Bulls @ Hawks

[Brad Miller Passmaster]

In regards to suffering through the Floyd era - It's true that those times were god awful but that doesn't make these any better. I mean we have Derrick Rose and some other talented guys. To those that are saying that Vinny is not the problem, you are correct that BG would help. He is gone though, and that can't be changed. What can be changed is the coach. We need a coach that has an offense. I run a more organized offense playing pickup ball than what we see out there for the Bulls. There are few easy shots - and the ones that do come find the players so out of rhythm and panicked that they miss them. Vinny has NOTHING - unless these guys have been tuning him out since he came aboard and I doubt that very much (though they may be doing so now).

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

Yeah we'd have won the NJ game and probably one or two others, I'm just finding it hard to believe people are pining for BG after a 35 point loss. If we're really this awful it's probably just as well we didn't take on a long term contract we'd have to dump during the rebuild that's to come.

I think we were commenting on the big picture. Kirk's performance tonight was so bad that I missed Hunter out there. I think we really exposed the need we have for a perimeter scorer. Unfortunately we never addressed our post player need. This team has really been exposed to the point that I only really care what Rose and Noah do.

 

[Shakes]

I'm talking big picture too. The big picture is if we're not getting a free agent, we need to be getting rid of long term contracts and rebuilding. That was always going to be the most likely outcome, it just looks like we'll start sooner.

Which is why I'm not understanding the Gordon talk. If he was on the team he'd just be another contract we need to dump to do a rebuild.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

I'm talking big picture too. The big picture is if we're not getting a free agent, we need to be getting rid of long term contracts and rebuilding. That was always going to be the most likely outcome, it just looks like we'll start sooner.

Which is why I'm not understanding the Gordon talk. If he was on the team he'd just be another contract we need to dump to do a rebuild.

I wouldn't dump him if he were on the team. He is young and can get you 20+ almost every night. I'd keep him, even if he we sucked. But with him, I think we'd be .500. Plus I think Salmons would be better with having much less pressure on him and coming off the bench.

 

[jsain360]

I'm glad I didn't watch this game, I'm sick just looking at the box score, VDN should have never been the coach, Pargo should not be on this team, and Kirk should be in Portland. They never trade Kirk when his value is high, they always let him piss away his value, making him undesirable, do they realize Kirk is not even 30 and he is on the decline, trade him know, Kirk Hinrichs are a dime a dozen, you can always find one

 

[TheStig]

jsain360 wrote:

I'm glad I didn't watch this game, I'm sick just looking at the box score, VDN should have never been the coach, Pargo should not be on this team, and Kirk should be in Portland. They never trade Kirk when his value is high, they always let him piss away his value, making him undesirable, do they realize Kirk is not even 30 and he is on the decline, trade him know, Kirk Hinrichs are a dime a dozen, you can always find one

lol hilarious avatar. Do you really think they are covering up the injury?

 

[jsain360]

TheStig wrote:

jsain360 wrote:

I'm glad I didn't watch this game, I'm sick just looking at the box score, VDN should have never been the coach, Pargo should not be on this team, and Kirk should be in Portland. They never trade Kirk when his value is high, they always let him piss away his value, making him undesirable, do they realize Kirk is not even 30 and he is on the decline, trade him know, Kirk Hinrichs are a dime a dozen, you can always find one

lol hilarious avatar. Do you really think they are covering up the injury?

Its a conspiracy to limit Tyrus's playing time and low ball him for next year, and get Joe Smith, Jr (Taj Gibson) more playing time.

 

[Fred]

So the Hawks can pay more money to Joe Johnson than we can. They seem to be closer to a title. Why exactly would he want to come here?

We need to prepare ourselves. We're not getting any of the top free agents. We need to start thinking about the lottery.

 

[Shakes]

TheStig wrote:

I wouldn't dump him if he were on the team. He is young and can get you 20+ almost every night. I'd keep him, even if he we sucked. But with him, I think we'd be .500. Plus I think Salmons would be better with having much less pressure on him and coming off the bench.

The only time in his career that Salmons has played well it's been as a starter, so I don't see any reason to expect he'd be better off the bench. I think the Salmons you see (which resembles the Salmons every year except 08/09) is the Salmons you get no matter who he's playing with.

And I'd dump Gordon simply because you want to tank it up. Deng is young and productive too, would you keep him? I sure wouldn't if we're rebuilding. Anyone on a long term non-rookie deal is out if we've decided to give up on the current group.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

TheStig wrote:

I wouldn't dump him if he were on the team. He is young and can get you 20+ almost every night. I'd keep him, even if he we sucked. But with him, I think we'd be .500. Plus I think Salmons would be better with having much less pressure on him and coming off the bench.

The only time in his career that Salmons has played well it's been as a starter, so I don't see any reason to expect he'd be better off the bench. I think the Salmons you see (which resembles the Salmons every year except 08/09) is the Salmons you get no matter who he's playing with.

And I'd dump Gordon simply because you want to tank it up. Deng is young and productive too, would you keep him? I sure wouldn't if we're rebuilding. Anyone on a long term non-rookie deal is out if we've decided to give up on the current group.

I think Salmons would be better without having a big responsibility to score. I would bring him off the bench because I'd be looking to deal deng and it would kill his value to come off the bench.

If it were up to me, I would move everyone but Rose, Noah and BG if we still had him. That leaves enough salary room to add to max contracts. I think a core of those three is a Bosh/Amare/Boozer away from contending. Plus BG would keep us in the playoff race. I really think that if we had room for 2 max contracts and that core, we would have an amazing 2010. Stars want to play together. I really think thats the reason Miami will end up a contender after this year. They got enough to resign Wade, add Bosh and resign JO to a cheap deal.

 

[Shakes]

TheStig wrote:

I think Salmons would be better without having a big responsibility to score. I would bring him off the bench because I'd be looking to deal deng and it would kill his value to come off the bench.

Again, in his only good year, it was when he had a responsibility to score: first because he was on a crap team, then after he was traded because Deng was out. There's no reason to think Salmons is struggling because of his role, he's struggling because he's a crap player who fooled people with one good year (I'll admit I was fooled too, I expected him to regress but not this much).

If it were up to me, I would move everyone but Rose, Noah and BG if we still had him. That leaves enough salary room to add to max contracts. I think a core of those three is a Bosh/Amare/Boozer away from contending. Plus BG would keep us in the playoff race. I really think that if we had room for 2 max contracts and that core, we would have an amazing 2010. Stars want to play together. I really think thats the reason Miami will end up a contender after this year. They got enough to resign Wade, add Bosh and resign JO to a cheap deal.

Well lets pretend we had signed Gordon instead of Deng to create the scenario you describe. I don't think Noah/BG/Rose is enough to stay in the playoff race if Noah/Deng/Rose isn't. You'd still be left with crap beyond those three with the way the rest of the team is right now. I think you swap Gordon for Deng and the team's record isn't any different: you gain some scoring, you lose some rebounding & defense. It's pretty much a wash.

The way I look at it, if we suck and don't get a free agent because of it then it's the same as if we'd kept BG and didn't get a free agent because they didn't change teams or whatever. No matter what happened with BG, chances are we'd strike out and not get a free agent. No free agent means a rebuild, and I don't see a reason any of the old "core" of Hinrich/Gordon/Deng would be kept if you're rebuilding.

In a way it's for the best for things to suck now so we can hurry up and start the rebuild before the trade deadline rather than waiting for next off-season.

 

[??? ??????]

I agree with Shakes, John Salmons just deceived us last season.

Like here is what I wrote immediately following the trade:

The big question is whether Salmons is just a one year wonder or not. Prior to this season, the most Salmons has scored was 12.5 PPG in a season. Outside of this year, Salmons hasn’t been a very good three point shooter. Players as old as Salmons typically don’t make the kind of leap he has made this year. This is eerily similar to the situation with Mike James in Toronto, an older player explodes for a big year on one of the worst teams in the league.

Does this mean John Salmons is a scrub in disguise? No. But he is not starter material, given his near league worst defense, and the fact that he has a better scorer and defender ahead of him in the lineup in Ben Gordon. Salmons could make a good sixth man for the Bulls over the next few years, but anything more is just overreaching with him.

He fooled me with his play at the end of worst season, but John Salmons is just playing like the player I knew him to be from before the trade.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

Again, in his only good year, it was when he had a responsibility to score: first because he was on a crap team, then after he was traded because Deng was out. There's no reason to think Salmons is struggling because of his role, he's struggling because he's a crap player who fooled people with one good year (I'll admit I was fooled too, I expected him to regress but not this much).

He may have deceived us, I can't say for certainty he didn't but teams are game planning for him now. I think he would benefit from being able to be down 3rd or 4th option and no one thinking about him.

Well lets pretend we had signed Gordon instead of Deng to create the scenario you describe. I don't think Noah/BG/Rose is enough to stay in the playoff race if Noah/Deng/Rose isn't. You'd still be left with crap beyond those three with the way the rest of the team is right now. I think you swap Gordon for Deng and the team's record isn't any different: you gain some scoring, you lose some rebounding & defense. It's pretty much a wash.

The way I look at it, if we suck and don't get a free agent because of it then it's the same as if we'd kept BG and didn't get a free agent because they didn't change teams or whatever. No matter what happened with BG, chances are we'd strike out and not get a free agent. No free agent means a rebuild, and I don't see a reason any of the old "core" of Hinrich/Gordon/Deng would be kept if you're rebuilding.

In a way it's for the best for things to suck now so we can hurry up and start the rebuild before the trade deadline rather than waiting for next off-season.

BG has been carrying the Pistons almost by himself and they are ahead of us. Add in Rose and Noah, I think thats good for close to .500. We also just had the roughest part of our schedule and we have a cake walk at the end of the year. I could see BG/Rose/Noah core getting you 38 wins for the number 8 seed. Thats all you need to land a star in 2010. Its exactly what Orlando did in 2000 and why we struck out. Playoffs would send the signal that we are a team on the rise.

Since we do suck. I am all for rebuilding but JR isn't dumping his golden boys in Kirk and Deng. Kirks deal is declining and Deng's is a cap stuffer with the large part being deferred. I would be prepared with maybe getting boozer and a crappy pick

 

[Shakes]

Take away Deng and we'd suck at defensive rebounding. With Tyrus out it'd be only Noah who can rebound, Gibson and Salmons (as a SF) are both terrible for their positions. I really find it hard to believe the extra offense from Gordon over Deng (about 1.5 points a game on the same number of shots this year) would do much more than even out the number of extra offensive boards we'd give up.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

Take away Deng and we'd suck at defensive rebounding. With Tyrus out it'd be only Noah who can rebound, Gibson and Salmons (as a SF) are both terrible for their positions. I really find it hard to believe the extra offense from Gordon over Deng (about 1.5 points a game on the same number of shots this year) would do much more than even out the number of extra offensive boards we'd give up.

I don't think we'd suck. We still have Noah and Miller who are our best rebounders anyway. We could have made other moves compensate for that by drafting blair or trading for another rebounder.

 

[Shakes]

So is our point of difference here how we rate Deng? I say if he's healthy, he's as good as Gordon (obviously with different strengths/weaknesses). Of course if you asked me to bet on him staying healthy the whole year I wouldn't.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

So is our point of difference here how we rate Deng? I say if he's healthy, he's as good as Gordon (obviously with different strengths/weaknesses). Of course if you asked me to bet on him staying healthy the whole year I wouldn't.

Pretty Much, I just don't view Deng as a difference maker. BG to me is, other than that, I agree with you. Deng's defense is nice but you can get a posey/battier type for the mle that would fit better with this team.