Sam Smith's Crazy Article

[??? ??????]

Sam Smith just put out one of the worst articles I've read on Bulls.com.

http://blogs.bulls.com/chicago_bulls_blog/2009/07/all-this-boozer-talk-can-drive-you-to-drink.html

It's about the Carlos Boozer trade.

The consensus is the Jazz cannot afford to keep Boozer and his $12.7 million salary for next season. They need financial relief to match the offer for Millsap. Though I cannot figure out how they can get that. The only way would be to trade Boozer to a team below the salary cap, like Oklahoma City, which doesn’t seem to have any interest. Or, at least, to a team with some cap room that can absorb part of Boozer’s contract and throw in a player. The Pistons are said to remain interested and offering Richard Hamilton, though that makes little sense for the Jazz since Hamilton makes about the same as Boozer and has a contract lasting into the 2012-13 season.

He doesn't seem to realize that the Blazers are a team that is under the cap. I think he is counting Millsap's salary against the Blazers cap, while also having the Jazz match Millsap's offer in this scenario.

In his article yesterday he said something about there being a theory of some (aka him) about the Blazers putting out false leaks to save face for Turkoglu, pointing out that the Blazers don't seem to be giving up anything in any of the trade rumors.

He didn't quite comprehend the point of the trade. The reason the Jazz would be willing to do this trade, is that they are choosing Paul Millsap over Carlos Boozer. This trade allows Utah to get a lot of salary relief from Portland, to avoid being hit hard by the luxury tax, while retaining Millsap.

The initial reports, which I’m convinced were bogus, had this three-way deal with Tyrus going to the Jazz and Kirk Hinrich to the ‘Blazers. After media reports questioned the validity, there were new reports Friday that the Bulls wanted Jeryd Bayless included. There were some preliminary talks during the season about Bayless, though Portland always balked. Plus, he’s more shooting guard than point guard and basically a rookie after having played little last season. It would be ludicrous to give up two players for, essentially, a rental and a young project.

Bayless is more of a shooting guard than a point guard (aka a combo guard)....so what? We just lost Ben Gordon. If we can get Bayless back, and he turns into some poor man's Gordon, that averages 15 points a game or so, and gives you explosive scoring from time to time, who is going to complain about that? That would seem like exactly what the Bulls should be looking for in a trade.

There was this other theory that if you have Boozer and he has that good season because it’s his contract season, it might make it more appealing to some free agent like Dwyane Wade to come to the Bulls. Perhaps, assuming the Jazz is just desperate to be rid of Boozer without any substantial financial benefit.



Miami supposedly was the free agent destination for Boozer after this season. But they decided to give up their potential cap room to trade for Jermaine O’Neal. The other theory with the Hinrich/Tyrus scenario was if you give up both and then let Boozer go, you have enough room for two free agents next summer.

As I wrote on my blog all year, I thought Miami was a big threat for Gordon. They took him on a recruiting trip in Miami last offseason. I think they probably came to some type of general contract agreement with Gordon, and were prepared to do a sign and trade with the Bulls, but the Bulls balked.

Miami was set to have cap space in 2009...if the cap was to grow to $61 million or so, as expected. Not going to look up the exact number, but it would have allowed Miami to offer Ben around a $12 million a year deal, I think a little more. But then the economic crisis happened, and the cap shrunk. Miami still would have had cap space, but the amount of cap space would have been around the MLE, I think a little less.

So what Pat Riley did was trade for Jermaine O'neal, because their 2009 cap space would be insignificant. JO was just a rental player, not a use of their 2009 cap space like Smith tries to point out.

If the economic crisis doesn't happen, Miami simply doesn't make the JO trade. I don't think they would have signed Boozer, I think they would rather have signed Gordon, and then just go after a big man in 2010 with their max money (Gordon/Wade/Beasley has to be a pretty attractive core for 2010 free agents to join....). Although, it's entirely possible that they go after Boozer too. But the point is, that Miami didn't choose Jermaine O'neal over Carlos Boozer, via choosing Jermaine O'neal over 2009 Cap Space, because in reality, their cap space wouldn't have allowed them to sign anyone to big money.

If you were just giving away Hinrich for salary cap room, you probably could have done that already. It hardly seems wise to give up your third guard after losing Ben Gordon just to hope you can attract two players next summer.

This is why you don't let your best player walk to a division rival for nothing. The Bulls lost a huge asset with Gordon. Make this trade, while retaining Gordon, and the perimeter minute breakdown shakes out to be just right for every player. For example:

PG-Derrick Rose (36)/ Ben Gordon (6) / Jannero Pargo (6)
SG-Ben Gordon (30) / John Salmons (18)
SF- Luol Deng (34) / John Salmons (14)

Now we're in a position of having no legitimate NBA backup shooting guard if we make this trade. I guess James Johnson or Tyrus Thomas could slide down to small forward for the 12-16 backup minutes tht will be available at small forward.

Maybe Sam, you shouldn't have spent the last week plus acting like letting Ben walk to the Pistons was no big deal, and the right thing to do, instead of holding the organization accountable.

The key is if Luol Deng can regain his form from previous seasons, which I believe he can, if healthy, because he’ll be in less competition with Gordon in searching out shot opportunities.

So now we're blaming Gordon for Deng's bad season? Ben Gordon is not a selfish player, and even if he is, when a player is scoring 20+ points at 57.4 TS%, they're only helping your team. If a player is selfish, but producing greatly, then who cares if they're selfish.

It's when they're selfish like Luol Deng, scoring 14 points on 51.1 TS%, of course they're going to hurt the team. I don't see how Ben Gordon being on the team forces Deng to pump fake twenty times before throwing up a contested jumpshot.

It's just ridiculous to blame Deng's mental problems, lack of production, low efficiency, and selfishness on a high volume, high efficiency scorer.

 

[houheffna]

The key is if Luol Deng can regain his form from previous seasons, which I believe he can, if healthy, because he’ll be in less competition with Gordon in searching out shot opportunities.

Why would you perceive this as a slight against Gordon? Its a general statement about shot distribution that could be said about anyone taking 15+ shots a game. There is only one ball and only so much time. Deng, if you remember right was the one projected to be the breakout all-star talent and some considered the best player on the team a couple of years ago. I guess what Smith is saying is that there is hope for Deng to regain form. Nothing controversial about that or particularly slanderous against BG.

So now we're blaming Gordon for Deng's bad season? Ben Gordon is not a selfish player, and even if he is, when a player is scoring 20+ points at 57.4 TS%, they're only helping your team. If a player is selfish, but producing greatly, then who cares if they're selfish.

The Bulls care because its not about BG, which is why they let him go without much of a fight. I agree that they shouldn't have let him go for nothing. Something happened in that situation that made things go afoul quickly. Whatever it was, its now a team with the right focus. DRose. That is all that mattered, everyone else on the team was expendable and so slowly they will leave. Simple as that.

 

[Fred]

houheffna wrote:

The key is if Luol Deng can regain his form from previous seasons, which I believe he can, if healthy, because he’ll be in less competition with Gordon in searching out shot opportunities.

Why would you perceive this as a slight against Gordon? Its a general statement about shot distribution that could be said about anyone taking 15+ shots a game. There is only one ball and only so much time. Deng, if you remember right was the one projected to be the breakout all-star talent and some considered the best player on the team a couple of years ago. I guess what Smith is saying is that there is hope for Deng to regain form. Nothing controversial about that or particularly slanderous against BG.

So now we're blaming Gordon for Deng's bad season? Ben Gordon is not a selfish player, and even if he is, when a player is scoring 20+ points at 57.4 TS%, they're only helping your team. If a player is selfish, but producing greatly, then who cares if they're selfish.

The Bulls care because its not about BG, which is why they let him go without much of a fight. I agree that they shouldn't have let him go for nothing. Something happened in that situation that made things go afoul quickly. Whatever it was, its now a team with the right focus. DRose. That is all that mattered, everyone else on the team was expendable and so slowly they will leave. Simple as that.

Who exactly was projecting Deng to be the "breakout All-Star talent" besides his agent when he signed that fat contract? He's arguably not a top 15 Small forward in this league, and he wasn't when he signed that deal. As long as Lebron, Pierce, C. Butler, and Danny Granger are in this East, Deng won't be seeing an All-Star game anytime soon. Heck, you might add Igoudala, J. Smith, and G. Wallace to that list.

They let him walk because they couldn't match what Detroit offered without going into luxury tax territory. Based on what Gar and Pax said, they wanted him back, and I'm certain they'll regret losing him.

But you're right, this is about Rose. You didn't help him by letting BG walk. You can't win a title by yourself.

Derrick Rose on Gordon, April 2009; "I'm happy he's here. He opens the lane. Everybody has to stick. You can't double team knowing you cannot leave him open. He can get hot real quick. I'm happy I'm playing with him now and I hope he's here for awhile."

I wonder if he'll say the same thing about Hinrich and Salmons next year. Let's hope so, but I have some serious doubts.

Ben Gordon on Rose: "I think we have a luxury to have a backcourt like me and Derrick. You have two players who can make big plays in key situations in the game. I know early in my career that was something we struggled with. Having multiple guys out there who can make plays. Everyone knew I was always going to take the last shot. Now you have someone like Derrick who can make a big play or get an easy basket at the end of the game. I definitely love playing with him and I want to win."

 

[Shakes]

??? ?????? wrote:

The key is if Luol Deng can regain his form from previous seasons, which I believe he can, if healthy, because he’ll be in less competition with Gordon in searching out shot opportunities.

So now we're blaming Gordon for Deng's bad season? Ben Gordon is not a selfish player, and even if he is, when a player is scoring 20+ points at 57.4 TS%, they're only helping your team. If a player is selfish, but producing greatly, then who cares if they're selfish.

It's when they're selfish like Luol Deng, scoring 14 points on 51.1 TS%, of course they're going to hurt the team. I don't see how Ben Gordon being on the team forces Deng to pump fake twenty times before throwing up a contested jumpshot.

It's just ridiculous to blame Deng's mental problems, lack of production, low efficiency, and selfishness on a high volume, high efficiency scorer.

I don't see it is playing a blame game, I see it as simply being a statement that sometimes players will fit together better with other players. It's really no different than saying because the Suns having Amare and Shaq that Amare is suffering because of it. It's not really saying Shaq is a bad player, it's more that the fit between the two is bad.

That said, I don't really agree that Deng will be better without Gordon (although I obviously hope it will be the case). But I also don't think what's written is laying blame on Gordon for Deng's failings.

 

[dougthonus]

He doesn't seem to realize that the Blazers are a team that is under the cap. I think he is counting Millsap's salary against the Blazers cap, while also having the Jazz match Millsap's offer in this scenario.

In his article yesterday he said something about there being a theory of some (aka him) about the Blazers putting out false leaks to save face for Turkoglu, pointing out that the Blazers don't seem to be giving up anything in any of the trade rumors.

He didn't quite comprehend the point of the trade. The reason the Jazz would be willing to do this trade, is that they are choosing Paul Millsap over Carlos Boozer. This trade allows Utah to get a lot of salary relief from Portland, to avoid being hit hard by the luxury tax, while retaining Millsap.

I'm not sure what you are getting at, from reports, it seems like Portland is the team holding up the trade, thus it's not that the Jazz don't want to deal with them, but that the Blazers wanted Millsap rather than Hinrich.

 

[Dpauley23]

I don't know if it Portland because it seems like Chicago is the one calling the shots in the trade. It was revealved that Portland did the Millsap signing to speed up the process of trading Boozer since they would be the team getting the benefit of good player in 3 way deal. I don't know who else they want besides Hinrich, but speeding up process could get the bulls to crack

 

[houheffna]

Deng, clearly, will be a key to the season with Gordon gone and John Salmons penciled in as the starting shooting guard. If Deng can return to his form of 2006-07 when he was voted among the league GM’s the most likely for a breakout season and possible All Star status, the Bulls will be able to make up for any scoring loss of Gordon’s.

Sam Smith wrote that, I remember that poll when it came out. The Bulls obviously felt that way. Oh, and a certain all time great SG who was making a lot of noise about coming here and laid out his conditions felt that way. I don't remember Magic Johnson saying the Lakers wouldn't make the Kobe trade without Ben Gordon. Nor do I remember Kobe pining for a Kobe/BG backcourt. He wanted Deng, says a lot about Deng's rep at that time...

Who exactly was projecting Deng to be the "breakout All-Star talent" besides his agent when he signed that fat contract? He's arguably not a top 15 Small forward in this league, and he wasn't when he signed that deal. As long as Lebron, Pierce, C. Butler, and Danny Granger are in this East, Deng won't be seeing an All-Star game anytime soon. Heck, you might add Igoudala, J. Smith, and G. Wallace to that list.

They let him walk because they couldn't match what Detroit offered without going into luxury tax territory. Based on what Gar and Pax said, they wanted him back, and I'm certain they'll regret losing him.

But you're right, this is about Rose. You didn't help him by letting BG walk. You can't win a title by yourself.

Derrick Rose on Gordon, April 2009; "I'm happy he's here. He opens the lane. Everybody has to stick. You can't double team knowing you cannot leave him open. He can get hot real quick. I'm happy I'm playing with him now and I hope he's here for awhile."

I wonder if he'll say the same thing about Hinrich and Salmons next year. Let's hope so, but I have some serious doubts.

Ben Gordon on Rose: "I think we have a luxury to have a backcourt like me and Derrick. You have two players who can make big plays in key situations in the game. I know early in my career that was something we struggled with. Having multiple guys out there who can make plays. Everyone knew I was always going to take the last shot. Now you have someone like Derrick who can make a big play or get an easy basket at the end of the game. I definitely love playing with him and I want to win."

The Bulls let him walk because they were not going to match 11mil, they don't think he is worth it, especially with a shrinking salary cap. DRose was happy EVERYBODY was there. What the heck do you want a rookie to say? "Hell no, get his short quick shootin', no dribblin', selfish no good ass out of here quick!" No, rookies don't do that, DRose is too smart for that, not that I think he feels that way about BG, I doubt if he is crying in his milk over BG leaving and if he is, somebody should punch him in the damn chest!

Letting BG walk did not help, didn't hurt either. Rose needs a SG beside him that can guard people. Cannot have two mediocre/bad defenders in the backcourt for 36 minutes a game, won't work. If DRose liked BG, wait till he gets a guy like Joe Johnson.

 

[??? ??????]

dougthonus wrote:

He doesn't seem to realize that the Blazers are a team that is under the cap. I think he is counting Millsap's salary against the Blazers cap, while also having the Jazz match Millsap's offer in this scenario.

In his article yesterday he said something about there being a theory of some (aka him) about the Blazers putting out false leaks to save face for Turkoglu, pointing out that the Blazers don't seem to be giving up anything in any of the trade rumors.

He didn't quite comprehend the point of the trade. The reason the Jazz would be willing to do this trade, is that they are choosing Paul Millsap over Carlos Boozer. This trade allows Utah to get a lot of salary relief from Portland, to avoid being hit hard by the luxury tax, while retaining Millsap.

I'm not sure what you are getting at, from reports, it seems like Portland is the team holding up the trade, thus it's not that the Jazz don't want to deal with them, but that the Blazers wanted Millsap rather than Hinrich.

My understanding of the trade proposal is that Paul Millsap is option 1, and Kirk Hinrich is option 2, and Utah matching Millsap's offersheet, would force Utah to deal with Portland, otherwise pay heavily in the luxury tax.

 

[Bullsman24]

houheffna wrote:

Letting BG walk did not help, didn't hurt either. Rose needs a SG beside him that can guard people. Cannot have two mediocre/bad defenders in the backcourt for 36 minutes a game, won't work. If DRose liked BG, wait till he gets a guy like Joe Johnson.

who takes more shots and plays worse defense???

 

[houheffna]

between who?

 

[Bullsman24]

no, i meant joe johnson takes more shots and plays worse defense than BG. he's just taller. which doesn't mean he's better defensively. despite popular belief...

 

[houheffna]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Joe Johnson is a better player than Ben Gordon and better defensively. You would have to such long and wide to find a shooting guard that is worst defensively than Gordon, I am not saying there aren't any, but Joe Johnson is not one of them. Legitimate all-star, with prototype 2guard skills. He would be the most compatible of any SG coming out in 2010.

 

[??? ??????]

I don't know if Joe Johnson is worse or better than Gordon defensively or not. Stats say Gordon is a better defender. What I do know is that the Bulls defense isn't going to get any better with Joe Johnson in place of Gordon.

Even a guy like Kirk Hinrich, who I think is a worlds better defender than Gordon, isn't going to improve a defense much when replacing Gordon. A good perimeter defender isn't going to improve a defense much over an average perimeter defender.

If you have a guy like Hinrich play in place of a guy like Rose defensively (at least last season), the defense is going to improve a lot. But that's only because Rose struggled with staying between his man and the basket. Gordon doesn't have this problem, so the amount you can improve a defense by replacing him with a good defender.

Look at the 06-07 Bulls, Gordon was the best player on that team, and they had the best defense in the league.

Perimeter defense is overrated. Good scorers score over good defense all the time. Perimeter defense is overrated. Interior defense is what the Bulls should be focused on improving. As long as it's not a terrible defender like Rose, you aren't going to get much improvement by bringing in a good perimeter defender in a player's place.

 

[houheffna]

I don't know if Joe Johnson is worse or better than Gordon defensively or not. Stats say Gordon is a better defender. What I do know is that the Bulls defense isn't going to get any better with Joe Johnson in place of Gordon.

Even a guy like Kirk Hinrich, who I think is a worlds better defender than Gordon, isn't going to improve a defense much when replacing Gordon. A good perimeter defender isn't going to improve a defense much over an average perimeter defender.

If you have a guy like Hinrich play in place of a guy like Rose defensively (at least last season), the defense is going to improve a lot. But that's only because Rose struggled with staying between his man and the basket. Gordon doesn't have this problem, so the amount you can improve a defense by replacing him with a good defender.

Look at the 06-07 Bulls, Gordon was the best player on that team, and they had the best defense in the league.

Perimeter defense is overrated. Good scorers score over good defense all the time. Perimeter defense is overrated. Interior defense is what the Bulls should be focused on improving. As long as it's not a terrible defender like Rose, you aren't going to get much improvement by bringing in a good perimeter defender in a player's place.

I couldn't disagree more, perimeter defense is not overrated. It is very, very important. Having a player that can guard the opposing teams perimeter players and show a high level of resistance is important. The Bulls agree, hence their new commitment to defense and subsequently opening the door for BG to walk out. Interior defense is more important because it is the last resort. But perimeter defense shouldn't be taken for granted.

That said, it doesn't take much to improve over Gordon defensively. The Bulls need a Larry Hughes type defender (when he actually wanted to defend) because their perimeter defense was horrible. Having size and the ability to keep the opposing guards in front of the defender cannot be underrated. With the backcourt that is currently in place, the Bulls will improve a bit in perimeter defense because Salmons hustles on the defensive end. Its all about resistance, and that is what the Bulls will focus on in the future.

 

[??? ??????]

Gordon showed resistance. He stayed in front of his man, kept him from getting to the basket, and contested shots. The only part of Gordon's defense that was inadequate was his ability to fight through screens with a torn hamstring.

The idea of making a defense good by replacing Ben Gordon is utterly insane to me. I don't even know how someone can see a defense making any type of significant improvement by going from Ben Gordon to John Salmons.

Ben Gordon was the best player on the THIRD best defense since the NBA made the perimeter rule changes. The only teams who were better defensive teams than the 07' Bulls were the 05' Spurs and the 08' Celtics.

If the Bulls front office thinks that the defense is going to improve dramatically because Gordon's gone, they're idiots. Gordon already proved he can be a big time player on a big time defense.

 

[houheffna]

Ben Gordon was the best player on the THIRD best defense since the NBA made the perimeter rule changes. The only teams who were better defensive teams than the 07' Bulls were the 05' Spurs and the 08' Celtics.

That team was an excellent defensive team and you think Gordon was a critical part of the defense? That is a misleading statement on your part. His being the best player, (which you state as if it is unequivocal fact, and again, many thought Deng was the best player on that team, I am compelled to agree with them) has nothing to do with the fact that he wasn't a good defender.

Actually Deng was at/near the top of the team individually as a scorer and defender. And who was the most efficient player that year for the Bulls...go ahead, pull out that big ass book of stats you got....

I believe Gordon was behind Deng, Wallace, and...ready for this....Kirk Hinrich.

 

[pinkizdead]

houheffna wrote:

Ben Gordon was the best player on the THIRD best defense since the NBA made the perimeter rule changes. The only teams who were better defensive teams than the 07' Bulls were the 05' Spurs and the 08' Celtics.

That team was an excellent defensive team and you think Gordon was a critical part of the defense? That is a misleading statement on your part. His being the best player, (which you state as if it is unequivocal fact, and again, many thought Deng was the best player on that team, I am compelled to agree with them) has nothing to do with the fact that he wasn't a good defender.

Actually Deng was at/near the top of the team individually as a scorer and defender. And who was the most efficient player that year for the Bulls...go ahead, pull out that big ass book of stats you got....

I believe Gordon was behind Deng, Wallace, and...ready for this....Kirk Hinrich.

screw steven T gorches. i want you on fred's show.

 

[houheffna]

I actually like Mr. Wamboldt's (I hope I spelled it right) tenacity concerning these subjects, so I have fun with him, I have learned some things from him and hopefully he feels the same. I don't mind berating someone's opinions, I don't like to berate them. I wished him well on his initializing his podcasts and I was sincere in that, I get no pleasure in seeing him fail.

I disagree with him on certain things but I don't dislike people because of different opinions, I welcome different opinions. I can talk with anyone as long as it is not a disagreeable conversation. I listen to all the podcasts and accept people's opinions without anger. If my opinions rile people up (like you), then anger isn't bad, its how you use it. Having a full blown BG debate without talking other issues at this point would be futile, but I do listen to all of the podcasts and disagree with what I hear a lot of the time.

I wish you would have given an opinion instead of trying to precipitate a confrontation between two other people...now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

 

[Rerisen]

houheffna wrote:

The Bulls agree, hence their new commitment to defense and subsequently opening the door for BG to walk out.

I don't think the Bulls have a new commitment to defense at all. I think that is just spin now that we have lost our leading scorer. Of course we better say we are focusing on defense because our offense is likely to get worse! But I've seen nothing confidence inspiring about Vinny Del Negro being able to teach defense or hold players accountable when they don't play it.

Vinny rode Rose and Gordon huge minutes last year and his primary philosophy seems to be winning on the offensive end of the court. Look at his simplistic philosophy of refusing to switch on defense. We got killed over and over last year because Noah ended up on a guard or a short perimeter player ended up trying to guard a big under the basket. But what does a offensive coach do when he no longer has a high powered offense? We're going to find out.

I think the BG decision was all about money and the luxury tax, not about defense vs offense. If Gordon was the one already on his contract, having took the 6/54 last year, or the 5/50 the year before, and Kirk was the one looking for a new deal and wanting around what he was making now, then Kirk would be the one putting on a new uniform right now.

Sure we could have resigned Gordon and tried to clear salary during the year by trading Kirk. But that is too risky for the organization. Maybe no team obliges, or you don't get enough value to make a deal worthwhile and then we are stuck paying tax, something that is strictly forbidden with J.R., unless perhaps we have somehow won a title first on a shoestring budget.

 

[houheffna]

I think the BG decision was all about money and the luxury tax, not about defense vs offense. If Gordon was the one already on his contract, having took the 6/54 last year, or the 5/50 the year before, and Kirk was the one looking for a new deal and wanting around what he was making now, then Kirk would be the one putting on a new uniform right now.

I believe that the Bulls wanted to get rid of Gordon, period. I didn't know they felt that way at first but that is what they did. BG being the leading scorer does not mean the franchise will collapse in his absence.

I also see your point but not taking those contracts was BG's fault. So now he is gone, and we still have to play the games. If they picked Kirk over BG its because of his overall basketball ability. I think he is expendable though, or at least he should be.