cbe 99

[pinkizdead]

the real question is why would bosh want to make his future team worse .

toronto shouldn't get more than Taj gibson and JJ and a first.

that's being generous.

 

[pinkizdead]

i'd take Turk back, if that was the requirement... it'd screw up our cap, but if we get a sg, i guess it's okay

 

[Shakes]

TheStig wrote:

Shakes wrote:

TheStig wrote:

Shakes, what are you talking about, Salmons played in 81 games each of the last two years and Murray missed like 9 games over the last two years?

Fred keeps on pointing out last year we didn't have Salmons or Miller the whole year. I'm just pointing out this year we didn't have two of our top scorers for the whole year due to trades.

Not really the same since we voluntarily gave up talent. It wasn't like Miller and Salmons were available in the beginning of the year.

Well giving up Salmons was dumb, but the point still is we didn't have our best team out there all year because we were playing for cap space. I really don't understand why Fred harps on Detroit, even without injuries they probably wouldn't have made the playoffs, they've used their cap space, and they have no young talent. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't make the playoffs for the duration of Gordon & Charlie V's contracts.

BTW on Salmons, 20 PPG in the playoffs ... he's certainly going to opt out and get at least that 3 year MLE type deal I was talking about before the deadline. Heck if we get Bosh, I'd consider going after him. We wont be able to offer the MLE, but if we go 5 years starting at the rest of our cap space (at current cap estimates it'd work out to 5/30 or so). I think that might be the best we can do at SG, just get a coach who wont bury him behind Kirk. Yeah 5 years sucks, but we'll be capped out anyway, and if we have a core of Rose/Bosh/Noah I think we're into the overpay for the right pieces mode.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

TheStig wrote:

Shakes wrote:

TheStig wrote:

Shakes, what are you talking about, Salmons played in 81 games each of the last two years and Murray missed like 9 games over the last two years?

Fred keeps on pointing out last year we didn't have Salmons or Miller the whole year. I'm just pointing out this year we didn't have two of our top scorers for the whole year due to trades.

Not really the same since we voluntarily gave up talent. It wasn't like Miller and Salmons were available in the beginning of the year.

Well giving up Salmons was dumb, but the point still is we didn't have our best team out there all year because we were playing for cap space. I really don't understand why Fred harps on Detroit, even without injuries they probably wouldn't have made the playoffs, they've used their cap space, and they have no young talent. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't make the playoffs for the duration of Gordon & Charlie V's contracts.

BTW on Salmons, 20 PPG in the playoffs ... he's certainly going to opt out and get at least that 3 year MLE type deal I was talking about before the deadline. Heck if we get Bosh, I'd consider going after him. We wont be able to offer the MLE, but if we go 5 years starting at the rest of our cap space (at current cap estimates it'd work out to 5/30 or so). I think that might be the best we can do at SG, just get a coach who wont bury him behind Kirk. Yeah 5 years sucks, but we'll be capped out anyway, and if we have a core of Rose/Bosh/Noah I think we're into the overpay for the right pieces mode.

I agree, I thought giving up Salmons was dumb. I wanted Kirk traded instead. Even if Salmons opted in, you still had the max and slightly over the mle to offer. But I disagree on the Detroit part. If you take out all their injuries like you said, I think they manage to win 12-15 more games and be right in the mix for that 8 seed. If they can somehow also convince a team to take Rip for a C, they will be better.

Its not fair to make that assumption, for whatever reason he wasn't doing much here and he had a shot. He was our opening day starter so I'm not sure how you say he was buried behind Kirk. He just wasn't doing it. I think he should have regained his spot before getting traded but he still got significant minutes and at that point he lost a lot of value. Besides, it was never a certainty with us that he would opt out or get another mle level deal.

 

[Shakes]

I don't really see what future Detroit has though. They really need to get lucky and win the lottery, because I don't think the 7th pick solves their problems. Even if Gordon and Charlie V play like the year before they signed them, I don't see the aging trio of Hamilton/Wallace/Prince doing anything but going further downhill. Add that up and they're still a borderline playoff team at best.

I don't know, spending a ton of cap space on a future that is "might manage to be in the race for the last seed if everyone is healthy" doesn't sound like a model of good management to me. Which is why I don't know why Fred keeps bringing up Detroit when bashing our management.

 

[houheffna]

This S&T stuff kills me. First off, Bosh never specifically said he would only leave in a S&T. Second, Toronto has no leverage whatsoever since there are 3 other high quality PF's on the market & Bosh, just like the other 3, can sign anywhere he wants. And thirdly, and this is key I think, why in the world would Bosh not want to pair with Noah in the front court? He would be playing with not only one of the better up-n-coming centers in the NBA, but arguably the best offensive rebounder in the NBA. It makes little sense for Bosh to demand a S&T, other than for an extra year on his contract. So is the extra $20mill worth giving up to team with Rose & Noah? That's a question Bosh will have to answer.

What's a no-brainer is that Rose/Bosh/Noah is better than just Rose/Bosh. Hopefully Bosh has the brains to realize that.

A sign and trade is the only way another team can pay him the max for the most years, at the end of the day you are talking about millions of dollars in guaranteed money. So this S&T stuff may kill you, but it is up to Bosh, he can insist on a S&T if he wants the money, can you blame him?


As far as this "trading Salmons was dumb" crap...give me a damn break! Do you think if the Bulls had Salmons they would beat the Cavs? Seriously? You all need to find something else to ***** about. Paxson DOESN'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE PLAYOFFS!!! All he cared about was cap space...mission accomplished. If he could get rid of Kirk for expirings, he should have, if he could get rid of them both for expirings...do it. Makes no sense to gripe about Salmons at this point...

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

I don't really see what future Detroit has though. They really need to get lucky and win the lottery, because I don't think the 7th pick solves their problems. Even if Gordon and Charlie V play like the year before they signed them, I don't see the aging trio of Hamilton/Wallace/Prince doing anything but going further downhill. Add that up and they're still a borderline playoff team at best.

I don't know, spending a ton of cap space on a future that is "might manage to be in the race for the last seed if everyone is healthy" doesn't sound like a model of good management to me. Which is why I don't know why Fred keeps bringing up Detroit when bashing our management.

Sure they do. The 7th pick will land them a good big prospect. Guys like Noah and Lopez come to mind. Combined with trading Rip for a guy like TC or Dalemburt would help straighten out their front court and set them up with a lot of cap space and flexibility in 2011. Their future isn't as bright as ours or the blazers or thunder but they aren't hopeless and they can't build the same way we do. I think BG will be a very good player for them and if they can get a nice post player, they will be good. I think there will be a lot of deals this summer.

Shakes, you assume everyone can have a NY, Chicago or Miami plan. They can't. Look at NJ, they have a good pg and center and still won't get anyone. If I were Bron and Bosh, thats where I would team up. You will be in NY, can turn around the worst team in the league and have an owner who will spend. But not everyone has a superstar or premier market. There is a flood of teams with cap space but not enough fas. Most will end up in trades and as pawns to get guys who shouldn't get the max, the max.

 

[Diddy1122]

houheffna wrote:

A sign and trade is the only way another team can pay him the max for the most years, at the end of the day you are talking about millions of dollars in guaranteed money. So this S&T stuff may kill you, but it is up to Bosh, he can insist on a S&T if he wants the money, can you blame him?

Did you even read what I wrote or did you immediately jump to "educate" mode, since you're the authority on all things NBA?

It makes little sense for Bosh to demand a S&T, other than for an extra year on his contract. So is the extra $20mill worth giving up to team with Rose & Noah? That's a question Bosh will have to answer.

It's right there, see? I know what a S&T entails & why it's beneficial to Bosh. My point is , is that extra money worth giving up to play with both Rose & Noah? If you need an example of signing for the extra money instead of signing with better talent, just take a look at Elton Brand. He was set to resign with the Clips & team up with Baron Davis & instead his agent got him an extra $11mill with the Sixers. He went to a team which was a horrible fit all for more money. Granted it wasn't thru a S&T, but it's just goes to show that going for the extra money does not always pan out too well.

 

[Shakes]

TheStig wrote:

Sure they do. The 7th pick will land them a good big prospect. Guys like Noah and Lopez come to mind.

Noah and Lopez are two of the biggest draft steals of the last decade. I don't think that's something you can count on. For every Noah or Lopez there are 10 Sheldon Williams.

Combined with trading Rip for a guy like TC or Dalemburt would help straighten out their front court and set them up with a lot of cap space and flexibility in 2011. Their future isn't as bright as ours or the blazers or thunder but they aren't hopeless and they can't build the same way we do. I think BG will be a very good player for them and if they can get a nice post player, they will be good. I think there will be a lot of deals this summer.

You can't play Dalembert and Wallace together, so I don't see that helping them a huge deal. Given Wallace's miracle anti-aging I'm not even sure Dalembert is an upgrade.

Shakes, you assume everyone can have a NY, Chicago or Miami plan. They can't. Look at NJ, they have a good pg and center and still won't get anyone. If I were Bron and Bosh, thats where I would team up. You will be in NY, can turn around the worst team in the league and have an owner who will spend. But not everyone has a superstar or premier market. There is a flood of teams with cap space but not enough fas. Most will end up in trades and as pawns to get guys who shouldn't get the max, the max.

I'm not saying the Pistons should be trying to land LeBron. I'm saying there's no point buying guys like Ben & Charlie when you're no good. They're the sort of top up to make a run players. The Pistons have no youth, Stuckey is their only young player and he's a horrible chucker. They'd have been better off just gutting the team and tanking for the best picks they could get for a couple of years.

 

[pinkizdead]

how much longer is wallace going to last?

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

Noah and Lopez are two of the biggest draft steals of the last decade. I don't think that's something you can count on. For every Noah or Lopez there are 10 Sheldon Williams.

I wouldn't say biggest but there is always a talented guy in that range that can help. #7 always gets you a talented player that can help them or they can trade the pick for another assest. You make it seem like the #7 pick is a liability not asset.

You can't play Dalembert and Wallace together, so I don't see that helping them a huge deal. Given Wallace's miracle anti-aging I'm not even sure Dalembert is an upgrade.

Wallace hasn't said he is coming back and isn't guarnteed to continue playing well. If you get TC or Dalemburt for Rip, you clear cap room the following year and get 48 minutes of rebounding and defense between the two. Its only been a year of rebuilding give them time.

I'm not saying the Pistons should be trying to land LeBron. I'm saying there's no point buying guys like Ben & Charlie when you're no good. They're the sort of top up to make a run players. The Pistons have no youth, Stuckey is their only young player and he's a horrible chucker. They'd have been better off just gutting the team and tanking for the best picks they could get for a couple of years.

I don't get the impression they want to build through the draft. They haven't had much luck there since they drafted hill. I just hope they use Charlie V and BG right because they could be good pieces. If they could stumble on a couple of front court pieces and control stuckey, I think they could be solid. They are a bobcats type operation. They just want to get good and then try to gamble on a piece they need like Sheed.

 

[Fred]

Shakes wrote:

I don't really see what future Detroit has though. They really need to get lucky and win the lottery, because I don't think the 7th pick solves their problems. Even if Gordon and Charlie V play like the year before they signed them, I don't see the aging trio of Hamilton/Wallace/Prince doing anything but going further downhill. Add that up and they're still a borderline playoff team at best.

I don't know, spending a ton of cap space on a future that is "might manage to be in the race for the last seed if everyone is healthy" doesn't sound like a model of good management to me. Which is why I don't know why Fred keeps bringing up Detroit when bashing our management.

In this episode, I only brought up Detroit as a team who had a right to complain about injuries. (also Portland) I didn't bring them up to bash our management. Detroit's top 6 scorers missed 121 games. Out top 6 missed 42. Although you obviously disagree, I think Prince and Gordon are really solid players, and the 20 games Gordon missed and the 33 Prince missed hurt them more than the 4 Rose missed and the 12 Deng missed. Why is this a hard concept to comprehend? If Rose missed 20 games, and Deng missed 33 this year, how many wins would we have? I'd argue that we would be a lot closer to Detroit's 27 than our end result of 41.

I do think Detroit's management has been much better than ours since Jordan retired. Is this even debatable? Our best move was drafting Rose, and it took a miracle to do it. My point has always been that I simply have more faith in Joe Dumars than I do in Gar Foreman.

 

[Shakes]

I didn't say Prince and Gordon weren't solid players. I did say I can't see Prince playing better than he has, which should be a "well duh" statement given he's 30. He's a solid player, but not someone who you can build a team around. Likewise for Ben Gordon, we've seen on the Bulls that a team of Ben Gordon without a lot of support is at best a .500 team. I don't think they're bad players, I just think the Pistons have used their cap space to be, at best, as good as the Bulls are right now before they've used their space.

Anyway I'm not sure what the comparison proves. When saying the Bulls were hurt by injuries does it really matter that other teams were as well? Does every other team in the league have to be healthy before we can say injuries hurt us? Games missed isn't even a really good measure. Obviously Rose was hobbled to start the year, and Deng to end it, although they toughed it out and played. And Noah missing games was pretty crucial, you say our players missed more last year, but it's a bit unlike you to compare the impact of Kirk missing games to the impact of Noah. :laugh:

Detroit has obviously won a championship so you've got to like what they've done in the past. Still as they say, past results are not necessarily an indication of future returns. And if getting Derrick Rose is luck, what do you call Grant Hill deciding to leave right before he goes from great player to injury riddled basket case? If not for that the Pistons might have been the pre-Howard magic.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes, you are evaluating the start of a plan. How many years did the bulls rebuild before they did anything of consequence post MJ? The pistons just finished year one and it was injury plagued. They also really couldn't have done much more with their cap space. Detroit isn't exactly paradise. Give them time and see what they come up with, the pistons have shown before they don't need a star to win.

BG didn't gut it out? Every team has injuries, thats why after seeing the pistons and last years team, you can't say that our injuries were really out of the norm. They really didn't hurt us much except for the big slide toward the end.

Wow thats a bit of a stretch. Not gonna go into Hill.

 

[Shakes]

I'm evaluating the start of the plan and saying I don't like where it's heading. I've laid out what my alternate plan would have been, the sort of plan the the Blazers and Thunder have used to rebuild by just throwing it all away first. Maybe the Pistons feel the financial pressure to stay (somewhat) competitive though, I don't know. Every team has their financial pressures in the background.

I didn't say BG didn't gut it out. Again, why does a statement about our team have to only be valid if no other team had the same circumstances?

And you can't praise the Piston's management if you're not going to go into the fact that their whole run was set up by losing a guy who missed about 5 seasons and getting a guy who turned out to be a multiple DPOY. They lucked into that, if Grant Hill didn't want to leave they totally wouldn't have made that trade.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

I'm evaluating the start of the plan and saying I don't like where it's heading. I've laid out what my alternate plan would have been, the sort of plan the the Blazers and Thunder have used to rebuild by just throwing it all away first. Maybe the Pistons feel the financial pressure to stay (somewhat) competitive though, I don't know. Every team has their financial pressures in the background.

I didn't say BG didn't gut it out. Again, why does a statement about our team have to only be valid if no other team had the same circumstances?

And you can't praise the Piston's management if you're not going to go into the fact that their whole run was set up by losing a guy who missed about 5 seasons and getting a guy who turned out to be a multiple DPOY. They lucked into that, if Grant Hill didn't want to leave they totally wouldn't have made that trade.

I agree, I don't think its a great plan either. I think they end up like the bobcats but maybe Dumars pulls something out of his ass to get the missing piece like he did before. As you said, your plan takes a while to work unless you land a roy or durant. There aren't that many available every year.

I say it because our injuries were not out of the norm. I'm tired of hearing that we'd be a fifth seed if we didn't have injuries (not you specifically but in general here). Every team has injuries, if Rose missed like 20+ games, then injuries would have been a reasonable excuse. But guys out here or there or playing through this or that is a common occurrence.

No but his injury was exagerated by coming back early, maybe detroit doesn't rush him back. Injuries are a little different than winning the lottery.

 

[Fred]

Shakes wrote:

And Noah missing games was pretty crucial, you say our players missed more last year, but it's a bit unlike you to compare the impact of Kirk missing games to the impact of Noah. :laugh:

Of course, Kirk missed 31 games in 08-09...all during the time when John Salmons was playing for Sacramento. We all know he's the best defensive guard in the history of basketball. And he actually shot the ball pretty well last year. So I would say that yes, cumulatively, the 31 games that Kirk missed last year hurt the Bulls as much as the 18 games Noah missed this year. Noah also missed 2 games last year.

Finally, and I harp on this quite a bit in the show we recorded that should go up today, I don't feel as though Rose played poorly at the start of the season. He wasn't at an All-Star level, but it was as good or better than the way he played for much of last season. In the first month of the season, he had only 1 game where he didn't score in double figures. His highlights were 22 against Denver on November 10th, 20 against the Lakers on November 19th, and 28 against Denver on November 28th. I think Salmons and Hinrich shooting 20% from the 3-point line for much of November effected his play far more than the injury. This was highlighted on the November 11th loss to Toronto, with this this classic from KC on November 13th:

Opponents limiting Derrick Rose's attacking style
Chicago Bulls point guard finds driving lanes jammed

November 13, 2009|By K.C. Johnson, Tribune reporter
Late Wednesday night in Toronto, Derrick Rose uttered the following in such a matter-of-fact manner that it almost downplayed the severity of its importance.

"There's no room to drive," Rose said.

Anyone who has watched the Bulls' first eight games has noticed Rose isn't attacking the rim with the same regularity as last season. He has had flashes, no doubt: The fourth quarters at home against the Bucks and visiting the Cavs come to mind. And Rose's numbers --13.8 points per game, 5.6 assists, 45.2 percent shooting -- actually aren't that far from his Rookie of the Year averages of 16.8 points, 6.3 assists and 47.5 percent shooting.

More often than not, guards pick Rose up fullcourt. Beyond that, double teams often come at him just past halfcourt. Add in the fact John Salmons and Kirk Hinrich are struggling to hit jumpers and defenses are crowding the lane, limiting Rose's avenues to drive.

"Toronto made it real clear they wanted us shooting jump shots, so they were really forcing us and baiting us to come and drive," Rose said.

 

[clonetrooper264]

Fred wrote:

Shakes wrote:

And Noah missing games was pretty crucial, you say our players missed more last year, but it's a bit unlike you to compare the impact of Kirk missing games to the impact of Noah. :laugh:

Of course, Kirk missed 31 games in 08-09...all during the time when John Salmons was playing for Sacramento. We all know he's the best defensive guard in the history of basketball. And he actually shot the ball pretty well last year. So I would say that yes, cumulatively, the 31 games that Kirk missed last year hurt the Bulls as much as the 18 games Noah missed this year. Noah also missed 2 games last year.

I think that title goes to MJ. Or if you want a more PG sized player, probably Gary Payton. Hyperbole for the win right? :laugh:

You do that all the time...I just thought I'd poke in some fun this time.

 

[clonetrooper264]

I think it's pretty sensible to say that a large part of us sucking in the beginning of this year (outside of that good start to the season) was Salmons AND Hinrich both shooting like...Pargo for the majority of that stretch. They both sucked...Hinrich sucked a little worse, so obviously he must be crucified for it, but nevertheless they both sucked. Had they played around what their averages were for the season, I think we'd be seeded a little higher. No duh right?

 

[Fred]

clonetrooper264 wrote:

They both sucked...Hinrich sucked a little worse, so obviously he must be crucified for it, but nevertheless they both sucked.

Actually, you'll only find him criticized at BullsPodcasters.com. In the mass media outlets, you'll find articles about how he's some type of glue or glowing articles after his random good games.