Boozer not happy about mins in the 4 quarter???

[ChiSoxCity]

Kind of like, "you're a shitty poster, you don't have to post here anymore. You know why you shouldn't, so let's not waste time on common knowledge."

Meh... more like,

"this is a shitty forum full of homerish, close-minded, sycophantic, and intolerant fans who feel threatened by opposing views."

Sorry if you feel threatened by my opinions of the Bulls, but I'm not a thumbsucker and I don't partake in the koolaid.

 

[clonetrooper264]

Kirk Hinrich accepts diminished role without complaint


they found a opportunity to swallow Hinrich

"Boozer rocked the boat by declaring he wanted to play more in the fourth quarter, Kirk Hinrich could be the one to steady it."
uke:

Needless complaining about Hinrich

 

[clonetrooper264]

I've always like Lee's game, but IIRC, the conversations the Bulls had with his party was extremely limited. I guess their attention turned to Boozer once they learned they weren't landing Joe Johnson? :dunno:

In fairness, Lee was on the bottom of the list according to everyone at the time. I think GS got him before we got Boozer as well. Not sure about that though. Regardless, it seemed like the order of priority was the big 3, Joe Johnson, possibly Amare (he signed right away so who knows), Boozer, then Lee. By the time we signed Booz, he was basically the only guy left. Seeing as he was the bigger name of him and Lee, it seemed like the better move at the time. Again, they're really similar per 36 statistically so I don't necessarily think anyone came out on top in that regard. Lee's a year younger and a few million bucks cheaper, guess that's the advantage.

 

[czman]

In fairness, Lee was on the bottom of the list according to everyone at the time. I think GS got him before we got Boozer as well. Not sure about that though. Regardless, it seemed like the order of priority was the big 3, Joe Johnson, possibly Amare (he signed right away so who knows), Boozer, then Lee. By the time we signed Booz, he was basically the only guy left. Seeing as he was the bigger name of him and Lee, it seemed like the better move at the time. Again, they're really similar per 36 statistically so I don't necessarily think anyone came out on top in that regard. Lee's a year younger and a few million bucks cheaper, guess that's the advantage.

If I remember correctly JJ signed before anyone else could offer him and Stat signed the first day with the Knicks. The Bulls went after Bosh, wade, and then James (as far as order of interviews). When those 3 teamed up the Bulls jumped on Boozer. I don't think the Bulls even talked to Lee. At the time I thought Lee was a better contract.

This is off the top of my head so take it for what it is worth.

 

[cjswan232482]

If I remember correctly JJ signed before anyone else icould offer him and Stat signed the first day with the Knicks. The Bulls went after Bosh, wade, and then James (as far as order of interviews). When those 3 teamed up the Bulls jumped on Boozer. I don't think the Bulls even talked to Lee. At the time I thought Lee was a better coantract.

This is off the top of my head so take it for what it is worth.

Let's be honest, Boozer was the biggest name left after the big three. The plan was to sign Boozer AND Joe Johnson. Atlanta knew it and that is why they offered Joe the max. If the Bulls has signed Lee, no one would have been excited. Most would say that the Bulls cheaped out again. I really have no problem with Boozer speaking out. His D is bad but not so bad that he doesn't play at all in the 4th. That is an insult. Boozetr had been a decent teammate and the Bulls have underutilized him much of his career here.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

Meh... more like,

Sorry if you feel threatened by my opinions of the Bulls, but I'm not a thumbsucker and I don't partake in the koolaid.

Right, because the one thing I've certainly been referred to in my time here is a homer.

 

[nwfisch]

Right, because the one thing I've certainly been referred to in my time here is a homer.

You Heat homer.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

^ exactly

 

[cjswan232482]

In fairness, Lee was on the bottom of the list according to everyone at the time. I think GS got him before we got Boozer as well. Not sure about that though. Regardless, it seemed like the order of priority was the big 3, Joe Johnson, possibly Amare (he signed right away so who knows), Boozer, then Lee. By the time we signed Booz, he was basically the only guy left. Seeing as he was the bigger name of him and Lee, it seemed like the better move at the time. Again, they're really similar per 36 statistically so I don't necessarily think anyone came out on top in that regard. Lee's a year younger and a few million bucks cheaper, guess that's the advantage.

No one wanted Amare at $20 million a year uninsured. The Bulls wanted both JJ and Boozer. A lot of Bulls fans preferred Boozer over Bosh. I still think if the Bulls had signed both we would have won it all. Rose's injury sabotaged everything. Boozer was not a bad signing, just was not enough. OKC fell short too. The Bulls won a LOT of games because of Boozer's presence. Boozer would have thrived more almost anywhere else and Lee, JJ and Bosh would have been scapegoated here because Miami's no.1 was better than our no.1. Bottom line. The Bulls needed Boozer AND JJ to overcome Miami's big 3 and we was not doing it with Keith Bogan under any circimstances. Our best shot was last year with Bellineli and nate.

Boozer got going rate for putting up 20 and 11 at Utah. You are not getting those numbers at $10 mill a year. See Al Jefferson.

 

[cjswan232482]

Of course Boozer wasn't worth the signing he got in 2010...but its what he cost.

Boozer's pick & pop game with an occasional dump-in to go along with be a very good rebounder...he was worth around 10mil/yr and wound up getting 15mil/yr in a competitive FA market. The Nets even offered him more $$$ http://www.nj.com/nets/index.ssf/2010/07/nets_stunned_by_carlos_boozers.html

It is what it is.

Boozer put up 20 and 11 for Utah his last year. You are not getting that at $10 million a year under any circumstances.

 

[The Bringer]

What the **** is this guy talking about?

No one wanted Amare at $20 million a year uninsured. The Bulls wanted both JJ and Boozer. A lot of Bulls fans preferred Boozer over Bosh. I still think if the Bulls had signed both we would have won it all. Rose's injury sabotaged everything. Boozer was not a bad signing, just was not enough. OKC fell short too. The Bulls won a LOT of games because of Boozer's presence. Boozer would have thrived more almost anywhere else and Lee, JJ and Bosh would have been scapegoated here because Miami's no.1 was better than our no.1. Bottom line. The Bulls needed Boozer AND JJ to overcome Miami's big 3 and we was not doing it with Keith Bogan under any circimstances. Our best shot was last year with Bellineli and nate.

Boozer got going rate for putting up 20 and 11 at Utah. You are not getting those numbers at $10 mill a year. See Al Jefferson.

 

[cjswan232482]

What the **** is this guy talking about?

Just addressing some revisionist history going here concerning Boozer. Dare anyone to refute anything I've said with facts.

 

[clonetrooper264]

No one wanted Amare at $20 million a year uninsured. The Bulls wanted both JJ and Boozer. A lot of Bulls fans preferred Boozer over Bosh. I still think if the Bulls had signed both we would have won it all. Rose's injury sabotaged everything. Boozer was not a bad signing, just was not enough. OKC fell short too. The Bulls won a LOT of games because of Boozer's presence. Boozer would have thrived more almost anywhere else and Lee, JJ and Bosh would have been scapegoated here because Miami's no.1 was better than our no.1. Bottom line. The Bulls needed Boozer AND JJ to overcome Miami's big 3 and we was not doing it with Keith Bogan under any circimstances. Our best shot was last year with Bellineli and nate.

Boozer got going rate for putting up 20 and 11 at Utah. You are not getting those numbers at $10 mill a year. See Al Jefferson.

Oh I agree. Compared to what Amare signed for in NY I though Boozer's deal was fairly cheap (lol). Joe Johnson getting the max from Atlanta is what killed it for us in retrospect. I think with Johnson and Boozer that year we could've taken Miami that first year. Bench play would've been interesting though since there would've been no bench mob. Taj and Asik though...that might've been enough if we had Johnson. The fact remains that we needed to get 2 of those players on that list and ended up with one. I don't think it even matters if we had Lee vs Boozer, the result would be the same.