WearShades
New member
- Joined:
- Jan 28, 2010
- Posts:
- 560
- Liked Posts:
- 47
I don't think anyone here is contesting that. There is absolutely no reason we shouldn't have let Gordon sign that deal. It was like giving away money.
I don't think anyone here is contesting that. There is absolutely no reason we shouldn't have let Gordon sign that deal. It was like giving away money.
- Joined:
- Apr 11, 2009
- Posts:
- 23,601
- Liked Posts:
- 7,413
My favorite teams
WearShades wrote:
I think that statement is like beating a dead horse. We all know that and agree with it (I'm pretty sure).
st. park
New member
- Joined:
- Mar 31, 2009
- Posts:
- 49
- Liked Posts:
- 0
Good show guys. The hyperbole over Hinrich is ridiculous of late and it's so obvious that our media and a large contingent of our fans are anxious to laud praise on Hinrich as soon as they can. I'm quoting Doug here, correlation does not equal causation.
Shakes
Iconoclast
- Joined:
- Apr 22, 2009
- Posts:
- 3,857
- Liked Posts:
- 142
Fred, you've completely ignored the fact I said that it's the injuries not that I think Gordon sucks, and that I also said we had no way of knowing that before the year so I wasn't using it as an argument for or against signing Gordon. I'm simply saying that I think if we got the Gordon that actually exists this year instead of the Hinrich that actually exists this year, we wouldn't have won more games, and likely would have won fewer.
If we pretend that neither got injured, and Hinrich played like he has but Gordon played like he did last year, then sure, Gordon helps the team more. I'm just saying that scenario isn't what happened, injuries happened and Gordon hasn't played remotely as well as he has in the past.
FWIW since people seem so interested in pretending Gordon hasn't been injured, at Gordon's scoring rate last year, and Hinrich & the team's this year, if you give all of Hinrich's shots to Gordon, plus redistribute evenly from the rest of the team's to get Gordon up to his usage, the team is about 3 points a game better. As a 1 point swing is roughly equal to 3 wins, we're 9 wins worse off (over the entire season, so about 5 wins right now) with this year's Hinrich than a healthy Gordon. That's assuming that their other contributions cancel out, which I think is reasonable (Gordon takes offensive pressure off Rose, Hinrich takes defensive pressure off him).
If we pretend that neither got injured, and Hinrich played like he has but Gordon played like he did last year, then sure, Gordon helps the team more. I'm just saying that scenario isn't what happened, injuries happened and Gordon hasn't played remotely as well as he has in the past.
FWIW since people seem so interested in pretending Gordon hasn't been injured, at Gordon's scoring rate last year, and Hinrich & the team's this year, if you give all of Hinrich's shots to Gordon, plus redistribute evenly from the rest of the team's to get Gordon up to his usage, the team is about 3 points a game better. As a 1 point swing is roughly equal to 3 wins, we're 9 wins worse off (over the entire season, so about 5 wins right now) with this year's Hinrich than a healthy Gordon. That's assuming that their other contributions cancel out, which I think is reasonable (Gordon takes offensive pressure off Rose, Hinrich takes defensive pressure off him).
mlewinth
New member
- Joined:
- Mar 31, 2009
- Posts:
- 680
- Liked Posts:
- 6
Fred wrote:
Fred
New member
- Joined:
- Mar 29, 2009
- Posts:
- 982
- Liked Posts:
- 7
mlewinth wrote:
houheffna
Ignoring Idiots
- Joined:
- May 6, 2009
- Posts:
- 8,673
- Liked Posts:
- 2,711
Do you really believe 16 teams were interested in Gordon? That according to his agent is the case right? I don't believe it. There is an agent in baseball (who Reinsdorf wants NOTHING to do with by the way) who uses the same tactics to get his clients overpaid. I think something similar happened here. I believe Gordon's contract is almost 12mil a year, which is utterly ridiculous, no way he should make more money than Monta Ellis...
There is not one team in the league that couldn't have done something different with personnel over the last 3 years...I am much more concerned with the drafting of Tyrus Thomas when they could have had Aldridge or my pick at the time, Brandon Roy, who if he was here, would make people forget Gordon's name. That is a more disastrous decision than the whole Gordon contract thing, which is as much Gordon's fault as anybody's. This is only an infamous decision to a small group of people, most people in Bulls nation don't care.
- Joined:
- Apr 11, 2009
- Posts:
- 23,601
- Liked Posts:
- 7,413
My favorite teams
houheffna wrote:
Well duh, Brandon Roy is a legit All-Star for years to come. He is a better player than Gordon in every aspect except shooting 3's. And even then he's not too shabby himself. But yeah, drafting Tyrus was definitely a mistake.
Well duh, Brandon Roy is a legit All-Star for years to come. He is a better player than Gordon in every aspect except shooting 3's. And even then he's not too shabby himself. But yeah, drafting Tyrus was definitely a mistake.
Shakes
Iconoclast
- Joined:
- Apr 22, 2009
- Posts:
- 3,857
- Liked Posts:
- 142
Fred wrote:
This is simply not true. We're currently at 26 million salary for 2011/12, assuming we pick up Rose, Gibson and Johnsons options. Lets say we sign a max free agent this offseason, that's another 16 million, and use the MLE that offseason, for another 6. We're still only be at 48 million salary, for 7 players + Noah. So top it up with minimum contracts and rookies (lets say another 5 million) and we're only at 53 million. We could afford to sign Noah to the max without hitting the luxury tax. I don't think we have any intention of giving Noah that much money, so it's even less of an issue.
This is simply not true. We're currently at 26 million salary for 2011/12, assuming we pick up Rose, Gibson and Johnsons options. Lets say we sign a max free agent this offseason, that's another 16 million, and use the MLE that offseason, for another 6. We're still only be at 48 million salary, for 7 players + Noah. So top it up with minimum contracts and rookies (lets say another 5 million) and we're only at 53 million. We could afford to sign Noah to the max without hitting the luxury tax. I don't think we have any intention of giving Noah that much money, so it's even less of an issue.
houheffna
Ignoring Idiots
- Joined:
- May 6, 2009
- Posts:
- 8,673
- Liked Posts:
- 2,711
From your statement, drafting Tyrus with a lottery pick was a definite mistake...I feel that is a much more egregious mistake than this Gordon stuff. That is my point...what is done is done.
Shakes
Iconoclast
- Joined:
- Apr 22, 2009
- Posts:
- 3,857
- Liked Posts:
- 142
I don't think drafting Tyrus was a mistake, it's a gamble that didn't pay off. Much like even if we don't get a 2010 free agent, it's not a mistake to have tried. If you don't take risks because of fear of making a mistake and only take safe choices you're very unlikely to win a championship.
houheffna
Ignoring Idiots
- Joined:
- May 6, 2009
- Posts:
- 8,673
- Liked Posts:
- 2,711
I disagree with you...and I am sure the Bulls organization does too. A mistake is a "wrong action attributable to bad judgment"...pretty sure the Bulls would consider this an error in judgment. You had two NBA ready players (and this was a known fact at the time) and one young "freakish athlete" who would later state that he dislikes any other man telling him what to do...that is a mistake my friend.
Shakes
Iconoclast
- Joined:
- Apr 22, 2009
- Posts:
- 3,857
- Liked Posts:
- 142
Aldridge you can make a case for, but virtually nobody thought the Bulls should draft Roy at the time. We had a very good guard and SF rotation and an underperforming Chandler and nobody else in the PF/C spots. It's also easy to forget now, but Roy fell as low as he did largely due to injury fears. I really don't think drafting Roy was a remotely sensible move knowing what we did at the time. In hindsight, with Hinrich going backward, Deng suffering injuries, Gordon & Noc gone and Roy turning out to be an all-star with no major injury problems then it looks like a great move, but you can't have known all that.
Given the situation we were in, where we had a team that just needed a front court star to be a very good team, I'd have taken the risk on Tyrus too, because he was the only player available who had the chance of becoming that player. I'd have thought the chance was very low and it probably wouldn't work, but I think Paxson knew that too when he made the pick, he's not an idiot. I really don't think the Bulls are shocked it's worked out the way it has. It's not bad judgement at all, it's a calculated risk.
I think you have to judge a draft pick by how well it lines up with what the org is trying to do. What the org was trying to do at the time was find a star frontcourt player. That was a sensible thing to be trying to do given the state of the team, and Tyrus was a sensible pick if you wanted to find a star. When you pick "potential" you know they're usually going to be a bust. And frankly I don't see how people can complain the Bulls (until Rose) had no all-stars for so long, yet also complain when they make a risky pick to try to find one.
Given the situation we were in, where we had a team that just needed a front court star to be a very good team, I'd have taken the risk on Tyrus too, because he was the only player available who had the chance of becoming that player. I'd have thought the chance was very low and it probably wouldn't work, but I think Paxson knew that too when he made the pick, he's not an idiot. I really don't think the Bulls are shocked it's worked out the way it has. It's not bad judgement at all, it's a calculated risk.
I think you have to judge a draft pick by how well it lines up with what the org is trying to do. What the org was trying to do at the time was find a star frontcourt player. That was a sensible thing to be trying to do given the state of the team, and Tyrus was a sensible pick if you wanted to find a star. When you pick "potential" you know they're usually going to be a bust. And frankly I don't see how people can complain the Bulls (until Rose) had no all-stars for so long, yet also complain when they make a risky pick to try to find one.
postdiction
New member
- Joined:
- Jun 16, 2009
- Posts:
- 118
- Liked Posts:
- 0
houheffna wrote:
houheffna, I normally agree with what you say and I have a lot of respect for your knowledge but, I think you are wrong this case.
Consider these points:
1) It was one of the weakest drafts in years (Adam Morrison went 3rd!)
2) With the #2 pick a team is going to try to find "superstar" type of player not a role player.
3) There were not blue chip "superstar" players, most people knew Aldridge was too soft to be a "superstar". Also, while Roy is very good he is not a "superstar" do you think Portland can win a championship with Roy being their best player?
4) So my point is in a weak draft with no consensus "superstar" type players the Bulls took a risk on TT who had the potential to be "superstar" (because of his freakish athleticism) instead of drafting two good but unspectacular players.
houheffna, I normally agree with what you say and I have a lot of respect for your knowledge but, I think you are wrong this case.
Consider these points:
1) It was one of the weakest drafts in years (Adam Morrison went 3rd!)
2) With the #2 pick a team is going to try to find "superstar" type of player not a role player.
3) There were not blue chip "superstar" players, most people knew Aldridge was too soft to be a "superstar". Also, while Roy is very good he is not a "superstar" do you think Portland can win a championship with Roy being their best player?
4) So my point is in a weak draft with no consensus "superstar" type players the Bulls took a risk on TT who had the potential to be "superstar" (because of his freakish athleticism) instead of drafting two good but unspectacular players.
houheffna
Ignoring Idiots
- Joined:
- May 6, 2009
- Posts:
- 8,673
- Liked Posts:
- 2,711
At the time, I remember people talking about the Bulls needing a guard with size and a frontcourt player who could score in the post. Tyrus was neither of those. I don't remember people being down on Roy...he was considered the most NBA ready of any backcourt players and was touted as a possible solution to the backcourt problems. And there were backcourt issues...Gordon started 98 of 162 games he played in between the season before Tyrus and Roy were drafted and their rookie season, that shows me that Skiles and most likely the Bulls organization had issues at the time with Gordon being the starting sg, and that issue would have been resolved with no problem. A calculated risk can be a mistake...calculated risks after all can get people fired...
Kush77
New member
- Joined:
- Mar 15, 2009
- Posts:
- 2,096
- Liked Posts:
- 151
Shakes wrote:
I agree with that 100%.
I don't get too pissed off about the Tyrus pick because it was a pick that really fell in the Bulls' lap. The Knicks were not suppose to be that bad with Larry Brown coaching them, Eddy Curry, etc.. But they won about 25 games and the Bulls lucked out and got the number 2 pick.
I wonder if Pax would have took the same chance had the #2 pick came as a result of a Chicago Bulls 20-62 season?
I agree with that 100%.
I don't get too pissed off about the Tyrus pick because it was a pick that really fell in the Bulls' lap. The Knicks were not suppose to be that bad with Larry Brown coaching them, Eddy Curry, etc.. But they won about 25 games and the Bulls lucked out and got the number 2 pick.
I wonder if Pax would have took the same chance had the #2 pick came as a result of a Chicago Bulls 20-62 season?
houheffna
Ignoring Idiots
- Joined:
- May 6, 2009
- Posts:
- 8,673
- Liked Posts:
- 2,711
Is Roy a superstar? It depends on your definition of a superstar, can you win if he is the best player? Yes you can if the right guys are around him. He is a legit franchise player, my point is that he is much more valuable than any guard this team has had since 1998 and no one thought he would be that good. Most consensus superstar drafts only go 2 or 3 deep at the most...but this "freakish athleticism" b.s. is not equal to an athletic, NBA ready potential all star shooting guard, or a pf who can actually score in the post who Skiles didn't like because he stared him down (wtf?)
Shakes
Iconoclast
- Joined:
- Apr 22, 2009
- Posts:
- 3,857
- Liked Posts:
- 142
I highly doubt the turning point in Tyrus vs Aldridge was the Skiles stare.
As far as Roy goes, how can anyone have expected him to be as good as he is? He's a 4 year college player, having a 4 year player continue to improve the way Roy has is pretty rare. And if any team should be beating themselves up about him, it's the Wolves who traded him for Foye. That's almost Pippen for Polynice bad.
As far as Roy goes, how can anyone have expected him to be as good as he is? He's a 4 year college player, having a 4 year player continue to improve the way Roy has is pretty rare. And if any team should be beating themselves up about him, it's the Wolves who traded him for Foye. That's almost Pippen for Polynice bad.
TheStig
New member
- Joined:
- Apr 5, 2009
- Posts:
- 3,636
- Liked Posts:
- 38
houheffna wrote:
Roy had knee and upside concerns coming out. Kinda like blair but not too that extent. It had nothing to do with BG. Looking back BG, Kirk and Roy would have been an amazing backcourt in hindsight.
Trading Aldridge had me pissed off, he was exactly the player we needed from that draft. Coming out, he was exactly what the dr prescribed for us and would have been an excellent fit.
Roy had knee and upside concerns coming out. Kinda like blair but not too that extent. It had nothing to do with BG. Looking back BG, Kirk and Roy would have been an amazing backcourt in hindsight.
Trading Aldridge had me pissed off, he was exactly the player we needed from that draft. Coming out, he was exactly what the dr prescribed for us and would have been an excellent fit.
Shakes
Iconoclast
- Joined:
- Apr 22, 2009
- Posts:
- 3,857
- Liked Posts:
- 142
I like Aldridge, I think he'd be just what we need at PF for this team right now. The funny thing is that if we got Aldridge we probably wouldn't have been bad enough to get Rose.
I don't think he was such a great fit back then though. He's good as the second guy next to Roy, but our team had that and needed the first guy. We had the Knicks pick as our only realistic way to find a star, so we had to roll the dice. I mean would Kirk/Gordon/Deng/Aldridge/Chandler (remember we didn't know we were getting Wallace when we made the pick) really ever have a shot at being a contender? Maybe they sneak into the conference finals at best.
I don't think he was such a great fit back then though. He's good as the second guy next to Roy, but our team had that and needed the first guy. We had the Knicks pick as our only realistic way to find a star, so we had to roll the dice. I mean would Kirk/Gordon/Deng/Aldridge/Chandler (remember we didn't know we were getting Wallace when we made the pick) really ever have a shot at being a contender? Maybe they sneak into the conference finals at best.
Staff online NOW
-
bamainatlantaYou wake him up, you keep him up