Mid-week link dump

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jun 6, 2007 10:55 PM CDT in News Comment 54 comments

Carnival of the NBA #44, which leads with a messed-up comic. (And speaking of the Carnival: I swear, going forward, I'm going to do more to maintain a schedule for it.)
In that similar spirit of blog solidarity, I've updated my blogroll on the right side of the page. Just a few new entries, but check them out.
I exchanged emails with Dave from BlazersEdge regarding Zach Randolph, and the aftermath is here. I think my first point is the most relevant: it's all up to whether the Bulls want Randolph and his contract in the first place, before getting into the actual trade package.
More Zach Randolph talk at the OregonLive Blazers blog (which is run by an SBNation alumnus, dontyaknow). It's a collection of quotes from John Hollinger's ESPN chat (where he yet again took a shot at Pax for not doing a Deng-for-Gasol deal) on Wednesday. And, yes, that question from 'Matt' is me.
Finally, a Bulls draft post from blog bigwig The Big Lead. Instead of saying they shouldn't draft Hawes because he's white, this one is they shouldn't draft Yi because he's foreign (heh). I'll have more draft thoughts of my own, eventually...in the meantime I hope the community out there does some feverish scouting work (or better yet just grabbing quotes from other scouts) instead of just generalizing. I have to say I've barely watched any college ball, and not a lick of Chinese-league ball. Sad, but true.
Lastly....BlogABull NBAdraft (dance) party? Email me if you're interested, I'm hoping enough people are excited about it to where it forces me to actually do something to get the ball rolling.

0 recs | Comment 54 comments

Comments

Not really following the collective logic

So most of the people who say the Bulls should trade the pick for Randolph are also people who are really high on Tyrus. Tyrus is a 4, people. Why do you want to get a guy making max money to stick in front of Tyrus? Randolph can't move over to center, and you can't swap Tyrus for Wallace if he's paired with Randolph. That front court is just too small.

I'd much rather see a scenario where PJ is resigned to backup Tyrus and we draft a big to backup Wallace at center. Even if it ends up being Noah, it's less of a logjam than trading for Randolph. And if it's Hawes, then you have an offensive sub to complement Tyrus/PJ, who are more defensive.

And with the 9th pick the Bulls select...

by bullshooter on Jun 6, 2007 11:44 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

so Tyrus can come off the bench

when the Bulls are in the finals next season. I can live with that.

Tyrus doesn't have to be paid for a long long time, and in terms of minutes I think there's plenty to go around.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jun 7, 2007 8:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Randolph=Finals?

Even if the Bulls aquire Randolph, he isn't going to be the reason the team makes the finals. He scores inside, but very inefficently. Look at his PW%s. For a power forward that's awful even if he has been on bad teams.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/randoza01.html

by Scotter on Jun 7, 2007 4:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hmmmmmmm

Kinda like the idea of drafting Nick Young. If they can get something this summer maybe a mid season trade. I don't see inside scoring comming with the 9th pick so maybe draft another big SG whi is compare to Josh Howard.

by joejoeEnglish94bulls4ever on Jun 7, 2007 12:06 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Nocioni

Interesting to see how non bulls fans are all split about Nocioni's abilities. Some call him a slow flopper without the necessary size to play Pf but able to make outwide shots.

Then there are those who saw him dominate antoine walker last year and think he is a great defender and tough nosed player who is also an offensive threat.

Of course, Nocioni falls somewhere in between. He lacks some lateral quickness, but he was injured this year and that affected it and made him look like a below average defender, which he isn't. Sorry if I am bringing the whole is Nocioni good/bad debate. I kinda of trailed off but it's always interesting to see how others view different bulls' players.

Final conclusion being that we should all hyping up Duhon and Nocioni so other fans think they are great players and pressure their respective GM's to mmake a trade for them.

by Sambossanova on Jun 7, 2007 12:30 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Yahoo sports (The reign of King James)

NBA expert Adrian Wojnarowski (few!) was asked if Lebron would control the East for the next decade and he says it's between Cleveland and Chicago for the next few years. Neck and Neck.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba?lp=lebron060407

browse videos.

by joejoeEnglish94bulls4ever on Jun 7, 2007 1:15 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree

It all depends on whether the Bulls get someone to take that last shot. Hibachi!

Like a proud papa...

by cubbybear on Jun 7, 2007 3:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

the enlightened world of sportsbloggery

Why didn't The Big Lead just post the .wav from the South Park rerun last night?

by Paxson Jackson on Jun 7, 2007 8:56 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Deng for Gasol...

If the pick and Tyrus Thomas were able to be kept, I think the Gasol deal should have been done. The way the draft is shaping up anyway--there are a number of small-forwards that will be available at 9.

But I'm fairly convinced that West wanted at least Thomas or the pick, too, so it's tough to feel regret.

Yes, of course.

by tyger1147 on Jun 7, 2007 9:07 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah he was trying to rip off

Paxson. I would guess Deng, Gordon, Tyrus and the 9th. Basically I'll the players I like.

You draft Hawes I'm leaving!

by joejoeEnglish94bulls4ever on Jun 7, 2007 9:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

reports were it was Deng/Sefo/pick

which left the Bulls with ol' gimpy (that could apply to either Noc or Grif, sadly) at the 3.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jun 7, 2007 9:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

really?

yeah Sefo's my boy! Still glad they didn't make the deal.

You draft Hawes I'm leaving!

by joejoeEnglish94bulls4ever on Jun 7, 2007 9:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

oh, and PJ Brown too

actually the pick may not have been a part of it, can't remember.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jun 7, 2007 9:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

All the buzz

seem to have been from Memphis sources all around. The only thing Pax has said was that he wasn't going to trade Deng, and that West wanted too much regardless if Deng was included or not.

by KT on Jun 7, 2007 10:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The pick wasn't part of it

The only Yi Jianlian fan here

by Option27 on Jun 7, 2007 10:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ugh, Randolph

I forgot that Z-Bo is getting max money over the next 5 seasons. No way it makes sense for the Bulls to a risk on an asset that they'd be stuck with for that long. I'd be ok if he was locked in for another two years, but not more.

by paxson43 on Jun 7, 2007 10:32 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Zack Trade

I would welcome ZBO and his huge contract onto the Bull's, but I would not give up the #9 also. If this move is made, the Bull's are still really short. They would need to keep the #9 and get someone tall for the future.

Paxon is trying to build another dynasty, not just 1 title. The pick would replace Big Ben in a couple of years, so the Bulls can continue to roll. A starting frontline of Deng, Thomas, & Randolph is too short. If you also add into the mix someone like tall like Noah, it might make sense to make this trade.

by Jesse07 on Jun 7, 2007 11:49 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Im not so sure the will ever have a Dynasty with

the players they have now. Maybe a tough playoff team that can make a finals run but who knows. Lets just get out of the second round. I say no ZBO ever at all.

You draft Hawes I'm leaving!

by joejoeEnglish94bulls4ever on Jun 7, 2007 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The only way we'll ever become a dynasty

is if we develop our own "superstar" (great player) to counteract LeBron. Right now, it's difficult to see that player on the current roster.

Tyrus has the athletic tools to be a great player, but he will have to work exceedingly hard at building his basketball skill set. In order to be a great, dominant player, he would have to acquire a reliable jump shot and a repertoire of low post moves. Not an easy task.

Ben Gordon is a good player who is capable of great nights, but it will be difficult for him to consistently dominate given his well-documented physical shortcomings.

Luol Deng has the capacity to develop into a great player, but, again, he has certain physical limitations. He doesn't handle the ball well at this stage of his career, he isn't particularly "explosive," he has trouble beating players off the dribble, and he rarely generates his own shot.

Stepping out of fan mode for a moment and assuming a purely objective posture, none of the current Bulls' players are on the level of LeBron or Kobe or Wade or even Dirk. Obviously, if given the opportunity, I would trade any of our players for one of those "superstars."

In sum, truly luminary players only come along so often. And in today's market climate, those incipient great players are typically identified during their teenage years. Acquiring one becomes a matter of draft luck.

In the East, it is relatively clear that the Cavs are in the best position to establish a "dynasty" utlizing the tried and true "supporting cast" approach to building championship teams. Everyone else is a distant, distant second. Detroit is a waning power, aging and subject to the caprice of offseason free agency and trades. The same can be said of the apathetic Nets. Miami probably has a chance to eek out another championship before Shaq retires, but once the Deisel is gone, they'll have to undergo a period of minor rebuilding as they reconfigure the roster to support Wade. Chicago is a team replete with hard workers and good bsketball players, but they appear to lack the pure talent to win championships consistently. It's possible that Orlando, building around the interior dynamism of the spectacular young Dwight Howard, could contend for multiple championships. Additionally, I suppose Colangelo might create another fluid masterpiece of full court artistry up in Toronto.

In terms of dynastic potential over the next decade, I rank the top four teams in the East as follows:

(1) Cleveland;
(2) Orlando;
(3) Miami;
(4) Toronto.

And really, it's just Cleveland for now.

by 1958ChiTown on Jun 7, 2007 2:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tyrus will be the LeBron stopper

or...LeBron slower-downer.

Also, hope their best players get better or find better players than their currently best players. There, I figured it out.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jun 7, 2007 2:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah I agree

Tyrus and Sefo platoon on Lebron!

You draft Hawes I'm leaving!

by joejoeEnglish94bulls4ever on Jun 7, 2007 10:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

strange how all this

weight is put on having a really good individual player and the the Wiz are ignored. If you're talking about winning multiple and consecutive championships I find it hard to believe that a team like that would come out of the East anyway.

by Paxson Jackson on Jun 7, 2007 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, that was simply an oversight on my part.

You are correct, the Wiz should be part of the conversation.

Arenas is a great individual talent.

However, his defense is pretty shoddy.

And he is a loony wingnut.

by 1958ChiTown on Jun 7, 2007 3:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I forgot

it's a totally arbitrary label. Silly me.

by Paxson Jackson on Jun 7, 2007 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Wiz shouldn't be.

LeBron's talent is obvious.

Dwight Howard is still too young for a big man to make a definitive argument one way or the other. If his offense improves this summer like it did last year and his one-on-one D improves, he can definitely be in the discussion.

Wade is probably a step below LeBron, but has already won a championship, but then there's the issue of rebuilding.

I don't think Toronto should be on the list. Unless Bargnani shows great improvement over the next two years.

While I obviously can't say definitively, my feeling is that Arenas is getting close to maxing out his abilities. There's not a ton of evidence to back that up, and he might even get slightly better over the next year or two. But I don't feel (key word) it will be more than for a couple of years.

And, of course, this all goes back to PaxJax's need to purposefully misconstrue arguments. A single great player doesn't guarantee a championship--PaxJax continues to imply that's the argument put forth, but I don't know if anyone has actually said that. The players around him do. But it's extremely rare (near impossible, in fact) to win a championship without one.

Yes, of course.

by tyger1147 on Jun 7, 2007 3:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the (rehashed-yet-again) argument

is that the designation of 'great' has no true definition.

But it does seem that PaxJax has a higher opinion (or more willingness not to define a ceiling) of Gordon (in particular) than most of us.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jun 7, 2007 4:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

today in not making sense:

"A single great player doesn't guarantee a championship--PaxJax continues to imply that's the argument put forth, but I don't know if anyone has actually said that. The players around him do."

When two teams come to play, and both want to win... only one of them will win.

I've never said what you're implying by the way. I think a good team, no matter how the talent and production are balanced (i.e. the incredibly simplistic division of 1 star vs. 5 good players), stands to win a championship.

by Paxson Jackson on Jun 7, 2007 4:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I absolutely concur with

much of what you are saying.

Debates about the label "superstar," while interesting, are semantic red herrings. The point is that, over the last 27 years, the empirical evidence resoundingly demonstrates that, in most instances, you need at least one virtuosic player to win a championship.

And I don't particularly buy the argument that "superstar" (or "great player") is a monicker which is applied post facto, after a player has won championships. Often, that isn't true. Michael was labeled a "superstar" long before 1991 (he already had an MVP award), LeBron was tapped to be the next great NBA star before he was even drafted. Oden and Durant have similarly been identified. Hakeem and Drexler were considered "superstars" for a decade before they won two Finals. Stockton and Malone were "superstars" and they never won a championship. The same can be said for Charles Barkley and Ewing. "Superstar" is merely shorthand for a dominant, physically gifted, skilled player.

I personally find it hard to believe that one of the Bulls' current players will magically sprout into a "superstar" (truly dominant player). Typically, great players are recognized as such during their first one or two years in the league. Think of all the guys who were Rookie of the Year: Larry, Jordan, Ewing, O'Neal, Iverson, Carter, Duncan, Stoudemire, and LeBron. Sure, Magic didn't win ROY (because he lost to Bird), but he did win the Finals MVP! Even a slower developing player like Barkley was an All-Star by his third season. There are obviously exceptions, but most great players evince their greatness relatively early in their careers. Vis a vis the Bulls, that gives me some hope for a guy like Tyrus. But realistically, is Luol Deng or Ben Gordon going to suddenly blossom into a dominant force in their fourth year, especially in light of their modest physical gifts? It's possible, but it seems unlikely from a historical perspective. I can understand how a guy like Dirk, with his unique physical attributes, can become an All-Star in his fourth year, but I don't see how experience can remedy stature or quickness deficiencies. Perhaps one could argue that it is more likely that a "superstar" will develop over time in the post-1990's milieu, when players entered the League younger than ever. Hopefully that is the case.

It seems to me as if the Bulls have players who are skilled, but lack outstanding physical gifts (like Deng or Gordon or Hinrich) and one player who has oustanding phyical gifts but lacks basketball skill (Tyrus). Looking back over the years, it appears that a team needs at least one player who has BOTH amazing skills and amazing athleticism to win a championship. That guy is the so-called "superstar."

by 1958ChiTown on Jun 7, 2007 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

remember when Larry Bird won the dunk contest?

I guess he's a legend, and not a superstar. Oops.

My argument isn't against historical fact. Although with an exponentially larger talent pool and a salary cap, league parity might wipe out dynasties. It's against cliche-laden, simplistic bullshit like your last paragraph. Take it away stat-quack:

When we look at 1977 and 2004 we see the same story. In both cases a team with a number of "stars" took on a team lacking in star power. Or put another way, a team with a collection of scorers took on a team without as much scoring power. For example, the 76ers in 1977 had four players average at least 15 points per game (Erving, McGinnis, Collins, and Free) while the Blazers only had two +15 scorers (Walton and Maurice Lucas). In 2004, the Pistons were led in scoring by Rip Hamilton who only averaged 17.6 points per game. The Lakers had Kobe Bryant, Shaquille O'Neal, Karl Malone, and Gary Payton. These four players each had several seasons in their careers when their scoring average topped twenty per game.

In each case, the media seemed to focus on the quantity of scorers available and simply concluded that the team with the most must be the favorite. Unfortunately, as is often stated in this forum, wins are about more than scoring. When we consider both offensive and defensive efficiency, we can see that that championships won by Portland in 1977 and Detroit in 2004 were not historic upsets. In fact if either lost, that should have been considered a mild upset.

by Paxson Jackson on Jun 7, 2007 5:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll cut out the meaty part

But realistically, is Luol Deng or Ben Gordon going to suddenly blossom into a dominant force in their fourth year, especially in light of their modest physical gifts? It's possible, but it seems unlikely from a historical perspective. I can understand how a guy like Dirk, with his unique physical attributes, can become an All-Star in his fourth year, but I don't see how experience can remedy stature or quickness deficiencies. Perhaps one could argue that it is more likely that a "superstar" will develop over time in the post-1990's milieu, when players entered the League younger than ever. Hopefully that is the case.

Basically you're right, Deng won't get faster and Gordon won't get taller.

I still say there's no one defined way to win a championship, despite whatever qualities are gleaned from past title winners. They won titles because they were good teams with good players and a good coach and a sprinkle of luck and circumstance. The difference between good, great, and 'virtuousic' can't be defined.

Can't we just focus on the Bulls getting closer to winning a title, instead of just saying 'without LeBron there's no point to trying?'. That's different than saying you don't think the Bulls will get much better because Deng and Gordon won't get much better, which is reasonable, although it implies that the team will have no significant roster development anywhere else either.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jun 7, 2007 5:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The problem with this debate is that the

alternative to a superstar is even rarer than a superstar. Getting a superstar takes simply the convergence of lottery luck and one right choice by a GM. Building a team with 5-6 really good players takes at least 5-6 correct choices. The number of GMs capable of making that many correct choices is actually really small. If Thabo and Tyrus pan out then Paxson will have made five consecutive good choices in the first round. GMs rarely ever do that. In the abstract, history says get a superstar. But, the Bulls may very well be an anamoly. There likely has never been a team that's this young and this good at defense, or this good in general. Teams like the Bulls have hardly ever existed in NBA history.

by Scotter on Jun 7, 2007 5:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

'rarer'

right, I never said that it isn't EASIER for a team to construct a champion with a superstar in place.

Hence my 'I'd trade the whole roster for LeBron' comment from a couple weeks ago. (Of course, way back then he was the meek-minded passer of game one in the ECF. Now he's making franchises fold by the day.)

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jun 7, 2007 6:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hooray for hypotheticals

Pretend that you have the top pick. Who do you trade that for? Seriously, would you give that pick up for anyone in the league right now? TrueHoop was talking about how the Blazers have gotten all sorts of offers for it, and have (obviously) turned all of them down.

I think I'd take Kobe or Lebron for it. That's it.

If there are problems in this world that jumping can solve, Tyrus Thomas will solve them. (Truehoop)

by Chalkwhite on Jun 7, 2007 6:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Antonio Davis

by Paxson Jackson on Jun 7, 2007 6:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sene

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jun 7, 2007 6:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No way his wife gives him up.

If there are problems in this world that jumping can solve, Tyrus Thomas will solve them. (Truehoop)

by Chalkwhite on Jun 7, 2007 6:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

is Rick Fox still in the league?

I'd take him.

And with the 9th pick the Bulls select...

by bullshooter on Jun 7, 2007 6:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

My comment was aimed more at 1958.

I just believe Paxson has already done the nearly impossible part, and its worth riding the whole thing out naturally and reaping whatever benefits there are. Because it's something rare and maybe unique. Which means convential wisdom might just not apply.

by Scotter on Jun 7, 2007 6:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree.

While I see how having that "superstar" certainly seems to make it easier to win a championship (given that the GM has the skills, luck and resources to build the team around him), I also recognize that it's not impossible.

I don't think any of the current Bulls can be players on the same level of Jordan, Bird, Johnson, Duncan, Shaq, Kobe, Olawajuwon (does anyone here really think that?), but I do think, that if all reach their upper levels of potential, that it's going to take more than Boobie or Sideshow Bob to help LeBron get past the Bulls.

Yes, of course.

by tyger1147 on Jun 7, 2007 8:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I only skimmed the books in Sam Smith's attic

but aren't these Bulls mentioned as a contemporary version of the early 90s Cavs and 80s Bucks? I've heard it before, I'm honestly asking those more solid in their NBA history (or just old) if it's that solid of a comparison.

This Bulls team is truly unique already though for the '04-'05 season in which they were all incredibly young and had a 24 game improvement over the previous season.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jun 7, 2007 9:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

when they get a low post presence

they will be as good as those old Cavs teams. If we're worrying about these Bulls being those Cavs, shouldn't we also ask if any teams today are as good the old Bulls? No teams come to mind.

And with the 9th pick the Bulls select...

by bullshooter on Jun 7, 2007 9:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

it's actually a logical step

and you don't have to be old.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHO/2000.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHO/2001.html

Fast, inefficient offense. Good defense. And why has no one chatted about Scott Skiles developing Marion, and now having his hands on Thomas? Is it because he was giving more minutes to junky power forwards who shoot like Rodney Rodgers and Cliff Robinson (and Googs!)?

by Paxson Jackson on Jun 7, 2007 9:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice find.

I can only imagine Skiles' press conferences back then where he'd say Gugliotta was out there to space the floor.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jun 7, 2007 11:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Awesome.

People sometimes make Tyrus Thomas comparisons to Marion. Do you see him having the range that Marion does? Or, instead of a mid-range to perimeter version, he'd be more of a low-block to mid-range? I have no clue what skills Marion had coming out of college.

Yes, of course.

by tyger1147 on Jun 8, 2007 9:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

hot zones and 82games

don't go back far enough, but Marion was known as somewhat of a chucker in his Matrix days. Thomas doesn't attempt 3s, and his better OREB, TRB, BLK, and FTA numbers indicate he's more effective closer to the hoop. It helps that Thomas is bigger than Marion too.

by Paxson Jackson on Jun 8, 2007 10:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rookie of the year

if oyu look at rookie of the year awards and take into account that most players at least spent two years in college than the argument is less convincing. Sure lebron and Iverson spent less time in college but the more established rookie of the years that went on to greatness already had a number of years under their belt and weren't as raw as the top picks are now a days.

by Sambossanova on Jun 7, 2007 5:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or "even" Dirk?

Nowitzki is better than Kobe, and especially Wade.

by jpx7 on Jun 8, 2007 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That is true...

..but I think that things are not altogether bleak. We have a very good stockpile of young talent, and in the event that a genuine superstar becomes available in the next couple of years (a Kobe, KG, Dirk etc), we are in the best position to get him. If any GM can make it happen at a reasonable price, it is Pax. It is unlikely that any of the names I mentioned will end up with the Bulls, but one never knows, superstars have been traded before. It could happen, I am certainly hoping it does. In the interim, we have a young, fun team that can never be counted out, but will be a long shot to win it all, and is certainly not a dynasty.

by bullsfaninbigapple on Jun 8, 2007 10:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, your argument is entirely contrary to

historical fact.

Your argument, in your own words: "I think a good team, no matter how the talent and production are balanced (i.e. the incredibly simplistic division of 1 star vs. 5 good players), stands to win a championship."

You may think that, which is your prerogative, but historically, the teams that have won championships have had their "talent and production" focalized in one or two star players. That is, historically, there is an advantage for teams that have a disproportionate percentage of their "talent and production" represented by at least one superstar. The remaining team members are role players who constitute the balance of the team's "talent and production." This is the very essence of the "superstar and supporting cast" model for building dynasties.

Your link is inapposite, because it implies that I was somehow contending that the Pistons' championship was an "upset." I was not. I was contending that the rarity of the Pistons' championship demonstrates how difficult it is to construct an NBA Finals team without a so-called superstar. The far more reliable model, and hence the preferable one, is to build around a transcendent talent (and let me be clear that by "talent" and "skill," I mean to include the ability to play defense as well - Jordan was dominant at both ends, for example).

by 1958ChiTown on Jun 7, 2007 5:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs