Was it all worth it?!

[Kush77]

houheffna wrote:

The point is you hate Bulls management, or so it seems, nobody brings up Horace Grant but you, as a way to be critical of management, though they would win 3 championships after he left. It doesn't matter what they or don't do. You give them no credit for anything, including 6 championships and so now they set themselves up to be contenders for the next decade by getting an allstar or allstars over the summer, because right now they are mediocre...the NBA version of purgatory. They are not a lottery team and they are not good enough for a championship. What good is keeping those players (the ones I brought up, that they let go to clear space...) and staying in purgatory when you can talk to the players this summer and try to become a championship team?

Believe me, you are in the minority in your thinking. They have to get "in the conversation" before anything can happen. That is Smith's point, losing the players they lost is worth it to get in there and go after the best players in the world.

But I'm not coming from that angle. My opinions on this have nothing to do with my dislike (hate is a such a strong word) about Bulls' management.

I understand what the Bulls are doing, and it's fine. I think we're just having a miscommunication. I posted this in the other thread. I just think as a general rule it's not smart to plan on FA two years or a year and a half in advance because they might not even come. It's not a sure thing, it's a risk. Should teams start planning for Dwight Howard's free agency in 2012?

As for Horace. Letting him go was a terrible move. How can any Bulls fan say otherwise?
They won three more titles after that but that's because the lucked into Dennis Rodman. "Lucked into" meaning that he pissed off S.A. to the point they were willing to dump him for Will Purdue. But the Bulls' original plan was to get Jayson Williams, and they couldn't get him even with Jordan's wooing. So they got lucky getting Dennis and Horace was an afterthought.

But at the time, 1994, letting Horace go was a terrible move. What Bulls fans who watched the team at that time would think otherwise?

And I always bring up Horace because you would ask me for example of Bulls' management screwing up. And that is an example.

 

[houheffna]

But I'm not coming from that angle. My opinions on this have nothing to do with my dislike (hate is a such a strong word) about Bulls' management.

I understand what the Bulls are doing, and it's fine. I think we're just having a miscommunication. I posted this in the other thread. I just think as a general rule it's not smart to plan on FA two years or a year and a half in advance because they might not even come. It's not a sure thing, it's a risk. Should teams start planning for Dwight Howard's free agency in 2012?

As for Horace. Letting him go was a terrible move. How can any Bulls fan say otherwise?
They won three more titles after that but that's because the lucked into Dennis Rodman. "Lucked into" meaning that he pissed off S.A. to the point they were willing to dump him for Will Purdue. But the Bulls' original plan was to get Jayson Williams, and they couldn't get him even with Jordan's wooing. So they got lucky getting Dennis and Horace was an afterthought.

But at the time, 1994, letting Horace go was a terrible move. What Bulls fans who watched the team at that time would think otherwise?

And I always bring up Horace because you would ask me for example of Bulls' management screwing up. And that is an example.

Well I think I understand where you are coming from now. Yet and still I disagree with you. Chris Bosh, not just Lebron is worth planning for. Wade is worth planning for. If your core is not good enough, you have 3 options...I will present them Archie Bunker style...

1. Build through the draft (works if you have a skilled GM and group of scouts)
b. Build through free agency/trades (makes sense but costly and complicated)
4. Sit around and hope other players get hurt or underachieve so that you can eventually get a fluke shot at a title, usually in between other franchises having long runs of contention...kind of like catching lightning in a bottle.

 

[Shakes]

Fred wrote:

The top 3 teams in 3-point FG percentage were 1. Suns, 2. Cavs, 3. Orlando. The difference between Orlando and #15 Houston was about 2.5% percentage points. 2.5% percentage points is a massive difference, especially when comparing guards. It's basically the difference between being great and average.

I'm not really disagreeing with that analysis, obviously Gordon is a great three point shooter and Kirk is only an above average one. But can you honestly say that paying Gordon is remotely good value for the role he'd have if we got LeBron? This year's Cavs starting SG averages 7.3 points a game. There's just not the shots for the SG when you have your offense built around your SF and PG. We could get someone for less than half the price of Kirk or Gordon if we just want a three point specialist.

And 2.5% for a single player isn't the same as 2.5% for the entire team. If a player is putting up 5 threes a game (as many as Gordon has ever averaged) that's one extra make every 8 games. Is it really outrageous to think the difference in defense between Gordon (I'd say about average) and Kirk (according to the votes, near all-NBA defense) might make a player miss a shot every 8 games? I think that's reasonable.

Besides, if we build around LeBron and Rose (one who makes threes at a below average rate, the other who rarely shoots them) we're likely to be in the Laker's zone of below average three point shooting no matter who our SG is.

Not saying Kirk is remotely the all-around offensive player that Gordon is, or that he's a better fit for any team but one with Rose & LeBron, or even that management planned this (like the rest of us, they probably thought LeBron was a 1% long shot). But in this specific scenario, with such a limited role, Kirk and Gordon are pretty much a wash. Kirk's shorter contract is a better asset too.

 

[Kush77]

houheffna wrote:

Well I think I understand where you are coming from now. Yet and still I disagree with you.

I about pissed my pants when I read that. Wouldn't have it any other way.

Chris Bosh, not just Lebron is worth planning for.

I agree. And let me bring up the name, John Salmons, I have no problems with the Bulls doing that. Once you get that close - the deadline right before the offseason, then hell yeah you make moves. But a team like NY, two years in advance and you might not get any of the big 3. LBJ could go to CHI and Bosh to MIA with Wade. Then the Knicks, even with say Johnson/Boozer, ain't beating the Bulls or Miami.

If your core is not good enough, you have 3 options...I will present them Archie Bunker style...

1. Build through the draft (works if you have a skilled GM and group of scouts)
b. Build through free agency/trades (makes sense but costly and complicated)
4. Sit around and hope other players get hurt or underachieve so that you can eventually get a fluke shot at a title, usually in between other franchises having long runs of contention...kind of like catching lightning in a bottle.

I agree. I just don't agree on the free agency a few years in advance. I had Scoop Jackson on the show one time and it was after he wrote a column about how a lot of big names never left the small marker for this big market glory. Chris Webber and Vince Carter being the two main ones. I think big names tend to stay with their teams for the most part. And that's how I felt with this class with Wade and LeBron.
The chances for LeBron went up with the loss. Bosh could move, but he could go to MIA with Wade. So we'll see.

 

[Fred]

Shakes wrote:

Fred wrote:

The top 3 teams in 3-point FG percentage were 1. Suns, 2. Cavs, 3. Orlando. The difference between Orlando and #15 Houston was about 2.5% percentage points. 2.5% percentage points is a massive difference, especially when comparing guards. It's basically the difference between being great and average.

I'm not really disagreeing with that analysis, obviously Gordon is a great three point shooter and Kirk is only an above average one. But can you honestly say that paying Gordon is remotely good value for the role he'd have if we got LeBron? This year's Cavs starting SG averages 7.3 points a game. There's just not the shots for the SG when you have your offense built around your SF and PG. We could get someone for less than half the price of Kirk or Gordon if we just want a three point specialist.

And 2.5% for a single player isn't the same as 2.5% for the entire team. If a player is putting up 5 threes a game (as many as Gordon has ever averaged) that's one extra make every 8 games. Is it really outrageous to think the difference in defense between Gordon (I'd say about average) and Kirk (according to the votes, near all-NBA defense) might make a player miss a shot every 8 games? I think that's reasonable.

Besides, if we build around LeBron and Rose (one who makes threes at a below average rate, the other who rarely shoots them) we're likely to be in the Laker's zone of below average three point shooting no matter who our SG is.

Not saying Kirk is remotely the all-around offensive player that Gordon is, or that he's a better fit for any team but one with Rose & LeBron, or even that management planned this (like the rest of us, they probably thought LeBron was a 1% long shot). But in this specific scenario, with such a limited role, Kirk and Gordon are pretty much a wash. Kirk's shorter contract is a better asset too.

Gordon is making 10.8 next year, and Kirk is making 9 million. So yes, I absolutely would rather have Gordon next year to spread the floor. Ben Gordon is a clutch version of Mo Williams on the offensive end. He would fit in nicely with LeBron and Derrick to spread the floor. We're going to need to find someone to do that, whether or not LeBron comes here.

The All-Defensive team officially became a joke this year when some jack ass voted Dwight Howard to the 2nd team. It means very little, except that Thabo is rightly regarded as a better defender than the Captain.

 

[houheffna]

Gordon is making 10.8 next year, and Kirk is making 9 million. So yes, I absolutely would rather have Gordon next year to spread the floor. Ben Gordon is a clutch version of Mo Williams on the offensive end. He would fit in nicely with LeBron and Derrick to spread the floor. We're going to need to find someone to do that, whether or not LeBron comes here.

The All-Defensive team officially became a joke this year when some jack ass voted Dwight Howard to the 2nd team. It means very little, except that Thabo is rightly regarded as a better defender than the Captain.

Gordon is making 10.8 next season...
Then he gets paid 11.6, 12.4, and 13.2...

Hinrich gets 9 next year and 8 the following year...that's 20 mil more!

And frankly, with Lebron and Rose, I would rather have Thabo or Hinrich then Gordon at that contract. Plus, Hinrich is a better 3pt shooter than Gordon is a defender. I can find players who shoot well from outside the arch for a lot cheaper...teams like Portland and Houston have a half a roster full of them.

 

[mlewinth]

Kush77 wrote:

Shakes wrote:

Succeed or fail, it was worth trying.

I agree it's worth trying.
But Sam said

"No, the Bulls may not get James. But they are now in the conversation."

Being in the conversation isn't good enough. They need to get him. That's what i'm saying.

Do you guys have warm fuzzy feelings about being in the Gasol conversation? Do you have fond memories of being in the Kobe conversation? Do you stare out the window with your hot cup of tea and reflect on being in the Kevin Garnet conversation? No. Of course not.

That's what I'm saying. They need to get LBJ. If they don't get him just being in the conversation wouldn't make me feel good.

Wow, I gotta say, I am in agreement with Houston here. He is absolutly right. We can't force Lebron to come here. All we can do is put ourselves in a good position to try. If the Bulls fail at landing Lebron, I won't be forever mad at Bulls managment. Lebron is a big fish to fry. I am just happy Chicago has a fryer large engough to cook him!

 

[mlewinth]

Kush77 wrote:

houheffna wrote:

"No, the Bulls may not get James. But they are now in the conversation."

Being in the conversation isn't good enough. They need to get him. That's what i'm saying.

That is where you are dead wrong and unreasonable. James makes his own decision, the Bulls cannot put a gun to his head. There are other worthy destinations, and the Bulls are now able to put their best on the table and show James what they have. Losing Gordon and Salmons is very much worth that conversation. How can you complain about the Bulls giving up Horace Grant 15 years ago but not understand what the Bulls are doing now when trying to get THE MOST TALENTED PLAYER IN NBA HISTORY! Makes no sense to me whatsoever...all over Gordon and Salmons...man, you gotta get cable dude...lol

Once again you independently bring up Ben Gordon and John Salmons.

Man, I can't have a back and forth with you because you assume all of my opinions, at their core, somehow have to do with Ben Gordon. I've not mentioned Ben Gordon in any of my threads related to LBJ. Ben Gordon is gone.

I've made point clear. Just "BEING IN THE CONVERSATION" doesn't make me feel good. Getting LeBron makes me feel good. We wer ein the Kobe conversation and we didn't get him. Do you feel good about that 3 years later. Does being in the conversation make you happy?

You're reply is also based on the assumption that I would rip Bulls management for not getting LeBron. And that's a fair assumption because I do rip management a lot. But that's not the case here. If LBJ goes to say the Nets, that is his choice. I know that. And I wouldn't rip management over it. It's a free agency situation and LeBron holds all the cards.

the question is about Sam's comment about being in the conversation. I'm saying that just being in the conversation doesn't mean jack if they don't land him. The Bulls have been in the conversation before and came up empty. Get in the conversation and get some results. Then - like I've said before, I'll give Bulls management major props for winning on their 2010 FA gamble. And that's what it is for all the teams, a gamble. Banking on FA coming to your team is a risk. Bottom line.

As for Horace Grant - I really don't know what to say about that. Horace Grant's situation and this LBJ situation is beyond apples and oranges. I don't even know how to respond.

I do have cable by the way. Not sure what that means? But I'll come over to watch some league pass with you next season.

Ok, I read this after my last post. I see your point Kush that "just being in the conversation" isint good enough. In my opinion the Kobe situation wasnt relevent to this because he wanted a trade. We were in trade talks with the Lakers and your right, three years later, it hasnt done much for me. This however is different. Lebron is a free agent and we have known he was going to be a FA now for 3 years. We knew many teams would be clamoring for Lebron but we have made it possible to be a top 2 team in the coversation of where he would actually go if he leaves. That makes me feel pretty good about our chances of getting a good free agent, be it Lebron or anyone else. My thoughts are it looks to me like we made a good gamble. I think alot of luck was involved. We had no idea when we took this gamble that Rose would be ROse, or Noah would be Noah. So maybe in hindsight it was still a overly risky move (letting Gordon, Salmons, go), but it seems that it has paid off to the point that we are in the shortlist of teams any of these players would likely choose. That puts us in a very good position to win moving forward. Maybe it all will crumble and not work out...but we have a good chance and for that chance the risks were worth it and I am happy we are in the position we are in.

 

[houheffna]

Maybe it all will crumble and not work out...but we have a good chance and for that chance the risks were worth it and I am happy we are in the position we are in.

AAAAAAAAAAMEN!!!!!!

 

[Shakes]

Fred wrote:

Gordon is making 10.8 next year, and Kirk is making 9 million. So yes, I absolutely would rather have Gordon next year to spread the floor. Ben Gordon is a clutch version of Mo Williams on the offensive end. He would fit in nicely with LeBron and Derrick to spread the floor. We're going to need to find someone to do that, whether or not LeBron comes here.

On a team with Rose and LeBron, I can't see our starting shooting guard getting more than 10 shots a game. The last three years the Cav's have gotten 6, 10 and 10 shots a game from their SG, and they don't have a PG as good as Rose.

Going by the number of shots Gordon got in the years he put up 20+, that leaves him scoring 13 a game. You'd be happy with that? You think that's good value? I find that hard to believe, since when Kirk only got 8 shots a game in 08-09 you were calling him the most over rated Bull ever and complaining he was paid to bring offense, even though he was scoring about the same number of points per shot as he was in 06-07.

The All-Defensive team officially became a joke this year when some jack ass voted Dwight Howard to the 2nd team. It means very little, except that Thabo is rightly regarded as a better defender than the Captain.

Fine, don't like the all-D teams, it's not really relevant to the point that on a team with two offensive weapons like Rose and LeBron you can afford to have your SG play the Bruce Bowen role (which Kirk is overpaid for, but only has 2 seasons left). It's like the dynasty Bulls, with Jordan and Pippen you get Steve Kerr or John Paxson types to play PG, you don't need to add Kevin Johnson or Penny Hardaway.