Not surprisingly, Bulls out of Melo sweepstakes

[Lefty]

Because when Miami signed Wade, James, and Bosh.. the only player on their roster was Mario Chalmers... they didn't have Jordan, Pippen, Kukoc, Harper, Longely, etc.

But we can expect to see diminishing returns moreso from a team that has only a few key players and a bunch of scrubs as opposed to adding a great player to an all-time great core with solid roleplayers. Because when you think about, it, Wade, Bosh and Bron are going to have to play more to make up for the team's lack of talent elsewhere (not necessarily more minutes, but more shots/possessions). And because of that we can expect to see their offensive efficiency decrease, whereas adding a great player like Ewing to the Bulls, while it would have meant less shots for Ewing, would be better because it is reasonable to assume his offensive efficiency would increase.

 

[FirstTimer]

But we can expect to see diminishing returns moreso from a team that has only a few key players and a bunch of scrubs as opposed to adding a great player to an all-time great core with solid roleplayers. Because when you think about, it, Wade, Bosh and Bron are going to have to play more to make up for the team's lack of talent elsewhere (not necessarily more minutes, but more shots/possessions). And because of that we can expect to see their offensive efficiency decrease, whereas adding a great player like Ewing to the Bulls, while it would have meant less shots for Ewing, would be better because it is reasonable to assume his offensive efficiency would increase.

Ding.

 

[Lefty]

Oh yeah, and Rami, let's not forget that rebounding has been shown to be less important (as far as winning percentage goes) that the ability to score. Rodman didn't score. This is not to say that he couldn't score, but for whatever reason he just didn't. Ewing on the other hand, could score while still rebounding at an impressive rate.

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

I just think that role is one that Charles Oakley, Kevin Willis, Mutombo, or... Dennis Rodman... would be more appropriate for that kind of garbage role. Ewing wasn't nearly as dimensional as Rodman. Ewing is one of the best All-time low-post scorers. And was always near the top in the NBA at interior defense. However, I think the role Ewing needed to be in was 1st or 2nd option scorer. Jordan and Pippen would've already both have been there. And, offensively, I actually think Rodman is less risky than having Ewing in the triangle, because he was a much better passer and mobile. Rodman could defend the perimeter too. Ewing couldn't think of doing that.

 

[FirstTimer]

. Ewing is one of the best All-time low-post scorers. And was always near the top in the NBA at interior defense. However, I think the role Ewing needed to be in was 1st or 2nd option scorer. Jordan and Pippen would've already both have been there. And, offensively, I actually think Rodman is less risky than having Ewing in the triangle, because he was a much better passer and mobile. Rodman could defend the perimeter too. Ewing couldn't think of doing that.

But again, if you have Ewing you can patch in an athletic big to play some defense on the wing. It could be done. You just do it.

I don't think Ewing "needed" to be the top guy. Especially by 1996-1997. This guy was starving/desperate to win a championship. Ewing had his weaknesses(strippers) but I don't think one of them was a massive ego or ego of really any kind in realtive terms to NBA players. If MJ and Pippen could deal with Rodman's clown act for a few season they could deal with Ewing grumbling about a new role(not that I think he would).

By that point in time every one in the NBA knew what was up in Chicago..it was Jordan and Pippen. Everyone else shut up do your jobs and coem along for the ride and MJ won't punch you in practice.

The only thing that makes you pause is knowing in retrospect how Ewing started to break down physically.

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

Oh yeah, and Rami, let's not forget that rebounding has been shown to be less important (as far as winning percentage goes) that the ability to score. Rodman didn't score. This is not to say that he couldn't score, but for whatever reason he just didn't. Ewing on the other hand, could score while still rebounding at an impressive rate.

But we can expect to see diminishing returns moreso from a team that has only a few key players and a bunch of scrubs as opposed to adding a great player to an all-time great core with solid roleplayers. Because when you think about, it, Wade, Bosh and Bron are going to have to play more to make up for the team's lack of talent elsewhere (not necessarily more minutes, but more shots/possessions). And because of that we can expect to see their offensive efficiency decrease, whereas adding a great player like Ewing to the Bulls, while it would have meant less shots for Ewing, would be better because it is reasonable to assume his offensive efficiency would increase.

I think you make solid points, generally speaking. But I think switching Rodman for Ewing would go far beyond just rebounding. Rodman was definitely a liability when it come to shooting outside of 5 ft from the rim. But Ewing isn't a triangle offense type of player. Pippen and Jordan could get it done against nearly any defender in the low-post. Ewing just didn't have the court-vision to set up guys like Rodman did. So, in the triangle, Ewing would have also been a liability in that way (which is pretty big, considering the guys he would be passing too would be Jordan or Pippen). On defense, the Bulls, in my opinion, were the best defensive team of All-time. There isn't even a debate that switching Ewing for Rodman would have severly limited and hurt them on that end. They already had Longely (who was actually one of the better interior defenders in the league). Having Ewing and Longely/Simpkins/Caffey would have been pretty immobile and couldn't defend the perimeter. Jordan and Pippen could also defend most NBA PFs back then, while Rodman could also step outside and cause havack for the Mark Jackson's-Glen Rice's of the NBA. So I'm not even going to mention rebounding... there are still plenty of negative repurcussions from that trade.

 

[FirstTimer]

I think you make solid points, generally speaking. But I think switching Rodman for Ewing would go far beyond just rebounding. Rodman was definitely a liability when it come to shooting outside of 5 ft from the rim. But Ewing isn't a triangle offense type of player. Pippen and Jordan could get it done against nearly any defender in the low-post. Ewing just didn't have the court-vision to set up guys like Rodman did. So, in the triangle, Ewing would have also been a liability in that way (which is pretty big, considering the guys he would be passing too would be Jordan or Pippen). On defense, the Bulls, in my opinion, were the best defensive team of All-time. There isn't even a debate that switching Ewing for Rodman would have severly limited and hurt them on that end. They already had Longely (who was actually one of the better interior defenders in the league). Having Ewing and Longely/Simpkins/Caffey would have been pretty immobile and couldn't defend the perimeter. Jordan and Pippen could also defend most NBA PFs back then, while Rodman could also step outside and cause havack for the Mark Jackson's-Glen Rice's of the NBA. So I'm not even going to mention rebounding... there are still plenty of negative repurcussions from that trade.

I think though we are confusing how much Ewing actually passed with his ability to do so. Rodman was seen as a good passer because we saw him do it because he had to. Ewing didn't do it much because he was "the guy" in NY. That's not to say he couldn't do it very well or as good as Rodman. There's a difference there in discussing it.

While Ewing never put up great assist numbers I can't remember how many times I remember watching Ewing play the Bulls and hitting guys for 3 from the post etc when he was doubled or got into trouble. The guy could pass..he just wasn't asked to do it as a primary function of the offense in NY.

You bring in Ewing though and Longley becomes expendable. I thinks it's too simple minded to approach it as you bring in Ewing and make no more corsponding moves. That just doesn't work for me.

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

But again, if you have Ewing you can patch in an athletic big to play some defense on the wing. It could be done. You just do it.

I don't think Ewing "needed" to be the top guy. Especially by 1996-1997. This guy was starving/desperate to win a championship. Ewing had his weaknesses(strippers) but I don't think one of them was a massive ego or ego of really any kind in realtive terms to NBA players. If MJ and Pippen could deal with Rodman's clown act for a few season they could deal with Ewing grumbling about a new role(not that I think he would).

By that point in time every one in the NBA knew what was up in Chicago..it was Jordan and Pippen. Everyone else shut up do your jobs and coem along for the ride and MJ won't punch you in practice.

The only thing that makes you pause is knowing in retrospect how Ewing started to break down physically.

I understand that Ewing was hungry... but Rodman was absolutely the same way. And even his hard-work off the court was legendary. So why make a risky move like bringing in Ewing, when we both already know that the mid-95-97 Bulls were probably the best NBA team ever put together?

The Bulls offense might improve. But those areas I referred to previously would be a big problem, because there would be no guarantee of getting a versatile defender/garbage man at the PF position. If they did, then sure, the trade would have been worth making. Is that likely? I don't believe so.

Worst case: the Bulls triangle would stall, and the versatility in non-offensive capacity would no longer be the best of all-time.

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

I think though we are confusing how much Ewing actually passed with his ability to do so. Rodman was seen as a good passer because we saw him do it because he had to. Ewing didn't do it much because he was "the guy" in NY. That's not to say he couldn't do it very well or as good as Rodman. There's a difference there in discussing it.

While Ewing never put up great assist numbers I can't remember how many times I remember watching Ewing play the Bulls and hitting guys for 3 from the post etc when he was doubled or got into trouble. The guy could pass..he just wasn't asked to do it as a primary function of the offense in NY.

You bring in Ewing though and Longley becomes expendable. I thinks it's too simple minded to approach it as you bring in Ewing and make no more corsponding moves. That just doesn't work for me.

True, but you would need to make those moves at essentially the same time that the Rodman for Ewing deal occured. Because the Bulls would have been playing with fire (being heavy title favorites) to trade away their versatility in the front-court. They already had 2 legit low-post players in the form of MJ and Pippen.

And there is no question that Rodman was a better passer (not just a low-post, but high post passer also). Ewing was very passive about passing, as he was always meant to be. Rodman also had great quickness and timing when it came to passing... he, Chris Webber, Garnett, and Sabonis were the best passing big men I've seen.

 

[FirstTimer]

I understand that Ewing was hungry... but Rodman was absolutely the same way. And even his hard-work off the court was legendary. So why make a risky move like bringing in Ewing, when we both already know that the mid-95-97 Bulls were probably the best NBA team ever put together?

The Bulls offense might improve. But those areas I referred to previously would be a big problem, because there would be no guarantee of getting a versatile defender/garbage man at the PF position. If they did, then sure, the trade would have been worth making. Is that likely? I don't believe so.

Worst case: the Bulls triangle would stall, and the versatility in non-offensive capacity would no longer be the best of all-time.

Those guys are WAY more common than a center like Ewing. Maybe not to the extent of how talented Rodman was but center's like Ewing are rare. Garbagemen PF's litter the NBA on a yearly basis.

 

[FirstTimer]

True, but you would need to make those moves at essentially the same time that the Rodman for Ewing deal occured. Because the Bulls would have been playing with fire (being heavy title favorites) to trade away their versatility in the front-court. They already had 2 legit low-post players in the form of MJ and Pippen.

And there is no question that Rodman was a better passer (not just a low-post, but high post passer also). Ewing was very passive about passing, as he was always meant to be. Rodman also had great quickness and timing when it came to passing... he, Chris Webber, Garnett, and Sabonis were the best passing big men I've seen.

The triangle for the Bulls worked fine with Grant at the PF position and he wasn't a great passer at all and MJ said teh best Bulls team he ever played on may have been the 91-92 team. Sure Rodman was a great fit for the triangle but between Pippen, Jordan, Ewing, and whatever PF you find for the fit they'd get the low post passing they needed.

 

[Diehardfan]

This could be the dumbest argument in sports history. Bulls with Rodman won 72 games and finished the job with an NBA title......how does acquiring Ewing, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson or ANYONE make the Bulls a better team than that.

 

[FirstTimer]

This could be the dumbest argument in sports history. Bulls with Rodman won 72 games and finished the job with an NBA title......how does acquiring Ewing, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson or ANYONE make the Bulls a better team than that.

:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

Interesting. I didn't know the 1996-1997 Bulls won 72 games. Tell me more.

So you are saying had the Bulls traded Dennis Rodman for two retired players they would not have been a better team? Wow. Compelling.

Fucktard.

Seriously.

Adults are talking.

Move on.

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

Those guys are WAY more common than a center like Ewing. Maybe not to the extent of how talent Rodman was but center's like Ewing are rare. Garbagemen PF's litter the NBA on a yearly basis.

Yeah, but the deal would still need to involve bringing in a player like that to the Bulls. Back to the original point I brought up this arguement, I brought the "Ewing for Worm" thing to Lefty to show that I have reservations giving up quality starting depth for Anthony, without getting any big in-return. The trade would (honestly) probably pay off in the long-run (because the Bulls wouldn't be title contenders with or without that trade). In the case of the 1996 Bulls... they would have been big time contenders... so it wouldn't have worked as well. So maybe not the best example to use... but hopefully you see the point I was attempting to make.

 

[FirstTimer]

Yeah, but the deal would still need to involve bringing in a player like that to the Bulls.

Exactly. So that's part of my point. Saying Ewing for Rodman in a vacuum isn't a realistic scenario for a number of reasons so at this point it's kind of useless to continue.

,

I brought the "Ewing for Worm" thing to Lefty to show that I have reservations giving up quality starting depth for Anthony, without getting any big in-return.

But I guess my point is...you don't need a big in return from Denver. You find a FA, you make another deal with another team. You find another "grinder". THose guys are WAY more common than a player like Melo is.

Like I said earlier Id' rather be trying to patch a hole for a defensive center with Melo on my roster than still being a superstar short of being a perennial title contender/ECF participant.

The trade would (honestly) probably pay off in the long-run (because the Bulls wouldn't be title contenders with or without that trade)

I disagree. I think they are title contenders with this trade. Maybe not perennial title favorites but they are basically making themselves a perennial 2 seed in the East IMO. Adding Melo and adding a garbageman center for cheap while losing Noah and Deng make the Bulls a much better basketball team.

.

In the case of the 1996 Bulls... they would have been big time contenders... so it wouldn't have worked as well. So maybe not the best example to use... but hopefully you see the point I was attempting to make.

I guess but like I said you are comparing trading Rodman for a soon to be broken down Ewing. In this scenario you're talking about trading the 3rd best center in the EC and an overpaid Deng for one of the top 5-10 NBA players in his prime. The comparison isn't that great.

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

This could be the dumbest argument in sports history. Bulls with Rodman won 72 games and finished the job with an NBA title......how does acquiring Ewing, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson or ANYONE make the Bulls a better team than that.

Obviously it would be ridiculous to mess with the 1996 Bulls roster, at all, if we knew the end result (3 titles; 72, 69, and 61 wins).

We are discussing based on how the would-be Ewing Bulls would compare to a team like the 1996 Bulls, if we did not already see the future. Obviously, if the Bulls knew that Ewing would start to break down in 1997 or 1998 (to the point where he was basically finished as a player by the 1999 NBA Finals, which he missed), we wouldn't even be having this completely hypothetical conversation.

 

[RamiTheBullsFan]

The triangle for the Bulls worked fine with Grant at the PF position and he wasn't a great passer at all and MJ said teh best Bulls team he ever played on may have been the 91-92 team. Sure Rodman was a great fit for the triangle but between Pippen, Jordan, Ewing, and whatever PF you find for the fit they'd get the low post passing they needed.

offensively, it was the best team (1991-92 season), undoubtedly. Arguably the best offensive team in NBA history.

I can see how the Bulls might be completely off-the-charts, potentially, with Ewing. But I also don't like the idea of a guy like Ewing clogging the lanes for Jordan and Pippen. I think that turnovers may end up a problem in a Ewing-Pippen-Jordan-Harper/Kukoc-Kerr line-up. Mostly, it would hardly matter, because usually the Bulls would get their points in the paint out of MJ and Pippen in-transition. So, it's more of a minor concern than anything else.

I think the one guy I would really have a 2nd thought about trading Rodman for, even in retrospect of the titles, would be Charles Barkley (if I somehow knew they would still win those 3 championships, and that Chuck would not get hurt and retire in 1997 or 98). Could you imagine how good the Bulls would have been with Chuck in that line-up? He brings everything Rodman does on offense to a high degree. And tons more scoring. Also a great passer (maybe top 5 best passing PFs ever). Defensively, Chuck wasn't that good, but was above average. He doesn't give you all the rebounding Rodman brings. But I could see the Bulls pushing 75-76 in '96 if they had Barkley.

I'm not trying to sound sacreligious here. I couldn't've asked for a better team from 96-98, and that finally game in Utah was picture perfect. But I would have loved to see Sir Charles and Jordan on the same team.

 

[FirstTimer]

offensively, it was the best team, undoubtedly. Arguably the best offensive team in NBA history.

I can see how the Bulls might be completely off-the-charts, potentially, with Ewing. But I also don't like the idea of a guy like Ewing clogging the lanes for Jordan and Pippen. I think that turnovers may end up a problem in a Ewing-Pippen-Jordan-Harper/Kukoc-Kerr line-up. Mostly, it would hardly matter, because usually the Bulls would get their points in the paint out of MJ and Pippen in-transition. So, it's more of a minor concern than anything else.

Cartwright, Longley, etc weren't exactly known as agile cetners..esecailly after Cartwrights knees went so not sure Ewing being there is such as problem..plus we all know Ewing could shoot jumpers with the best of them. Scary though is that with Ewing that team could have spread the floor even more.

I think the one guy I would really have a 2nd thought about trading Rodman for, even in retrospect of the titles, would be Charles Barkley (if I somehow knew they would still win those 3 championships, and that Chuck would not get hurt and retire in 1997 or 98). Could you imagine how good the Bulls would have been with Chuck in that line-up? He brings everything Rodman does on offense to a high degree. And tons more scoring. Also a great passer (maybe top 5 best passing PFs ever). Defensively, Chuck wasn't that good, but was above average. He doesn't give you all the rebounding Rodman brings. But I could see the Bulls pushing 75-76 in '96 if they had Barkley.

Barkley's problem was always weight...and attitude. If he could keep those in check it wouldn't have been an issue. Him and Pippen ended up hating eahcother which is why Pip only spent one season in Houston. More baggage with Barkley than Ewing...but way more with Rodman. Although Rodman's was always because he was a goof and eccentric and odd. Barkley's was because he was a straight asshole and would get fat and quit trying.

 

[Lex L.]

This could be the dumbest argument in sports history. Bulls with Rodman won 72 games and finished the job with an NBA title......how does acquiring Ewing, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson or ANYONE make the Bulls a better team than that.

They dont. Again, Rodman is one of the most underrated players in the history of the NBA.

 

[Lex L.]

Yeah, but the deal would still need to involve bringing in a player like that to the Bulls. Back to the original point I brought up this arguement, I brought the "Ewing for Worm" thing to Lefty to show that I have reservations giving up quality starting depth for Anthony, without getting any big in-return. The trade would (honestly) probably pay off in the long-run (because the Bulls wouldn't be title contenders with or without that trade). In the case of the 1996 Bulls... they would have been big time contenders... so it wouldn't have worked as well. So maybe not the best example to use... but hopefully you see the point I was attempting to make.

Here is another element to this: currently, this is Rose's team. The pieces on this team all kind of compliment the idea of him creating and/or scoring.

Can Rose and Anthony both be simultaneously optimally utilized? Would having Anthony cause Rose to sacrifice? Would Rose being optimally utilized cause Anthony to sacrifice his game?

Is Rose on track to become a top 5 or top 10 player? If so, would that still be achievable if you bring in Anthony?

If having Anthony prevents Rose from becoming what he can be and that is a top 10 or top 5 player like Anthony, what are you accomplishing by trading Noah and Deng to get 1 top 5/10 player when you would have had one without trading those guys?

That was never a question in the Jordan era Bulls scenario like it is here.