Bulls vs Celtics game thread

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

To be .500 the Bulls needs to change 3 losses into wins. Which three is Ben Gordon going to change? I only really see the loss to the Nuggets by 1 as something you could pencil in. The Nets loss Ben would have been injured for, ditto for the loss to the Bucks (and Salmons played really well that game anyway). All our other losses have been by enough that I'm not confident Ben would change the outcome.

And if we're pining for Detroit players, give me Charlie V (surely with Skiles as a coach there had to have been a player from our roster the Bucks could have used?). Between him and Ben Wallace Detroit got a couple of steals the last off season.

BG changes the general way teams game plan for us. He wouldn't just be a net positive between him and Salmons and Kirk but he would open up the floor for Rose. Rose would have much more room to operate and be better himself as well as stretching the floor for everyone else. Furthermore, I don't think BG would be injured here. Its not Tyrus or Kirk like injury where they are reoccurring (kirk) or in practice like Tyrus. BG got injured on a specific play in a specific game he wouldn't have been playing in as a bull. 3 more wins was a conservative estimate with a huge upgrade in the back court both from rose and BG. I think you are really underestimating what BG does for this team offensively. Look at what happened since he left with the same team. BG is clearly a big piece of the team.

 

[engies]

Shakes wrote:

houheffna wrote:

Which couple of games did BG win?

This. Ben's only really good game for the series was in the game 2 loss. He played OK in a couple of others, but wasn't the best player in any of the three wins.

Edit: And in saying that he wasn't the worst player either and I'm not blaming him for the losses, if anyone can remember I was heavily defending him after game 7 when people were saying he was a chucker who cost us the game.

I hate how everyone seems to omit the fact he was playing on one leg. He had nothing to gain from it either. Other players who knew they were leaving would've sat out to not risk any other injury

Ben could barely run his hamstring torn in half. And he still managed to hit a few clutch shots on it

People say we would've got swept if C's had KG, but what about if we had Luol Deng! Why's everyone forgetting that. I think if both teams were healthy, and by healthy i mean Ben Gordon didnt have a torn hamstring from game 3 onward, we had Luol, they had KG and Powe, we could've made it a 6 game series i reckon

 

[Fred]

Shakes wrote:

houheffna wrote:

Which couple of games did BG win?

This. Ben's only really good game for the series was in the game 2 loss. He played OK in a couple of others, but wasn't the best player in any of the three wins.

Edit: And in saying that he wasn't the worst player either and I'm not blaming him for the losses, if anyone can remember I was heavily defending him after game 7 when people were saying he was a chucker who cost us the game.

He scored 10 points in the last 5 minutes of regulation in Game 1. Overlooked, but we lose without him. We also lose Game 4, due to this 3. You neglected to mentioned that he played on a shredded hamstring in games 5,6,7,. Big Surpise, he didn't play as well, because the hamstring is essential to good shooting, unlike the left thumb.

 

[Frank Breakfast Styleham]

Yeah booooy!

Fred wrote:

Shakes wrote:

houheffna wrote:

Which couple of games did BG win?

This. Ben's only really good game for the series was in the game 2 loss. He played OK in a couple of others, but wasn't the best player in any of the three wins.

Edit: And in saying that he wasn't the worst player either and I'm not blaming him for the losses, if anyone can remember I was heavily defending him after game 7 when people were saying he was a chucker who cost us the game.

He scored 10 points in the last 5 minutes of regulation in Game 1. Overlooked, but we lose without him. We also lose Game 4, due to this 3. You neglected to mentioned that he played on a shredded hamstring in games 5,6,7,. Big Surpise, he didn't play as well, because the hamstring is essential to good shooting, unlike the left thumb.

 

[Fred]

Shakes wrote:

If Salmons, Miller & Kirk were playing like they are now, and Tyrus was out, we wouldn't have played at a 50 win pace to end the year, we would have missed the playoffs. And taking Boston to 7 games needs a huge asterisk next to it when you consider they were missing a player who was better than anyone on our team.

Lets not over or under hype last year's team. It may have been the third best Bulls team since Jordan, but that's not saying a whole lot.

Of course, Salmons isn't playing as well because Gordon is not longer there to attract the best perimeter defender. Ariza, C. Lee, Ron Artest, all matched up against Gordon. It's easy to score against garbage defenders.

 

[Fred]

Shakes wrote:

To be .500 the Bulls needs to change 3 losses into wins. Which three is Ben Gordon going to change? I only really see the loss to the Nuggets by 1 as something you could pencil in. The Nets loss Ben would have been injured for, ditto for the loss to the Bucks (and Salmons played really well that game anyway). All our other losses have been by enough that I'm not confident Ben would change the outcome.

And if we're pining for Detroit players, give me Charlie V (surely with Skiles as a coach there had to have been a player from our roster the Bucks could have used?). Between him and Ben Wallace Detroit got a couple of steals the last off season.

Of course, Ben isn't on the court in Detroit to land on another player's foot if he signed here. It's more likely that he doesn't get hurt here.

We would have won the game in Toronto. We were up, and we didn't score for the final 9 minutes. That's Gordon time.

 

[houheffna]

I hate how everyone seems to omit the fact he was playing on one leg. He had nothing to gain from it either. Other players who knew they were leaving would've sat out to not risk any other injury

Ben could barely run his hamstring torn in half. And he still managed to hit a few clutch shots on it

People say we would've got swept if C's had KG, but what about if we had Luol Deng! Why's everyone forgetting that. I think if both teams were healthy, and by healthy i mean Ben Gordon didnt have a torn hamstring from game 3 onward, we had Luol, they had KG and Powe, we could've made it a 6 game series i reckon

You reckon wrong brother...KG in that series with everyone healthy and that series is over in 5. The defense would have been too potent, and no one on this team would have been able to produce consistently. The Celtics would have been superior at every position on the court and had better coaching. That series would have been a sweep or over in 5.

I hate how everybody can watch bad basketball and think the Bulls are a good team. I knew better then, I know better now.

 

[Dpauley23]

Shakes I don't get you how you can't say we wouldn't win 3 more games with Gordon. People like to say the defense improved with losing Gordon, but that's not true at all. The two things you need for good defense is for the interior to play good and for your pg to stop penetration. Gordon has nothing too do with any of those things. It was one of the worst talent evaulations I have ever seen by management picking Hinrich over Gordon (I'm only 17 so maybe someone can fill me in on worse one). Gordon wins us the Heat, Raptors(first one), both Nuggets game, Cleveland, and just game last night. Maybe we don't win all those, but we would of been in those games till the end. If we had Gordon were probably 13-9. Probably feasting our eyes on big run to end the month around 20-10. Hey you know we holding out for max free agent though were we don't even have enough money to sign one though

 

[Shakes]

Oh come on Stig. Maybe I should criticise John Paxson because if Curry had stayed in Chicago he wouldn't have eaten at the same fast food chains and might not have ended up a useless 400 pound tub of lard. That sort of alternate reality stuff might make for a good Hollywood movie, but it's just going to make any conversation we try to have silly if we can just dream up whatever scenario.

Fact is Gordon got injured, I see no reason to not hold that variable constant when discussing the ramifications of Gordon not being here.

I also don't think Gordon is a "game changer", whatever that's supposed to mean. The only thing he's changing in Detroit is that when he cheers them on from the bench they've won a lot more. Yes, I know, they've had a tough schedule in the games he was playing in, but haven't we had a tough schedule too? Why would the Gordon who couldn't help Detroit win in its tough games help us more, given that we've probably got a worse team than Detroit minus Gordon?

I don't want to hate on Ben Gordon, I liked the guy while he was here, but it seems people here are very pro-Gordon so I feel like smoeone has to provide some balance. He's a solid starter, he's a guy who is a net positive for the team, but at the end of the day, he wanted a contract that I don't think was prudent. Look at Detroit. I see that you can get Charlie V for 5/38 or so, and that makes me want more for my 5/58 (just like I want more than Kirk for my 5/47.5, and more than Deng for my 6/74 or whatever stupid figure we game him, lets not justify Gordon on the basis we overpaid other players).

Aside: Please don't trot out the tired old line of how we could have had Ben for 5/54 ... Ben is the only one to blame for not signing that deal, it doesn't take months to pick up a pen. People talk about management not being keen to retain him, how keen was he to stay when he only tried to come back as a last resort well after the lengthy deadline he'd been given had passed? I know it doesn't fit with the "management are evil bastards" mantra that passes for analysis around here, but management are the ones who were good to their word in that exchange. They said there was a deadline, there was a deadline.

Even if letting him go means we'll suck this year (which I don't think is a given, and if we do, I also don't think it's a given that having him on the team could prevent it ... remember 07/08) it's something I think is in the best long term interests of the team. I also understand that others feel differently, and have put forward sound arguments for their position. Do we really have to rehash this over and over and turn every thread into a BG thread? Is there anyone regular the board who doesn't know the position of every other regular on the board at this point? :laugh:

@engies: I said specifically I wasn't blaming BG for losing. I was just agreeing with the assertion that he didn't "[win] a couple of those games for us by himself".

 

[Shakes]

Fred wrote:

Shakes wrote:

houheffna wrote:

Which couple of games did BG win?

This. Ben's only really good game for the series was in the game 2 loss. He played OK in a couple of others, but wasn't the best player in any of the three wins.

Edit: And in saying that he wasn't the worst player either and I'm not blaming him for the losses, if anyone can remember I was heavily defending him after game 7 when people were saying he was a chucker who cost us the game.

He scored 10 points in the last 5 minutes of regulation in Game 1. Overlooked, but we lose without him. We also lose Game 4, due to this 3. You neglected to mentioned that he played on a shredded hamstring in games 5,6,7,. Big Surpise, he didn't play as well, because the hamstring is essential to good shooting, unlike the left thumb.

The quote was he "won a couple of those games for us by himself." I didn't say he played badly, or didn't contribute to the wins (heck, I even edited my post to explicitly say I wasn't saying that). I simply rejected the idea he was our best player in the wins, especially to the extent that he won them by himself.

But it seems it's all black and white with the Gordon fans, if you're not for Gordon you're against him.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

Oh come on Stig. Maybe I should criticise John Paxson because if Curry had stayed in Chicago he wouldn't have eaten at the same fast food chains and might not have ended up a useless 400 pound tub of lard. That sort of alternate reality stuff might make for a good Hollywood movie, but it's just going to make any conversation we try to have silly if we can just dream up whatever scenario.

Fact is Gordon got injured, I see no reason to not hold that variable constant when discussing the ramifications of Gordon not being here.

I also don't think Gordon is a "game changer", whatever that's supposed to mean. The only thing he's changing in Detroit is that when he cheers them on from the bench they've won a lot more. Yes, I know, they've had a tough schedule in the games he was playing in, but haven't we had a tough schedule too? Why would the Gordon who couldn't help Detroit win in its tough games help us more, given that we've probably got a worse team than Detroit minus Gordon?

I don't want to hate on Ben Gordon, I liked the guy while he was here, but it seems people here are very pro-Gordon so I feel like smoeone has to provide some balance. He's a solid starter, he's a guy who is a net positive for the team, but at the end of the day, he wanted a contract that I don't think was prudent. Look at Detroit. I see that you can get Charlie V for 5/38 or so, and that makes me want more for my 5/58 (just like I want more than Kirk for my 5/47.5, and more than Deng for my 6/74 or whatever stupid figure we game him, lets not justify Gordon on the basis we overpaid other players).

Aside: Please don't trot out the tired old line of how we could have had Ben for 5/54 ... Ben is the only one to blame for not signing that deal, it doesn't take months to pick up a pen. People talk about management not being keen to retain him, how keen was he to stay when he only tried to come back as a last resort well after the lengthy deadline he'd been given had passed? I know it doesn't fit with the "management are evil bastards" mantra that passes for analysis around here, but management are the ones who were good to their word in that exchange. They said there was a deadline, there was a deadline.

Even if letting him go means we'll suck this year (which I don't think is a given, and if we do, I also don't think it's a given that having him on the team could prevent it ... remember 07/08) it's something I think is in the best long term interests of the team. I also understand that others feel differently, and have put forward sound arguments for their position. Do we really have to rehash this over and over and turn every thread into a BG thread? Is there anyone regular the board who doesn't know the position of every other regular on the board at this point? :laugh:

@engies: I said specifically I wasn't blaming BG for losing. I was just agreeing with the assertion that he didn't "[win] a couple of those games for us by himself".

BG got injured on a specific play landing on someones foot. The exact circumstances of that injury are one in a billion to reoccur as a bull the same exact way. So I think its entirely probable to have a healthy BG as a bull now.

Furthermore, how can he sign something thats heavily rumored to be pulled by the owner. JR clearly was negotiating in bad faith and really didn't want BG. It seems likely he would have pulled the offer if BG asked to sign. Kinda like he did two days after the deadline. Its not like anything changed or that deal would put us over the scary LT line. We still saw later in the season we had oppurtunites to move kirk.

Letting him go is turning into a huge mistake and using 2010 is a very bad excuse. We still could have 2010, BG doesn't make the entire cap. I know you don't hate him and are trying to show the other side but it is turning into a huge mistake and I am tired of seeing basketball decisons made on petty personal issues and money. I seriously question the teams commitment to winning. We could have easily signed BG, dealt Kirk and Tyrus for Boozer and had a 50+win team with 1 mill less in 2010 cap room. Its just rediculous that we accept mediocrity from a team that has a distinct advantage over almost every other team in the league with its market and stable fan base.

 

[Shakes]

It's also entirely possible if Ben is in Chicago he's the one doing weights instead of Tyrus and he breaks his arm instead. We just don't know, so that's why I think the easiest thing is to assume only the jersey changes if we're going to talk about what could have been.

The Boozer plan isn't without issues too. Boozer knows we're planning on ditching him for a free agent, does he buy into the team concept? Maybe, maybe not, but we know the guy isn't exactly Mr Team Player. See this is the problem I have with these "what ifs" ... everyone wants to look at the upside of the alternatives and compare it with the reality of what actually happened. Nobody ever seems to post "Gee I'm glad we didn't get Boozer, he'd have turned into a Ben Wallace like cancer and destroyed the team". OK, I'd hate it if people posted that like it's a certainty too ... but you've got to acknowledge the downsides too, you know what I mean?

FWIW, I see retaining Ben Gordon as accepting mediocrity. Getting rid of him seems to signal we're going 2010 free agent or tank ... either way, we're not going to be mediocre. Really I am starting to think the 2010 situation is a bad distraction for the team, normally if you got a guy like Rose (or who you're hoping Rose will become) your first order of business is to get a second young star somehow. I'm down with trying for 2010 because LeBron is LeBron ... but under normal circumstances I'd want the team to be tanking.

 

[Dpauley23]

I don't get how you can say retaining Gordon is just mediocrity. With Gordon and getting rid of Hinrich for expirings were 50 win team probably good enough for 3rd in the east. That was a team that had a outside shot at making the ECF.I think people also forget the fact that if the cap is at 50.6 million we are screwed out of our minds. We won't have enough cap space and we be forced to take Johnson whose a worse fit that Gordon given the age and Johnson has forgot how to shoot the three past 2 years.

 

[TheStig]

Really? Common, thats a stretch. He is only injured because he awkwardly landed on someones foot. Chances are it doesn't happen again.

He doesn't look like he is causing a problem at all in Utah. He looks like he has returned to allstar form and anyway he is playing for a deal. If he gets labeled a cancer he isn't getting anything plus he knows there is a 50/50 chance that he is reupped. Most likely most of the fas stay put and boozer will be the cheapest of them anyway for our price concise owner.

I disagree. You are viewing keeping BG only. We clearly had to move one. We chose Kirk. I fully expect that if we resigned Ben, Kirk would go or a smaller possibility Deng would go. I fully believe that Bron would much rather play with a guy like BG who can hit big shots and take the scoring pressure off of him considering he really has no one clutch in Cleavland. I also don't view Bron as likely. I think he resigns quick or goes to Miami. We just aren't competitive enough for him as is. Maybe if we made the above moves he would force a s&t here. I always viewed amare or bosh as the best targets. Both of which would be deadly in a pick and roll with rose stretching the defense.

 

[houheffna]

I think 2010 is more important than Ben Gordon...by a longshot. They decided to keep Hinrich. Before the season started, that was not so lopsided a decision. Neither one has been an allstar. And Hinrich is not bottom of the barrel, at least not according to what he has done throughout his career.

The 6/54mil thing is overblown. He didn't accept at the deadline. He should have. He would have if he really wanted to be in Chicago.

Should the Bulls have matched the Pistons offer? Hell no! Paying Gordon 12mil a year is crazy when someone like Monta Ellis is getting 11mil. Ellis sets the market pretty much. He is a better player and 10mil was about right for Gordon...Dumars paid him more...Good for Ben Gordon. He is a good player...no "difference maker".

 

[TheStig]

Dpauley23 wrote:

I don't get how you can say retaining Gordon is just mediocrity. With Gordon and getting rid of Hinrich for expirings were 50 win team probably good enough for 3rd in the east. That was a team that had a outside shot at making the ECF.I think people also forget the fact that if the cap is at 50.6 million we are screwed out of our minds. We won't have enough cap space and we be forced to take Johnson whose a worse fit that Gordon given the age and Johnson has forgot how to shoot the three past 2 years.

We can't get JJ unless Salmons opts out anyway. He wants a max deal he just turned down a 4/60 extension. He will get his deal from Atlanta or NY. JJ isn't coming here at all.

 

[Shakes]

Anyone who is even considering JJ needs to keep in mind that it's probably at least a 5/90 deal (more if the cap is higher). At that price, 5/58 for BG looks very, very good. Amare's max contract is going to be killing you for the next 5 years too, do you really pay a guy with serious injury history and whose numbers have gone down two years in a row even though he's only 27?

The only free agents worth the max are LeBron, Bosh and Wade. And with Wade you're praying he doesn't get injured, but you have to take the risk.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

Anyone who is even considering JJ needs to keep in mind that it's probably at least a 5/90 deal (more if the cap is higher). At that price, 5/58 for BG looks very, very good. Amare's max contract is going to be killing you for the next 5 years too, do you really pay a guy with serious injury history and whose numbers have gone down two years in a row even though he's only 27?

The only free agents worth the max are LeBron, Bosh and Wade. And with Wade you're praying he doesn't get injured, but you have to take the risk.

Obviously you go with Bron, Bosh and Wade. But putting aside Amare's injury concerns, he is the best fit for this team outside of those 3. He is also the only one to ggive you superstar potentiall and the 25ppg we need out of a star and spaces the floor to hide the offensive liabilities of noah well. I don't think the bulls can afford to lose BG for 2010 and come up empty handed. Amare is a better fit then boozer, jj, gay or any other second tier prize. It relly depends on Phoenix and NY if he goes for less than the max. Lets not kid ourselves, all of they guys are looking for 6/120 and teams will have incentives to work out a s&t even if its just for a large te and 2nd round pick. There is also going to be a shadow market of older star available after the fa fiasco settles with teams trying to get into the 2011 class that features paul, williams and melo. I see a cubs theme developing, we have hidden under the guise of this guy has crazy contract demands too long, you can't keep sheeding talent for cap space and then pretty much sitting on it with getting a fa and then dumping a big deal.

 

[Shakes]

Dpauley23 wrote:

I don't get how you can say retaining Gordon is just mediocrity. With Gordon and getting rid of Hinrich for expirings were 50 win team probably good enough for 3rd in the east.

If Tyrus was healthy, and Salmons, Miller & Kirk all played like they did last year, we'd be a 50 win team without Ben given how Noah & Deng are playing. But they're not so we aren't.

And being 50 win team is mediocrity. 50 win teams don't (in general) have any realistic shot at the championship. I call that mediocrity.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

Dpauley23 wrote:

I don't get how you can say retaining Gordon is just mediocrity. With Gordon and getting rid of Hinrich for expirings were 50 win team probably good enough for 3rd in the east.

If Tyrus was healthy, and Salmons, Miller & Kirk all played like they did last year, we'd be a 50 win team without Ben given how Noah & Deng are playing. But they're not so we aren't.

And being 50 win team is mediocrity. 50 win teams don't (in general) have any realistic shot at the championship. I call that mediocrity.

I doubt it. Our offense isn't good enough and our defense isn't elite enough to cover up for. BG isn't the end all be all but he really was with our offense and thats what we are seeing. Even in our early wins we were barely eeking them out and struggling mightly offensively. Its too much to ask from your defense with the rule changes. Rose clearly is able to be marginalized in the clutch.