Why does this year feel so much worse than last?

by YaoPau on Sep 29, 2009 3:29 PM CDT Comment 87 comments

Here's what I know about last season:

1) We gave several stiffs big minutes.

Larry Hughes averaged 26.4mpg in 30 games for us.
Drew Gooden averaged 29.6mpg in 31 games.
Andres Nocioni played 24.1mpg in 53 games.
Gray, Hughes, Gooden, Nocioni and Sefolosha combined for 67 starts.

2) Joakim, Tyrus, Rose, and Deng were really bad over long stretches last year.

Joakim's numbers in November (15.9mpg, 3.1ppg, 0.8apg, 5.1rpg, 40% shooting) were bad. He wasn't a regular rotation player, and played 30mpg just once in his first 30 (!) games.
Tyrus was equally bad in November. In 19.9mpg, he shot 35.4% from the field. That play lost him his starting job. He got it back two months later, and finally hit his stride in February.
Rose struggled to score for most of the season. From December through March (58 games), he posted a 50.2 TS%.
Deng's .511 TS%, 10.1 TRB%, and 9.0 AST% were each his lowest marks since his rookie season.

Yet we still won 41 games. Shouldn't we easily be better this year? Let's break it down further...

POSITION BY POSITION

From 82games....

PG - 2008 minutes breakdown: Rose 75%, Hinrich 15%, Hunter 5%, Gordon 3%

Similar breakdown this year, with Pargo replacing Gordon's 3%. I'm assuming Rose will improve, meaning the PG position as a whole should improve, even if Hinrich falls off a tad.

SG - 2008 minutes breakdown: Gordon 64%, Hinrich 18%, Hughes 8%, Thabo 4%, Salmons 1%

Salmons takes Gordon's minutes, and Hinrich and Pargo absorb the remaining 36%. Slightly worse starter, better bench. Overall, I think it's about a wash.

SF - 2008 minutes breakdown: Deng 36%, Salmons 22%, Thabo 12%, Hughes 10%, Noc 7%, Gordon 6%, Tim Thomas 2%

Thabo, Hughes, Noc, Tim Thomas and other scrubs (LJ3, Nichols) combined for around 1/3 of our SF minutes. This year, Deng, Salmons, Johnson, and Hinrich take the full load, with Deng hopefully taking 60%+ of it. Deng returning to form (even 07-08 form) significantly improves this position.

PF - 2008 minutes breakdown: Tyrus 48%, Noc 23%, Gooden 8%, Noah 7%, Deng 4%, Tim Thomas 4%

Tyrus, Luol, and James Johnson will take most of the minutes, with Noah and Taj filling in. We aren't strong at PF, but we were really really bad last season.

C - 2008 minutes breakdown: Noah 41%, Miller 18%, Gray 17%, Gooden 14%, Tyrus 6%, Noc 1%

Noah and Miller should take 80+% of the minutes. If Noah just starts the season well, we'll get a boost over last year. Miller absorbs Gooden's minutes, and that'll help on both sides of the ball.

That's three positions with improvements (PG, SF, C), and two where we're probably about the same (SG, PF).

OVERALL, THE OUTLOOK

We lose Gordon's 82 games. But we can get 55 more from Salmons, 55 more from Miller, 32 more from Deng, 30 more from Hinrich. Noah and Tyrus probably won't waste their first 20 games like they did last year. I doubt Rose has another 58 game slump. VDN now has 89 games under his belt. Overall we're in line to improve.

And here's what I know about the rest of the Eastern Conference: the Heat lost Jamario Moon for nothing, and Beasley had a rough offseason. The Bucks lost half their team. The Pacers lost Jack and Nesterovic and added Hansbrough. Detroit added perimeter scorers, but defense is a question. The Bobcats traded Okafor for Chandler, and drafted Gerald Henderson. Philly gets Brand back, but replaced Andre Miller with a 19 year old PG. The Raptors got Turkoglu and acquired some nice depth, but lost Marion and Anthony Parker. The Wizards got Randy Foye and Mike Miller and get Arenas/Haywood back. I admittedly like the Wizards this year, but besides them, nobody scares me.

Hollinger just projected us at 38 wins. fundamentallysound said that the apbrmetrics stat gurus all had us between 36-38 wins pretty consistently. And recently I've felt myself getting pessimistic about this season. But that pessimism doesn't make sense.

If we win 38 games, that's a 2008-level disappointment. We should win at least as many games again this year, and these signs point to a big improvement. 45 wins? 47? 50? I think it's possible, and rational.

FanPosts are user-created posts from the BlogABull community, and are to be treated as the opinions and views of that particular user, not that of the blogger or blog community as a whole.

6 recs | Comment 87 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

unless I am mistaken, i remember you being optimistic about chicago's future shortly

after gordon signed with detroit, what has changed for you?

by TheMoon on Sep 29, 2009 4:01 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah I was.

I think the lack of a proven scorer scared me off most. VDN added to it, Derrick Rose’s weird offseason added to it, the Bulls missing expectations in the past added to it.

But we’re fine. This team is so talented. If you go position by position vs. our 2007 team, we stack up pretty well, maybe better.

by YaoPau on Sep 29, 2009 4:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Derrick Rose's weird offseason? What part was weird?

1. Cut a hole in a box
2. Put your Kirk in that box
3. Make some team open that box

by fundamentallysound on Sep 29, 2009 5:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

where sushi is chinese food happens!

by sin on Sep 29, 2009 10:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

what I do like

is that there’s such a dropoff between the Bulls top-7 to the rest of the team, that the top-7 will get a majority of the minutes, and even Vinny can’t come up with a reason otherwise.

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 Sep 29, 2009 4:11 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs

the only scary part about that is that if the Bulls suffer any injuries to any of the top 7, they are pretty screwed.

1. Cut a hole in a box
2. Put your Kirk in that box
3. Make some team open that box

by fundamentallysound on Sep 29, 2009 4:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

the same could be said about many contending teams

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 Sep 29, 2009 4:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

not the deeper ones. the Celtics lost KG (a legit top 10 guy) and still made the playoffs in the top 3, last year.

If we lose Brad Miller for extended time, we’re looking at missing the playoffs. Our margin for error is a lot smaller than a lot of other teams.

1. Cut a hole in a box
2. Put your Kirk in that box
3. Make some team open that box

by fundamentallysound on Sep 29, 2009 5:18 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

Boston vs. Chicago isn't really apples to apples.

They’re in a similar position to all the other middle of the pack teams that could win anywhere between 50 and 35 games,.

by Scotter on Sep 29, 2009 6:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

off the top of my head, the Wizards are deeper and better suited (this year)

to deal with an injury to one of their top 7 than the Bulls are. The Bucks lost a ton of guys last year (particularly Redd and Bogut) and still managed to compete for the last playoff spot. Those are the two that immediately come to mind.

1. Cut a hole in a box
2. Put your Kirk in that box
3. Make some team open that box

by fundamentallysound on Sep 29, 2009 6:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

and, they both have way better coaches than us.

I really think the Wiz will be good. We’re here pining for the return of Luol Deng, and they’re getting Arenas and Haywood back.

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 Sep 30, 2009 9:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

To be honest

I think the Hawks can sustain a hit to their starting line-up pretty well. By adding Crawford and Joe Smith and (hopefully) getting Marvin Williams back healthy, they’re a fairly stacked team for a squad that’s looking primarily at a 4 seed.

"This is not Vietnam, Smokey, there are rules here." - Walter Sobchak

by Rose Colored Goggles on Sep 30, 2009 12:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I won't say this is the case for you (because it probably wasn't)...

but I think the biggest reason there was more optimism last year than this is because a lot of people thought Hughes, Gooden and Nocioni were a lot better than they were (Nocioni probably should’ve been better than he was, but the other two sucked).

Here’s my reasons for less optimism (not for any one person, but in general amongst Bulls fans)(not necessarily in any order):

1. People thought Hughes, Gooden and Nocioni were good.
2. Just got Derrick Rose and expectations were limitless. Still very, very high but we’ve seen his weaknesses.
3. We didn’t know Del Negro would be THIS bad.
4. We didn’t accept that Reinsdorf was a complete cheapskate, and we still believed some of what they said.
5. We (irrationally) expected all four of the core (Hinrich, Gordon, Deng and Nocioni) to shake off the mishaps of the year before and not only return to form, but but surpass it because they were “young.”

There might be others, but I’m stopping there. I think these are some of the reasons, some logical, some not, that gave a sense of greater optimism last year than this one.

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 Sep 29, 2009 5:28 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Not to be a contrarian, but

1. No argument here

2. Perhaps your expectations for Rose were ‘limitless’, but he vastly exceeded my overall expectations last year. I thought he’d reach last year’s level in year 2 or 3. Perhaps my expectations are too high this year because of it, but I think he’s going to be an all-star – perhaps even a starter (which is meaningless since starting is merely a popularity contest). But no freshmen-sophomore game for Rose this year, he will play in his first of many all-star games. (especially if he’s improved defensively)

3. While I complained about Del Negro’s in-game execution as much as anyone, you’ve got to give him credit for keeping the team together and playing hard. Everyone was on-board all year last year (aside from obvious serial-malcontents such as Hughes). I don’t think VDN will ever be coaching the Olympic Team, but I’m optimistic that he’s somewhat intelligent, will learn from his mistakes last year, and will be a decent overall coach this year. Other than the lack of timeouts issue vs the Celtics (which is a problem a couple other coaches also had in the playoffs last year, so it’s not like it was only VDN screwing up in that manner), he did improve as the season went on. Although he does need to have gameplans this year that don’t involve 100% switching on D, and a chaotic O.

4. This is obviously in reference to Gordon. While I really wish they would have just been up front with their plans (e.g. “What we’ve offered Gordon the last two years what we’re going to offer him, and if he wants more he’ll have to go somewhere else” rather than “Re-signing BG is our #1 offseason priority” when it clearly wasn’t). I really wish BG would have stayed, but I certainly agree with the management’s decision not to overpay him.

5. I pretty much agree with this one. Our opinion of Nocioni’s game was inflated, Deng & Hinrich missed significant time with injuries, but Gordon was exactly what everyone expected him to be. If the team in general can avoid significant injuries, I like every where the Bulls are at in every position compared with last year, aside from SG on the offensive end, but hopefully the individual improvement of Noah, Thomas and Rose will help offset the loss of BG in that regard. And if they play better defense overall, then we might not miss BG at all with regards to wins and losses.

by kozzer on Sep 30, 2009 10:04 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

Number 4 isn't only in reference to Gordon which is why I didn't mention him by name.

Reinsdorf is more clearly now a cheap-ass then he has been before. They are not really going after 2010 otherwise they’d ship off some of the other guaranteed contracts like Salmons or Hinrich or even Deng. Right now they have $37.5 million “committed” to next year if Salmons doesn’t opt out, and there is no guarantee that he will.

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 Sep 30, 2009 11:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And that's not counting Tyrus either right?

"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 Sep 30, 2009 11:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

True

Reinsdorf is cheap when it comes to the Bulls. I just took it to be a reference to Gordon specifically since that’s the only “Reinsdorf is cheap” thing that’s happened since this time last year.

by kozzer on Sep 30, 2009 12:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, I had a longer explanation....

…but I deleted it all. Basically, once we learned that the cap is likely to be between $50-$53 million and the Bulls will have, if they don’t get rid of Deng or Hinrich for expirings, at least ~$36 million… (because you have cap holds for 1st round picks and/or empty roster spots) they’ll only have room for one MAX player and no one else, and if Salmons doesn’t opt out (I expect him to, but what if he gets hurt or has a somewhat bad year?). If he doesn’t, they’ll have no room to get a MAX player.

Since that’s the case, if they were really going for 2010, they would have traded Hinrich or Deng or Salmons for an expiring contract and taken the performance hit. The best strategy would have been to say, "Screw the cap, screw the tax this year. Re-sign Ben Gordon. Try to extend Thomas (for how much? who knows, but at least try for a reasonable amount) Win 45-50 games, be in the 4 or 5 spot in the East to differentiate themselves from the other wannabes, then use Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Tyrus Thomas, or even Noah (at the worst) to get Bosh or Wade or whomever. Superstar gets the most money he can (instead of $25-$40 million less for signing outright), and the Bulls aren’t depleted.

Plus, they can still re-sign Tyrus Thomas if they want (they won’t be able to as is, because they won’t offer him the qualifying offer, making him a free agent). Plus, if they completely fail to get a MAX player, they still have a group of talented players they can compete with.

The way, as is, they’ll likely be without Ben Gordon, Tyrus Thomas, John Salmons and Brad Miller going into 2010-2011. Even if they get a superstar to come (say, Bosh or Wade), that gives them Rose, Wade, Deng, Johnson, Noah, Hinrich, Asik… or Rose, Hinrich, Deng, Bosh, Noah, Johnson, Asik. So that’s not absolutely horrible and about what they’d have if they used Gordon and Thomas in a sign-and-trade. But what if they DON’T get one of those guys? Rose, Hinrich, Deng, Johnson, Noah, Asik. ::shudder::

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 Sep 30, 2009 2:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

okay, so that wasn't "basically" lol

I always thought an extension and going for sign-and-trades were a lot better idea (since the players signing, Bosh, Wade, James, Johnson, Stoudamire) get gobs more guaranteed more money, bu once the economy tanked and everyone knew the cap was going down it was starting to be speculated that it’d be $50-$53 million, it was going to be way too hard to pull off an outright signing.

If Reinsdorf weren’t cheap and really wanted to win, he would have re-signed Gordon. So yeah, it’s because of Gordon, but it has a lot more implications than just “not wanting to pay Gordon more than what he’s worth”.

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 Sep 30, 2009 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cool

Thanks for explaining your position on that. I think I pretty much agree with everything you said, although I still feel that BG isn’t worth a $10m yearly cap hit. But you laid out the circumstances where it might have made sense to do so. Of course, that all assumes that we come up empty next offseason (very possible, probably even likely). It’s interesting that it seems to come down to whether or not Salmons opts out. I like Salmons, but I hope he has a good year and does opt out. Then the Bulls benefit this year, and get more $ off the books to make room for the possible marquee FA signing next year.

by kozzer on Sep 30, 2009 2:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Your reasoning makes a lot of sense, but I can't fully fault the plan.

For one, with our current set-up there is no reason why we can’t dump salary around the trade deadline. The past few years have shown us that teams are much more willing and anxious to make big trades mid-season, especially when it comes to expiring contracts. This way, we get to gauge exactly how well our current line-up works together, figure out which players are expendable, and (hopefully) allow some players to regain or raise their trade value. I know you’ll probably scoff at the idea of players raising their value, but just look at Tyrus before last trade deadline and realize that Deng’s value is unlikely to fall any lower than it was this past off-season.
Secondly, relying on sign-and-trades to obtain superstars doesn’t seem to be any better idea than signing a player out-right. Can you think of any blockbuster sign and trades in the past 10 years? It seems to make sense because the argument that a team doesn’t want to lose a player for nothing is logical, but in practice they’re very rare. And if you fail with the sign and trade you have an expensive, mediocre team that probably maxes out at the 4th seed, with few good options for improvement.

by jpm356 on Sep 30, 2009 8:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rashard Lewis was the last one I remember.

Tracy McGrady.

It’s up to the player where he goes. He makes $25-$40 million in a sign and trade. Big time players changing teams via any way other than straight trades is rare. Sign-and-trades are next. Outright signings are the most rare.

And if the Bulls crap out next off-season (without the sign-and-trade) they’d be a team that maxes out at the 8th seed. One is greater than the other.

And I’m not sure about trading guys at the deadline. I agree with yfBB that the team needs to be good to get a good player. A non-playoff team won’t get Dwyane Wade to come. Any guy you would want to trade would be one of the top-7 and losing him would likely keep the team out of the playoffs. They won’t trade anyone away at the deadline for expiring contracts if they’re in the hunt for the playoffs.

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 Sep 30, 2009 10:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're still exaggerating how common sign-and-trades are.

You named two, go ahead and throw in Hedo and Joe Johnson.
Sign-and-trades are fairly common with restricted free agents, but to say they are more common than outright signings with unrestricted free agents is simply not true. Thinking of just the past few seasons you can name half a dozen pretty big names who’ve signed outright (Brand, Baron Davis, Arenas, Artest, Gordon, etc.).
Clearly, the most likely way for a team to pick up a big name player is through a trade. While it’s all well and good to have plenty of pieces to offer in trades (your Gordon/Thomas plan), the tax complications negate whatever benefits are gained. Personally I’d rather have the cap flexibility than a non-contender with a bunch of over-paid, hard to deal players (Deng, Hinrich, Gordon).

by jpm356 on Oct 1, 2009 1:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The thing is...all those guys you mentioned were pretty much

overpaid, and they weren’t max guys. The guys we’re after are max contract guys, and those types of players are much, much harder to pry away. The other common denominator in those signings was cheapskate owners. Brand = Sterling being cheap. Baron Davis and Arenas leaving Golden State = owner being cheap. Gordon = Reinsdorf being cheap. The only one where it wasn’t a case of a cheap owner not wanting to pay for his talent was Artest and that was more a matter of Artest leaving Houston because he’s a nut and Morey didn’t want to commit money to him when he could commit money to Ariza, who is younger and will probably be better longer.

The owners of the teams that have these max guys aren’t going to cheap out on their max-contract, franchise guys. It would be franchise suicide.

1. Cut a hole in a box
2. Put your Kirk in that box
3. Make some team open that box

by fundamentallysound on Oct 1, 2009 2:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not that I want to defend Sterling, but Brand didn't leave out of ownersip's cheapness

It was Philadelphia’s ability to quickly shed enough salary to make a competitive offer combined with Brand’s stated preference for the East Coast that drew him away.

From an article announcing the signing

One source familiar with the negotiations, furthermore, insisted Tuesday that the Clippers increased their final offer to Brand to a virtual match of Philadelphia’s at an estimated $81 million over five seasons.

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 Oct 2, 2009 12:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Virtual match" is different than an actual match.

The Clips should have been able to pay him more than anyone else, and they chose not to. That’s ownership cheapness.

1. Cut a hole in a box
2. Put your Kirk in that box
3. Make some team open that box

by fundamentallysound on Oct 2, 2009 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Clipps could have done better, and considering the money they'd just given to Davis, should have

Considering they made a fair market value, I don’t think they should be chided for “cheapness” in this case

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 Oct 2, 2009 3:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The CBA gives teams the opportunity to pay the most for a reason

and clearly it wasn’t fair market value, because he took a better offer elsewhere. If they had wanted him, they could have offered more.

1. Cut a hole in a box
2. Put your Kirk in that box
3. Make some team open that box

by fundamentallysound on Oct 2, 2009 4:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought we were talking about superstars getting MAX money.

Oh, you’re happy with making a 2010 plan for “All-Star” guys? I’m not. There’s a difference between Wade, Bosh, James, Stoudamire, Yao, Dirk, etc. and Arenas, Artest, Gordon, Brand, Davis.

The first group of guys are among the very elite in the game and are, arguably, worth sacrificing your organization for. The second group of guys are not.

Hell, I guess I’m not even talking about the “best” players, only the ones who will get the max. Name me more than two of the MAX contracts that have been signed as outright free agents of the past 10 years.

And yes, guys with severe injury histories, mental instabilities and 2nd round draft picks aren’t that hard to sign away. If we come away with one of them as our “2010 plan”, I’ll puke.

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 1, 2009 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I never said I was happy with a 2010 plan for "All-Star" guys

What I was trying to point out is that your proposed plan makes even less sense than management’s. You want to go over the cap now, and then hope that a team with a MAX player is willing to trade them for some of our overpriced players? And if they can’t get them at the deadline we’re supposed to offer them max money in the off-season, promising we can pull off a sign-and-trade? If I’m a free-agent I’m staying the hell away from that plan.
I never claimed to be happy with the current plan because the flaws are blinding; I simply explained why I can’t completely fault management for their thinking. Especially when your proposed ‘best’ option feels like it was drawn up by Isiah Thomas.

by jpm356 on Oct 1, 2009 8:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

As I said, name the MAX players who have switched....

…via outright free agency. If it’s a more reasonable plan, then you should be able to back that up with evidence. I’ll give you Rashard Lewis-about as overpaid as possible. Name another. All players in the NBA overpaid, so that’s not a justification. And at least one team wouldn’t think Gordon was overpaid.

And yes, I would think a lot of players would overlook minor flaws in a rebuilding for $25-$40 million guaranteed for money, a point you’ve yet to acknowledge.

And no, it isn’t a “promise” that they pull of a sign-and-trade. The “promise” is that they’ll still have a good team if they strike out on the free agent. It’s not a promise that they’ll get a FA outright either. It is a promise that if they strike out on their current plan that they’ll absolutely suck balls.

I will bet you my BaB membership vs. yours 4 out of the 6 MAX guys available that I listed above will either: a) stay with their team, b) move via a sign-and-trade or c) go to NYC.

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 2, 2009 8:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Shaq switched outright

Which means exactly as many MAX players moved outright as through sign-and-trade (unless you want to count those who’ve simply gotten the MAX, which you refused to do above, and which would support my point anyway).

Next, my point wasn’t that the org. is promising US they’ll get a deal done through a sign-and-trade, it’s that they’ll have to approach the free agents with this plan. I see no reason why, say, Toronto would rebuff trade proposals from us for two years, and then suddenly accept a sign-and-trade for Bosh when we don’t have the money to sign him outright if they don’t. It’s much more likely that they would pull off a sign-and-trade with someone like the Heat, who actually pose a threat of signing Bosh away whether or not Toronto agrees to a sign-and-trade. Unless a team likes the pieces they can get from us better than what they can get from other suitors, there is no reason for them to make a deal with us (unless they really want to do right by the player they’re losing, but come on now.)

Thirdly, the $25-$40 million argument doesn’t really hold much water. The Bulls can sign and trade whether they’re over the cap or under. Any team can sign and trade. Your point is the Bulls would have more assets if they’d have signed Gordon. True. My point is that teams won’t want to trade for multiple over-priced players, which is what two of our biggest assets (Deng, Gordon) would have (arguably) been.

Real gutsy prediction by-the-way, did you stay up all night figuring that one out?

by jpm356 on Oct 2, 2009 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Shaq moved in 1996, 13 years ago.

He’s been traded ever since. I still need another one to for you to say it’s “more likely” to be signed outright than in a sign-and-trade. That, combined with McGrady, though, is my point. It’s absolutely rare for a superstar player to change teams in anything other than a “normal” trade. That they all stay on their respective teams is more likely than anything. Which is still bad. Which is my point at all.

I have no idea what you’re parenthetical statement in the first paragraph means. Who are the guys who got the MAX that you’re referring to that I’m not acknowledging?

I agree with most of your second paragraph. However, I don’t think the Bulls are the ones that have to have the space. I think it’s only that one other team that the player has a credible chance to go to that has to have the space. If Bosh goes to the Raptors and says, “I want to go to Chicago, but they don’t have the space. I will go to Miami, though, if you don’t work with me on this. I”m not coming back to Toronto." If they believe him, they’ll take the best deal. Considering the PG is 28, and they just signed Turkoglu, I’d think they’d rather have Tyrus and Gordon than Daequan Cook and Michael Besley… or whatever. They wouldn’t refuse to do business with the Bulls if they could offer them the best package just to lose him to the Heat for nothing. That’s ridiculous. we know plenty of teams will have the cap space to sign the MAX players away.

Deng and Gordon might be overpriced. We don’t know. It’s obviously your opinion. The Bulls were willing to pay him until they wanted cap space. The Pistons did pay him. That’s two teams that wouldn’t consider him overpaid. I think you’re completely wrong about that. And I think that no team would take back an overpaid-by-$2 million player (and a group of other assets like picks, etc.) and instead lose their star for nothing completely underestimates the roaring they’d hear from the fans if they did the latter.

And your last one? So you’re too scared to bet on your convictions? All I’ve said is that it’s more likely that players stay on their own teams or are involved in sign-and-trades. You’re disputing this. Chicken!

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 2, 2009 12:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

those aren't really fair terms

like you wouldn’t come back as tyger1148?

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 2, 2009 1:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Like I care that much.

Maybe in 4 or 5 years, when the Bulls got relevant again, and if another blog hadn’t sprung up…

What are the “terms” (I’m not a betting man)? Are they the accounts (or whatever)-i.e. what the loser has to do, or are they the player numbers-i.e. what we’re betting about?

If it’s the latter, I only chose that because it’s a “more likely” discussion, and I offered more than half. 5 out of 6? Fine, whatever. With the CBA looming and the economy still recovering, these guys are going to want every penny they can get. The only reason they’ll move is because they think they can get more money via endorsements in NYC. Only one guy will change teams via outright FA movement.

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 2, 2009 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think

whoever actually makes such bets is declared a loser by me.

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 4, 2009 7:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think anyone who comments as much as me...

…is probably a loser anyway. I would’ve thought you would have already assumed the same. I’m a loser who would rather comment relentlessly no the Bulls and other sports team than actually be productive in my life. That this was not already well-established confuses me.

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 6, 2009 9:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

heh, excellent point

Though I’d still say if one was to bet their BaB handle, it’d imply they value the thing, which ruins the whole self-aware-loserness.

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 6, 2009 10:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What else would I bet?

I’m going to write a post praising someone? That’s about the only thing I can think of. I wouldn’t miss this place if I lost it, which is why I so quickly raised the stakes. Besides, like you said, if I really cared that much, I could just come back “as someone else”.

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 8, 2009 12:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Very sound analysis of the cap situation Tyger

too bad it’s true. I’m not too optimistic about us getting a Wade or a Bosh, I think Joe Johnson is the most likely scenario.

"This is not Vietnam, Smokey, there are rules here." - Walter Sobchak

by Rose Colored Goggles on Sep 30, 2009 2:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Do You Guys Think...

That Reinsdorf would be willing to go over the cap… if he had a player like Dwyane Wade?

by 420man! on Sep 30, 2009 7:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You mean the tax.

He said only for a championship contender. A team with just Wade isn’t that. A team with Rose, Wade Deng and Noah is good, but about four good players short of a contender. They’ll be close to the tax after signing one or two but won’t be a contender, so you tell me how they get over that hump.

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 Sep 30, 2009 10:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't agree that a team

with Rose Wade Deng and Noah is 4 players short of a contender. I’d take that team, fill in with a defensive minded PF that can hit the free throw line jumper when open, and i’d be more than happy to get role players to fill out the roster.

by runningman on Oct 1, 2009 3:36 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

I agree

Look at Cleveland or Orlando. Their rosters aren’t exactly deep with great talent. They’ve got they top 2 or 3 guys (or top 1 in Cleveland’s case) and fill in every where else. A team with Rose & Wade in the backcourt, Deng on the wing, and Noah up front would certainly contend for the conference title.

by kozzer on Oct 1, 2009 9:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

How many role players? Two?

Cuz any more would make it 4 players, ya know, like I said.

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 1, 2009 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You have to have 12

players on your roster. If your argument is that you have to sign anyone, no matter who it is, then I agree.

However, I use role players to differentiate from “good” players. There are players that would shine anywhere, and there are players that are good specifically for your team. I think we could easily find 4 role players.

Those players would love to play with Rose and Wade, because it would make them look better as they take most of their shots while wide open.

by runningman on Oct 2, 2009 7:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gordon would've been the fourth most overpaid player on the Bulls

Yet, you know what u were getting w/ Ben the iron man. Great scorer, not much else. Nothing great about the other three overpaid players. For the Gordon haters, where is the outrage for injury-prone 10mil/yr 9pt/gm Hinrick and 13mil/yr 14pts/gm Deng. At the time of their contracts, projections were 17pts& 8asts per game 4 Hinrick and 20 pts & 8 rebs for Deng. The NBA team scouts have had plenty of time to watch tapes on Deng and Hinrick and may have identified their weaknesses. I believe their future stats will reflex team scouting reports. Based on historical data I’m not as optimistic as many of you. I will wait & see. Miller’s massive contract will b gone so good ridden. Management can afford to be cheap and still maximize profits. Bulls corporate and yuppie ticket holders fans will take it up the butt as long as they play close to .500. ball for a while.

by sadafan on Oct 1, 2009 7:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Cubs figured that out 100 years ago.

by hlac on Oct 1, 2009 9:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There is outrage about Hinrich and Deng's contracts.

Things could be worse. We could have kept Boylan.

by stupidgenius on Oct 1, 2009 10:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I actually feel optimistic about this year.

by C Smoove on Sep 29, 2009 8:00 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

me too!

i like salmons and deng and JJ on th ewings…im hoping JJ is ready

by SD20 on Sep 30, 2009 7:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Optimism... its the healthiest mindset

Even if the Bulls don’t play to my high expectation… its another year under Rose’s belt to improve…

I guess I’m a observer in the evolution of Derrick Rose.

by 420man! on Sep 30, 2009 7:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

its also the hardest to maintain

ask yfbb…hope is simultaneously the greatest thing in the world, and the worst thing in the world, it goes hand in hand with love…

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 Sep 30, 2009 10:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

that's the lamest shit I've ever heard.

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 1, 2009 9:28 AM CDT up reply actions 5 recs

Ha!

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 1, 2009 10:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You wrote that with a tear in your eye.

Don’t front.

The poster formerly known as Freethefro.

by MPG on Oct 2, 2009 8:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This was a great post

and it definitely increased my level of optimism about this season. I admit that sometimes I’ve probably blinded myself to Gordon’s faults and really just wanted to continue to watch him shoot. I think we’ll win around 42 games this year and make the playoffs. Hopefully that will be good enough to pull off some sort of big move next summer.

"This is not Vietnam, Smokey, there are rules here." - Walter Sobchak

by Rose Colored Goggles on Sep 30, 2009 12:42 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I still don't think that Gordon's fault's were holding this team back at all

People talk about his D, but how many scoring guards in the NBA play hard nosed, balls out D anyway? Gordon jacked up bad shots because the Bulls are a one dimensional offensive team. We live and die by the jump shot every year and seem determined to not get a big man who can muster a Kendrick Perkins type jump hook or a drop step. If we had a serviceable big man with a mediocre post game as opposed to none at all, Gordon would have been an all-star for sure. We could have been passing the ball into the post and kicking out to BG and Kirk for wide open shots like Trevor Ariza buried all NBA finals long.

by Rosenscrubs on Sep 30, 2009 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

True

I’m just trying to stay positive seeing as how the season hasn’t even started yet. I’m sure I’ll be back to my old pessimistic self once the circus trip starts.

"This is not Vietnam, Smokey, there are rules here." - Walter Sobchak

by Rose Colored Goggles on Sep 30, 2009 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

How many times did Perkins kick it out?

He had 1.3 apg last year. You need a dominant big man inside to draw double teams, not a mediocre one like Perkins.

by runningman on Oct 1, 2009 3:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i don't know

i’d settle for just one big man who can hold position and score inside. The Bulls still don’t have that.

by Basketball Smurf on Oct 1, 2009 4:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He also averaged 12pts. and 11 boards in last years playoffs

While I agree that a dominant big man would be ideal for drawing double teams, if you have a player like Perkins on the Bulls, you can dump the ball into the post and he’s a legitimate scoring threat. While maybe not dominant enough to draw immediate double teams, he’s big, strong and skilled, and on his good nights, I think he could command enough respect and attention open up the floor some for our perimeter shooters. If he doesn’t get doubled, he can at least score in the post.

by Rosenscrubs on Oct 1, 2009 11:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

In response to the original question posed by YaoPau,

I’ll offer my very basic thoughts:

Last year, we had just won the lottery and gotten Derrick Rose. We expected Deng to be healthy, Gordon to be awesome, and expectations for Tyrus were high (as always).

This year, Rose is a known commodity, and though he is awesome, we know he’s not LeBron or CP3. His defense needs loads of work, and he has offensive flaws. There’s optimism about him, but not at the same levels as there was last year.

Tyrus had a pretty disappointing year. Last year was the year he was supposed to “get it.” Didn’t happen. Now, it’s becoming increasingly likely and apparent that he’s not going to be around beyond this year. That’s a bummer.

Finally, going into last season, we hadn’t lost anyone of consequence, and there was a sense from many that 2007-08 was a fluke year, that everyone would return to form and that we’d added this amazing young rookie so we’d be like the 2006-07 team only better because of Rose. This year, we know this team is pretty mediocre and on top of that, we lost one of our best players for absolutely nothing.

Summing up, I think those are the basic reasons why people are probably less optimistic this year. It mostly goes to the fact that this team is still not attempting to contend and let a very valuable player leave for no compensation at all.

1. Cut a hole in a box
2. Put your Kirk in that box
3. Make some team open that box

by fundamentallysound on Sep 30, 2009 9:06 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs

I'll add one more:

BG was sacrificed, ostensibly, for the 2010 plan. There’s a lot of reason for skepticism in the 2010 plan. Ron Mercer’s name is often thrown out with a smirk, but for me, it goes beyond even that. It’s that the Bulls need Salmons to opt out and they need the cap to remain closer to the $53 million projection rather than the $50 million projection. If it’s on the low end, they don’t have max cap space and the 2010 plan if frakked before it even had a chance, and then you’ve lost an uber-efficient 19-20 ppg starter for absolutely nil.

1. Cut a hole in a box
2. Put your Kirk in that box
3. Make some team open that box

by fundamentallysound on Sep 30, 2009 9:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

All good points

The weird thing about expectations… if you told me one year ago that:

- Derrick would win ROY and have the 2nd or 3rd best season for a 20 year old PG ever
- Tyrus would have had 61 starts, 27.5mpg, with a 15.9 PER

I would’ve been ecstatic.

by YaoPau on Oct 1, 2009 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Did anybody else notice comments disappearing from this thread?

We were talking fantasy (I think) here yesterday and now the comments are gone!

"This is not Vietnam, Smokey, there are rules here." - Walter Sobchak

by Rose Colored Goggles on Oct 1, 2009 9:42 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah I remember posting something yesterday too

"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 1, 2009 8:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe it's a thinly veiled hint that

a) the thread topic isn’t fantasy basketball

b) some people (who shall remain nameless, yet have the power to make comments disappear) don’t particularly care for fantasy basketball discussions mucking up the flow of things

c) all of the above

;)

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 1, 2009 9:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Obviously that's the case

even though there are plenty of threads that go off topic but hey it’s not my blog.

"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 1, 2009 10:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

it was because a fantasy basketball thread popped up.

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 2, 2009 1:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough

"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 2, 2009 2:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yep

noticed that right after I commented here last week.

"This is not Vietnam, Smokey, there are rules here." - Walter Sobchak

by Rose Colored Goggles on Oct 5, 2009 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i just want the season to start already......

LETS GO BULLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by masputo on Oct 1, 2009 6:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

First preseason game is

on CSN+ tomorrow night at 6 pm Central time.

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 1, 2009 9:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have to do tomorrow's game online, sadly

But I’ll be happily taking all afternoon off to watch the London game next Tuesday!

They’ve already billed me for Leauge Pass and it’s not like anything else is going on basketball wise. I wish they’d just televise all of these.

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 1, 2009 9:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

it is annoying that the preseason games don't appear on there

except on like directtv or something.

"They should. They better. I'm Vinny Del Negro!"

by Jaina on Oct 1, 2009 11:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have DirecTV

and I don’t think I’ve seen any preseason games on LP. I wish they would.

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 2, 2009 8:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i thought it was

maybe dish network? i know it was one of the satellite providers. i swear it was directv.

well i found this it’s from last year but it is preseason games on directv.

"They should. They better. I'm Vinny Del Negro!"

by Jaina on Oct 2, 2009 9:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wonder if the

Bulls games were also on CSN and that’s why I thought they weren’t on NBALP. We use to get NBALP with Dish before we switched to DirecTV are you offered LP with your cable provider?

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 2, 2009 3:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, i am

i started 2 years ago and am hooked now.

last season though, my cable provider didn’t have NBATV (i moved), which pissed me off cause i couldn’t get those games. i noticed that they added it since last season though so i should be able to get everything now.

i kinda want to get fios now that they offer LP. my landlord had talked about getting the house wired for it and i was only disappointed cause at the time i couldn’t get it. now there’d be no reason not to switch.

"They should. They better. I'm Vinny Del Negro!"

by Jaina on Oct 2, 2009 9:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's funny the schedule

doesn’t show this game being televised but CSN started advertising it this week. The schedule doesn’t show the London game being shown either. Is another network picking that game up? You would think it would benefit LP to show the preseason games as people may then want to purchase the package but with the economy the way it is it might not.

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 2, 2009 8:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The London game (and the other overseas games) are listed on NBATV

But I haven’t seen listings there for any of the other preseason games. At least not yet – maybe they’ll do some closer to the season?

It is weird with LP – I got a Dish Network notice that I thought implied preseason games would be shown as part of the free trial. I’m on the auto-renew plan anyway, and it’s not like I wouldn’t order it in protest or anything. I guess I’m just anxious to see the team in action, even preseason action.

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 2, 2009 9:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs