NBA Blog Previews - Chicago Bulls
Below is my entry in this year's NBA Blog Previews. If you're a frequent reader, a lot you may have read before...often. But even for those sick of my offseason whining analysis, there's at least a juicy prediction at the bottom to be mocked in April.
Team Name: Chicago Bulls
Last Year’s Record: 41-41
Key Losses: Ben Gordon, my faith in the franchise
Key Additions: Jannero Pargo, James Johnson (draft), Taj Gibson (draft), cap flexibility
1. What Significant Moves were made during the off-season?
Letting Ben Gordon walk. The significant move of the offseason was effectively made during the last season, in acquiring Brad Miller and John Salmons from the Kings at the trade deadline. Not only did it put the 2009 payroll already very close to the luxury tax, but in acquiring a scoring guard like Salmons they were hedging against a Gordon departure, which wound up happening on the first day of free agency.
The Bulls should be able to compensate for the loss of Gordon to maintain their ultimately average level, through the addition of Salmons, a healthy season from Luol Deng, and steps up in the careers of Derrick Rose, Joakim Noah, and Tyrus Thomas. Jannero Pargo is back for a second go-around with the franchise, attempting his best Gordon impression up until the point where the shots actually need to go in. With a couple of late first-round picks in a weak draft class, the Bulls went with two older bigs in James Johnson and Taj Gibson for added immediate frontcourt depth.
2. What are the team’s biggest strengths?
The Bulls have a very talented, versatile, and cohesive top-7 rotation. Rose won the rookie of the year last season, but also has various areas of improvement (drawing fouls, 3-point shooting, and defense) that could get him quickly to all-star level. If he can get there (and perhaps beyond towards superstardom) it makes all the difference for this team making everyone else's job easier.
Noah has gone from draft-night punchline to a starting-caliber center in his two seasons, and while never becoming a force on offense he's already a significant contributor, extremely active on defense and perhaps the best ballhandling quick center in the league. Tyrus Thomas is slated for his 3rd straight 'no really, he'll make the leap this year' season, but even if he never 'gets it' he always was at least an average player. Salmons and Deng are a very solid two-way wing combination.
And possibly most underrated aspect of the Bulls roster is their top two reserves, Brad Miller and Kirk Hinrich. Miller really stabilized the Bulls frontcourt last season as a complement to the athletic but raw Noah and Thomas, and though he's getting older Miller has skills that will age well. And Hinrich is possibly the best combo backup guard in the league, with the ability to defend either position, serving as both a low-turnover PG or a 3-point shooting SG to fit a lineup need.
This is a team that when they're clicking will play very well together, and while they'll feel Gordon's loss when needing a bail-out in possessions or games, replacing his minutes with Hinrich/Salmons/Deng will lead to an improved defense.
3. What are the team’s biggest weaknesses?
Coaching is certainly an issue, and while one can assume Vinny Del Negro will improve in his second year on the job, that may be because he only had upwards to go. Beyond the occasional timeout mismanagement, Del Negro's Bulls sometimes looked like a team that had no coach. A roster that was once a top-5 defense under Scott Skiles fell to the bottom 10 in the league, and while the Bulls were an improved offensive team after the trade deadline, it was never one that looked organized, instead being simply more talented than their softer end-of-season scheduled opponents.
This could be an even bigger problem with Gordon departing, a player who was able to create his own offense. While the Bulls will be hoping improved ball-movement and unselfishness will raise everyone's game, there are many times in a game where they'll need playmakers, and Gordon was the best they had beyond Rose.
As mentioned above, the top-7 are good enough to not need many rotation decisions from VDN, but a key injury could really throw the season off course. Quality depth is another weakness as the Bulls had to skimp in filling out their roster in their goal to avoid the tax this year and getting under the cap next summer.
4. What are the goals for this team?
Seeing how a first-round playoff loss to a team missing its best player was seemingly treated with such extreme excitement and praise, no doubt it will be important for the Bulls to at least look like a team on the rise, whether it's true or not. And to do that they have to make the playoffs again, entering 2010 free agency as an attractive destination for players looking for a competitive team with the cap space to pay up.
A season where the playoffs are missed could bring a repeat of Bulls free agency past, where Jerry Krause had a league-worst roster and whiffed on plan A through plan Ron Mercer.
5. No really, Gordon was pretty good, but what's the big deal?
The Bulls were average last year, they'll likely be so again this year. Through some internal improvement, they may even wind up slightly better this offseason. But they would have been a favorite for a 4th seed (as opposed to being lumped in with Miami, Atlanta, and several other teams) if they swallowed the tax for one season while holding all their assets, and able to put together the best trade packages together for the next star player to be sold off.
The loss of Gordon was truly significant in signalling a change of direction of the franchise. Where the winning of the 2008 draft lottery could've been seen as the most significant piece of an already talented team ready to contend soon, letting Gordon go meant that in the name of avoiding the luxury tax, the Bulls were instead going to try and get under the cap and re-build around Rose and a 2010 free agent.
And with a declining cap and some decisions to be made on several key players (Hinrich, Salmons, and Thomas) before getting far enough under in that summer, the Bulls may not be able to pull it off. A better plan would've been to use a decade of record profits as justification for a luxury tax bill (even for a non-elite team), and using their expiring contracts to obtain even more talent. The elite teams in the league stockpile good players and get even more, not let them walk in the name of flexibility. And Gordon was the best player ever to have played through his entire rookie deal only to let walk for nothing, a truly spectacular failure from the Bulls standpoint. Things could certainly work out ultimately, but it's a huge risk and the Bulls will need to perform this season as well as get lucky in free agency to make the gamble worthwhile.
Projected Finish: I see this team as fairly fragile, but also with potential for a surprisingly successful season. They really do have talent that could claw their way to a 50 win season, but an injury or some turmoil could have it spiral down in the mid-30s. I could see either scenario playing out, but it's likely that while nothing horrible goes wrong, not everything goes right either, and little bumps in the road keep the Bulls near .500 all year. 40-42.
0 recs |
124 comments
|
Comments
i like your analysis
and i agree with all of it…i think more than any year, this year is such a mixed bag….
On Behalf of Sue, Wjb, majoyenrac, Bullshooter and all the other Hinrich fans...Ill keep the Hinrich Hope coming...There will be light!
by piccolomair on Oct 12, 2009 1:31 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
42-40
D ROSE D WADE DESTINY DYNASTY
by Juan dela Cruz on Oct 12, 2009 2:06 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
::::chugs stout
::::high 5::::
The only way you can avoid making a mistake is not to make a decision . Our Owner´s philosophy-
by Belize on Oct 12, 2009 5:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Without Rose?
I believe this year will be a challenge to score against teams that play effective defense. Again, that is primarily if Rose isn’t available or teams concentrate on shutting Rose down…
"I tried being reasonable, I didn't like it."
"Go ahead, make my day"
"We boil at different degrees"
"A good man always knows his limitations"
"You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?"
by exult463 on Oct 12, 2009 3:00 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
eh the way i feel is
if we lost pargo to injury for a substantial ammount of time, this team might not even be able lick 40 games….and i mean its pargo….
Basically i think its what matt was saying, aside from guys like gray, this team really cant afford to lose anyone for any ammount of time, we have to a have a completely healthy roster in order to actually stay competetive…losing rose wouldnt just be derailment of this train, it would be the explosion of it….
On Behalf of Sue, Wjb, majoyenrac, Bullshooter and all the other Hinrich fans...Ill keep the Hinrich Hope coming...There will be light!
by piccolomair on Oct 12, 2009 10:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
so no player (other than Rose maybe) will ever draw a double team
which will not free up the other players as often.
Vinny will be tested,, “put up or shut up with what team you have and implement both a defensive and offensive strategy” Likewise players need to step up. Tyrus Thomas is a key, unfortunately.
Since we loss Gordon, if Vinny doesn’t show significant leadership and strategy and if our pick of Tyrus Thomas continues to sour it’s really impossible to rebound in this short timeframe without a major trade to put a competitive quality team on the court this first half of the season. And like we are all saying.. this is assuming Kirk and Deng both have a good full season.
"I tried being reasonable, I didn't like it."
"Go ahead, make my day"
"We boil at different degrees"
"A good man always knows his limitations"
"You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?"
by exult463 on Oct 12, 2009 9:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the loss of BG was great for this team
I think Luol can replace his scoring, and without BG, the defense is also better. Not to mention the development of Noah, Thomas, and Rose, and Hinrich getting more playing time. 47-35.
"That pitch wasn’t down and in, that pitch was down and up." Tim McCarver
by wrigleyrocker12 on Oct 12, 2009 10:04 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Team defense still seems to be bad
and front court defense is still bad (front court defense being way more important than back court defense anyway). None of that really hinged on BG. The idea that getting rid of him would fix the defense is a little ridiculous. It is a team and coaching problem than has yet to be solved.
Everything I post is speculation. I have no insider information nor ideas deemed concrete enough by those who are self-elected to regulate post content.
by cranscape on Oct 12, 2009 10:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree thats the most over hyped talk of the preseason.
Their defense still looks just as bad as last season. They block shots but the guard play and getting steals is absent. When was the last time you saw the Bulls get in the passing lanes and go down for a break away dunk? I mean they are ok but nothing really has stuck out in my mind defensively that says wow. Improvement.
I've got this thing and it's fucking golden!
by SoulEater7 on Oct 12, 2009 10:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They're still working at it
On Opening night I’ll begin judging. Right now they’re playing rookies meaningful minutes and Rose, Salmons and don’t forget Gray have all missed substantial time.
I’m encouraged to see them fighting through more screens… but will that translate? Will they mix it up depending on the opponent? Will the coach develop a gameplan on defense?
by 72-10 on Oct 12, 2009 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
we have to be the only team in the world
that thinks it’s great to “replace” scoring instead of add to it. the merits of signing BG to that contract have been debated ad nauseam here and there’s pretty clearly reasonable arguments on both sides of whether or not it wouldve been worth it for the franchise to shell out that money to him. But the notion that losing a player of Gordon’s caliber is somehow “great for this team” is absurd.
http://ExtendtheGame.blogspot.com
by Calogero on Oct 12, 2009 10:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Overpaying
Letting Gordon walk was more for not overpaying for a 6th man than it was getting FA cap space for 2010.
Why?
Because it was the third year of fail negotiations.
My guess is with Salmons and Deng,, the Bulls will take more higher % shots closer to the basket.
by Noe_Valley on Oct 12, 2009 10:05 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think it's important to note that Gordon wasn't "crazy" in his salary demands.
Many thought he was just being stupid, and that he’d be put in his place and that the Bulls would be shown to be so smart and prudent and we wouldn’t be surprised if Gordon didn’t get offered more than the MLE. In the end, Gordon got what he asked for and Gordon got what the Bulls originally offered… until they got their feelings hurt. This franchise is nothing more than a profit-plaything for Jerry Reinsdorf. The only way this team wins again is when they either a) get lucky and Thomas and Noah develop into indispensable pieces this season and yet they somehow still get a superstar or b) the team is sold to a new owner.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Oct 12, 2009 10:30 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
“The only way this team wins again is when they either a) get lucky and Thomas and Noah develop into indispensable pieces this season and yet they somehow still get a superstar or b) the team is sold to a new owner.”
I don’t think the owner is a problem in this regard. Keeping Gordon would make us a better team, but wouldn’t have solved the superstar dilemma and ultimately, that’s what is preventing us from winning. If we had the legit chance to win by keeping Gordon then we may have kept him.
It’s not like Reinsdorf is dramatically underspending the league each year.
by dougthonus on Oct 12, 2009 2:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
When their capspace isn't enough to sign a max free agent next summer...
…you’ll see why having Gordon available for a sign-and-trade would have been much more helpful in getting a superstar.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Oct 12, 2009 3:24 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
That I agree with
so long as your target is Wade or Johnson.
by 72-10 on Oct 12, 2009 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It would work for anyone, actually.
If you get Bosh or Stoudamire, too. If you can’t include Gordon in the sign-and-trade, you could use Hinrich or he to fill in the other spot.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Oct 12, 2009 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Tyger's pretty much got the 2010 analysis down pat
"This is not Vietnam, Smokey, there are rules here." - Walter Sobchak
by Rose Colored Goggles on Oct 12, 2009 3:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I will say that I understand the other point of view, though.
I disagree with the path the Bulls are taking because I see it as unlikely they even have enough space to sign a MAX guy outright (meaning, the chances of getting the superduper star are actually less than being over the cap with Gordon), and if they whiff on 2010, they would have a much better team with Gordon and being over the cap because they could re-sign someone like Brad Miller and keep guys like Tyrus Thomas and Ben Gordon.
If they do get enough space to sign a MAX player, the end effect won’t be too much different than had they kept Gordon, though. Maybe a loss of Brad Miller instead of bringing him back on an MLE or something. Nothing big long-term, though.
So my plan (or yfBB’s or someone else’s) is more of a contingency on the 75-80% likelihood (Doug’s numbers) the Bulls don’t get a SUPERDUPERSTAR.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Oct 12, 2009 3:55 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Right
and I’m assuming that by superduper star you’re referring only to LeBron, Wade and Bosh (that’s how I look at it). Guys like Amar’e, Joe Johnson, Boozer, Ginobli, etc. are second tier to me.
That being said, I think our best chance is probably going to be one of those second tier guys. And you’re right, I’m not sure that’s going to make us much better than had we kept Gordon and Tyrus (because we can’t keep him and sign even a second tier guy, most likely).
"This is not Vietnam, Smokey, there are rules here." - Walter Sobchak
by Rose Colored Goggles on Oct 12, 2009 4:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was refering to the conventional wisdom
(which isn’t always correct) That it is harder to trade a small player for a big one. Generally speaking, teams losing a 4 or a 5 don’t trade for a small 2. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen, I’m just saying the odds of actually completing a trade of Gordon (or any other 2 guard) for a 4 or 5 are smaller than if we went for a SG.
Of course if you include Miller in a deal at the deadline it might make sense… which is why I’m in the camp that says we should make our move at the trade deadline if possible.
by 72-10 on Oct 13, 2009 7:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doug's already said
he’s cool with a 2010 whiff. AS LONG AS NOBODY IS EVER OVERPAID.
USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Oct 12, 2009 3:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
*except for him
Been making inferences blunt since 1988!
I support the Tornado Release [See: Joakim Noah]
by Prevenge on Oct 14, 2009 9:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think the Bulls plan on signing a max free agent
They’ll sign someone, but I think they already know they aren’t going after Wade, Bosh, etc.
by hitlesswonder on Oct 12, 2009 7:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with that
In fact, I expect them to do something by/at the trade deadline with a cash straped team, which would involve a player who is not necessarily associated with 2010. And it would, more than likely, include at least three teams.
by hlac on Oct 12, 2009 8:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's fine by me
though then if they’re using expirings to get a player at the deadline, why not just keep Gordon too?
USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Oct 13, 2009 9:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sadly
His demands literally cost him millions, if not tens of millions of dollars. I would call those demands crazy!
Hindsight is 20/20, but he should have signed the first deal the bulls offered. He would be on the third year of a $60 million six year deal. He would be 28 at the end of the deal, meaning he could get another big deal next time around. Instead he’ll be 30 for his next contract, which seems to be a magic age for guards where all but a few physically gifted players start to decline.
by 72-10 on Oct 12, 2009 3:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is riddled with false statements.
In order
A) He would be starting the second year of his deal, not the third. Extensions are offered after the third season, but they don’t kick in until the fifth. Check out Hinrich‘s or James’s or any other salary page of someone who got the earliest possible extension to know this fact.
B) He was offered $50 million over five years in the first year, not $60 million. He was offered $54 million over 6 years last year. He made $6.4 million last year and will make $58 million over the next five years. That’s $64.4 million over 6 years compared to $54. He MADE $10 million, not lost it.
C) He would have been 29 at the end of the first extension, not 30. There wont be a huge salary drop there. And, in fact, shooting is one of the skills that actually ages well. Instead of some magic age.
Doug Thonus, who disagrees with me above, has already said it better.
09-10 $10,000,000
10-11 $10,800,000
11-12 $11,600,000
12-13 $12,400,000
13-14 $13,200,000 (Player Option)
5 Years for $58,000,000.
He also has a clause for incentives which are considered unlikely (meaning he didn’t reach them last season), but I don’t specifically know what they are.
Ben Gordon came out ahead by taking the QO and was the first person to do so. Now, even looking at the 5/50 offer the Bulls made, Gordon was the clear winner by waiting even disregarding the circumstances that at the time of the 5/50 offer he was the best or second best player on a team expected to contend for a championship.
So yeah, what you said is just wrong. I’m sure you’ll go on believing what you want, however, because that’s what people tend to do. If you’d like to re-evaluate your statement in light of the “facts” (or, those things which are in accordance with the way the world is actually operating), that would be really cool.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Oct 12, 2009 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions 6 recs
Can we link to posts.
Yours might be helpful to refer back to in the coming months.
Everything I post is speculation. I have no insider information nor ideas deemed concrete enough by those who are self-elected to regulate post content.
by cranscape on Oct 12, 2009 4:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
of course
the timestamp is the link
USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Oct 12, 2009 4:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know how many times that has to be posted
It seems like once a month somebody tries to claim he lost all this money by not taking the Bulls offer.
"I'm in the Hall already, on the wall already, I'm a work of art I'm a Warhol already"-Jay Z
by bigballa10 on Oct 13, 2009 10:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eating some crow... but not all of it
You’re right, his first contract offer was $50 million…. I had thought it was $60 million for some reason… I’m guessing booze influenced that. I looked it up and that was obviously wrong which makes my calculations very different. Also, I agree about the contract extension. The fourth year would have been the same salary regardless of whether or not he accepted the first offer from the Bulls, so we’re only talking about one year difference rather than two… which also is a big deal. Here is a closer look at the two contracts based on your comments, along with a some changes in my analysis below…
The end of the first deal the bulls offered would be 2012-2013. By then he would have netted the full $50 million in the Bulls offer. By that year in his Detroit contract he will have received $44.8 million based on the chart you provided above. If we’re comparing apples to apples, we have to review the amount of money he would get at the same age, not just at the end of the deal… that was part of my original opinion, and its a point I’m sticking to.
So, by 29 at the end of 2012-2013, he would have received $50 million from the Bulls. If you take the $6.4 million he made last year with the Bulls + the $44.8 he will make with the Pistons by the same age he $51.2 million. So from a total value perspective, he’ll have made an extra $1.2 million with an option for $13.2 more that he could opt out of if the market changes in his favor, which more likely he will exercise. If I knew more details of the bulls contract other than the total over 5 years we could do a net present value analysis to see if the Bulls contract offer was actually slightly better, but regardless of that the extra year he gets with Detroit will negate any present value advantage the Bulls might have had.
Bottom Line:
Obviously I came to a lot of conclusions originally based on faulty memory from too much alcohol consumption over the years… my bad there. Gordon comes out about even or slightly ahead with the Detroit deal at the same age of 29, and possibly very ahead if his skills diminish or he gets injured because of that extra year option on his contract. (The option year is quite valuable)
There is no way to know the market for Ben Gordon 5 years from now, but if his skills hold up then he would have signed another big deal at 29 had he taken the Bulls first offer. Who knows if it would be $13 million per year but if market conditions are similar then I think that number would at least be in the ballpark.
So on closer review I was wrong when I said that Ben came out worse… especially given the extra year option at the end of the deal. In light of that I retract my statement that Ben’s demands were “crazy”. However, I’m going to caveat that. The Bulls management was almost dead on two years ago with Gordon’s market value given what management offered him vs. what he will make with Detroit by the same age of 29. By declining that first offer, he was gambling that he would get a better offer in the future and not get hurt. He didn’t get hurt, so it worked out well for him but the prudent thing would have been to take the guaranteed money and run the first time… which I still think is what I think the agent should have advised him to do.
by 72-10 on Oct 13, 2009 10:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stupid random button on my mouse.
Went back a page in the middle of the post. Basically I ask, how much do you think the market tanking affected his final contract?
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Oct 13, 2009 11:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would imagine quite a bit
If the economy hadn’t tanked then there would be a couple of other teams that may have entered the bidding process. Memphis comes to mind… I’m sure there are a few other clubs who would have bid on him as a sixth man…
BTW, How empty was that GB stadium the other day? I know it’s preseason but it had to be about half full at most. And it probably only seats 10k max. I think there are a few clubs that are really worried about the selling tickets this year…. I know I dropped my season tix from last season because everyone at my work got a 10% pay cut… I can’t imagine how bad it must be for Detroit or Phoenix.
One last note about his contract… why the hell did Detroit not start with a lower bid? They were the only team I’m aware of that had real interest in him. (other than Chicago supposedly) I think they were bidding against themselves to get him and could have offered much less. I don’t think Chicago would have matched unless the bid was $8 million/year or less…. so way pay $11 when you can pay $8-9? Shoot they already have someone playing his position! It just never made any sense to me.
by 72-10 on Oct 13, 2009 3:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
BTW I get that....
had the economy not tanked that it could have been a good decision, but that’s a risk he took by not signing the first deal…. one in the hand’s worth 2 in the bush.
by 72-10 on Oct 13, 2009 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, I'd say the economy tanking...
…was less likely than Gordon getting injured. Although he did get injured, too. Career-ending injuries happen more often than the U.S. economy going under and both happen rarely.
Yeah, Gordon took a gamble, but it’s a high-percentage gamble.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Oct 13, 2009 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Another reason the extra year is so important
Let’s say that regardless of the team he’s on, he plays the same. So, we’ve already established that at the age of 29, he would have made 50 if he had taken the Bulls extension, or 51.2 with the Detroit contract. If he’s awesome and his market value is higher that 13.2 million, then he opts out and signs a new contract. If it isn’t, then he stays. So no matter what, he made money.
Things could be worse. We could have kept Boylan.
by stupidgenius on Oct 13, 2009 8:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Could the bulls have offered him more that 5 years
in the first deal? They offered him 6 the next time around.
by 72-10 on Oct 14, 2009 10:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the first deal was an 'early' extension
and that can be for a maximum 5 years.
USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Oct 14, 2009 10:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
NBA is full of overpaid players and all NBA teams are profit centers for owners.
The NBA is a for profit business. Yes, this franchise is a profit plaything for jerry. that is exactly what NBA teams are. The owner has 6 titles and 1 MBL World Series. He’s one of the better franchise owners.
Awesome Ben Gordon will be the 6th Man for Detroit. What team pays that much for a 6th Man? Da Pistons. We’ll see how that team competes with so much salary tied up in SGs. I’m skeptical they’ll finish ahead of Chicago .
Chicago is taking a chance letting Ben go but it’s a decent chance that the salary Gordon wanted could be put to better use elsewhere in skill positions where good players are harder to find. PF for instance.
Good SG’s are not top picks. My local team has a undrafted SG, Anthony Morrow, who illustrates what kind of value can be found for SGs. Kings Martin is another example, Buck’s Redd.
Another point is redoing the draft, Gordon wouldn’t be the 3rd pick. Andre Iguodala would be the better player.
by Noe_Valley on Oct 12, 2009 3:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
remember, Gordon's there for 5 years
is rip hamilton going to be there and be productive for the next 5 years? sure, gordon will nominally be the 6th man this year, but i’ll be willing to bet that he’s more productive than rip hamilton this year, and that he supplants rip in the starting lineup within a year or two.
also, re: drafting SGs high— I guess taking that Jordan guy, or that Wade guy, or that Kobe fella in the lottery were mistakes.
http://ExtendtheGame.blogspot.com
by Calogero on Oct 12, 2009 4:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Someone was ripping on Gordon one game from here
then I looked at the state, and Gordon’s state and Hamilton’s stats were almost the same, only Gordon had more rebounds and assists. [Hamilton had 4 more points with 3 more shots.]
I support the Tornado Release [See: Joakim Noah]
by Prevenge on Oct 14, 2009 9:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
*state=stats
I looked at the box score from the game, that the person provided a link to.
…
I speak english!
I support the Tornado Release [See: Joakim Noah]
by Prevenge on Oct 14, 2009 9:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The owner also had the good fortune of getting Michael Jordan.
Things could be worse. We could have kept Boylan.
by stupidgenius on Oct 12, 2009 5:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the analysis in this post is on point...
If this team claws its way to 50 games (without making any major trades), not only will I eat crow, I will go to city hall and have my last name legally changed to “Deng.”
by Rosenscrubs on Oct 12, 2009 10:45 AM CDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs
very clever...but...
My post said that I would change my last name. Care to try again?
by Rosenscrubs on Oct 12, 2009 6:58 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, 50 wins might be pushing it..
I mean, it’s certainly possible if everything falls into place (i.e. everyone plays at or above their potential, everyone plays at least 75 games); but what are the chances of that happening?
I think 40-42 seems like a reasonable prediction — and a very attainable one at that.
"This is not Vietnam, Smokey, there are rules here." - Walter Sobchak
by Rose Colored Goggles on Oct 12, 2009 10:54 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
50 wins would be incredibly flukey, kind of like people expecting a Finals berth after 2007
I’d be happy with Rose improving to something like 18/7.5/4, and becoming merely bad at defense, as opposed to an outright disaster. 40-44 wins seems reasonable, I wouldn’t be surprised with 35 wins either.
The 2009 White Sox....like a 40 degree day.
by Ozzie Montana on Oct 12, 2009 12:26 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Addition by subtraction!
Cavs last year: Additions – Mo Williams, and a full season from Delonte West. Subtractions – Drew Gooden, Larry Hughes, Damon Jones, and Devin Brown. Their SBNation blog predicted them to win eight more games. They won twenty-one more.
Can the Bulls win 9 more for 50 wins? I think it’s a reasonable possibility. We didn’t add a +4 player, but subtracting -4’s can mean just as much. I’m not arguing against 40 though, just saying 50s possible :)
by YaoPau on Oct 12, 2009 2:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But what are we subtracting by removing BG?
You say he was a -4 but what were the team’s problems really? Defense? Still a problem. A better style of offense? Looks like they are doing the exact same thing as last year but with BG’s volume going to guys who are not as good at that style of offense as he was. Reducing TOs? BG wasn’t the bad guy there either. Rose is going to have to turn that around in his game and Pargo, the guy who is supposed to shoot in bunches for us who will seem to see playing time, is a lost cause. If we play our rookies much they will both be turnover/foul machines. We lost an efficient shooter and getting rid of him isn’t solving the team’s main problems. And we have yet to see if they have not unearthed a new problem that wasn’t a problem last year. The offense. People don’t like to hear it, but who exactly is going to kick it up a notch in the 4th quarter besides Rose? I’ve not even seen some of these guys in a different gear offensively besides one big game a season here or there. Maybe they have it in them and will surprise me, but for most of them it seems like the way they play is the way they play and they don’t up their effort in the 4th quarter.
Everything I post is speculation. I have no insider information nor ideas deemed concrete enough by those who are self-elected to regulate post content.
by cranscape on Oct 12, 2009 3:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oops, my post wasn't clear
I meant we subtracted Drew Gooden, Larry Hughes, Noc, Thabo, which mirrors the Cavs subtractions. Gordon’s a solid player.
So yeah, they added Mo, we lost Gordon, we aren’t winning 21 more games. But we’re better defensively.
Salmons and Gordon are both bad defensively, but we’ll have more Luol (hopefully), and Noah/Miller will take the minutes that went to Gooden/Gray. Our backcourt still has issues, but Luol/Tyrus/Noah/Gibson/Miller is an elite defensive frontcourt, and much better than the crap we had most of last year.
Offensively, we won’t be as good as we were at the end of the year, but over 82 games I think we’re equal. Remember we started Thabo, Gooden and Gray for chunks of the season.
by YaoPau on Oct 12, 2009 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Adding Miller and Salmons for a season.
Miler and Salmons mixed in very well considering how few games they played on the 08-09 Bulls. Returning Deng and having these two veterans is a plus over Hughes, Gooden, Noc and Thabo. PF Gooden was a non-factor in the FA this sumer.
Ben’s absence doesn’t make the the team better but it’s an opportunity cost, what you pay to keep him takes away from paying guys at other positions.
by Noe_Valley on Oct 12, 2009 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do we have Lebron?
The reason they improved so much is because Lebron had one of the greatest regular seasons any NBA player has ever had. Unless we’ve got somebody ready to take that kind of a step up, that has nothing to do with the Bulls’ situation.
by Big D on Oct 12, 2009 8:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
LeBron was pretty good the year before too
by YaoPau on Oct 13, 2009 12:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but he still improved A LOT.
It could be argued that he was worth 5 extra wins on his own.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Oct 13, 2009 7:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyything is possibleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee?
The 2009 White Sox....like a 40 degree day.
by Ozzie Montana on Oct 12, 2009 9:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Im just wondering
how everyone would feel if we had traded Ben Gordon for Miller and Salmons, and let Nocioni leave as a free agent? Because the actual events had the same net effect. I predict we will finish with 44-45 wins; scoring will be down less than 1 point per game, but points allowed will improve by minus 2-3. The Bulls will be major players for a top five free agent in 2010, and I would not be surprised if a major move occurred before the trade deadline. Pargo will shoot @38%, and will not get much significant burn. Oh, and Rose will be an All-Star this year.
by Cannoli on Oct 12, 2009 12:26 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
We'd feel a lot worse.
That’s trading young talent for old talent with Derrick Rose on your team, which isn’t a great idea.
I support the Tornado Release [See: Joakim Noah]
by Prevenge on Oct 12, 2009 1:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Cannoli's asking "how would you feel about our chances this year?"
It might be clearer to look at it like this:
Who would you rather play a combined 5000 minutes this season: Gordon, Gooden, and Noc or Salmons and Miller?
Beyond that, the rest of our rotation (Rose, Hinrich, Deng, Tyrus, Noah) is the same as last year’s. Who would you rather have, the expected 2009 version of those players or the 2008 version?
A lot went wrong last year and we won 41. Even if a lot goes wrong this year, we can still win 45+.
by YaoPau on Oct 12, 2009 4:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pissed as hell
because we wouldn’t have made the play offs.
by silentpete on Oct 12, 2009 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anywhere from 42-46 wins if no one important is hurt more than a couple games…….if not 39-41
by C Smoove on Oct 12, 2009 1:37 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Why is everyone focused on the "50 wins"?
Isn’t the upper limit of a win possibility supposed pretty much “What you think could happen if everything goes near perfectly?”
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Oct 12, 2009 2:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Anyone else scared
About turning Rose into a scoring point guard? I don’t know of anyscoring PGs in the league in their mid/upper 20s who are desirable. The mold of strong defender, shooter, and distributor is much better. Im afraid we will need him to score though at the sacrifice of developing the more important elements of his game. God I hope Vinny has been working non-stop on the drive and lob….
by Jud Buechler on Oct 12, 2009 2:44 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Tony Parker? Devin Harris? Chauncey Billups?
Obviously I want Rose to improve his passing, but he can be valuable as a scorer.
by YaoPau on Oct 12, 2009 3:08 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Baron Davis
Mo Williams, Jameer Nelson, Gilbert Arenas, Bibby
by runningman on Oct 12, 2009 4:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Rose turns into a healthy Baron Davis in his prime.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Oct 12, 2009 3:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Baron's bigger framed
Davis overpowers players. I think Utah’s Williams is built more like Baron Davis.
by Noe_Valley on Oct 12, 2009 5:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree.
Rose has the frame, just hasn’t added the bulk. Rose has some of the widest and biggest shoulders I’ve seen in someone who is actually as slim as he is. Neither did Baron Davis when he was 21 and neither had Davis when he was good and healthy again. Remember when he dunked over Kirilenko? Yeah, that was a skinnier Davis.
IIRC (and this is mostly on memory for 3 or 4 years ago so anyone feel free to call me out on it), he got up to 220 when he was 24, 25 26. Then, he knew he was getting hurt a lot (even though he liked the bulk in his game), so he dropped 20 pounds (between 200-205) over one summer, I think three years ago. I might be wrong. I don’t see any reason why Derrick Rose can’t (or hell, even won’t) put on 10 pounds over the next couple of years.
You’re right, though, I don’t want to be comparing Rose to the fat Baron Davis (although he was never really fat) but to the slimmer and more lithe Davis.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Oct 12, 2009 7:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the idea that you need a pass first point guard
is one of the most overrated idea by fans. You can win with shoot first point guards if the coach installs a system that allows everyone to be involved. Indeed over the last couple years, lead guards who score have had more success winning championships than lead guards who pass. Look at Wade, Billups, Kobe, Parker. The two most successful franchises over the last decade didn’t have one player average over 8 assist a game.
If Rose doesn’t become as good a passer as CP3 or Deron Williams its okay as long as he can an efficient scorer and plays in an offense that facilitates ball movement.
by Basketball Smurf on Oct 12, 2009 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't remember any of the Bulls championship teams
having your classic “pass-first” point guard. I don’t think you need one to win. The most classic pass-first guy of all time was Stockton, and how many titles did he win? Granted, he might have won one had he not been cursed to play in the Jordan era, but that’s a what-if.
In fact, how many NBA champions in the last 15 years have had that classic pass-first PG? Does Derrick Fisher count? If not, then the answer is none.
"This is not Vietnam, Smokey, there are rules here." - Walter Sobchak
by Rose Colored Goggles on Oct 12, 2009 4:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yea you guys all hit the nail on the head here
the one common denominator in all title winning teams is really good players. it doesn’t matter if their pg is a pure point or shoot first or if the best player is a swingman or a big; it just matters to have a lot of talent. rose is talented; i dont care whether he is pass first or not.
http://ExtendtheGame.blogspot.com
by Calogero on Oct 12, 2009 4:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tall players.
With the exception of the 3pt specialists, the Bulls (Jackson) liked tall and long guards. He also liked ball movement. The triangle would have died in a ball-hog offense. Jordan took over games but he did so with in the triangle framework.
by Noe_Valley on Oct 12, 2009 5:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Pistons won two championships with the best player being a scoring point guard
by C Smoove on Oct 13, 2009 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How do you think they'll fair by the end of the circus trip?
assuming the roster is healthy to start the season.
by 72-10 on Oct 12, 2009 3:27 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
We'll be lucky
to be anywhere near .500 by the end of the circus trip.
"This is not Vietnam, Smokey, there are rules here." - Walter Sobchak
by Rose Colored Goggles on Oct 12, 2009 3:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doug brings up a point I neglected
I’m also concerned about the mental side of the game if they start off in a big hole which seems likely. In the past, they’ve managed to come back, but the team also proved it could quit on a coach (Skiles), and I wouldn’t be shocked to see a number of the veterans quit on Vinny if the opening is brutal and there are squabbles over playing time or role.
Now ultimately the ringleader of the quitters was mutually Skiles and Wallace. But I do think it’s silly to assume that the Bulls are now a bunch of do-gooders with awesome chemistry juice that would never turn on Vinny. He’s got the most tenuous contract in the league, and half this team knows they’d be immediately punted for 2010 fun if necessary.
USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Oct 12, 2009 3:50 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Taking one step back to take two steps forward?
Nothing wrong with that. Get Vinny the hell out of here. :)
Metal sharpens metal.
And this guy right here understands and knows what leadership is all about: The coach, the hall of famer......... Dick Butka! George Ryan
by dakoose on Oct 12, 2009 6:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
basically, look at any 'big-picture' complaints as coming from this frame of mind
I want this team to be like the fucking Lakers. We’re not even close, and it sucks.
USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Oct 12, 2009 3:53 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
YES
that’s what I want too. But, that’s never (I repeat, NEVER) going to happen without at least one more stroke of magnificent luck — or a change in ownership.
"This is not Vietnam, Smokey, there are rules here." - Walter Sobchak
by Rose Colored Goggles on Oct 12, 2009 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you asked a Lakers fan in 2007
how close they were to league dominance, they probably would’ve laughed. Same thing if you asked a Celtics fan in 2007. We’ve got some nice pieces.
by YaoPau on Oct 12, 2009 5:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But the Lakers had the big piece,
and needed a bunch of littler pieces. The Bulls have a bunch of little and medium pieces, but not that big-ass Kobe/Lebron/Wade/KG piece.
Metal sharpens metal.
And this guy right here understands and knows what leadership is all about: The coach, the hall of famer......... Dick Butka! George Ryan
by dakoose on Oct 12, 2009 6:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I do agree with that
Rose has to be a top-tier player under Reinsdorfian team-building (contention before spending on more contention), and so far so good.
USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Oct 12, 2009 6:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually, the Lakers fan could remind you they recently won titles.
and weren’t one of the worst franchises of the past 10 years.
We’re in better shape than some, but they blew a chance become a contender during Rose’s rookie deal.
USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Oct 12, 2009 6:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree the Bulls had a bad run
I don’t get the pessimism now though. We’ve made the playoffs 4 of the last 5 years. We’ve had a winning record over the past 5 seasons. Our owner gave a massive contract to the league’s top free agent just 3 years ago to put our team in position to contend. When that didn’t work, we lucked out in the lottery and now have one of the league’s top young talents. If you want to go into recent titles, our owner’s won 6 of the the last 19.
Sometimes by the tone of your posts I feel like I’m on a Clippers board. Things aren’t that bad. Most of the league would probably trade rosters with us.
by YaoPau on Oct 12, 2009 6:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
As long as they get to keep their own coach and owner that is.
I’d be ok with business as usual in a world without Rose. Being a mediocre, one and out “playoff team” without any real hope of being better…we’ve been used to that. With Rose my expectations for everything changed. He is ready right now for the right coach and the right players. Business as usual isn’t going to cut it anymore. With the contracts we have, loooong shot FA “plan”, and unlikelihood of getting good draft position I can see us wallowing around the next 3-4 years while Rose is ready now. Lots of other good players have wasted their time on teams going no where and I want Rose to be a Chicago guy and not have to wait to go somewhere else to fulfill his goals. That is why it is really hard being optimistic.
Everything I post is speculation. I have no insider information nor ideas deemed concrete enough by those who are self-elected to regulate post content.
by cranscape on Oct 12, 2009 7:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
right, we're talking about Chris Bosh coming here
with the mindset that he’s sick of wallowing in obscurity in Toronto. Well, they had some playoff appearances too.
USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Oct 12, 2009 7:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
winning record and playoffs?
again, not exactly Laker territory.
I refuse to go the ’we’re not the Clippers or Warriors!’ set of expectations.
And again, they squandered the unique chance of having that ‘winning’ team PLUS Rose. Now they’re just another team with a potentially great young player and the need to build a nearly entire team around him. The ‘pieces’ are basically Noah and Deng. I suppose if we ascend to the Hornets level in the next few seasons that’d be some great success?
Heck, are we even in a better position than the Clipppers? If Blake Griffin is as good as Rose as a rookie (certainly possible), they may have more ‘pieces’ than we do. Though I would never besmirch Reinsdorf enough to put him in the same class as sterling, the point is if you’re a Bulls fan who wants to see elite play (not just the ‘special’ years of going on the road in the playoffs) it’s going to be a long-ass time and a lot of luck.
USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Oct 12, 2009 7:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The "we're not the clippers" mentality
is as realistic as the “we’re not the Lakers” mentality. Neither one is a realistic benchmark. It’s as pointless being smug about besting than clippers as being despondent that we can’t compete with LA.
If every team could be the Lakers, then no team would be the Lakers. You only become the Clippers through mostly incompetence, you only become the Lakers through mostly luck. Everyone else falls into the middle somewhere where they hope to stay relevant long enough to catch a break and make the leap to super-contenders.
by runningman on Oct 12, 2009 7:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, it's technically all pointless
Can we at least be the mighty Orlando Magic?
USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Oct 13, 2009 9:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was Laker territory
Before they got Gasol, they made the playoffs 2 of the past 3 years and had a record of 121-125 in that span. And then they got lucky.
As for the Gordon part, we just disagree on his value, but I see your side of the argument.
by YaoPau on Oct 13, 2009 12:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
they got lucky?
they had an owner willing to take on Gasol’s contract. We didn’t.
USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Oct 13, 2009 9:02 AM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
this
"This is not Vietnam, Smokey, there are rules here." - Walter Sobchak
by Rose Colored Goggles on Oct 13, 2009 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, I really don't get that.
Why do you just randomly reply “this” to comments.
Things could be worse. We could have kept Boylan.
by stupidgenius on Oct 13, 2009 8:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"I agree with what the poster above me is saying."
There, I translated for you.
I support the Tornado Release [See: Joakim Noah]
by Prevenge on Oct 14, 2009 9:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thank you
Things could be worse. We could have kept Boylan.
by stupidgenius on Oct 15, 2009 6:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd prefer a rec button, to be honest.
USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Oct 16, 2009 10:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i firmly belive your really jeff van gundy
The only way you can avoid making a mistake is not to make a decision . Our Owner´s philosophy-
by Belize on Oct 12, 2009 5:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Speaking of JVG,
i’d love to see him come in after Vinny gets canned.
Metal sharpens metal.
And this guy right here understands and knows what leadership is all about: The coach, the hall of famer......... Dick Butka! George Ryan
by dakoose on Oct 12, 2009 6:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
thatd be interesting
but then who would we listen to on abc?
hes the charles barkley of espn on abc
by sin on Oct 12, 2009 9:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
thats why he created this blog…its all part of the masterplan
The only way you can avoid making a mistake is not to make a decision . Our Owner´s philosophy-
by Belize on Oct 13, 2009 12:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would love to have some JVG
he’s another one of my favorite coaches. Along with Flip Saunders, SVG and Rick Adelman.
JVG’s the only one that’s available; unfortunately, it appears he is really happy doing broadcasts and probably won’t come back to coaching anytime soon. Stranger things have happened though…
"This is not Vietnam, Smokey, there are rules here." - Walter Sobchak
by Rose Colored Goggles on Oct 13, 2009 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you're firmly Belize.
USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Oct 12, 2009 6:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's hard to have faith in a management that overpaid Nocioni.
by KentuckyBullsFan on Oct 12, 2009 9:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Fought for Pargo
Started Duhon.
Everything I post is speculation. I have no insider information nor ideas deemed concrete enough by those who are self-elected to regulate post content.
by cranscape on Oct 12, 2009 9:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Moved kirk hinrich to the bench...
…anyone???….
::crickets chirp in the distance::
On Behalf of Sue, Wjb, majoyenrac, Bullshooter and all the other Hinrich fans...Ill keep the Hinrich Hope coming...There will be light!
by piccolomair on Oct 12, 2009 10:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That reminds me.
They started Thabo last season at the SG spot for six games…
THEN started Kirk on the seventh game and benched Thabo. Kirk hurt his finger in that game and only then did they start Gordon in the 8th game of the season.
So as a Kirk fan you have a lot less to gripe about than a BG fan did back then. Kirk was their next option. BG was third string in their mind at SG. If Kirk hadn’t taken himself out with the finger problem then that is what we would have been watching there on out. Of course then we might have traded him…that finger injury might have been the best thing to happen to Kirk fans. It brought his trade value down enough that we were stuck with him.
Everything I post is speculation. I have no insider information nor ideas deemed concrete enough by those who are self-elected to regulate post content.
by cranscape on Oct 13, 2009 12:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Theres a flaw in your logic
you said it yourself, they saw ben gordon as a third string guard, so if kirk hadnt injured his thumb…well he wouldve started with rose the entire season…and why would the organization trade a non injured kirk when hindsight pretty much makes us see that bg wasnt worth much to the organization, and as many joke, kirks jersey hanging ceremony is being planned as we speak.
I think (and after reading matts new post i have more reason to believe) that there are always teams looking for a guy like kirk…and i would think every month or so some team offers something for kirk. Using hindsight, i think its even more obvious kirk was probably never going anywhere, and an entire season uninjured might not have made it more likely he would leave, but more likely he would stay.
Ultimately though my entire post above was more of a joke, i never really griped about hinrich coming off the bench and i like him as a sixth man due to his combo-ness and because i think it allows him to be more aggressive on defense which are the two areas where he is characteristically described as. And i didnt like thabo starting (though i thought he could work out as a role player eventually,) and i hated hughes so i would prefer gordon to start….
On Behalf of Sue, Wjb, majoyenrac, Bullshooter and all the other Hinrich fans...Ill keep the Hinrich Hope coming...There will be light!
by piccolomair on Oct 13, 2009 2:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I disagree
with your statement that his injury brought down his trade value. He played very well when he came back from his injury so if anything that would have made his value higher. The Bulls had every chance to trade him in the off season had they wanted to. I think they knew all along they were keeping Kirk and from the statement he made a couple of weeks ago he knew it too.
Recipe for Disaster;
C'mon Cubs, hurry up and blow this so I can relax.
by Bluekoolaide on July22, 2009 3:08 PM CDT
by sue369 on Oct 13, 2009 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
all of the above plus
resigned Lindsey Hunter
and once again has put their faith in Vinny.
If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost. You can still call him vile names.
Elbert Hubbard
by Tyrusmancrush on Oct 12, 2009 10:49 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
and they hired Vinny
(just hammering it home)
USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Oct 13, 2009 9:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bulls go 44-38
Pargo and Taj for X factors.Thomas and rose for break out players. They make the playoffs and depending who the bulls face in the playoffs they go to the second round and possibly get swept.
by SharksFan91 on Oct 13, 2009 8:07 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't think the Bulls will lose much by letting Ben Gordon walk.
Dave Berri of Wages of Wins seems to feels the same way. He writes,
“As has been noted in the past in this forum (and also in The Wages of Wins), Gordon – relative to an average shooting guard – is not very good. In fact, Gordon has never posted a WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes] mark that was above average. WP48, though, compares a player to the average at his position.”
I think the Bulls will go 45-37 barring any major injuries.
by MrBungle on Oct 13, 2009 12:21 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
It's the battle of the book-writing stats geeks, eh?
Winston thinks it’s the biggest mistake ever, Berri never did like him much.
I’m not big on the work of either, really. What’s behind door number 3?
In honor of the dearly departed, I declare July PB&J month - everyone raise a sandwich to the memory of Ben!
by wjb1492 on Oct 13, 2009 1:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suppose it's all personal preference but in his defense
Berri did win the True Hoop Geek Smack down or something like that so I believe at least some weight can be given to his projections.
by MrBungle on Oct 13, 2009 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Smackdown is a joke
Statheads can predict how things will play out over time, not over 7 game series. I like that Henry Abbott wants to draw attention to their work, but I wouldn’t read anything into the results.
by YaoPau on Oct 13, 2009 3:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
the Bulls will probably have essentially the same record as last year — I don’t see the loss of Gordon affecting the season-long production of this team by more than a win or two.
That’s not to say I think we should have let him walk. Clutch-shooting, 20 ppg, efficient scorers for playoff teams are not that easy to come by and we let one walk away for nothing — to a division rival.
"This is not Vietnam, Smokey, there are rules here." - Walter Sobchak
by Rose Colored Goggles on Oct 13, 2009 3:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You all are better off without Ben Gordon. He was an excellent shooter and an underrated clutch player but ultimately he was someone who:
A) Needed the ball in his hands to make plays, taking possessions and play-making opportunities away from Derrick Rose, who you should be building around and developing.
B) Is an alpha dog that is a below average passer (like 3 assists a game), leading to many isolation situations that don’t work in the entire offense and don’t allow Rose to flourish.
C) Would have been overpaid for what he is providing because he isn’t quite an all-star caliber player.
D) Created a logjam in your backcourt which now has 3 EXCELLENT options instead of 4(Heinrich, Rose, Salmons (not to mention Pargo is a baller and lit up the Spurs for 30 in a playoff game))
You will be better without him and what you really need is a dominant big man to play second banana to Rose’s first. I think Bosh would be perfect for that if Thomas doesn’t pan out.
by Rich Town on Oct 19, 2009 11:26 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

by 












