jnrjr79

Increasingly, it appears the Bulls are trying to stack their deals up in a way that they can make another run at taking salary in a trade or entering the free agent market in 2014.

Then I ran into this article by Wojnarowski:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba--ke...s--losing.html


In 2014, Love will be entering the last year of his deal and could be in the position to force Minny to sign & trade him or risk nothing in return. (We have seen this scenario of late, eh?)

So, my question is, would you make a run at Love? In this scenario, you'd have Love and Rose as your two max guys. Love would be your #2 star (i.e. your "Pippen," as Hoodey would say). Noah would be playing center next to him, one would presume. That would be your core.

I suppose the question then becomes, if your team is going to be Rose, Love, and Noah, who can you deal for Love in that scenario? His deal runs until 2015, so you can't sign him outright. Potentially you have the Bobcats pick, Boozer (who I guess would be an expiring), Asik (also an expiring, if matched), perhaps a signed & traded Deng, the rights to Mirotic, and potentially Taj if he is re-signed.

Anyway, is something like this viable? If so, is it desirable? Is Rose + Love a sufficient 1-2 combination to win you an NBA championship?

Love's numbers are obviously amazing, but I do tend to think he benefits from being the best player on a bad team. That said, he would easily be the Bulls' 2nd best player by a wide margin. I would expect his production to drop a bit on the Bulls. His rebounding and garbage points would not be as strong next to Noah.

Hoodey

No, no, no no, please no.

Love is a below the rim powerless forward who shoots 44.8%. When you average 26 PPG on 44.8%, you're actually hurting your team.

I am though, not surprised that the people who have liked the players on this team from 04-present would like Love and vastly overrate him.

__________________
I'm just here to talk about basketball. Feel free to exchange ideas with me, disagree or debate. I'm not interested in what you think of me as a person and/or large posts about this. Debate the ideas, or don't. If you have something about me like a really weird post of a link of me on the radio, just PM me.

jnrjr79

Nobody has even weighed in yet on whether it's a good decision. I'm glad to see you've already decided how they will vote, though. Very constructive!

King Joseus

It is not necessary for their to be any discussion here, clearly. He already knows it all!

__________________
Interested in joining the KVBL? PM me for information.

jnrjr79

Anyway, to get to the substance of it, I am of two minds on Kevin Love. His numbers can be off-the-charts, but I worry he's the classic guy putting up huge numbers on a bad team.

His FG% is an issue, I suppose. However, the fact that scoring 26 PPG at a clip of 45% is "actually hurting your team" is news to Kobe Bryant and his 5 NBA championships.

In any event, Love's TS% is a respectable .568, leaps and bounds above your boy Cousins at .499 (and Love is higher in just regular FG% at .457 vs. .439). Further, is any of his (real or perceived) inefficiency ameliorated if he is not the primary scoring threat on the team? Or, is he just going to score less but maintain the same levels of inefficiency? It seems like being paired with Derrick could take a lot of pressure off of Love to try to be more than he is in the scoring department.

The guy is a tremendous rebounder and would mesh very well with Rose if the Bulls were inclined to push the ball and play at a fast pace. That said, fast-paced offenses often sputter in the playoffs, so marrying yourself to that style of play may not be the way to go. Love, Noah, and Rose could certainly play an impressive up-and-down game.

For those who are lovers of PER (of which I am not, particularly), Love's is the 5th highest in the league, behind only LBJ, Paul, Wade, and Durant, and above the likes of Howard, Ginobli, Griffin, Rose, and Westbrook.

Anyway, Love may have inflated numbers or be otherwise overrated, but I suspect your aversion to him is based at least in part upon your general disfavor of the power forward position. Is that the case? It just seems bizarre to me that you would fixate on Cousins or DeRozan (clearly inferior players, IMO) as the answer for the Bulls, but then laugh off Love as an interesting possible trade target.

Hoodey

Let's delve into what you think you know. Now, that was a snide comment, but we see there isn't much substance behind it.

1999-00 - A guy named Shaq scores 29.7 PPG on 57.4% FG
2000-01 - Oh, there's that Shaq guy again. 28.7 PPG on 57.2% FG
2001-02 - Wouldn't you know it, some dude named SHAQ showing up with the final year of probably one of the two or three most dominant three year stretches in NBA history. 27.2 PPG on 57.9% FG
2008-09 - Bynum and Gasol combine to score 33.2 PPG. NEITHER player shoots lower than 56%
2009-10 - Bynum and Gasol score 33.3 PPG combined. Neither player shoots less than 53%

This is you wanting to speak as if you have credibility because you say something, and not covering your tracks.

Kobe Bryant did it. He also had five years of some of the best low post scoring ever in terms of PPG and efficiency. So, what are you saying? We're getting Kevin Love AND Shaq? Because if that's the case, I'm all in. Give me 2000 Shaq and I'll take Kevin Love's uncle on this team.

You clearly demonstrate a lack of understanding on Kobe Bryant's career. He was always center dependent. You know what guards/swings haven't been center dependent in terms of needing the insurance of a low post scorer down there to give them the insurance so that they could play around and be Mr. shiny superstar?

Michael Jordan
Lebron James
Dwyane Wade (because by then Shaq was hardly dominant, but to be fair on the other side, he was only that kind of player for one season and was greatly aided by officials)
Magic Johnson in 87 and 88 only

That's it. Most guys, including Rose, just can't get their teams enough easy buckets and pace an offense without the help of a guy like that down low. Watch MJ and you'll understand what I'm saying.

Now, I'll cover my bases. Am I claiming that no team has ever won without this approach? No. There have been plenty, and they can be explained away using various exceptions. But for the most part, your best PPG guy shooting 44% is generally bad and needs substantial insurance.

We like to think of Kobe as this guy who drove his team to titles by being a one-man wrecking machine like Michael. That's not the case. Michael never needed at least 27 PPG on at least 53% FG from a player down low.

__________________
I'm just here to talk about basketball. Feel free to exchange ideas with me, disagree or debate. I'm not interested in what you think of me as a person and/or large posts about this. Debate the ideas, or don't. If you have something about me like a really weird post of a link of me on the radio, just PM me.

Hoodey

And by the way, you've fixated on a lot of terrible crap. See "The Chicago Bulls for the last 9 years."

Cousins and DeRozan are guys I said I'd look at. I clearly did hedge this by saying that I don't have the resources to know that they aren't crazy or lazy or whatever. Clearly someone would have to figure that out.

But you'll never convince me that John Paxson REALLY sat down and went through all the possibilities of #2 guys he could try to bring in this summer and then said, "you know what, after combing the league for a #2 and looking at everyone and all of the possibilities, I think Kirk Hinrich is our best bet this summer." He was ALWAYS going to play it safe and get Hinrich.

DeRozan and Cousins are clearly potential guys. So if you get them and they bust in what would be vastly different roles for the Bulls, you're going to have a player less effective than Love. But if they make good on their potential in this new setting with Rose as their guide, they do have the physical talent to be massive threats against playoff teams late in the process. Love does not.

This is the same philosophical debate that the two sides of Bulls fandom have been having for years.

You're going to have to buy low on a guy who has massive potential and hasn't made it happen yet. Let me ask you. If DeRozan had already made good, do you think we'd have a chance in hell at getting him.

Face it man. Were you in a position to overrule Jerry Krause in 86, we never would have gotten Scottie Pippen. We both know it.

__________________
I'm just here to talk about basketball. Feel free to exchange ideas with me, disagree or debate. I'm not interested in what you think of me as a person and/or large posts about this. Debate the ideas, or don't. If you have something about me like a really weird post of a link of me on the radio, just PM me.

Bogg

The Bulls didn't win titles because Jordan was a one-man wrecking machine. The Bulls won titles because the rest of the roster was also championship-quality when the 90's rolled around. You know better than I do that the Bulls in 94 had a legitimate shot at making the Finals.

jnrjr79

Ha. Way to veer way off on a tangent by engaging in a lame Bryant vs. Jordan argument.

So, your point is you need multiple stars to win? Thanks for the brilliant revelation.

Also, I've been clear that this discussion is Love as the #2 guy, not the #1. To support your argument, you distort things by trying to act as though I'm advocating for Love as a #1. It's transparent.

Also, thanks for the loving condescension re: watching Jordan. You're right, never heard of the guy. Maybe you can send me a YouTube link to some highlight videos?

jnrjr79

These sentences don't mean anything.


Yes, that's Hoodey. He'd much rather just shit all over current management than actually offer any proposed solutions. When pressed to do so, he'll only "hedge" and acknowledge someone else would have to look into the matter.

This is a site devoted principally to discussing the Bulls and how they could be improved. Everyone by now understands that you hate many of the decisions made in the last decade or so. What you're light on is any constructive commentary on how to improve the Bulls going forward. Criticizing the past is easy. It's child's play. Many likely agree with you that a shakeup is needed. Still, when a new topic is started on how to improve the team, you simply resort to lazy, reductionist arguments about the past rather than say what you would do. I suppose if Cousins and DeRozan are your biggest ideas, that is unsurprising.

He probably didn't, as it's Gar Forman's job.

Hinrich or something in that vein, yes. I agree and have observed that it's an uninspiring move. I doubt we disagree on this. What I did add was that it seems like things are being set up to make a run at things in 2014. I'd like to have a discussion about those potential targets, if you don't mind. Feel free to pursue your agenda in other threads where it's relevant.

I might agree re: Cousins in terms of the "physical talent" for the playoffs thing. He is a physical beast. However, he puts up worse numbers than the guy you claim is inefficient. (Gee, didn't address that, did you?) I'm simply pointing out that your own metric works against you.

This simplistic point of view is the chief issue I would take with your approach to posting. I'm not sure there are only two "sides." Each move has its own proponents and detractors, and those camps are not always the same from move to move.

Why do we have to buy low? Miami didn't buy low. Boston didn't buy low. L.A. didn't buy low. San Antonio is maybe the only team off the top of my head in recent years that won a bunch of chips through acquiring really unexpected talent.

This is just stupid. This kind of acrimonious crap serves no purpose other than to destroy good will on the board. But next time I have a time machine available, I'll hop in it and ask 7 year-old me what he'd like to do vis a vis acquiring Pippen. I'm sure it'll be enlightening and prove that your hypothetical isn't just an example of being needlessly argumentative and childish.

We both know it.

garnett

I'm not Love's biggest fan but I'd take him every day of the week. A stretch 4 would do wonders for this team and especially for Rose.

Hoodey

No, my point was that this:

"His FG% is an issue, I suppose. However, the fact that scoring 26 PPG at a clip of 45% is "actually hurting your team" is news to Kobe Bryant and his 5 NBA championships."

Is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Well, dumbest or most dishonest. Kobe Bryant is just a terrible example there. You can't cite 45% not being a problem and then go on to discuss a guy who played with Shaq and Gasol/Bynum. It's just f-ing terrible.

And just kind of the tone of your posts. It's fine. I'm all good with it. But then when you start ripping my posting style and not my ideas, it's a little hypocritical. But hey, you're "Jnr." You're a great guy to these people so you can speak to people however you want, and if they dare return in kind, well they're just a bad guy lol.

__________________
I'm just here to talk about basketball. Feel free to exchange ideas with me, disagree or debate. I'm not interested in what you think of me as a person and/or large posts about this. Debate the ideas, or don't. If you have something about me like a really weird post of a link of me on the radio, just PM me.

Hoodey

Of course you get to assign lack of meaning. I mean, you are a moderator, right. But you would never use that influence to influence opinion.

Dude this is garbage. In the fools gold thread, I gave you an entire essay on how I would go forward off of a potential trade for Gasol.

While you're busy telling me to shut up in other threads and trying to turn me into a "moderation issue" for disagreeing with your supportive non-support of Paxson's regime, you kind of fail to notice that you're talking about me in a reply to me. Condescending much. Again, I don't care, until you start a whining fest about how I post.

I would go for DeRozan or Cousins. I know you're looking for me to go all in on someone, so that if they fail you can come back to anything I say with "well, why don't we just trade for player X?"

I gave you guys that are good talent risks. I'm not saying "well I'm not really sure about them." In a preliminary sense, I would go for them. However, I'm also telling you that good GMs need contacts they can call up, similar to Knight trying to inform Portland that they should take Jordan in 84, to say "hey, what's the scoop on this guy." We're fans. We can hardly be responsible for vetting pro athletes. THAT SAID, I'm fine with going for it on a guy and him being a total miss IF you have Rose and IF you don't commit insane money to that guy. You trade for DeRozan on his rookie deal, you don't offer him new money, and if he turns into a crazier T-Whack mixed with Eddy Curry, you cut him loose and the "bad side" of the deal is that you have Rose and cap room.

But, my point is, don't you make a run for 2014 by trading Deng's contract this summer. Are we really going to have financial freedom to sign a #2 next summer? I don't see where the precursors to a move are.

Additionally, what if we don't make a move next year or summer. Where will your patience level be then?

Difference is, Cousins is two years younger at a position that develops much slower. He might as well be four years younger. Big difference as well in terms of the physical talent.

How do you handicap "likelihood to get better?" There has to be some physical tool that a player is not utilizing due to youth and therefore lack of fundamentals. That's why the 1988 Bulls got way better and the 2007 Bulls never did. Cousins has that. Love is a finished product. I don't mean to say Love will never get better, but not nearly as much as Cousins can.

But it is a risk. If Cousins were a sure thing and also a player Sacramento would trade, every GM in the league would be camped out in Sacramento right now. He's a boom or bust prospect. He either ends up somewhere north of Curry and somewhere south of Brad Daugherty OR he helps you win championships in a big way. Just like a young Bynum.

Miami made a sale in free agency. Riley or Wade or whoever closed deals. They would make Alec Baldwin in Glengarry Glen Ross proud. If we can do that we don't need to trade for boom or bust prospects.

__________________
I'm just here to talk about basketball. Feel free to exchange ideas with me, disagree or debate. I'm not interested in what you think of me as a person and/or large posts about this. Debate the ideas, or don't. If you have something about me like a really weird post of a link of me on the radio, just PM me.

jnrjr79

Huh?

jnrjr79

I'm a moderator on an internet message board about the Chicago Bulls. Try saying it out loud and sounding cool when doing so. Methinks you may drastically overestimate the importance of the distinction.


Just face facts. You tell everyone else what they think before they even have a chance to express themselves. Just look at the second post of this thread (which is, in its own way, utterly hilarious). I'm sorry if pointing out this tendency bothers you somehow, but it's simply true.

Also, as a style tip, don't use quotes when you aren't quoting someone. It's just confusing.

In any event, we have certain rules here about how people treat each other. It's what you do in a civil society. You'll notice we've chosen to do nothing with respect to your posting style other than ask you to treat people with a modicum of respect. These requests have largely gone unheeded, obviously. The reasons for not affording us that simple courtesy are unknown to me, and I suspect will remain that way.
Fair enough.

I've already said I want to trade Deng now after what I suspect will be his lone All-Star season. So, on this front, you're inventing a disagreement with me that doesn't exist.

With respect to trading him to free up room for 2014, no, that is not necessary as he expires in 2014. So, though I favor moving him now, the genesis of this thread was the idea that Deng expiring, Hinrich expiring, and Boozer potentially being amnestied, it appears like the Bulls may be setting themselves up for a reload in the 2014 offseason.

So you're saying you expect Cousins to become much more efficient than he is now? Because that's what needs to happen in order for your argument to hold water. The dude has immense physical skills and there's no denying it, but I'm not sure so far we've seen any indication that he's some scholar of the game driven to improve himself by leaps and bounds. Can an external force light that fire? I'm not sure. Most of the time, but not all of the time perhaps, boneheads stay boneheads. Sometimes you can manage a boneheaded guy if the rest of your team is strong, but I believe that works more frequently in a supporting rather than a starring role.

Thing is, Love doesn't really have to get any better in order to be an effective #2. He's already there. If you want to make the argument that Love as a guy who is already a star won't be acquirable, while a potential star in Cousins might be, then fine. But Cousins is a project and Love is not, and we both seem to agree on that.

I agree he is a boom or bust prospect. To me, this feels a lot like Tyrus vs. Lamarcus again.


Heh, you do know that the Alec Baldwin character is not meant to be admired, right? Or are you someone who thinks Michael Douglas in Wall Street is supposed to be a hero?

But sure, on the broader point, I agree. We don't have a great history of closing on free agents post-MJ. Ben Wallace was a major coup, but then it ended up not working out terribly well. Boozer was, at the time, I suppose ok from a "can you close" perspective only in that there were other teams with cap space that could have gotten him, but it's widely reported he, too, preferred Miami. And, of course, there's good reason not to be terribly excited that we succeeded in closing that deal, though I think the Bulls win more basketball games because they have him.