Bulls vs Celtics game thread

[Shakes]

TheStig wrote:

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, *** 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.

I'd gamble for Melo vs pay Amare now. And I don't even like Melo that much. If Amare was actually still a 25PPG scorer then maybe you take that risk, but the last two years he hasn't been that guy. Last year the excuse was it was Shaq affecting his game, but Shaq's gone now and he's still down around 20PPG. For a guy who isn't really good at anything but scoring, is that worth the max, given you'd have to be worried about his injury history?

 

[Shakes]

TheStig wrote:

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.

In our early wins Salmons was already not Salmons from last year, and Kirk wasn't Kirk from last year. They sucked from the get go, so we haven't been able to see what this team might be capable of if they actually played well.

I the hypothetical world where our players were actually playing well I see no reason why we couldn't be as good offensively as the 06/07 team that won 49 games. If they were all playing well is Rose/Hinrich/Salmons/Deng/Tyrus/Miller/Noah any worse than Duhon/Hinrich/Gordon/Deng/Tyrus/Noc/Wallace? I don't really think so, Gordon and Noc are better than Salmons and Miller, but Noah and Rose are better than Wallace and Duhon.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

TheStig wrote:

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, *** 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.

I'd gamble for Melo vs pay Amare now. And I don't even like Melo that much. If Amare was actually still a 25PPG scorer then maybe you take that risk, but the last two years he hasn't been that guy. Last year the excuse was it was Shaq affecting his game, but Shaq's gone now and he's still down around 20PPG. For a guy who isn't really good at anything but scoring, is that worth the max, given you'd have to be worried about his injury history?

I really don't think its fair to the fan base if they have to wait yet another year for yet another chance at a guy. At what point is enough? This team has been treading water for more than this year under the guise of a star. At some point you have to bite the bullet and go for it. With our progress, Rose will die of old age before we get a star.

I can definitely see your point about Amare, I would just take a chance on him because he is the best fit for the team on that second tier. I mean our other choice is boozer or JJ both considerably older and never a mvp type players like Amare has been in the past. Its worth the risk to see if you could get that Amare back.

 

[Shakes]

TheStig wrote:

I really don't think its fair to the fan base if they have to wait yet another year for yet another chance at a guy. At what point is enough? This team has been treading water for more than this year under the guise of a star. At some point you have to bite the bullet and go for it. With our progress, Rose will die of old age before we get a star

I can definitely see your point about Amare, I would just take a chance on him because he is the best fit for the team on that second tier. I mean our other choice is boozer or JJ both considerably older and never a mvp type players like Amare has been in the past. Its worth the risk to see if you could get that Amare back.

I'm not really interested in having a star to have a star. The point is to have a star to win. I don't think Amare gets us there, and there's a very real chance that he also significantly hurts other options (ie we're stuck with a dead weight contract of a guy who can't play).

Also the advantage of going for Melo is that we could in theory tank this year and get a good draft pick + Melo. I can understand why some people don't want Chicago to start tanking again after those 6 years though.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

TheStig wrote:

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.

In our early wins Salmons was already not Salmons from last year, and Kirk wasn't Kirk from last year. They sucked from the get go, so we haven't been able to see what this team might be capable of if they actually played well.

I the hypothetical world where our players were actually playing well I see no reason why we couldn't be as good offensively as the 06/07 team that won 49 games. If they were all playing well is Rose/Hinrich/Salmons/Deng/Tyrus/Miller/Noah any worse than Duhon/Hinrich/Gordon/Deng/Tyrus/Noc/Wallace? I don't really think so, Gordon and Noc are better than Salmons and Miller, but Noah and Rose are better than Wallace and Duhon.

I think you are overestimating the bad starts. They are bad when you are expecting their career years but they are trending dangerously close to their career averages. Except Kirk who has been rapidly declining the last 3 years. This year is what Kirk and Salmons are, you can hold out ofr the huge recovery but its just not coming. They might get marginally better but their not going to be last years salmons or 066-07 kirk.

That year was career years for Kirk, Noc, Deng, and close to BG's. All of those guys have noticibly declined since then except Ben. So I would easily take that group. The only way I change my mind is if Rose starts averaging 20ppg but its not going to happen with his spacing. Duhon was bad but he was playing the kirk hinrich role and could at least organize the offense and get people some open shots. Lastly, PJ Brown was much more consistent in kncoking down the mid range jumper than TT or Taj and was better defensively. He couldn't block shots like TT but rarely got beat.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

TheStig wrote:

I really don't think its fair to the fan base if they have to wait yet another year for yet another chance at a guy. At what point is enough? This team has been treading water for more than this year under the guise of a star. At some point you have to bite the bullet and go for it. With our progress, Rose will die of old age before we get a star

I can definitely see your point about Amare, I would just take a chance on him because he is the best fit for the team on that second tier. I mean our other choice is boozer or JJ both considerably older and never a mvp type players like Amare has been in the past. Its worth the risk to see if you could get that Amare back.

I'm not really interested in having a star to have a star. The point is to have a star to win. I don't think Amare gets us there, and there's a very real chance that he also significantly hurts other options (ie we're stuck with a dead weight contract of a guy who can't play).

Also the advantage of going for Melo is that we could in theory tank this year and get a good draft pick + Melo. I can understand why some people don't want Chicago to start tanking again after those 6 years though.

I prefer Melo too, espically with the MVP type scoring he gives you now. But how many years can we wait. If we blow it next year our cap room is gone when we gotta extend Noah. I just can't see this team putting it together. Kirk wasn't chosen over ben because he makes a mill less next year or that he is better. He was picked because of petty personal problems and that he was going to be given twice as much long term. Its stuff like that makes me question our commitment to winning and if we will be able to assemble anything even if we land a wade or bosh. Neither are a gurantee of anything ask toronto and miami.

 

[Shakes]

TheStig wrote:

I think you are overestimating the bad starts. They are bad when you are expecting their career years but they are trending dangerously close to their career averages. Except Kirk who has been rapidly declining the last 3 years. This year is what Kirk and Salmons are, you can hold out ofr the huge recovery but its just not coming. They might get marginally better but their not going to be last years salmons or 066-07 kirk.

I'm not expecting Salmons to get better now, I'd even said last year the chances of him repeating his year were basically zero. But before the year started I think it was reasonable to expect he'd be better than he is right now, and that some of the improvement he showed was genuine. Oh well, he fooled us.

I don't know what makes you think Kirk's playing at his career averages. When a 38% career three point shooter starts shooting 28% he's not playing well. When he has a career 52% TS% and he's shooting 40% he's not playing well. When a guy who has a 14% turnover rate suddenly has a 19% turnover rate (while playing the PG less than he historically has) the guy is not playing well. By any measure you can think of, Kirk is playing far worse than he ever has.

There is absolutely no reason to expect Kirk to come out playing like that, last year he matched his 06/07 numbers for efficiency (but not volume, as his role had changed). I expected that again this year, and I don't think that was unreasonable.

That year was career years for Kirk, Noc, Deng, and close to BG's. All of those guys have noticibly declined since then except Ben. So I would easily take that group. The only way I change my mind is if Rose starts averaging 20ppg but its not going to happen with his spacing. Duhon was bad but he was playing the kirk hinrich role and could at least organize the offense and get people some open shots. Lastly, PJ Brown was much more consistent in kncoking down the mid range jumper than TT or Taj and was better defensively. He couldn't block shots like TT but rarely got beat.

Deng's been injured, so perhaps declined is harsh. Right now he's showing signs that he could reach 06/07 levels again. I'm going to fall back to the excuse Rose gets: if the offense was better Deng would be better.

As I said above, Kirk is playing like garbage beyond all possible expectations right now. He's doing a reverse last year's Salmons. I don't see any relevance of his current play to a statement about what could have been if the team played well.

Also don't underestimate how much of an upgrade Noah is to Wallace offensively. Wallace is probably the worst offensive player in the league (excluding scrubs like Hunter). At least Noah can make a put back dunk and hit free throws.

Defensively, obviously we'd need to be near the top of the league to make it with the mediocre offense we'd have, but it looked like that was a possibility when TT was healthy.

Realistic? All I know is I've seen the same 49 win team look like crap and win 33 games the next year. This team may look like crap, but if they were playing well they could have been a 50 win team (note: I'm not saying they'll turn it around, I'm saying before the year started 50 wins was a reasonable ceiling).

 

[Shakes]

TheStig wrote:

I prefer Melo too, espically with the MVP type scoring he gives you now. But how many years can we wait. If we blow it next year our cap room is gone when we gotta extend Noah. I just can't see this team putting it together. Kirk wasn't chosen over ben because he makes a mill less next year or that he is better. He was picked because of petty personal problems and that he was going to be given twice as much long term. Its stuff like that makes me question our commitment to winning and if we will be able to assemble anything even if we land a wade or bosh. Neither are a gurantee of anything ask toronto and miami.

There are 30 teams, the Bulls last won a title 10 years ago, we can surely wait out turn another 20!

Seriously though, I agree you have to take a risk to win. If the gamble is a good one, I've got no problem with it. I'll never say Pax was an idiot for taking TT, because it was a sensible gamble that just didn't pay off. But is Amare a better gamble than rolling the dice again next free agency? Than just hoping to get lucky in the draft? Is he when you consider you've probably locked in your course for 5/6 years? If we go that way I'll hope for the best but I think I'd feel about as good as you do about letting Gordon walk.

My personal opinion about Ben/Kirk is that management planned to move them both in the short to medium term anyway. They thought they could get something for Kirk, where as if they signed Ben to a six year deal in the current NBA economy he'd be hard to move. Obviously it's backfiring right now with Kirk sucking his way into not being worth crap. I just don't see how you can think JR is all about the dollars yet he'd also make a multi-million dollar decision based on whether he liked one guy or the other personally. From what I understand he pretty much hates everyone personally anyway.

As for whether the Bulls can put a team together anyway, who the hell knows. Between the Lakers, the Celtics and the Heat, 3 of the last 4 champs have basically been gifted the player(s) that got them there. If you have the first star maybe the second comes cheap if you're in the right place at the right time.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

I'm not expecting Salmons to get better now, I'd even said last year the chances of him repeating his year were basically zero. But before the year started I think it was reasonable to expect he'd be better than he is right now, and that some of the improvement he showed was genuine. Oh well, he fooled us.

I don't know what makes you think Kirk's playing at his career averages. When a 38% career three point shooter starts shooting 28% he's not playing well. When he has a career 52% TS% and he's shooting 40% he's not playing well. When a guy who has a 14% turnover rate suddenly has a 19% turnover rate (while playing the PG less than he historically has) the guy is not playing well. By any measure you can think of, Kirk is playing far worse than he ever has.

There is absolutely no reason to expect Kirk to come out playing like that, last year he matched his 06/07 numbers for efficiency (but not volume, as his role had changed). I expected that again this year, and I don't think that was unreasonable.

Sure there is. Kirk is dependent on others to spread the floor for him and get him open shots. Granted he has missed more open shots than I recall in last year but he isn't getting any good looks at all from within the three point line. Its hard for a non sharp shooter to get a rhythm that way. Kirk used to get some closer twos and layups but those have disappeared for him because when rose goes out he is usaully our #1 option and teams clamp down on him because he is our big name off the bench. Kirk has also regressed a lot since 06-07, he hasn't come close to duplicating those numbers.

Deng's been injured, so perhaps declined is harsh. Right now he's showing signs that he could reach 06/07 levels again. I'm going to fall back to the excuse Rose gets: if the offense was better Deng would be better.

As I said above, Kirk is playing like garbage beyond all possible expectations right now. He's doing a reverse last year's Salmons. I don't see any relevance of his current play to a statement about what could have been if the team played well.

Also don't underestimate how much of an upgrade Noah is to Wallace offensively. Wallace is probably the worst offensive player in the league (excluding scrubs like Hunter). At least Noah can make a put back dunk and hit free throws.

Defensively, obviously we'd need to be near the top of the league to make it with the mediocre offense we'd have, but it looked like that was a possibility when TT was healthy.

Realistic? All I know is I've seen the same 49 win team look like crap and win 33 games the next year. This team may look like crap, but if they were playing well they could have been a 50 win team (note: I'm not saying they'll turn it around, I'm saying before the year started 50 wins was a reasonable ceiling).

I didn't mean to pick on Deng but that was his peak. I don't see him doing any better and I think the inverse is true, that the worse the team is the better deng will be. He really isn't dependent on spacing or anything like that. He mainly takes early jumpers or gets put backs. He just isn't going to get many plays called for him to really improve his number. I would love to cut our losses with him and get an expiring. I think the downgrade to a mle sf like Artest/Battier/Ariza/Posey is well worth getting out of that deal. Deng was just lights out shooting that year, he shot almost 7% higher fg%.

How can you not see the relevance. We aren't talking about an equal comparison. This years kirk is among the worst he has been and that years kirk was playing out of his mind. Its a net positive for 06-07 team.

Noah is also a downgrade defensively. Wallace was a much better man defender and better help defender than Noah. Wallace has been on some great defensive teams. But neither are real offensive options outside of 3 ft from the basket.

This team never had 50 win potential. I don't care what anyone said, they were an offensive team that lost their best player and their defensive stats are mostly to playing a slower pace. This team to me always had a 40-45(stretching it) ceiling. I have always though and will continue to think this team wins 35-40 games. Its just looking closer to that 35 than 40 number. I thought we would play to our full potential.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

There are 30 teams, the Bulls last won a title 10 years ago, we can surely wait out turn another 20!

Seriously though, I agree you have to take a risk to win. If the gamble is a good one, I've got no problem with it. I'll never say Pax was an idiot for taking TT, because it was a sensible gamble that just didn't pay off. But is Amare a better gamble than rolling the dice again next free agency? Than just hoping to get lucky in the draft? Is he when you consider you've probably locked in your course for 5/6 years? If we go that way I'll hope for the best but I think I'd feel about as good as you do about letting Gordon walk.

I think you are underestimating Amare. I don't know if the injuries have hampered him permently or temporarly but Amare was a superstar. JJ and Boozer don't offer that and we can't keep holding out for a star to come to us next year. Seriously, we have waited 3 yrs for KG, 2 years for ggasol, 2 years for 2010. Call me impatient, I can't wait anymore. They have to start putting something productive together or they are becoming the cubs in my mind. Every other sports team has had some productivity in the last 10 years except for the cubs and bull. Regardless of who we get, I think we would be much more attractive and better going forward with bg instead of Kirk.

My personal opinion about Ben/Kirk is that management planned to move them both in the short to medium term anyway. They thought they could get something for Kirk, where as if they signed Ben to a six year deal in the current NBA economy he'd be hard to move. Obviously it's backfiring right now with Kirk sucking his way into not being worth crap. I just don't see how you can think JR is all about the dollars yet he'd also make a multi-million dollar decision based on whether he liked one guy or the other personally. From what I understand he pretty much hates everyone personally anyway.

See I disagree. To me, BG and Rose were ideal going forward. They were one of the top offensive back courts in the league and their defense was only bad because rose was terrible defensively. When Rose improved they would be average at least defensively. Thats why I am mad we lost him. Deng is also a quality player now but he just doesn't mesh well with rose or other stars. BG was a good fit next to rose and would spread the floor for whoever we got in 2010.

As for whether the Bulls can put a team together anyway, who the hell knows. Between the Lakers, the Celtics and the Heat, 3 of the last 4 champs have basically been gifted the player(s) that got them there. If you have the first star maybe the second comes cheap if you're in the right place at the right time.

The Celtics and Heat weren't gifted anyone. I hardly consider trading Caron Butler, Odom and Brian grant for shaq a give away. Just because LA couldn't develop Butler like Washington did. The celtics gave up a top 5 pick for allen and a 20/10 player for KG. Hardly being gifted. Gasol was a gift though.

 

[Shakes]

If you expected Kirk to play like he is then you've been listening to Fred for too long. It's not like Kirk hasn't played on bad offensive teams before: in his rookie year the Bulls were the worst offensive team in the league. He still managed to shoot 39% from 3, not 28%. Last year he was just as efficient as in 06/07, any reduction in raw numbers can be explained by him taking less shots due to his role. This year he's just flat out sucked, I don't know what's wrong with him, but the loss of Ben Gordon can't explain the sort of falling off a cliff we've seen.

If you look at the stats Deng is shooting just as well this year as he did in 06/07 (42%). The difference is he's not getting the inside shots he did. That's entirely due to the offense. I'd still trade him for an expiring because he's owed a lot of money and doesn't really suit the team, but if he was traded to the right situation I think you'd see 06/07 Deng again.

 

[Shakes]

TheStig wrote:

I think you are underestimating Amare. I don't know if the injuries have hampered him permently or temporarly but Amare was a superstar. JJ and Boozer don't offer that and we can't keep holding out for a star to come to us next year.

I'm not underestimating him. If Amare is playing like 07/08 Amare then he's easily worth the max. But he's not, and given his history can you confidently say he's not just going to continue to go downhill? I sure can't.

Seriously, we have waited 3 yrs for KG, 2 years for ggasol, 2 years for 2010. Call me impatient, I can't wait anymore. They have to start putting something productive together or they are becoming the cubs in my mind. Every other sports team has had some productivity in the last 10 years except for the cubs and bull. Regardless of who we get, I think we would be much more attractive and better going forward with bg instead of Kirk.

They've been productive over the last 5 years. Made the playoffs 4 times, and the one they didn't the media had them picked to win the conference. It's not like they've been horrible during the "wait". If you were making this post in 2004 and had just seen 5 years of absolute suck then I could understand it.

See I disagree. To me, BG and Rose were ideal going forward. They were one of the top offensive back courts in the league and their defense was only bad because rose was terrible defensively. When Rose improved they would be average at least defensively. Thats why I am mad we lost him. Deng is also a quality player now but he just doesn't mesh well with rose or other stars. BG was a good fit next to rose and would spread the floor for whoever we got in 2010.

You can disagree with management's assessment of Gordon's fit, but that's still vastly different from management just throwing Gordon away because they didn't like him personally which is what you originally said.

FWIW I also think Gordon is a better fit than Deng. But if it was up to me I'd have gotten rid of all three of Deng/Hinrich/Gordon once we decided building around Rose was the way to go. I'm not really a fan of trying to have a foot in both camps, either you rebuild or you try to contend with what you have. For that reason I'm far more upset with overpaying Deng than letting Gordon go.

The Celtics and Heat weren't gifted anyone. I hardly consider trading Caron Butler, Odom and Brian grant for shaq a give away. Just because LA couldn't develop Butler like Washington did. The celtics gave up a top 5 pick for allen and a 20/10 player for KG. Hardly being gifted. Gasol was a gift though.

OK, gifted is probably too loaded a term. But you know what I mean ... if you have a star then it seems easier to make a trade for the second star.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

If you expected Kirk to play like he is then you've been listening to Fred for too long. It's not like Kirk hasn't played on bad offensive teams before: in his rookie year the Bulls were the worst offensive team in the league. He still managed to shoot 39% from 3, not 28%. Last year he was just as efficient as in 06/07, any reduction in raw numbers can be explained by him taking less shots due to his role. This year he's just flat out sucked, I don't know what's wrong with him, but the loss of Ben Gordon can't explain the sort of falling off a cliff we've seen.

If you look at the stats Deng is shooting just as well this year as he did in 06/07 (42%). The difference is he's not getting the inside shots he did. That's entirely due to the offense. I'd still trade him for an expiring because he's owed a lot of money and doesn't really suit the team, but if he was traded to the right situation I think you'd see 06/07 Deng again.

Sigh, Maybe I just think of Kirk as steve blake. His offense probably will pick up a bit but I don't ever see him being given the same type of leeway defensively to be a prime defender like he used to be. Kirk hasn't changed much defensively but he just picks up two quick calls for his aggressiveness and then disappears. But BG has most definitely affected him offensively but I agree it hasn't made him horrible.

What do you mean? Deng shot over 51% in 06-07. Not all of that is getting cuts to the basket.

But seeing that we let BG go, I'd just as well go into a rebuild. 2010 to me isn't a real 2010 plan unless we dump Deng and/or Kirk to get room for a second star. I really think Miami will be the big winner just because they have room for two max deals. Thats the kinda postion I would want to put us in because I think the basis of our roster is better. Rose/Noah are much better base than Chalmers/MB.

 

[Shakes]

TheStig wrote:

What do you mean? Deng shot over 51% in 06-07. Not all of that is getting cuts to the basket.

Actually the cuts to the basket are absolutely why ...

When I say Deng shot 42% both years I mean on jump shots, not on overall field goal percentage. The difference is now he's taking only 28% inside shots and hitting 62% on them. In 06-07 he took 39% inside shots and hit 66%. I think the difference is because Skiles' offense was set up to get him those shots, where as the current one isn't, not that Deng has gotten worse.

 

[Fred]

Shakes wrote:

If you expected Kirk to play like he is then you've been listening to Fred for too long. It's not like Kirk hasn't played on bad offensive teams before: in his rookie year the Bulls were the worst offensive team in the league. He still managed to shoot 39% from 3, not 28%. Last year he was just as efficient as in 06/07, any reduction in raw numbers can be explained by him taking less shots due to his role. This year he's just flat out sucked, I don't know what's wrong with him, but the loss of Ben Gordon can't explain the sort of falling off a cliff we've seen.

If you look at the stats Deng is shooting just as well this year as he did in 06/07 (42%). The difference is he's not getting the inside shots he did. That's entirely due to the offense. I'd still trade him for an expiring because he's owed a lot of money and doesn't really suit the team, but if he was traded to the right situation I think you'd see 06/07 Deng again.

He shot under 40% in his first 2 years in the league. That sucks. He led the team in minutes played in 07-08, and he shot 41%, 35% for the season...but he was well below both of those numbers for the vast majority of the year. He is the primary reason Skiles was fired, and he took none of the blame for it. He was asked to be our 3rd scorer on that team behind Gordon and Deng, and he failed miserably.

He only played half the season last year. Think about how bad he's been so far...now look at these numbers from 07. That should put how bad he was in perspective.

NOVEMBER 29th, 2007: “Hinrich's struggles are more glaring. He's shooting 34.6 percent overall and hitting just 20.5 from the outside. His assist-to-turnover ratio is a pedestrian 1.8, and his 4.7 turnovers per 48 minutes rank 15th in the NBA Article'I just think I need to stay with it and good things will happen,' Hinrich said. 'My confidence isn't shot. I've been through tough stretches before. I just need to play myself out of it.'” – Associated Press Article

 

[Shakes]

I give up, even when you say Kirk has really, really sucked Fred comes in and complains you're not saying he sucks badly enough.

 

[Diddy1122]

houheffna wrote:

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.

Since everyone seems to be playing the "What if" game, I'll join in I guess. If everyone on the C's was healthy & vice versa on the Bulls (people seem to forget too that Salmons played on a bad groin for the last month & a half & during the C's series as well) it would've been an entirely different series. For 1, Big Baby would not have been averaging 17ppg 7rpg in that series. Same goes for Perkins. And who's to say Rondo would've broken out like he did, which is the MAIN reason why the Celtics won that series. Deng would've made a difference, as would a fully healthy BG & Salmons. But the biggest difference maker would've been KG. I don't believe it would be a sweep, because our offense was incredible during the final month & a half of the year, I'd say Celtics in 6, but there's no way there would've been 7 OT's & a +/- of 3 in point differential in those games. The Celtics D is just too damn good.

But I will not say that was bad basketball by either team in that series. That was 2 teams duking it out, giving everything they had every game, & giving the NBA fans an exciting, unforgettable series. The problem with the way the season ended last year was fans were given a lot of false hope. I was excited after the series too. But it was pretty obvious that that team was not coming back intact next year. BG was gone, Salmons was moving to a position he never played before, Deng was a big ?, as was our non-existent defense, & our woefully bad coach. The things I took from that series was Rose breaking out & Noah finally starting to realize his potential. I'll admit I had high expectations for this season, but I'm like that after any season we make the playoffs.

 

[clonetrooper264]

Shakes wrote:

I give up, even when you say Kirk has really, really sucked Fred comes in and complains you're not saying he sucks badly enough.

Alas, here is my plight...

 

[houheffna]

But I will not say that was bad basketball by either team in that series. That was 2 teams duking it out, giving everything they had every game, & giving the NBA fans an exciting, unforgettable series. The problem with the way the season ended last year was fans were given a lot of false hope. I was excited after the series too. But it was pretty obvious that that team was not coming back intact next year. BG was gone, Salmons was moving to a position he never played before, Deng was a big ?, as was our non-existent defense, & our woefully bad coach. The things I took from that series was Rose breaking out & Noah finally starting to realize his potential. I'll admit I had high expectations for this season, but I'm like that after any season we make the playoffs.
Please note: Although no board code and smiley buttons are shown, they are still usable.

I am a bit more cynical than you. I expected them to tread water. There is a chance they won't do that. I expected a year similar to last year with maybe a few wins more because of improvement by Rose and some of the other young players. But I was not fooled by the playoff series last year. How/when we would win two games against the Celtics with KG is beyond me. I just don't see it. The fans were given false hope by who? The fans did it to themselves. I still say that after years of winning and watching a dynasty, Bulls fans should be much more knowledgeable. That is really disappointing to me.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

TheStig wrote:

What do you mean? Deng shot over 51% in 06-07. Not all of that is getting cuts to the basket.

Actually the cuts to the basket are absolutely why ...

When I say Deng shot 42% both years I mean on jump shots, not on overall field goal percentage. The difference is now he's taking only 28% inside shots and hitting 62% on them. In 06-07 he took 39% inside shots and hit 66%. I think the difference is because Skiles' offense was set up to get him those shots, where as the current one isn't, not that Deng has gotten worse.

I just don't see anyone ever building an offense around Deng. Skiles did everything he could to get him going and he still didn't crack 20ppg. Building an offense around Deng is like the kids who soup up their civics, sure it could be done but why the hell would you want too.