CBE 98: A Chat with Doug Thonus

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

Ooohh another snazzy zinger. That solved everything. Ignore the point, Rose didn't make Hinrich expendable and regress, he already did that the year before. But lets get our clever catch phrases together so we can make a few zingers and dance around the obvious all day. Stats don't matter, its all a coincidence the best players have the best stats or the best teams employee advanced stat guys, lets all blindly follow old school management that overpays supposed "perimeter defensive stoppers" and has no shooters on a team. Too bad its not 1991 anymore. Why evolve with the league when we can have good guys and defenders that can't shoot.

Your point was pointless, the stat stuff works in baseball moreso than basketball. Basketball is about you knowing who works best with who, in what situation. Something I am not too sure you are good at...again, analyzing players is not your strong point bruh. Sorry.

I don't think Hinrich was seen as the player he regressed to being when the Bulls signed him to that contract. I am not against NBA player evolution, your idea of it is Gordon over Hinrich...you need to think bigger. My idea is forget Hinrich and Gordon, get a Joe Johnson type to play with Rose, that is evolving.

Speaking of with, you come in the argument, change the damn subject to support your weak point, then accuse me of not sticking to the subject? SMH!

Oh another stats are worthless. I suck at player analysis because I take my eyes off the TV. Perhaps you should stick to mindlessly watching the television on your coach with oatmeal running down your face because basic mathematics and reading are not your strong point bruh. Sorry. Apparently you are the only one to watch games, when will you share the televison with the rest of us common folks.

I'll make it easy, if Hinrich shoots 4/10 every night and scores 10 points a game and the other guy shoots more efficiently and scores more, we lose. At the end of the night, the bulls don't get points for kirk's feistyness. Such a strong defender shouldn't be the worst net producing position on the court. He got beat by a guy we couldn't wait to get rid of and a rookie who wasn't very good to start the year. You may have noticed, when you were watching tv, that at the end of the game its the team with the most points that wins.

What change the subject. You pointed to kirk's great defense as such a valuable attribute and I pointed out that it doesn't matter that much if all his acomplishments add up to the worst net results for his postion. Its a valid point, instead of trying to reject it with zingers and stats sucks, you should embrace it. Certainly someone as great with player analysis and his tv should notice that kirk i a is a rather poor offensive player.

 

[houheffna]

Oh another stats are worthless. I suck at player analysis because I take my eyes off the TV. Perhaps you should stick to mindlessly watching the television on your coach with oatmeal running down your face because basic mathematics and reading are not your strong point bruh. Sorry. Apparently you are the only one to watch games, when will you share the televison with the rest of us common folks.

I'll make it easy, if Hinrich shoots 4/10 every night and scores 10 points a game and the other guy shoots more efficiently and scores more, we lose. At the end of the night, the bulls don't get points for kirk's feistyness. Such a strong defender shouldn't be the worst net producing position on the court. He got beat by a guy we couldn't wait to get rid of and a rookie who wasn't very good to start the year. You may have noticed, when you were watching tv, that at the end of the game its the team with the most points that wins.

What change the subject. You pointed to kirk's great defense as such a valuable attribute and I pointed out that it doesn't matter that much if all his acomplishments add up to the worst net results for his postion. Its a valid point, instead of trying to reject it with zingers and stats sucks, you should embrace it. Certainly someone as great with player analysis and his tv should notice that kirk i a is a rather poor offensive player.

I like oatmeal, taste good.

I don't like math very much, but I am pretty good at it.

Do I think Kirk helps the team? Yes, I believe he does. Do I want him on the team...no, not really, he can stay, but if he goes, so be it. Same with Gordon, who was just as poor offensively AND he was poor defensively this year. I never said Kirk's defense was great. Its obvious you "watch" the computer but you don't read or comprehend well. The team has no one who can defend on the perimeter after Salmons left but Kirk. So Kirk has some value to the team because he is a good perimeter defender. Its the strongest part of his game. Of course you wouldn't know that, because you are Captain Statsheet....

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

Oh another stats are worthless. I suck at player analysis because I take my eyes off the TV. Perhaps you should stick to mindlessly watching the television on your coach with oatmeal running down your face because basic mathematics and reading are not your strong point bruh. Sorry. Apparently you are the only one to watch games, when will you share the televison with the rest of us common folks.

I'll make it easy, if Hinrich shoots 4/10 every night and scores 10 points a game and the other guy shoots more efficiently and scores more, we lose. At the end of the night, the bulls don't get points for kirk's feistyness. Such a strong defender shouldn't be the worst net producing position on the court. He got beat by a guy we couldn't wait to get rid of and a rookie who wasn't very good to start the year. You may have noticed, when you were watching tv, that at the end of the game its the team with the most points that wins.

What change the subject. You pointed to kirk's great defense as such a valuable attribute and I pointed out that it doesn't matter that much if all his acomplishments add up to the worst net results for his postion. Its a valid point, instead of trying to reject it with zingers and stats sucks, you should embrace it. Certainly someone as great with player analysis and his tv should notice that kirk i a is a rather poor offensive player.

I like oatmeal, taste good.

I don't like math very much, but I am pretty good at it.

Do I think Kirk helps the team? Yes, I believe he does. Do I want him on the team...no, not really, he can stay, but if he goes, so be it. Same with Gordon, who was just as poor offensively AND he was poor defensively this year. I never said Kirk's defense was great. Its obvious you "watch" the computer but you don't read or comprehend well. The team has no one who can defend on the perimeter after Salmons left but Kirk. So Kirk has some value to the team because he is a good perimeter defender. Its the strongest part of his game. Of course you wouldn't know that, because you are Captain Statsheet....

I never said Kirk didn't help the team or that he wasn't a good defender. I know you probably wanted to clean house like Shakes and I were discussing after Rose was drafted. Your statements are misleading after the quote you posted. I also disagree that Kirk is the best perimeter defender left on the team. When healthy, I think Deng is superior on the defensive end and did a really solid job this year. He has better length, similar quickness(when healthy) and doesn't foul nearly as much. Deng doesn't have the feistyness but overall I think he was a better defender this year. But thats besides the point. I would say that out of the three choices we had in BG, Salmons and Kirk, we ended up with the worst.

 

[houheffna]

Yes, I wanted to clean house. So letting Gordon, Salmons and others leave is not heartbreaking for me. Hinrich could have left long ago. Good riddance to him too. None of them are spectacular enough to gripe about or overpay. But just sitting around trashing Kirk continuously is outrageously redundant...and stupid. Kirk is not supposed to be the savior. That said, how do you know management made a decision to keep Hinrich over Gordon and Salmons? If they did, so what but how do you know?

 

[pinkizdead]

dont forget deng.

 

[pinkizdead]

hou, are you related to management?

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

Yes, I wanted to clean house. So letting Gordon, Salmons and others leave is not heartbreaking for me. Hinrich could have left long ago. Good riddance to him too. None of them are spectacular enough to gripe about or overpay. But just sitting around trashing Kirk continuously is outrageously redundant...and stupid. Kirk is not supposed to be the savior. That said, how do you know management made a decision to keep Hinrich over Gordon and Salmons? If they did, so what but how do you know?

I don't trash Kirk continuously. I complain about his performance because he was signed to be a starter and should preform as one. Kirk isn't supposed to be a savior but he is supposed to be a valuable contributor on both sides of the floor. And if you can't see how the bulls picked Kirk over Salmons and BG, I can't help you. And since they did, that shows alot about the poor choices they have made and will continue to make overvaluing company guys who kiss the ring and dismissing talented players because they aren't there type. At some point you have to take chances on talented guys that don't fit the mold.

 

[TheStig]

pinkizdead wrote:

hou, are you related to management?

I'm starting to think he is JR.

 

[Shakes]

TheStig wrote:

At the MLE we could have had Salmons and Kirk on next years roster and had enough cap room to sign a max fax if you move a guy like James Johnson for a future pick. But I can see your point of what you are trying to say. If I had a choice, I still go with BG and Salmons over Kirk and Deng.

If we're having our pick of any two, I'll have Kirk and Salmons. I don't think Deng & Gordon's superior play is worth their longer contracts.

 

[clonetrooper264]

TheStig wrote:

houheffna wrote:

Yes, I wanted to clean house. So letting Gordon, Salmons and others leave is not heartbreaking for me. Hinrich could have left long ago. Good riddance to him too. None of them are spectacular enough to gripe about or overpay. But just sitting around trashing Kirk continuously is outrageously redundant...and stupid. Kirk is not supposed to be the savior. That said, how do you know management made a decision to keep Hinrich over Gordon and Salmons? If they did, so what but how do you know?

I don't trash Kirk continuously. I complain about his performance because he was signed to be a starter and should preform as one. Kirk isn't supposed to be a savior but he is supposed to be a valuable contributor on both sides of the floor. And if you can't see how the bulls picked Kirk over Salmons and BG, I can't help you. And since they did, that shows alot about the poor choices they have made and will continue to make overvaluing company guys who kiss the ring and dismissing talented players because they aren't there type. At some point you have to take chances on talented guys that don't fit the mold.

Constant complaining = trashing.

Here are some hypothetical examples:

Hypothetical situation: Kirk plays like crap on the offensive end, but his man doesn't do too hot either, shooting around the same percentage. "Kirk shot 3/10 from the field and is getting paid 9.5 million a year. He sucks"
-Fallacy: ignored defense, which is clearly unimportant.
Ben Gordon scores 30 points, but his man scores 30 as well. "Ben Gordon can't play defense. He sucks"
-Fallacy: BG also scored 30, it balances out.
This speaks for itself. "Kobe Bryant dropped 30 on Kirk today, where was Mr. Defense and his fiestyness? What a joke"
-Fallacy: It's freaking Kobe Bryant. Kirk is not going to stop him no matter how hard he tries.


These scenarios aren't perfect and may be a little exaggerated, but I think my point is clear.

 

[houheffna]

hou, are you related to management?

Nope, amazing how I am right though and others are wrong, simply because I use a little hoopology mixed with damn common sense. Very easy.

I'm starting to think he is JR.

I strive to be JR one day, he is a role model concerning business, and how he treats people who work for him. I hold him in higher regard than most Bulls including Jordan because he has shown a lot of integrity and loyalty, traits that are admirable for anyone, let alone someone with a great deal of wealth.

 

[TheStig]

clonetrooper264 wrote:

Constant complaining = trashing.

Here are some hypothetical examples:

Hypothetical situation: Kirk plays like crap on the offensive end, but his man doesn't do too hot either, shooting around the same percentage. "Kirk shot 3/10 from the field and is getting paid 9.5 million a year. He sucks"
-Fallacy: ignored defense, which is clearly unimportant.
Ben Gordon scores 30 points, but his man scores 30 as well. "Ben Gordon can't play defense. He sucks"
-Fallacy: BG also scored 30, it balances out.
This speaks for itself. "Kobe Bryant dropped 30 on Kirk today, where was Mr. Defense and his fiestyness? What a joke"
-Fallacy: It's freaking Kobe Bryant. Kirk is not going to stop him no matter how hard he tries.

If those were remotely close to true, I wouldn't be complaining.
These scenarios aren't perfect and may be a little exaggerated, but I think my point is clear.[/quote]

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

TheStig wrote:

At the MLE we could have had Salmons and Kirk on next years roster and had enough cap room to sign a max fax if you move a guy like James Johnson for a future pick. But I can see your point of what you are trying to say. If I had a choice, I still go with BG and Salmons over Kirk and Deng.

If we're having our pick of any two, I'll have Kirk and Salmons. I don't think Deng & Gordon's superior play is worth their longer contracts.

Well thats easy to say after most of their deals have been paid out. I am going on the entire body of work, talent and fit. If we are just going for contracts, I pick Tmac instead of all of them.

 

[clonetrooper264]

TheStig wrote:

clonetrooper264 wrote:

Constant complaining = trashing.

Here are some hypothetical examples:

Hypothetical situation: Kirk plays like crap on the offensive end, but his man doesn't do too hot either, shooting around the same percentage. "Kirk shot 3/10 from the field and is getting paid 9.5 million a year. He sucks"
-Fallacy: ignored defense, which is clearly unimportant.
Ben Gordon scores 30 points, but his man scores 30 as well. "Ben Gordon can't play defense. He sucks"
-Fallacy: BG also scored 30, it balances out.
This speaks for itself. "Kobe Bryant dropped 30 on Kirk today, where was Mr. Defense and his fiestyness? What a joke"
-Fallacy: It's freaking Kobe Bryant. Kirk is not going to stop him no matter how hard he tries.

If those were remotely close to true, I wouldn't be complaining.
These scenarios aren't perfect and may be a little exaggerated, but I think my point is clear.

[/quote]
That last one was pretty much true.

 

[TheStig]

clonetrooper264 wrote:

TheStig wrote:

clonetrooper264 wrote:

Constant complaining = trashing.

Here are some hypothetical examples:

Hypothetical situation: Kirk plays like crap on the offensive end, but his man doesn't do too hot either, shooting around the same percentage. "Kirk shot 3/10 from the field and is getting paid 9.5 million a year. He sucks"
-Fallacy: ignored defense, which is clearly unimportant.
Ben Gordon scores 30 points, but his man scores 30 as well. "Ben Gordon can't play defense. He sucks"
-Fallacy: BG also scored 30, it balances out.
This speaks for itself. "Kobe Bryant dropped 30 on Kirk today, where was Mr. Defense and his fiestyness? What a joke"
-Fallacy: It's freaking Kobe Bryant. Kirk is not going to stop him no matter how hard he tries.

If those were remotely close to true, I wouldn't be complaining.
These scenarios aren't perfect and may be a little exaggerated, but I think my point is clear.

That last one was pretty much true.[/quote]

Your right, no one is really gonna stop the kobe's, wade's or bron's. I don't blame him when those guys go off on him but I do get mad when its the guys below them.

 

[Shakes]

TheStig wrote:

Shakes wrote:

TheStig wrote:

At the MLE we could have had Salmons and Kirk on next years roster and had enough cap room to sign a max fax if you move a guy like James Johnson for a future pick. But I can see your point of what you are trying to say. If I had a choice, I still go with BG and Salmons over Kirk and Deng.

If we're having our pick of any two, I'll have Kirk and Salmons. I don't think Deng & Gordon's superior play is worth their longer contracts.

Well thats easy to say after most of their deals have been paid out. I am going on the entire body of work, talent and fit. If we are just going for contracts, I pick Tmac instead of all of them.

I think if the Bulls experience over the last however long has shown anything, it's that until you have your stars in place you shouldn't have anyone on a long term non-rookie contract. The salary structure of the NBA ensures that everyone but max players are rookies are overpaid. So I don't really think talent and fit matters, whoever has the shorter deal is more desirable.

Obviously if we can get a FA and are in a position to contend, that changes and we can start overpaying for the rest of the pieces.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

TheStig wrote:

Shakes wrote:

TheStig wrote:

At the MLE we could have had Salmons and Kirk on next years roster and had enough cap room to sign a max fax if you move a guy like James Johnson for a future pick. But I can see your point of what you are trying to say. If I had a choice, I still go with BG and Salmons over Kirk and Deng.

If we're having our pick of any two, I'll have Kirk and Salmons. I don't think Deng & Gordon's superior play is worth their longer contracts.

Well thats easy to say after most of their deals have been paid out. I am going on the entire body of work, talent and fit. If we are just going for contracts, I pick Tmac instead of all of them.

I think if the Bulls experience over the last however long has shown anything, it's that until you have your stars in place you shouldn't have anyone on a long term non-rookie contract. The salary structure of the NBA ensures that everyone but max players are rookies are overpaid. So I don't really think talent and fit matters, whoever has the shorter deal is more desirable.

Obviously if we can get a FA and are in a position to contend, that changes and we can start overpaying for the rest of the pieces.

The problem with that is that you won't get that second star without some success. So in theory its great but in practicality its hard to pick up those guys after you have two stars locked up. If thats your line of thinking, I take it you would trade Deng and Noah in a S&T for bosh if needed?

 

[Shakes]

TheStig wrote:

The problem with that is that you won't get that second star without some success. So in theory its great but in practicality its hard to pick up those guys after you have two stars locked up.

That's where I think Krause was right: you can't count on just landing the stars, you need to tank and draft them. Unfortunately for him people got sick of tanking before we got lucky.

If thats your line of thinking, I take it you would trade Deng and Noah in a S&T for bosh if needed?

I'd hate to do it, because Noah fits perfectly next to Bosh. But I guess if that's what it takes to get Bosh I'd do it. Of course losing Noah & Deng's salary plus our remaining space adds up to the max, so that would still leave us with a lot of options for who we can put around Rose & Bosh. I think you made it too easy, a straight up S&T of Bosh for Noah to me is what the Raptors need to be doing to try to call our bluff. Taking Deng is doing us a favor.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

That's where I think Krause was right: you can't count on just landing the stars, you need to tank and draft them. Unfortunately for him people got sick of tanking before we got lucky.

It didn't help he passed on a star for Curry. Or the other mistakes.

I'd hate to do it, because Noah fits perfectly next to Bosh. But I guess if that's what it takes to get Bosh I'd do it. Of course losing Noah & Deng's salary plus our remaining space adds up to the max, so that would still leave us with a lot of options for who we can put around Rose & Bosh. I think you made it too easy, a straight up S&T of Bosh for Noah to me is what the Raptors need to be doing to try to call our bluff. Taking Deng is doing us a favor.

I'll bite, what about Noah for Bosh straight up, you brought up a good point. Though, I think they would probably insist we take Hedo in my example now that I think about it.

 

[Shakes]

Yeah I'd do Noah for Bosh straight up, although at that point you'd have to start thinking we can get Amare for nothing, does Bosh look like such a good deal? So I guess if Toronto are firm on Noah as an asking price I'd look elsewhere first.

I don't think it will come to that though, Bosh has the leverage that he doesn't have to be part of a deal that will leave him without a supporting cast. If Bosh wants to come to the Bulls I think part of the appeal will be he wont have the play center or be expected to anchor the defense, so I can't see him signing off on a swap for Noah.