My unfortunate outlook on the 2010 FA plan

[houheffna]

I wouldn't have played Aldridge at SF. He would have been strictly a pf. Always playing with either Wallace and Chandler. I have no clue what the other stuff you are talking about is but Aldridge had good size and ability to play PF coming out.

I disagree, I am not going to rehash all the business moves the bulls have made and their pr spins. If you can't see them, I feel sorry for you. I have no problem cleaning house no for 2010. The only two players that are above average for their postions are on rookie deals and I personally feel that kirk and deng are a horrible liability for a team that is handicapped by the LT. It different with a once in a lifetime FA class. Personally, I though we should have rebuilt after drafting Rose, to me only Noah and BG fit. But back then, we were a playoff team that was looking to take a step forward. We took two step forward and one step back. They minimized their opportunity.

Sure it is but we can't forget the previous bad management because of dumb luck. Just remember it. Don't let them off the hook, they didn't do anything to make it better.

Its hypocritical to put Kirk and Deng out there as liabilities and then suggest the Bulls should have Gordon which means that contract over the summer for 9-12 mil for 5 or 6 years, that is crazy to me. He should have been let go...it should make sense to people now. We took 2 steps forward towards what? Not a championship...you must be talking about the 2nd round...good enough for you, not me...

You want Chandler to back up Wallace...Chandler already wasn't happy with the team, now you are going to ask him to play 20 minutes a game? Won't work at all...to hold Chandler's being traded against the Bulls in those circumstances is naive...

As far as dumb luck...give me a break man...they could have drafted Beasley...then would have talked about how they messed up...

 

[Shakes]

TheStig wrote:

The knicks had IT, lets not get into extreme examples. The bottom line is all but 3-4 playoff teams last year spent the LT this year. The ones who didn't were teams like Detroit and Portland that were banking cap space and had key players on rookie deals. Or a team like Atlanta who has ownership issues and struggle to run things. And then cheap teams llike us who let key pieces go. Also, almost every LT payers made the playoffs minus the knicks. So spending is a bit of a prerequisite.

You mentioned the Knicks first, not me! The Bulls weren't paying the tax because we're going for the 2010 FA class. You said yourself you're on board with that, so you can't then complain they're being cheap.

We could have easily put together a more effective deal. We could have signed PJ Brown to a large unguarnteed contract and easily beat their offer. Thats what Memphis wanted from us but you can look at the articles after, we were giving them guys like Noc and not cap saving like they wanted.

As I said, half the league could have put together a better deal than the Lakers. Don't ask me why they took the Lakers deal, because it makes no rational sense. Maybe we had a shot and didn't take it, and I agree it was a mistake if that's the case, I just think it's more likely we had no shot.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

You mentioned the Knicks first, not me! The Bulls weren't paying the tax because we're going for the 2010 FA class. You said yourself you're on board with that, so you can't then complain they're being cheap.

I mentioned their market size and spending ability not management style. We also weren't concerned with 2010 before last year. Gasol was a year or two before that. We also could have made 2010 friendly moves to, still pay the LT and improve the team. We could have traded kirk and TT for boozer and resigned BG still having the same cap number and a much better team.

As I said, half the league could have put together a better deal than the Lakers. Don't ask me why they took the Lakers deal, because it makes no rational sense. Maybe we had a shot and didn't take it, and I agree it was a mistake if that's the case, I just think it's more likely we had no shot.

Its not as easy as you say. Most teams didn't have the contracts or picks to make it happen. If they did they would have. Memphis has been quoted as saying that we tried to give them talent instead of contracts and they asked us for financial consideration and we refused. The Memphis owner came out and stated it.

 

[Shakes]

TheStig wrote:

I mentioned their market size and spending ability not management style. We also weren't concerned with 2010 before last year. Gasol was a year or two before that. We also could have made 2010 friendly moves to, still pay the LT and improve the team. We could have traded kirk and TT for boozer and resigned BG still having the same cap number and a much better team.

And my point is having spending ability doesn't mean it's wise to use it. As far as your scenario goes, I don't believe Boozer for TT and Kirk was ever a realistic chance, the fact that Utah haven't moved Boozer for anyone else supports that. If we signed BG instead of complaining about Deng being a bad contract, we'd be complaining about Deng being a bad contract and Gordon being a worse one. Nobody is touching Gordon's contract for at least another 3 years unless Detroit offers them something to do so.

ts not as easy as you say. Most teams didn't have the contracts or picks to make it happen. If they did they would have. Memphis has been quoted as saying that we tried to give them talent instead of contracts and they asked us for financial consideration and we refused. The Memphis owner came out and stated it.

He came out and said it after the media called him the biggest moron to run a franchise since IT for not holding out for a better offer. Of course he was going to say he had to take the Laker's offer because there was nothing else, I don't think you can read a lot into it.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

And my point is having spending ability doesn't mean it's wise to use it. As far as your scenario goes, I don't believe Boozer for TT and Kirk was ever a realistic chance, the fact that Utah haven't moved Boozer for anyone else supports that. If we signed BG instead of complaining about Deng being a bad contract, we'd be complaining about Deng being a bad contract and Gordon being a worse one. Nobody is touching Gordon's contract for at least another 3 years unless Detroit offers them something to do so.

You can argue the one bad example but ignore the 15 good examples. No one said to spend it unwisely, Gasol isn't a bad deal is he? BG isn't a bad deal yet, he has had some injury issues, which would likely not have happened here as it was a freak injury. He will be back. Its not a long term or reoccurring injury.

That deal is very real, we pulled out because we couldn't get bayless. Portland even confirmed they were taking kirk and I have seen articles that were supporting it.

He came out and said it after the media called him the biggest moron to run a franchise since IT for not holding out for a better offer. Of course he was going to say he had to take the Laker's offer because there was nothing else, I don't think you can read a lot into it.

Why would he lie? A lot of teams dump salaries and it would make perfect sense they would talk to us because we were interested before and had exactly what they wanted. You say he had every reason to make excuses but he had even more reasons to talk to the bulls and sources have said we would only do a deal with noc included.

 

[Shakes]

I think Doug said it best just recently, as to why I'm not inclined to believe rumours no matter how many "sources" they supposedly come from:

Look, there's nothing less reliable than "basketball sources". I've scared to post any rumors I hear these days simply for the fact that of all the rumors I've heard through inside sources, not one has actually ever taken place. Most trade rumors are plants by agents, management, or players to try and get leverage in some way.

As far as Gordon's contract goes, it was a bad contract before he got injured. Even if he was putting up last year's numbers he's be hard to trade on what he's making. Now he's only put up those sorts of numbers 2 years out of 4 I can't see him being movable for a long time. It's somewhat unfair, but he's not a highly regarded player. Your actual play doesn't matter so much as the way your play is perceived, and Gordon is perceived as a one-dimensional, no defense chucker by a lot of people.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

I think Doug said it best just recently, as to why I'm not inclined to believe rumours no matter how many "sources" they supposedly come from:

Look, there's nothing less reliable than "basketball sources". I've scared to post any rumors I hear these days simply for the fact that of all the rumors I've heard through inside sources, not one has actually ever taken place. Most trade rumors are plants by agents, management, or players to try and get leverage in some way.

As far as Gordon's contract goes, it was a bad contract before he got injured. Even if he was putting up last year's numbers he's be hard to trade on what he's making. Now he's only put up those sorts of numbers 2 years out of 4 I can't see him being movable for a long time. It's somewhat unfair, but he's not a highly regarded player. Your actual play doesn't matter so much as the way your play is perceived, and Gordon is perceived as a one-dimensional, no defense chucker by a lot of people.

I think Doug was referring to rumors in the heat of the moment, like around trades or negotiations, they rumors are all after the fact, they have no reason to plant them or gain anything by it. Just clear the air.

It will be interesting, I don't think BG's deal will be as bad as you make it out. He ust has the perfect storm of injuries and coming off the bench. I think if he were starting here next to rose he would be getting more national attention. No one cares about detroit but your point about perceptions is true, I just think he has had some abd luck. It will be interesting to see what happens, I hope he succeeds and was proud to call him a bull.

 

[Shakes]

I think his bad luck was winning the 6th man award as a rookie. He was pretty much a one-dimensional, no defense chucker back then, lots of rookies are, but winning the award gave him a lot of attention. Gordon seems to be remembered for the player he was, not the player he is.

Gordon's in a crap situation in Detroit, I can't see how they can move Rip's 25 million dollar corpse until he's expiring, so he's probably stuck coming off the bench for a while yet. It's ironic people said Skiles bringing Gordon off the bench behind a worse player would make him want to leave, and he left for a team where he's stuck behind a worse player.

 

[TheStig]

Yeah your right he was really typecast into that role. And I agree, he was really one dimensional back then. I thought he was starting to come out of that but then he ends up back in it in Detroit.

Yeah, I think something went wrong. It was fairly clear BG was coming in to start and that they were gonna move Rip for a big. There were a ton of rumors about TC and boozer heading there but nothing worked out. I really don't think dumars though he would keep both and he can't bench rip if he ever wants to deal him but he never had a chance to come back here after last season. They never even made an offer and he had to take Detroit's offer, if he didn't want to give us a chance, he wouldn't have called. I think he wanted to stay here all along but just didn't like the deals he was getting.

 

[Shakes]

I'm sure he did want to stay, who'd want to go and sit on the bench for a lottery team when you could start for a playoff team?

To me the Bulls mistake was offering Deng more than Gordon. I really believe Gordon would have taken the 6/54 (as in before the deadline) if he didn't feel shafted by what Deng was getting. 6/54 is probably closer to what Deng is worth anyway, or at least a better starting point in negotiations.

 

[TheStig]

Well they weren't a lottery team when he went there. They finished a game behind us last year. I really think he wanted to be part of this group and play with a star finally.

Yeah, I thought they should have split the money. i don't think either would have walked away from it when deng signed. 6/62 for each would have done it imo and been reasonable, even with their slumps. I don't fully blame the bulls, guys like kirk, deng and bg are the hardest types of deals to negotiate.

 

[Shakes]

I don't know if you can look at last year's team to predict Detroit, they've changed 3 of their top 6 minute guys. I expected them to be a lottery team but not this bad. Then again I didn't expect them to start two guards that make Hinrich's year look efficient.

You're right, it is hard to negotiate deals with second tier players, especially when the team doesn't have any stars so you're asking them to play bigger roles than they ideally would (thus inflating their worth).