Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

1 - 20 of 57 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,415 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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--kevin-love-losing-patience-with-timberwolves--losing.html

In an interview with Yahoo! Sports, Love urged Minnesota's management to acquire the necessary talent to make the franchise a contender. If the Timberwolves don't start winning this season, Love isn't sure how long he'll want to be a part of Minnesota's future.
"My patience is not high," Love said. "Would yours be, especially when I'm a big proponent of greatness surrounding itself with greatness? All these [Team USA] guys seem to have great players around them.
"It's tough seeing all these guys that are young and older who have all played in the playoffs. When they start talking about that, I have nothing to talk about. If I don’t make the playoffs next year I don’t know what will happen."

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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,290 Posts
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--kevin-love-losing-patience-with-timberwolves--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.
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,415 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
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.

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!
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
68,864 Posts
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!
It is not necessary for their to be any discussion here, clearly. He already knows it all!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,415 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
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.

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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,290 Posts
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.
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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,290 Posts
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.
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,493 Posts
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.
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,415 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
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.

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?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,415 Posts
Discussion Starter #10 (Edited)
And by the way, you've fixated on a lot of terrible crap. See "The Chicago Bulls for the last 9 years."
These sentences don't mean anything.

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.

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.

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

He was ALWAYS going to play it safe and get Hinrich.
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.

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

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.
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.

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.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,289 Posts
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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,290 Posts
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?
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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,290 Posts
These sentences don't mean anything.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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?

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.
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.

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.
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,415 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
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.

Huh?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,415 Posts
Discussion Starter #15 (Edited)
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.
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.


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.
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.
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.
Fair enough.

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?
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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


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.
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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,290 Posts
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.
Okay, I think we've put some of the bickering behind us and we're ready to talk hoops. So here goes.

I personally feel there are two separate issues at play with Cousins. He's kind of crazy. Kind of a light version of Artest or Rodman mentally, but being crazy can be controlled and is far less problematic than an utter lack of motivation.

The second dynamic is just going to be true of centers now. It's true of Dwight, it's been true of Bynum early on and it's definitely true of Cousins. These guys aren't brought up in a system that even pretends to teach post footwork to the kind of talents who can actually use it. Cousins showed up with the back to the basket fundamentals that Kareem probably had when he was 17. And I'm not really using immense hyperbole when I say that.

Even when true centers who have the size and explosiveness do add a post game, it's like Bynum, where you literally have Kareem spoon-feeding a guy who is much harder to teach at 22 or 23.

It's the whole pimpy AAU dynamic where no one in high school is interested in teaching these kids anything because their AAU coach is probably a lot like Myron Piggy, and then they end up with a guy like Calipari who is interested in them learning what they need to be successful for one year at Kentucky, but not in teaching them some long range skills like a post repertoire.

Cousins is already putting up good numbers, so it's not like we're talking about Eddy Curry here. It's actually funny that it's exactly the opposite. At Cousins age, all Curry was good for WAS his FG%. He just needs to improve the FG%. He did average 18.1 PPG and 11.0 RPG as a 21 year old.

So the Bulls, if they traded for him, would have to be ready to make the commitment LA made to Bynum from the standpoint of a developmental staff.

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.
We're grading on two different systems. In terms of regular season number-grabbing on a terrible team and in terms of a guy you can already bet will be able to wreck shop in the first couple rounds of the playoffs, yes, you can call Love a #2. Has he shown that he can cause the athletic mismatches that a Dwyane Wade, Russell Westbrook, Scottie Pippen or Pau Gasol could? No. I don't see him giving Chris Bosh a hard time. When, right or wrong, you look at Tyson Chandler. And even as a rather above average center, he was a nightmare physically for the Heat to deal with.

On Cousins upside, he can be the kind of #2 Wade or Westbrook is from an impact standpoint. Really, all he'd need to do is be the guy he is now, get incrementally better each year, and add two big things. A baby hook game and the ability to pass to wide open shooters if he's doubled. You CAN teach him that. You can't make Kevin Love add a ton of explosiveness and grow 3 inches.

Love has proven to be a deep playoff #2 the way that Mark Price proved it. As in, not really yet.

I agree he is a boom or bust prospect. To me, this feels a lot like Tyrus vs. Lamarcus again.
Not really. This whole thing is so positional. A boom or bust prospect better be a center or an swingman with ridiculous athleticism.

Say Tyrus had panned out. Do you know how ridiculous you have to be to have a top 2 impact on a title team as a SF? Go through the list of first or second best players on title teams since 1980 and here are the guys who were SFs.

Bird - 81, 84, 86
Erving - 83
Worthy - 87, 88
Pippen - 91-93, 96-98
Pierce - 08
James - 12

Consider the only guys on that list to be #1s were James and Bird. That's four years out of 32? Ouch.

Then consider the gap between Pippen and Pierce.

A small forward, with the exception of Bird, who could load up 30 footers all night with lightning quick release, really has to be a ridiculous athlete AND have a do-it-all game fundamentally, including scoring. Tyrus on his very best day was probably a poor man's Rodman pre-PF days.

It's why I question the rush to turn Gibson into the next guy we need to pay more than marginal money. He's a 3/4 tweener who can't dribble or shoot.

You talk centers and you ask, how many different little things could Alonzo Mourning execute? Shaq could back down and dunk or pass out of a double or triple team. Bynum to me barely has any multi-faceted basketball skill at all. Guys like Perkins effect title runs at Cousins size, and you can honestly say "okay, if Kendrick Perkins were 6'9" 235, he wouldn't be in the NBA at all.

Cousins doesn't need to boom nearly as much as a guy like Tyrus.

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?
He was not, but his point was kind of true. You either do/provide results/make sales or you don't.

My "buy low" thing was not meant for the summer period. If we're going to sign a free agent or if we had Boston's massive treasure chest of assets that they had in 07, fine. That's not what I'm talking about though. I'm saying once you get past the draft and since there are no free agents, this is something you can do now. You can trade for a Demar Derozan and if he completely busts, you can move on next summer or after two years.

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.
I'd just like to see us adopt a mentality that we have to identify guys who can help us in a role - say, second star - and if a guy doesn't truly do that enough for us to beat a good champion, we have to hold our money over or do something to stay flexible. You crap out on Lebron? Okay. Trade Deng for a younger potential guy you can cut ties with and DONT sign Boozer. Now you can try again in the summer of 2011 or you can just be under the cap or flexible enough, because you never know who might come open.

I'm saying this. If we get cap space again and a guy isn't the guy or doesn't give serious indications that he is such, let's not get into any deals we can't get out of.

On this front, I'm curious if you agree with one thing. It seems like long term, big deals to guys like Deng and Boozer are dying. You just don't see a lot of teams this summer busting out big cheddar for guys who aren't difference makers. You don't see guys getting offered 6 years, 72 mill to be #3 guys. So maybe the market changes FOR US before the next time we have cap space? No?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,415 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Your assessment of Cousins is interesting. Of the two guys you've mentioned, I agree he's the one that has the true potential to pan out as a championship #2 option. The physical tools are not questionable. The only thing that worries me is he seems like, well, a dumbass. He clashed with Westphal this year and asked twice to be traded. Coangelo called him out for his maturity issues on Team USA. Rather than take that constructively (and maybe it was a dumb move by Coangelo), he turned it into this media hoopla. I see no signs yet that he's started to get his act together. He could easily be another Michael Beasley. All the talent in the world can't make you a championship-level talent if you can't get things reasonably straightened out between your ears.

Guys like Artest or Rodman you can get away with. Bigger star personalities on the team and coaches can keep them in line if you have a tightly run ship. But if you're brought in to be one of the leaders? I have my concerns. But sure, I acknowledge that a move for him would be very high risk/high reward. The payoff could certainly be huge. Obviously, your tolerance for risk seems higher than mine, and maybe you'll be right that it's a risk worth taking in this instance. I'd be open to it under the right circumstances, potentially, but I'm not hugely optimistic.

I agree with the notion that you need guys to fill roles, and you can't just pay every player you have their market rate simply because it's fair. The Bulls for a long time were in asset accumulation mode. Basically, prior to getting Rose, this made sense. Now, since getting Rose, they've been in something resembling both contention and asset accumulation mode. Like some others here, I think the Bulls roster had an outside chance at a title this year, but that a consolidation trade for a true 2nd star is the most desirable move. Other than Howard, however, there have not been a lot of ideas as to who that guy could be. As to Howard, it appears this has always been a non-starter as Howard seems to have very particular ideas on where he'll go, and winning NBA championships is clearly not his primary consideration.

It makes sense that the market is slowing a big. The CBA has changed the dynamic. I think you'll still see stupid deals, but fewer. Mid and small market teams will always likely be desperate to retain their own guys and will overpay. They just won't be able to overpay for as much and as long. For the Bulls, there is often criticism they fall in love with their own guys too much (and, bizarrely, the exact opposite criticism that they are cheap and let their own guys walk). I think that criticism has been a bit overblown. Deng's deal is a bit high for my taste. Noah and Rose are paid fine. The Boozer deal doesn't drive me up the wall because he will ultimately be amnestied, you must figure, and we wouldn't have any cap room anyway if we lost him now. In any event, the Deng and Boozer deals will come to an end.

I share an apprehension about giving big money to a guy like Taj (or Omer) just because they can go get big money elsewhere. Long story short, a winning basketball team isn't likely to have 5 guys making 10-ish million per year. But, there are advantages to resigning your own talent. If a consolidation trade is what you want, you need pieces that can be moved. This is going to be some combination of quality players, overpaid guys approaching the end of their contracts, and draft picks. If you are too hesitant to re-sign your own guys, you may lack the chips necessary to pull off the move you want to make. The downside is all these signings can take you out of the free agent market if you don't stagger them. Obviously, the Bulls seem like they aren't intending to enter the FA market in a meaningful way until 2014, given the way the current contracts look to be structured.

Rhyder made an astute point against tanking the other day, that applies at least in the scenario of a consolidation trade. You want the player you intend to trade for to extend with you. The only way you can help assure that is by demonstrating to that player that you will be a contender even after you give up the pieces necessary to acquire him. You can't do that with a gutted roster. Moreover, one would think you look more appealing as a destination if you're on the cusp of winning championships already than being a lottery team. I think this tips the scales away from al all-out tank mode to me. The other thing is I really don't think the Bulls can field a roster bad enough to tank in a significant fashion, so in my mind, it's not really worth bothering. If we're talking the 21st pick vs. the 14th pick, I'm not terribly interested.

Now to shift gears entirely on where I think our approaches differ in terms of long-term planning. I do not believe a player's position matters as much as you seem to. It does not always hold true, but most of the time, the teams with the greatest talents win. With Miami, they didn't win their first season largely because they needed time to cohere as a team, because Dallas did some really smart things defensively, and because Dirk played out of his friggin' mind. And Dallas was talented in their own right. But I tend to believe that it doesn't really matter what position a team's stars play. The Thunder will probably win championships with Westbrook and Durant as their best players. The Spurs did it with Duncan & Robinson and Duncan & Ginobli & Parker. You need contributions from role players for sure, but playing along with star players sure does bring out the best in otherwise unremarkable NBA talents. Miami just won with jack in terms of post-up players. The Jordan Bulls did the same. The Spurs did it with one of the best inside talents of all time. Kobe's Lakers did it with good post talent. Dallas did it without a big post presence (Chandler a virtual non-factor offensively and Dirk being a stretch 4). I don't think there's a universal rule in what your balance has to be. I just think, all things being equal, you need a bunch of damn talented guys on your roster, and that talent will outweigh position.

Like you, though, I think we share a notion that not all talent is created equal. I doubt Carmelo ever wins a championship. I don't think his style of basketball is particularly conducive to winning. I've been lambasted for taking that position, but I haven't been proven wrong just yet. So when I refer to "talent," I suppose there needs to be an implied style of play component to that analysis rather than simply raw talent.

Anyway, Rose is damn good and the Bulls have a bunch of above average guys on their roster. Rose is better than anyone on the 2004 Pistons. The roster as presently constructed might be able to steal a championship, but I doubt could win a whole bunch of rings. So, consolidation is ultimately where I would like to go. Rose plus one other star plus Noah to me could win you quite a few rings one day. The question to me is who that #2 option is. I know you're not a fan as described above, but in this thread I wanted to consider whether Love could fill that role. If not, and if the Bulls seem like they're planning for a retool in 2014, I'm interested for us to consider what other candidates might be out there to fill that role.
 

·
X-Mas Taker
Joined
·
8,947 Posts
to be honest Love as he is now isn't good enough to be a core member of a top team.

he's a big man who plays no defense , but isn't an overwhelming force on offense who you would have to gameplan against to defeat(like dirk for instance)

he is a finisher on their team not a creator of any kind which is fine but a top 2 player on a team that contends and plays no defense he needs to be a lot more efficient in his scoring.

when push comes to shove Love is going to have to beat teams with his outside shot which is usually a bad idea for anyone . but if you cant get your shot at will like a dirk or a kobe its a worse idea .

at best he is a 3rd guy.

but more likely he is a classic "good enough to get you beat" kind of guy until he improves more as a creator or commits to scoring more efficiently and plays better defense which he may be very capable of doing but isn't achieving currently.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,493 Posts
Love's just fine if you also have a big center in the middle who can bang bodies and protect the rim, it's why the Love-Pekovic(who runs about 6'10" 280) pairing was very successful last year. I don't know if Noah can be that guy, meaning you'd probably have to overhaul the front court. As far as the Kobe comparisons go, his shooting percentages weren't any better when he was missing the playoffs/getting bounced in the first round in the years between Shaq leaving and Gasol arriving than when he was competing, so Love having to do too much on a bad team shouldn't really be surprising to anyone.
 

·
X-Mas Taker
Joined
·
8,947 Posts
Love's just fine if you also have a big center in the middle who can bang bodies and protect the rim, it's why the Love-Pekovic(who runs about 6'10" 280) pairing was very successful last year. I don't know if Noah can be that guy, meaning you'd probably have to overhaul the front court. As far as the Kobe comparisons go, his shooting percentages weren't any better when he was missing the playoffs/getting bounced in the first round in the years between Shaq leaving and Gasol arriving than when he was competing, so Love having to do too much on a bad team shouldn't really be surprising to anyone.
pekovic is no where near enough to make up for love's relative indifference to guarding the rim.

the t-wolves finished 25th in defensive efficiency , no champ in the last 10 years(and only twice in the last 30) has finished worst than 10th , mostly the champ finished in the top 4.

the wolves would need DPOY at center to make up for him.

and even then he's still not efficient enough because he doesn't create for others...he's just not a championship core piece unless he gets better at the stuff that wins titles.
 
1 - 20 of 57 Posts
Top