup.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jun 17, 2008 12:49 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Keven Durant is the best example
He sucked at the beginning of the season. He took a lot of shots and many were dumb. By the end of the season he was taking smart shots and making most of them.
by JockstrapNoah on
Jun 17, 2008 2:14 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
And Deron started less games because Sloan was behind the wheels
And a guy who coached Stockton for 2 centuries knows a thing or two about developing a PG. He let Deron get adjusted to the NBA life, physicality, all those little intangibles, then after the All-Star break gave him serious starter minutes. They won 40 games even with Okur and Boozer hurt a lot of the time.
by Ozzie Montana on
Jun 17, 2008 2:17 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I can't remember if Chris Paul
was the starting PG out of the gate… But when was the last time the number one pick was the starting PG out of the gate… Magic Johnson?
"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris
by bullhockey on
Jun 17, 2008 4:55 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Magic is the only PG taken #1 overall
in the modern era. Please excuse my youth with this qualifier. I imagine there are PGs taken number one overall before the merger. Excuse that one too.
The highest PG’s taken the draft after the merger other than Magic are Mike Bibby at #2 and Jay Williams(more of a SG really) at #2. I think Bibby started right away. He may have had to sit behind Elliot Perry for a season.
by NBA Observer on
Jun 17, 2008 5:06 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Wasn't Iverson drafted as a PG?
And then turned into a SG some time later?
Don't call me doughboy!
by Khalid El-Amin on
Jun 17, 2008 5:19 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
We're really both accurate
Iverson and Jay Williams were similar players. They need the ball to make things happen, but they’re primary objective is scoring and not passing. I guess they’re “combo guards” these days, but this was always a SG in the past.
by NBA Observer on
Jun 18, 2008 11:33 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Iverson put up some incredible assist numbers
when he was officially moved (back?) to PG in the last year or so of his days with the Sixers.
"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris
by bullhockey on
Jun 19, 2008 4:51 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Bibby started
every game as a rookie.
formerly sbulls
by Scotter on
Jun 17, 2008 5:21 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Paul has started every game of his career.
Iverson was the only other #1 pick to start at PG as rookie since Magic. But, he was the only #1 pick that was even close to a PG.
formerly sbulls
by Scotter on
Jun 17, 2008 5:21 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That 96 draft class was stacked by the way.
Iverson
Kobe
Camby
Ray Allen
Steve Nash
Peja
A bunch more really.
Don't call me doughboy!
by Khalid El-Amin on
Jun 17, 2008 5:34 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs



