Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,750 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
The dilemma the Bulls have is trying to develop 3 projects (Chandler, Curry and Crawford) based on the situation they are currently in, which is being on a team where they are being asked to carry the load when they are just not ready to do so, and where there is a lack of quality veterans.

Attempting to develop all 3 C's, IMO, will make it difficult for all 3 to reach there peak as players in Chicago. This is because it could just be that attemting to develop too many undeveloped players is too difficult. Also, if the Bulls continue to live by the development of these 3 players, it could take a very long time, something that Paxson doesn't seem to want.

Note: I've excluded Hinrich from this not because he isn't important, but because he is far more developed than the 3 C's at the some time in ther careers.

The dilemma is if Paxson were to trade some of these players, their value is low. Crawford's contract is expiring. Chandler has had injury problems. Curry value is uncertain. What is known is that as a team, the Bulls are awful. How good could the players be then? It is similar to when the Bulls acquired Rose. Artest and Miller where good players for the Bulls. In Rose, we got a guy who wasn't an all-star, poor defensive intensity, one-dimensional and better suited as the 2nd option. Artest was an outstanding defender. Miller was a very good center, but the were put into roles in Chicago that they weren't capable of handling. Artest was the No. 1 option on offense before he was traded, something he wasn't capable of. So when they were traded, Artest and Miller went to an Indiana where they were giving roles that they were capable of handling, and they thrived. Artest is a nice 2nd option on offense. Miller is Sacramento is a nice option behind Stojakovic.

This is my concern with the 3 C's. If they are traded and go to a team where they are the only 'developing' player, and given roles they capable of handling, they will thrive, and improve faster, and Chicago won't get 'value' back, just like with the Rose deal. Crawford is not capable of being the 1st option on offense. That's part of the reason he is so inconsistent. Curry should be coming off the bench, to hide is defensive weaknesses. Chandler could start, but is just a role player. Any of these 3 going to a team with quality veterans, and being able to develop in roles they are capable of filling will be most beneficial to them. Keeping only one or two of them in Chicago could be benefical to the development of the ones that remain, if it means the Bulls can get quality veterans who can contribute, and help the young players development.

This is what Paxson has to decide.

1. Who out of the 3 C's he wants to keep?
2. If he wants to keep the 3 C's together, how is he going to get better players around them? Trade our current veterans for guys with longer contracts (eg. Jamison, Eddie Jones) or get cap space by using one or two of the 3 C's as bait to start this way.

Whatever way Paxson goes about it, the fact remains that the Bulls need a better core around the 3 C's and Hinrich, and that will make them a better team, and help the development of the younger players.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
974 Posts
i know there are a lot of proponets of keeping the 3 C's together, but my opinion is that we will end up like the Atlanta Hawks if we do.

Im in favor of trading Crawford. Im inclined to give curry the summer and the first part of next season to show he belongs on this team long-term. I think w/o question if we have a chance to draft okafor we do so. We can decide what we do with curry or chandler later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,925 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Benny the Bull</b>!
This is what Paxson has to decide.

1. Who out of the 3 C's he wants to keep?
2. If he wants to keep the 3 C's together, how is he going to get better players around them? Trade our current veterans for guys with longer contracts (eg. Jamison, Eddie Jones) or get cap space by using one or two of the 3 C's as bait to start this way.
Nice post.

1. I say Chandler and Hinrich - Curry and Crawford seem to be the guys who get picked on most as far as trade scenarios and doing things wrong. Bulls fans give them a rep of being either lazy and out of shape in Currys case, and inconsistent with poor shot selection and no defense in JCs case. The thing that is interesting about these two, is as much as they get picked on by our fans, they still have the highest trade value of anyone on our squad. The choice is easy.

I say we offer those two, for a SG and SF. Both need to be established in the league, but young enough to still have many good years left. So that would mean 23-27 years old. I think we need to pull the trigger on a JC deal, because he WILL leave in the offseason. The treatment hes got here wont help our situation in resigning him, and I'm not so sure Pax would match some of the offers JC could get. I hope Pax pulls the trigger. I like Jamal, but no one else does. So whats the point for him?

Curry we can be a little more patient with, and by that I mean we wait until after the draft to see who we get. If we get Okafor, then dealing him for a natural SG wont be too hard. Especially after Curry beats up on summer league competition some more and raises his stock back up...convincing people hes "in shape"...I think we should deal him for Battier/Swift in the offseason if we get Okafor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,975 Posts
We are the clippers east.

But this year, the Clippers are 5 games under .500, while the Bulls are 19 games under.

Where the two teams have been similar is in the development of lots of draft picks.

Where the two teams differ is the Clips' best player is one they traded for (Brand).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,802 Posts
IMO, we have to keep the core of Hinrich, Chandler, Crawford and Curry together if we can. We need to improve the players surrounding them. The only guys I would really want to hang on to are Dupree & JYD. I guess maybe AD & Gill couold be dealt for something. Add whatever free agents you can get in the offseason, but guys that will ACTUALLY help (Posey as oppossed to Pip).
 

·
The Snake
Joined
·
6,527 Posts
The dilemna is our team stinks. People were saying playoffs with this lineup...

PG - Crawford
SG - Rose
SF - Pippen
PF - Chandler
C - Curry

Now let's see Crawford has been our most consistent scorer, while being considerable inconsistent, we shipped Rose for two role players, Pippen and Chandler haven't seen the floor, and Curry has been on again/off again. Our talent has either been injured or inconsistent. This is why we are 13-32. We need to trade our most consistent scorer so we don't lose him for nothing. We all realize Curry could bring us a good player in a trade, but we've been burned so many times before that we're wary to pull the trigger on any deal fearing we traded 25pts/10 bds for absolutely nothing. WE SHOULD BE GOOD, but Krause/Paxson dealt away Ron Artest, Elton Brand, Brad Miller for Jerome Williams, Tyson Chandler, Antonio Davis. Lemme ask you which frontcourt would you rather have right now and 5 years from now. This is why we suck because of those 2 trades. We're a high school team competing with the big boys.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
58,359 Posts
surround the three c's with the best veterans we can? Good idea, but many of our fan base are too impatient for this. Many are screaming now, "play the kids." So what good would it do to surround them with good vets?

I think we have a decent core of veterans. JYD. Davis. Gill. Blount. Three of our big men would do well on "veteran" clubs, but on our team they are asked to do too much. Gill is another player who would do well on another club. He too too is asked to do too much on this team.

Like it or not, this is a good crew of veterans to support the young players.

Scottie has hurt us. His knees ARE gone. If we had gotten the Scottie of two or three years ago, that could have helped.

Injuries has really hurt this team. It started with Jay and has gone down hill every since.
 

·
X-Mas Taker
Joined
·
8,947 Posts
i say play the kids ,and then play them some more ,if for no reason then to develop them

if they act up or do stupid things sit them for a couple of plays or even half a quarter and then put them back in.

there is no excuse not to be playing them all when healthy 30 minutes a game. there are no vets on the team that skiles just has to play not a single one. AD is old and while still effective he cannot be a game changer at this point in his career JYD cant either gill blount , brunson all fit this discription as well

if the kids suck thru the season then at least everyone can say they were given a chance ,but no young player gets better by sitting and if the goal is to develop them then thats what needs to be done

when the season is over get a good 3 in the draft and in the FA market or by trade, but until then suffer with the million and one small forwards currently on the roster
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,415 Posts
This season, we have asked this team to play through a lot. We have asked them to play through an extensive number of injuries that have constantly changed our available personnel. We have asked them to play through a trade that significantly altered the makeup of this team and changed the roles of many players. We have asked this team to play through a coaching change and to learn a new system.

I don't believe that this has been the best environment for player development. I don't really think it's fair to say, "So and so is a bust," etc. Does Eddy's work ethic trouble me? Yes. Tyson's back? Sure. JC's mental fragility? Of course. However, I don't think shipping these guys off is going to give us some perfect player in return. I think we see what JC's RFA offers look like, and hopefully resign him if they're not off the charts. I think we ride Eddy and Tyson into next year. If we're in a position to get Okafur, than by all means, do so. We can ship off one of the bigs next season if need be.

Considering everything that has happened to this team this year, and being aware of how trading away our talent has turned out in the past, I'd be very hesitant to pull the trigger on a deal involving any of the 3 C's.

However, everyone else is tradable in my opinion (other than Hinrich). If we want to ship off Fizer, Erob, etc. that is ok with me. They might go elsewhere and play better and we may feel burned again, but they're not going to become the centerpieces of any NBA franchises.

I guess all I'd say is "Patience, everyone." Let's play the kids as many minutes as possible down the stretch this season and see if they can't develop some chemistry and respond.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,149 Posts
Id say this entire season has come down to 3 things .

1- Jays injury stopped us from acquring a major talent whether it was him or someone else being traded I think we wouldve came away from the draft with a major contributor to this season.

2- signing a washed up Pip with our MlE. We gambled on a gimp and lost and left us depending on another Gimp( Erob) who we already knew was about as unreliable as they come.Not good management if you aks me .


3- the misjudging of the growth of Eddy Curry .Almost ever single move made has been based on us having a dominating low post presence .Pax was quick to dump Jalen and Donyell because he felt eddy could dominate THIS season .Major miscalculations by most that could have long ranging devastating effecting on the franchise .
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top