The Bulls flaws get them down, strengths bring them back against Atlanta

but I didn’t like him much then either. He’s a clown at everything other than scoring, and for the better part of his tenure with the Bulls he’s been subpar in that department. He’s injury free and lighter now, but he looks like a dog out there. I’m done with him. There are so many guys I’d rather have at the 4 it’s not even funny. Gimme that Brandon Bass Boston got from Orlando for that fatass Big Baby. Boozer’s not anywhere near the top of his position.

I’m done with this clown, and have been for a while.

myself included. But, he works his ass off and makes the most out of his limited tools. Nothings angers sports fans than a guy who dogs it out there, and the clearer the dogging, the angrier people get. People primarily hate Boozer because of his lackluster effort and his inability to bust his ass and avoid most of the mistakes that he makes on the floor.

I’d just like them to make sense. Also, I wasn’t referring to that as a whole game’s production. He can literally have that much in the first half, make a mistake and then have someone calling for his head. It’s not rational.

…

But we’re not managers, we don’t make decisions on players, and we don’t pay them out of our own pockets. There is no efficiency championship in the NBA and some players on every team are going to be overpaid relative to their production, unless you manage to get Wade, Lebron, Bosh, and a bunch of ring chasers. It doesn’t matter. How many overpaid contracts did the Mavericks have last year? If Boozer was making 5 million less, how would it affect your life? You had to overpay Boozer to get him on your team, and bringing in somebody who’s worse but paid less wasn’t going to help the Bulls be championship competitors.

10 and 10 was referring to during the game. Only 6 or 7 players equaled Boozer’s 18 and 10 last year.

I also don’t see anyone credibly arguing that he’s not better at offense than his frontcourt teammates. He has different skills than them, and that’s why he’s on the team in the first place. If there was somebody who was great at offense, defense, and rebounding, then the Bulls would have got that guy, but this was the best they could do in the year they had cap space. Why cry about it.

What is “the issue” that is not recognized? I recognize he was failing at his job. I also recognize everyone else that were also failing at their jobs. You have yet to explain why Boozer is the only one not allowed to fail. If the issue is that Boozer didn’t save the team while he was in there, it should also be that Rose didn’t save the team through those 3 quarters. I’m not interested in scapegoating. Every player should be mad at themselves, and every player should be criticizes by fans. I don’t think you’re recognizing the issue that 9 people played, 8 were bad for 3 quarters, and 3 were good for the 4th quarter. One person didn’t cause that clusterfuck. Why does everyone else get an excuse?

This is all a massive overreaction. The Bulls are 5-1, had the best record in the league last year, and went to the ECF. They just beat a good team by 40. They brought in a critical offensive player who wasn’t playing last night, and Rose had to play 44 minutes because his backup was off the JV squad. They were also playing the team that has a unique defense that just took stymied the most effective offense in the league the previous night. Why is this the game that the Bulls or Boozer get judged by? Thank goodness there’s another game tonight so we can freak out about something different.

If I dig up a link, i’ll post it.

https://webfiles.uci.edu/lcoon/cbafaq/salarycap.htm#Q38

With the previous CBA it was sometimes possible to sign restricted free agents to offer sheets their original teams couldn’t match. This happened when a player was an Early Bird or Non-Bird free agent (see question number 19) and the team didn’t have enough cap room to match a sufficiently large offer. For example, Gilbert Arenas was Golden State’s second round draft pick in 2001, and became an Early Bird free agent in 2003. Golden State therefore could only match an offer sheet (or sign Arenas themselves) for up to the average salary (see question number 25), which was about $4.9 million. Washington signed Arenas to an offer sheet with a starting salary of about $8.5 million, which Golden State was powerless to match.

This loophole was addressed in the current CBA (although not closed completely — see below). Teams are now limited in the salary they can offer in an offer sheet to a restricted free agent with one or two years in the league. The first-year salary in the offer sheet cannot be greater than the average salary (see question number 25). Limiting the first year salary in this way guarantees that the player’s original team will be able to match the offer sheet by using the Early Bird exception (if applicable — see question number 19), or Mid-Level exception (provided they haven’t used it already).

The second year salary in such an offer sheet is limited to the standard 8% raise. The third year salary can jump considerably — it is allowed to be as high as it would have been had the first year salary not been limited by this rule to the average salary. Raises (and decreases) after the third season are limited to 6.9% of the salary in the third season. The offer sheet can only contain the large jump in the third season if it provides the maximum salary allowed in the first two seasons. In addition, the offer must be guaranteed and cannot contain bonuses of any kind.

If the raise in the third season exceeds the standard raise (8% of the salary in the first season of the contract), then they place an additional restriction on the team. In order to determine the size of the offer the team can make, they don’t fit just the first year salary under the cap. Instead, they must fit the average salary in the entire contract under the cap. So a team $8 million under the cap is limited to offering a total of $24 million over three years, $32 million over four years, or $40 million over five years. If the offer sheet does not contain a third-season raise larger than 8% of the first-season salary, then they only have to fit the first year salary under the cap.

Putting this all together, if a team is $11 million under the cap, wants to submit a five year offer sheet, and wants to provide a large raise in the third season, they can offer a total of $55 million. If the average salary is $5 million, then the second year salary will be $5.4 million (8% raise). This leaves $44.6 million to be distributed over the final three seasons. With 6.9% raises in years four and five, the entire contract looks like this:

Basically, the Bulls can match any offer and even try to avoid the luxury tax as long as they commit to cutting Boozer before the third year kicks in. Also, only a team far under the cap can offer Asik a contract with a significant escalator in year 3. I am really happy that Houston signed Dalembert to a multi-year contract as they were the likeliest suitors.

It’s one of the reasons that I’m confident that the Bulls can beat Miami in a series. We’ll get Hamilton, and we’ll get Asik. I think it’s plausible that they can be the difference between the few points the Bulls lost by.