This team is better off rebuilding/Re-shuffling. - Page 10 - Basketball Forum : Professional and College Basketball Forums
BasketballForum.com is the premier basketball Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
User Tag List

Like Tree14Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-10-2016, 08:27 AM   #136 (permalink)
K4E
Benchwarmer
 

Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 181
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Re: This team is better off rebuilding/Re-shuffling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnrjr79 View Post
So you agree Thibs was a failure?

(I don't actually believe that, but you do.)
1 trip to the ECFs over 5 years is better than 1 trip over 12 years.

Its, like, over 2 times better, wouldn't you say?

So, no, I would not say Thibs was a failure. I would also say he's not in the Pop / Riley / Jackson echelon since he has not won the big one.

He had a number of successes (not as a head coach) before joining the Bulls though that I could point to. Ring with the Celtics. Reinventing the way defense is played in the NBA. Also Gold Medals with team USA while with the Bulls. Also a track record of getting along with front offices (Celtics) and other organizations (Team USA, still employed there) while coach-choker Paxson has a different track record.

And, a coach is only as good as the roster he's given. Thibs almost always got the most out of the roster he was given to coach.



Last edited by K4E; 01-10-2016 at 08:43 AM.
K4E is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-10-2016, 08:32 AM   #137 (permalink)
K4E
Benchwarmer
 

Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 181
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Re: This team is better off rebuilding/Re-shuffling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnrjr79 View Post
I don't see any scenario where the right move is to scrap it, though I suppose it depends what you mean by that.
It would depend on what would be available if Gibson, Gasol, Noah, Rose were put up on the block.

What assets could be acquired for a 2-3 year down the road "win later" run.

Teams do this all the time. Its not that complicated a scenario. Just off the top of my head, the Celtics started down this road a few years ago. The Cavs and the Warriors were in the business of getting lottery picks a few seasons back.
K4E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2016, 08:33 AM   #138 (permalink)
K4E
Benchwarmer
 

Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 181
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Re: This team is better off rebuilding/Re-shuffling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnrjr79 View Post
I didn't miss it. Saying the Bulls should win now or win later isn't saying much of anything. Which course would you take?

Maybe you missed it, but didn't I say a 18+ PERish SG/SF?

Quote:
Originally Posted by K4E
I think they should pick "win now" or "win later" as trying to do both at the same time likely won't work, assuming the goal is to win a championship. It should be clear to see what type of move is what. And, yes, there is no way to know what trades are really available, unless something basically incontrovertible comes out in the news. Gasol doesn't help much with "win later." The right 18+ PER ish wing player likely would be quite useful for a "win now" run.
Ariza doesn't really fit that criteria, but he's an OK wing if Dunleavy can't go. Who to give up though and would the Rockets want that player? Many like the job Mirotic is doing at the 3 as well.

Will Barton might fit. The issue there is the Bulls already have 3 high usage main guys in Rose, Gasol and Jimmy, with Mirotic also needing to put up a lot of shots. And the Nuggets probably like having a younger highly productive player on a good contract.

As far as the course to take, it would depend entirely on the moves that were available, which I don't know. Is Boogie Cousins available for the right price and what would that price be? I don't know. Is there a team that would give the Bulls a good chance at an impact draft pick for Gasol? I don't know.

I don't think "stand pat" will result in a championship this season though. But, guys could get hurt on other teams and perhaps a guy like Mirotic will take a serious step forward. Or Rose miracle of miracles returns to past greatness.

Last edited by K4E; 01-10-2016 at 08:49 AM.
K4E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2016, 09:27 AM   #139 (permalink)
Moderator
Photobucket
 
jnrjr79's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Location Location
Posts: 8,415
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 292 Post(s)
Re: This team is better off rebuilding/Re-shuffling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by K4E View Post
Maybe you missed it, but didn't I say a 18+ PERish SG/SF?
No. You said they should either win now or win later. Of course, you have to make that decision before you can get to who they should acquire once they choose a course.

It's funny to me that you are so critical and yet you cannot even address your own fundamental position (an incorrect one, but your position nonetheless) that the team must choose between current competitiveness and future competitiveness.

Quote:
Ariza doesn't really fit that criteria, but he's an OK wing if Dunleavy can't go. Who to give up though and would the Rockets want that player? Many like the job Mirotic is doing at the 3 as well.
Mitotic is doing better at the 3 then I would have guessed, but a lot of his production still comes when he slides down to the 4 during games. And obviously he can't keep up with LBJ. I like the guy going forward, but you have to give something to get something.

Quote:
Will Barton might fit. The issue there is the Bulls already have 3 high usage main guys in Rose, Gasol and Jimmy, with Mirotic also needing to put up a lot of shots. And the Nuggets probably like having a younger highly productive player on a good contract.
I think the Bulls have plenty of scoring firepower between Butler, Pau, and Rose. what they really need is that 3-and-D type of player.

Quote:
As far as the course to take, it would depend entirely on the moves that were available, which I don't know. Is Boogie Cousins available for the right price and what would that price be? I don't know. Is there a team that would give the Bulls a good chance at an impact draft pick for Gasol? I don't know.
The latter can be answered easily. There is no team that is going to give an impact draft pick for Gasol. If you want that, you're giving up Portis, Mitotic, or obviously Butler.

Quote:
I don't think "stand pat" will result in a championship this season though. But, guys could get hurt on other teams and perhaps a guy like Mirotic will take a serious step forward. Or Rose miracle of miracles returns to past greatness.
So what would you do? Are you willing to deal a current rotation player and future draft picks to try to improve the team this season?
jnrjr79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2016, 09:34 AM   #140 (permalink)
Moderator
Photobucket
 
jnrjr79's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Location Location
Posts: 8,415
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 292 Post(s)
Re: This team is better off rebuilding/Re-shuffling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by K4E View Post
What isn't true?

A reasonable goal would be to make the NBA Finals at least once over a 12 year span for a large market team, right?

You realize 0 trips to the Finals is pretty poor performance, don't you?
Are you speaking statistically? Once every 15 years would be the statistical norm. And I don't believe market size has any real correlation to performance, no. Do you? Ask the Knicks how much that helps. Best market in the country!

In terms of the conference finals, in the last 12 seasons 10 teams have made the conference finals more than once. 7 more have made it just once. So, more or less, the Bulls have done better than 13 teams, the same as 7 teams, and worse than 12 teams.

So, no, if we're being honest, it hasn't been "pretty poor," which necessarily would be below average. It also has been far from great.
jnrjr79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2016, 09:42 AM   #141 (permalink)
K4E
Benchwarmer
 

Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 181
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Re: This team is better off rebuilding/Re-shuffling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnrjr79 View Post
No. You said they should either win now or win later. Of course, you have to make that decision before you can get to who they should acquire once they choose a course.

It's funny to me that you are so critical and yet you cannot even address your own fundamental position (an incorrect one, but your position nonetheless) that the team must choose between current competitiveness and future competitiveness.
My position is that the organization doesn't seem interested really in maximizing chances for a championship. They are interested in making the playoffs and ensuring a backlog of young players when the older ones age out.

I don't think "stand pat" will result in a championship this season. Do you think that? It doesn't seem you do.

I can't say what moves are available for them to make. I don't think a guy like Ariza will be enough to win the title this season, barring major injuries from the true contenders

That's funny, what you think is funny.

I think its funny to defend the following track record.

12 seasons. 0 Championships. 0 NBA Finals appearances. 1 ECF loss.

Defending that as a good job is really funny.

Not so funny if you are Bulls fan interested in winning championships though. Not funny at all.

You might not agree with me thinking that great organizations have clear goals and maximize their chances to achieve those goals. I'll stand by that, despite your disagreement.

But, you are also a guy that thinks this is a good job.

12 seasons. 0 Championships. 0 NBA Finals appearances. 1 ECF loss.

So, you might have poor judgement, sadly.


Quote:
So what would you do? Are you willing to deal a current rotation player and future draft picks to try to improve the team this season?
Sure, depending on the rotation player and what player the team would be acquiring. Each of those moves would be evaluated on a move by move basis.

I didn't read what big(s) you would be willing to part with in order to get Ariza.

Last edited by K4E; 01-10-2016 at 09:57 AM.
K4E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2016, 09:49 AM   #142 (permalink)
K4E
Benchwarmer
 

Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 181
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Re: This team is better off rebuilding/Re-shuffling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnrjr79 View Post
Ask the Knicks how much that helps. Best market in the country!
Market/revenue matters. The Bulls have plenty of money to work with. That's an advantage, albeit smaller than other sports due to salary cap. The Bulls also have a self imposed reluctance to spend past the luxury tax threshold for the mostpart. That's sadly a disadvantage.

If you were the GM of a NBA team, you would prefer to have more money to work with vs less money to work with.

The money does need to be spent wisely though, you are correct. The Knicks often have these issues. The Bulls sadly do as well, as their highest paid players oftentimes are not their best contributors. Not as bad as the Knicks though.

Even the lowly Knicks have managed to make the Finals more recently since MJ retired than the poor Bulls.

The Knicks have been a fairly poorly run organization according to many in the last 20 years.

They managed to win the Eastern Conference at least once.

Maybe Paxson will get there someday.

Last edited by K4E; 01-10-2016 at 10:04 AM.
K4E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2016, 10:25 AM   #143 (permalink)
Moderator
Photobucket
 
jnrjr79's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Location Location
Posts: 8,415
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 292 Post(s)
Re: This team is better off rebuilding/Re-shuffling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by K4E View Post
My position is that the organization doesn't seem interested really in maximizing chances for a championship. They are interested in making the playoffs and ensuring a backlog of young players when the older ones age out.

I don't think "stand pat" will result in a championship this season. Do you think that? It doesn't seem you do.

I can't say what moves are available for them to make. I don't think a guy like Ariza will be enough to win the title this season, barring major injuries from the true contenders
I do agree that the organization seems to want to have a Spurs-style team-building approach where you transition from older productive players to younger productive players without ever bottoming out/tanking. Obviously, unlike the Spurs, the Bulls have not won championships while taking this approach. But I don't think, as it appears you do, that staying competitive necessarily means you are preventing yourself from contending.

What I think is pretty silly is taking the position that the team isn't interested in winning championships. What can you cite in favor of that position?

I'm with you that a move is necessary to join the top tier of contenders. But you can't seem to decide whether you want the team to try to contend, yet you're lobbing bombs nonetheless.

I also think there is no move any NBA franchise can make this season that would make any team more likely to win the championship than the Warriors. I'm tempted to say the same with respect to the Spurs. But I don't think, as you appear to (but I'm not actually sure - so correct me if I'm wrong) that if you are not one of the 3 most likely teams in the NBA to win the title that it automatically means you must rebuild. In your world, every year there would be 27 76ers and 3 teams trying to win.

Quote:
That's funny, what you think is funny.

I think its funny to defend the following track record.

12 seasons. 0 Championships. 0 NBA Finals appearances. 1 ECF loss.

Defending that as a good job is really funny.
What's funny is you believe that track record is good for a coach, but bad for a FO. It's almost like you might have an agenda.

In any event, I haven't defended those particular outcomes that you obnoxiously repeat over and over as having been good. I've just corrected your characterization of the team's performance relative to the rest of the league. There are 30 teams. A reasonable expectation is a championship every 30 years. If it drives you nuts not winning one in 12 years, then that means you are irrational. And hey, I'd like to have a team that outperforms statistical expectations, but I'm a realist who recognizes that there are only a handful of put-them-on-your-back superstars in the league at any given time, they change teams only rarely, and if you don't have one of those, championships will be seldom won. The Bulls were lucky enough to have one, and he blew out his knee in his best season and has never been the same. And we all know that was GarPax's fault.

Quote:
Not so funny if you are Bulls fan interested in winning championships though. Not funny at all.
Despite the fact I waste a lot of mental energy following the team, whether the Bulls win a championship is pretty low down on my life's priorities, so I'll survive.

I do want the team to win, obviously, but as I've detailed at length, I believe the Bulls assembled a championship-level roster and then their MVP got hurt, which is not the franchise's fault any more than Jay Williams going over his handlebars. The real test is going to be how the Bulls retool in the post-Rose era. The remaining pieces are likely to make the team competitive enough the it won't have a top draft pick, so 2017 free agency is going to be vital.

Quote:
You might not agree with me thinking that great organizations have clear goals and maximize their chances to achieve those goals.
Excellent passive aggressive bullshit.

Quote:

But, you are also a guy that thinks this is a good job.

12 seasons. 0 Championships. 0 NBA Finals appearances. 1 ECF loss.

So, you might have poor judgement, sadly.
Bad for a FO. Good for a coach, right?

The thing is, I'm capable of thinking about the facts behind those outcomes. You focus on the outcomes alone, while never looking at the why behind them.

Outcomes are actually a pretty awful way to think about sports performance. That's like someone who watches a football team go for it on 4th down or go for a 2 point conversion and not get it, and then saying it was a bad decision. Or that taking a half court shot with 15 seconds left on the shot clock is a good idea because it went in. Or evaluating whether a pitcher is good based on W/L rather than more accurate metrics. Etc.

Quote:

Sure, depending on the rotation player and what player the team would be acquiring. Each of those moves would be evaluated on a move by move basis.

I didn't read what big(s) you would be willing to part with in order to get Ariza.
I would be willing to part with Gibson. Niko probably makes the most sense, because Ariza slides in at the 3 and you still have Bobby who can be a stretch 4 off the bench. I doubt Houston has interest in Noah, other than he is expiring and Morey likes offseason flexibility. Alternatively, Snell + next year's first works for me.
jnrjr79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2016, 10:35 AM   #144 (permalink)
Moderator
Photobucket
 
jnrjr79's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Location Location
Posts: 8,415
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 292 Post(s)
Re: This team is better off rebuilding/Re-shuffling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by K4E View Post

Market/revenue matters. The Bulls have plenty of money to work with. That's an advantage, albeit smaller than other sports due to salary cap. The Bulls also have a self imposed reluctance to spend past the luxury tax threshold for the mostpart. That's sadly a disadvantage.
If by market you mean revenue, then I agree. But it's also a dangerous advantage. Cleveland spent a bunch on what was essentially a proven contender. Brooklyn spent a bunch speculatively and tanked the franchise.

And obviously, you are ignoring the competitive reasons to stay out of the tax in terms of the league penalties if you stay above it. So I don't see anything inherently virtuous about going above the tax, but I do want a franchise that is willing to do it in appropriate circumstances.

Aside from revenue, though, I don't think Chicago is a huge advantage market-wise. It does not have weather or tax advantages, which seem to be the primary driver of market desirability. It also has the shadow of Jordan, if you buy into that thing. That narrative does get perpetuated, but I'm not sure how true it holds today with a bunch of guys who would have no real memory of him playing.

Quote:

If you were the GM of a NBA team, you would prefer to have more money to work with vs less money to work with.
True, though as you noted, with the NBA salary cap, budget is not often the hugest issue in the world.

Quote:
The money does need to be spent wisely though, you are correct. The Knicks often have these issues. The Bulls sadly do as well, as their highest paid players oftentimes are not their best contributors. Not as bad as the Knicks though.
I actually think it's pretty meaningless when you analyze whether the highest paid guys are also the best producing. I am more interested in the overall performance of the team. If you overspend somewhere but also have guys on below-market deals, it can even out.

For instance, Pau is the #2 contributor on the team, at least offensively, but is making less than Rose, Butler, Noah, and Gibson. That's a good thing!

None of Rose, Butler, Noah, and Gibson are unfairly compensated, but for Rose's injury history, which obviously didn't exist when the contract was executed. If you look at the Bulls' salary numbers, everything looks pretty good! The biggest issues have really been paying Hinrich/Dunleavy, and if that's your biggest problem, that's a pretty good thing.

Quote:
Even the lowly Knicks have managed to make the Finals more recently since MJ retired than the poor Bulls.

The Knicks have been a fairly poorly run organization according to many in the last 20 years.

They managed to win the Eastern Conference at least once.

Maybe Paxson will get there someday.
Nice subtle shifting of the goalposts to the pre-GarPax era.
jnrjr79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2016, 02:02 PM   #145 (permalink)
Star
 
transplant's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jul 2002
Age: 65
Posts: 2,543
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Re: This team is better off rebuilding/Re-shuffling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by K4E View Post
If the goal is to win championships, its poor.
If the goal is to at least make the NBA Finals, its poor.
If the goal is to make the Conference Finals more than once a decade, its poor.

If the goal is to be above .500, make the playoffs and make a lot of money, its very good.
You remember all those teams that lost in the conference finals and exulted about having achieved their goal while guzzling champagne? How about the losers in the Finals? Yeah, me neither.

Those are only goals if your real goal is to support your inherent discontent.

K4E, we've been here before. You'll only be happy when the Bulls win the title. I wish you happiness.
transplant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2016, 03:06 PM   #146 (permalink)
K4E
Benchwarmer
 

Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 181
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Re: This team is better off rebuilding/Re-shuffling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant View Post
K4E, we've been here before. You'll only be happy when the Bulls win the title. I wish you happiness.
Ha, thanks. I wish you happiness as well! Remember 2005 as a White Sox fan? Didn't get much better than that. I'd like the team to be striving towards that goal.

I want the same for the Bulls. At some point, being a fan of professional sports is an irrational act, but if I'm going to invest any energy at all towards it I would like the team to be striving and focused towards winning a championship.

Winning some regular season games and getting knocked out of the playoffs early year after year isn't much fun, IMO.

The NBA is fun and just watching basketball is fun, but, yah, investing much energy into wanting this organization to win a title again, IMO, isn't energy well spent.

I think they are content doing what they are doing. I hope to be pleasantly surprised otherwise.

And, as one of the more valuable sports teams around, what they are doing is working well from a business standpoint, so there isn't much incentive to change.

And if you don't have the draft picks to get a superstar, don't make trades and can't attract free agents, well, you just have to hope for luck.

Last edited by K4E; 01-10-2016 at 03:52 PM.
K4E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2016, 03:40 PM   #147 (permalink)
K4E
Benchwarmer
 

Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 181
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Re: This team is better off rebuilding/Re-shuffling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnrjr79 View Post
I do agree that the organization seems to want to have a Spurs-style team-building approach where you transition from older productive players to younger productive players without ever bottoming out/tanking. Obviously, unlike the Spurs, the Bulls have not won championships while taking this approach. But I don't think, as it appears you do, that staying competitive necessarily means you are preventing yourself from contending.
Spurs-model. Ha. The Bulls are a far cry from the Spurs. The Spurs are one of the most successful modern sports franchises. The Bulls have been to the Eastern Conference Finals one time in the last 17-18 years.

Its like when misguided people were comparing a team centered around Hinrich-Gordon-Deng-Nocioni as a championship "Core 4" of some type to a "Pistons Model." Seems so foolish in hindsight, doesn't it? Hinrich-Gordon-Deng-Nocioni as a title contender? Ha.... Funny.

The Spurs have won championships with their model. The Pistons too.

Paxson has really done nothing of note in his 12 years of collecting paychecks in terms of meaningful playoff success.


Quote:
What I think is pretty silly is taking the position that the team isn't interested in winning championships. What can you cite in favor of that position?
Well, last season is a good example. The front office was interested in executing a smear campaign against the head coach. Is that helpful to winning championships?

Also, a mixed focus on "win now" and "win later" isn't a good idea, especially for a team like the Bulls who hasn't shown they can do either very well. You disagree with this. Fine.

Caring so much about the short term development of Doug McDermott and Nikola Mirotic, who you have admitted do not appear to be an an all-star track, while at the same time supposedly trying to win a title, or at least get to the Finals if you believe Paxson's Thibs firing press conference isn't something that is easy to do. I prefer "win now" if you are going to go for it.

For example, the Cavs didn't keep Andrew Wiggins around to nurture him while Lebron and Kyrie went after a ring. The dealt him for Kevin Love. That's going for it.

The Bulls FO were busy smearing the head coach and fretting about Doug McDermott during a season when there was a legit path to the NBA Finals.


Quote:
What's funny is you believe that track record is good for a coach, but bad for a FO. It's almost like you might have an agenda.
Thibs has a track record. Ring with the Celtics along with getting along well with the front office. Considered a true NBA defensive innovator. In his years with the Bulls if you believe 538's analysis few coaches in history were better at getting the most out of their team. Gold medal winner with Team USA along with getting along well with management there too.

But, yah, he won't be considered in the upper echelon of NBA Head Coaches without the ring, despite all he has accomplished.

Quote:
In any event, I haven't defended those particular outcomes that you obnoxiously repeat over and over as having been good.
Good. We both agree that the outcomes that Paxson has generated are not good. That is at least something we can agree on. You might use "average" and I use "poor" but we can both agree on "not good."

I like that.


Quote:
Despite the fact I waste a lot of mental energy following the team, whether the Bulls win a championship is pretty low down on my life's priorities, so I'll survive.
Your balance in life is commendable. You should write a book. Well done.



Quote:
I do want the team to win, obviously, but as I've detailed at length, I believe the Bulls assembled a championship-level roster and then their MVP got hurt, which is not the franchise's fault any more than Jay Williams going over his handlebars. The real test is going to be how the Bulls retool in the post-Rose era. The remaining pieces are likely to make the team competitive enough the it won't have a top draft pick, so 2017 free agency is going to be vital.
Paxson can't seal the deal on MVP level in-their-prime free agents (Lebron, Wade, Melo) so don't hold your breath on that. He's failed that test many times.

Paxson also doesn't make trades other than salary dumps for the most part.

The organization does draft pretty well, but to get a MVP level player you need lottery picks for the mostpart.

How are the Bulls going to get those lottery picks?





Quote:
Outcomes are actually a pretty awful way to think about sports performance.
Wow, this one takes the cake.

Sports is an outcomes based business.

Rings are essential to greatness, like it or not.

Statistical metrics are just abstractions of outcomes.

Its all outcomes based.

12 seasons. 0 championships. 0 trips to the Finals. 1 ECF loss. Bad outcomes. If winning championships is your thing.


Quote:
I would be willing to part with Gibson. Niko probably makes the most sense, because Ariza slides in at the 3 and you still have Bobby who can be a stretch 4 off the bench. I doubt Houston has interest in Noah, other than he is expiring and Morey likes offseason flexibility. Alternatively, Snell + next year's first works for me.

I think the Bulls get worse this season swapping Gibson for Ariza. Gasol and Noah play terribly together and I don't like the softness of Mirotic and Gasol at the 4-5. Portis isn't ready for prime time yet and its still unclear exactly what kind of player he is.

I like the Gibson-Gasol pairing and we need a lower usage guy to do the dirty work, which Gibson has been doing well in his current role.

Niko or Portis would make the most sense, I agree.

Last edited by K4E; 01-10-2016 at 04:02 PM.
K4E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2016, 09:09 PM   #148 (permalink)
K4E
Benchwarmer
 

Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 181
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Re: This team is better off rebuilding/Re-shuffling.

When you are talking about rebuilding and perhaps going the route of accumulating lotto picks, some folks kneejerk and say "Sixers!"

The best team in the league was built by missing the playoffs several years in a row and hitting on key lotto picks.

The Warriors missed the playoffs 2007-2008 through 2011-2012. With those lotto picks they landed league MVP Curry, Thompson and Barnes.

And now the Golden State fans are enjoying the fruits of the harvest.

The Cavs also got bad to be good. They turned bad seasons into Lebron James, Kyrie Irving and Wiggins, who became Love.

The fruits of the harvest.

Even the sainted Spurs got bad to be good. Its quite amazing but they have had only two losing seasons since 1988-1989!! They turned those two lotto picks into David Robinson and Tim Duncan. The two younger studs on the Spurs currently are Kawhi who was acquired via cagey trade (not our current FOs strong suit) and Aldridge, who was a big time free agent pickup (not our current FOs strong suit). Spurs model?

Still though, the lotto route doesn't always end up in being the Sixers. Sometimes you end up like the best team in the Western Conference, the Warriors and the best team in the East, the Cavs.
K4E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2016, 09:32 PM   #149 (permalink)
Moderator
Photobucket
 
jnrjr79's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Location Location
Posts: 8,415
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 292 Post(s)
Re: This team is better off rebuilding/Re-shuffling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by K4E View Post
Spurs-model. Ha. The Bulls are a far cry from the Spurs. The Spurs are one of the most successful modern sports franchises. The Bulls have been to the Eastern Conference Finals one time in the last 17-18 years.

Its like when misguided people were comparing a team centered around Hinrich-Gordon-Deng-Nocioni as a championship "Core 4" of some type to a "Pistons Model." Seems so foolish in hindsight, doesn't it? Hinrich-Gordon-Deng-Nocioni as a title contender? Ha.... Funny.

The Spurs have won championships with their model. The Pistons too.

Paxson has really done nothing of note in his 12 years of collecting paychecks in terms of meaningful playoff success.
I quite clearly said the Bulls had not won championships and therefore had not achieved with this model like the Spurs had, so that moots your enjoyable derision.


Quote:
Well, last season is a good example. The front office was interested in executing a smear campaign against the head coach. Is that helpful to winning championships?
Both sides engaged in smear campaigns on each other. I don't think it had anything to do with the Bulls not getting by the Cavs. I have, though, indicated I believed the FO handled that situation in a very unbecoming manner.

Quote:
Also, a mixed focus on "win now" and "win later" isn't a good idea, especially for a team like the Bulls who hasn't shown they can do either very well. You disagree with this. Fine.
Right, we disagree on this.

Quote:
Caring so much about the short term development of Doug McDermott and Nikola Mirotic, who you have admitted do not appear to be an an all-star track, while at the same time supposedly trying to win a title, or at least get to the Finals if you believe Paxson's Thibs firing press conference isn't something that is easy to do. I prefer "win now" if you are going to go for it.
The thing here is you have to connect it up with the fact that the FO seemed to believe that Butler, Gasol, and particularly Noah had been playing too much. Getting these other guys some burn wasn't just about developing them, but also about trying to improve the Bulls' extremely poor track record of being healthy for the postseason. The graphic you've posted about Thibs getting extra wins compared to expectations was kind of the point. The belief was Thibs was focused on getting a few extra, somewhat meaningless regular season wins grinder out rather than focusing on the playoffs. This clearly believes that going balls-out all year is the best preparation for the playoffs. Maybe he's right. Pop would disagree.

Quote:
For example, the Cavs didn't keep Andrew Wiggins around to nurture him while Lebron and Kyrie went after a ring. The dealt him for Kevin Love. That's going for it.
Yep, that was definitely an all-in move. And I'm good with that for this team, but obviously not for Ariza-types. For the right available star, sure I'd part with Niko, Portis, et al.

Quote:
The Bulls FO were busy smearing the head coach and fretting about Doug McDermott during a season when there was a legit path to the NBA Finals.
Do you believe the mutual FO-Thibs sniping last season is what caused the Bulls to lose to Cleveland?

Quote:
Thibs has a track record. Ring with the Celtics along with getting along well with the front office. Considered a true NBA defensive innovator. In his years with the Bulls if you believe 538's analysis few coaches in history were better at getting the most out of their team. Gold medal winner with Team USA along with getting along well with management there too.
It's a pretty big stretch when you're citing to accomplishments Thibs had as an assistant on other staffs as the evidence of his greatness. You're right that Thibs was absolutely a true defensive innovator. And now the league has started to adapt via Golden State-style offenses to overcome his aggressive approach. Maybe he'll have another round of innovation left in him. I'd certainly never argue that Thibs is not one of the most talented defensive schemers in recent memory.

Quote:
But, yah, he won't be considered in the upper echelon of NBA Head Coaches without the ring, despite all he has accomplished.
By the metrics you continually post, he has not accomplished anything.

Quote:
Good. We both agree that the outcomes that Paxson has generated are not good. That is at least something we can agree on. You might use "average" and I use "poor" but we can both agree on "not good."

I like that.
The Bulls regular season performance has likely been above average (I'm not going to check he math on this one) and the playoff performances have been average to slightly above average.

The plain meaning of poor is not average, so it's hyperbolic when you characterize it that way, but sure, we definitely both agree that the results have not been excellent.

Quote:

Your balance in life is commendable. You should write a book. Well done.
Ha. I'll get my signed first edition ready for you one day. I probably came off douchey with that comment, but all I was trying to do was note that your bombastic language makes it seem like this is life and death stuff we're talking about here, when obviously it's far from it.

Quote:
Paxson can't seal the deal on MVP level in-their-prime free agents (Lebron, Wade, Melo) so don't hold your breath on that. He's failed that test many times.
Twice, you mean? So did almost all the other teams in the league. And honestly, the Gasol signing is a major, major coup.

Quote:
Paxson also doesn't make trades other than salary dumps for the most part.
You may characterize them as salary dumps, but turning Eddy Curry into Joakim Noah and Luol Deng into Pau Gasol (and very possibly Sacto's relatively high draft pick this year) is more than that, which you're well aware of.

Quote:
The organization does draft pretty well, but to get a MVP level player you need lottery picks for the mostpart.

How are the Bulls going to get those lottery picks?
It is not my opinion that the Bulls' big need at the moment is high lottery picks, because the team is trying to contend now.

Quote:

Wow, this one takes the cake.

Sports is an outcomes based business.

Rings are essential to greatness, like it or not.

Statistical metrics are just abstractions of outcomes.

Its all outcomes based.
Failing to appreciate that the more thoughtful way to evaluate a franchise is through its decisions rather than outcomes is the difference between being thoughtful about sports and being Stephen A. Smith.

A front office can't win rings themselves. All they can do is try to create the best conditions for so doing. After that, it's in the hands of the people on the floor.

Interestingly, you cited the White Sox earlier as being the thing you would want the Bulls to become. The White Sox are about the worst possible example of team-building you could cite in town, frankly. They are a team that constantly mortgages the future in short-sighted attempts to contend immediately. While I loved the 2005 season, it's not like that roster was packed with Hall of Famers. Instead, baseball has much more randomness of outcome than basketball, so the White Sox were able to get hot and sneak one. Does the outcome of the 2005 season make you think that Kenny Williams was a great GM? I know the Cubs haven't won a World Series yet (outcomes!) and they have a miserable record if you combined all the years since Theo arrived, but I'd much, much rather have Theo than a guy like Kenny.
[/quote]


12 seasons. 0 championships. 0 trips to the Finals. 1 ECF loss. Bad outcomes. If winning championships is your thing.

Quote:
I think the Bulls get worse this season swapping Gibson for Ariza. Gasol and Noah play terribly together and I don't like the softness of Mirotic and Gasol at the 4-5. Portis isn't ready for prime time yet and its still unclear exactly what kind of player he is.
We know Noah was bad with Gasol last year when Noah was playing on one leg. They were looking pretty decent together before Noah dislocated his shoulder.

I also agree Mitotic-Gasol at 4-5 is a recipe for defensive disaster.

I'd be fine with Mitotic on the block generally, but I'd want more than Ariza for him.

Quote:
I like the Gibson-Gasol pairing and we need a lower usage guy to do the dirty work, which Gibson has been doing well in his current role.

Niko or Portis would make the most sense, I agree.
Yeah, that pairing has worked pretty well, and with Gasol, Butler, and Rose, it is pretty important to have guys that aren't demanding the ball.

I agree Niko and Portis make the most sense to trade for purposes of this season. Obviously with two bigs as free agents next year, I get that the team could be gun-shy to move them. But I'd be open to moving one for the right piece coming back. Again, though, we need to be talking about more than just Ariza, most likely.
jnrjr79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2016, 09:37 PM   #150 (permalink)
Moderator
Photobucket
 
jnrjr79's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Location Location
Posts: 8,415
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 292 Post(s)
Re: This team is better off rebuilding/Re-shuffling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by K4E View Post
When you are talking about rebuilding and perhaps going the route of accumulating lotto picks, some folks kneejerk and say "Sixers!"

The best team in the league was built by missing the playoffs several years in a row and hitting on key lotto picks.

The Warriors missed the playoffs 2007-2008 through 2011-2012. With those lotto picks they landed league MVP Curry, Thompson and Barnes.

And now the Golden State fans are enjoying the fruits of the harvest.

The Cavs also got bad to be good. They turned bad seasons into Lebron James, Kyrie Irving and Wiggins, who became Love.

The fruits of the harvest.

Even the sainted Spurs got bad to be good. Its quite amazing but they have had only two losing seasons since 1988-1989!! They turned those two lotto picks into David Robinson and Tim Duncan. The two younger studs on the Spurs currently are Kawhi who was acquired via cagey trade (not our current FOs strong suit) and Aldridge, who was a big time free agent pickup (not our current FOs strong suit). Spurs model?

Still though, the lotto route doesn't always end up in being the Sixers. Sometimes you end up like the best team in the Western Conference, the Warriors and the best team in the East, the Cavs.
To be fair, the Cavs and Spurs both unintentionally got bad to be good. Let's not act like i was some masterstroke of team-building. When LBJ left Cleveland, Dan Gilbert was running ads in the paper saying the Cavs would win a chip before he would. He was very much trying to win.

The Spurs got bad because The Admiral got hurt for one season. It was a happy accident. Team building has an element of dumb luck to a discomforting extent, unfortunately.

Golden State - I honestly can't remember whether they got bad willingly or unwillingly, for whatever reason.
jnrjr79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:01 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 2002 2013 BasketballBoards.net.