Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
718 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
A team that's above average like say...Boston Celtics or NY?...makes playoffs, maybe win a round or two, but will not be a champion, let alone a dynasty.

-or-

A teams that loses all the time, never makes the playoffs, in hopes to one day have another dynasty? Current Bulls.


To me, it would be glorious to vie for the 8th seed every year, compared to what we have now. Maybe I'd go see a game or two.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
I'd choose the first option. You can only be successful with the second option if you luck it out and get a MJ or TD. How often is that?

Look at the NBA Champs for the last 15 years:

Bulls, in playoff every year when MJ and Scottie played
Lakers: highest pick ever was a 10th pick (E. Jones)
Spurs: fist pick (TD), but they only had one losing season.
Rockets: only one losing season and they landed Yao.

Blazers, Suns, Kings, Mavs, Jazz and Sonics have been competitive all the time without tanking. All of the above team have more franchise players than the annual lottery teams like Cavs, Clipper, Hawks, nuggets, grizzilies..and Bulls.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,802 Posts
I think I prefer a team that shoots for the gold. It's pretty easy to put a team together that simply makes the playoffs every year. It may not seem like it given the Bulls recent struggles. But I think you have to havethe ultimate goal in mind. That being said, you should start to set smaller goals like making the playoffs and if you can't meet those goals then you may be on the wrong track somewhere along the line. That seems to be the situation the Bulls are in.
 

·
I never slice.
Joined
·
2,282 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Justice</b>!
I'd choose the first option. You can only be successful with the second option if you luck it out and get a MJ or TD. How often is that?

Look at the NBA Champs for the last 15 years:

Bulls, in playoff every year when MJ and Scottie played
Lakers: highest pick ever was a 10th pick (E. Jones)
Spurs: fist pick (TD), but they only had one losing season.
Rockets: only one losing season and they landed Yao.

Blazers, Suns, Kings, Mavs, Jazz and Sonics have been competitive all the time without tanking. All of the above team have more franchise players than the annual lottery teams like Cavs, Clipper, Hawks, nuggets, grizzilies..and Bulls.
Facts:

The Lakers wouldn't have won squat without Shaq who was signed as a free agent and has absolutely nothing to do with the draft.

The Spurs won just 28 games the year before they drafted David Robinson #1. They continued to lose while DRob served his Navy tour which enabled them to also grab Sean Elliott at #3 two years later. They then won just 37 games the year DRob was hurt which landed them the #1 pick and Duncan. Lots of luck involved there. But no losing, no DRob, no Duncan.

The Bulls won just 27 games the year before they drafted Jordan #3. No losing, no MJ.

The Rockets won just 31 games the year before they drafted Steve Francis, and won just 28 games the year before they drafted Yao. No losing, no Franchise, no Yao.

The Mavs spent nearly the entire decade of the 90's in the lottery, which enabled them to draft players such as Jason Kidd, Jamal Mashburn, Tractor Traylor, Jim Jackson, etc. Although these players don't currently play for the Mavs, they were the value they were able to trade for most of their current roster.

The Kings likewise spend much of the early 90's in the lottery, enabling them the draft the likes of Kenny Smith, Pervis Ellison, Lionel Simmons, Billy Owens, Walt Williams, Brian Grant, Corliss Williamson, Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, Jason Williams, etc. Like the Mavs, none of these guys were part of any Kings winners, but they were the assets used to acquire many of the players they have now.

The Sonics over the past 5 seasons have averaged less than 40 wins per season. They are not what I would call competitive.

The plain fact is there are only two ways to acquire talent without giving up talent in return: free agency and the draft. Free agency is somewhat of a crap shoot. That leaves the draft as the primary means of acquiring talent. Like the Spurs, Mavs, and Kings, the Bulls have done that. Unfortunately they've already traded much of it away. But there is still a great deal of young talent left. The immediate future of the franchise depends on two things: 1) Paxson's ability to identify which of his young players are keepers, and 2) his ability to trade those who he identifies as losers for better players.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
718 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!

Facts:

The Lakers wouldn't have won squat without Shaq who was signed as a free agent and has absolutely nothing to do with the draft.

The Spurs won just 28 games the year before they drafted David Robinson #1. They continued to lose while DRob served his Navy tour which enabled them to also grab Sean Elliott at #3 two years later. They then won just 37 games the year DRob was hurt which landed them the #1 pick and Duncan. Lots of luck involved there. But no losing, no DRob, no Duncan.

The Bulls won just 27 games the year before they drafted Jordan #3. No losing, no MJ.

The Rockets won just 31 games the year before they drafted Steve Francis, and won just 28 games the year before they drafted Yao. No losing, no Franchise, no Yao.

The Mavs spent nearly the entire decade of the 90's in the lottery, which enabled them to draft players such as Jason Kidd, Jamal Mashburn, Tractor Traylor, Jim Jackson, etc. Although these players don't currently play for the Mavs, they were the value they were able to trade for most of their current roster.

The Kings likewise spend much of the early 90's in the lottery, enabling them the draft the likes of Kenny Smith, Pervis Ellison, Lionel Simmons, Billy Owens, Walt Williams, Brian Grant, Corliss Williamson, Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, Jason Williams, etc. Like the Mavs, none of these guys were part of any Kings winners, but they were the assets used to acquire many of the players they have now.

The Sonics over the past 5 seasons have averaged less than 40 wins per season. They are not what I would call competitive.

The plain fact is there are only two ways to acquire talent without giving up talent in return: free agency and the draft. Free agency is somewhat of a crap shoot. That leaves the draft as the primary means of acquiring talent. Like the Spurs, Mavs, and Kings, the Bulls have done that. Unfortunately they've already traded much of it away. But there is still a great deal of young talent left. The immediate future of the franchise depends on two things: 1) Paxson's ability to identify which of his young players are keepers, and 2) his ability to trade those who he identifies as losers for better players.
You don't actually believe that FA is more of a crap shoot than the draft?

At least with FA you know what you are getting.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,802 Posts
Originally posted by <b>lorgg</b>!


You don't actually believe that FA is more of a crap shoot than the draft?

At least with FA you know what you are getting.

Assuming you can GET the free agent you want.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Kneepad, yes, Rockets only won 31 games before they traded for (not drafted) francis, but it was a shorten season and Rockets were in playoff.

I guess my point is that you do not have to tank the seasons in order to get the best players. The odds are not that great. We should try to be as competitive as possible so that we can try to attact top coaches and players through FA. I mean, we had so much cap spaces and high lottery draft picks for the last five years and we are as bad as we have ever been. If Curry/Chanlder doesn't turn out to next Shaq/KG, we might not even be in playoff in the next five years, let alone win NBA champs.
 

·
I never slice.
Joined
·
2,282 Posts
Originally posted by <b>lorgg</b>!
You don't actually believe that FA is more of a crap shoot than the draft?

At least with FA you know what you are getting.
What I meant is that there is no guarantee that you will be able to get the free agents you want. The Bulls are testament to that. When Shaq became a free agent, every team in the league wanted him. Only the Lakers got him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Originally posted by <b>lorgg</b>!
A team that's above average like say...Boston Celtics or NY?...makes playoffs, maybe win a round or two, but will not be a champion, let alone a dynasty.

-or-

A teams that loses all the time, never makes the playoffs, in hopes to one day have another dynasty? Current Bulls.


To me, it would be glorious to vie for the 8th seed every year, compared to what we have now. Maybe I'd go see a game or two.
i wouldnt hold onto the 2nd option for 6 years minimum, thats IT!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!

Facts:

The Lakers wouldn't have won squat without Shaq who was signed as a free agent and has absolutely nothing to do with the draft.

The Spurs won just 28 games the year before they drafted David Robinson #1. They continued to lose while DRob served his Navy tour which enabled them to also grab Sean Elliott at #3 two years later. They then won just 37 games the year DRob was hurt which landed them the #1 pick and Duncan. Lots of luck involved there. But no losing, no DRob, no Duncan.

The Bulls won just 27 games the year before they drafted Jordan #3. No losing, no MJ.

The Rockets won just 31 games the year before they drafted Steve Francis, and won just 28 games the year before they drafted Yao. No losing, no Franchise, no Yao.

The Mavs spent nearly the entire decade of the 90's in the lottery, which enabled them to draft players such as Jason Kidd, Jamal Mashburn, Tractor Traylor, Jim Jackson, etc. Although these players don't currently play for the Mavs, they were the value they were able to trade for most of their current roster.

The Kings likewise spend much of the early 90's in the lottery, enabling them the draft the likes of Kenny Smith, Pervis Ellison, Lionel Simmons, Billy Owens, Walt Williams, Brian Grant, Corliss Williamson, Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, Jason Williams, etc. Like the Mavs, none of these guys were part of any Kings winners, but they were the assets used to acquire many of the players they have now.

The Sonics over the past 5 seasons have averaged less than 40 wins per season. They are not what I would call competitive.

The plain fact is there are only two ways to acquire talent without giving up talent in return: free agency and the draft. Free agency is somewhat of a crap shoot. That leaves the draft as the primary means of acquiring talent. Like the Spurs, Mavs, and Kings, the Bulls have done that. Unfortunately they've already traded much of it away. But there is still a great deal of young talent left. The immediate future of the franchise depends on two things: 1) Paxson's ability to identify which of his young players are keepers, and 2) his ability to trade those who he identifies as losers for better players.

its still not a guarantee you'l get a super stud franchise player by playing the waiting game
 

·
I never slice.
Joined
·
2,282 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Justice</b>!
Kneepad, yes, Rockets only won 31 games before they traded for (not drafted) francis, but it was a shorten season and Rockets were in playoff.
Yes, my bad on that... I was just quickly looking at the W column and forgot to consider the strike year.

I guess my point is that you do not have to tank the seasons in order to get the best players. The odds are not that great. We should try to be as competitive as possible so that we can try to attact top coaches and players through FA. I mean, we had so much cap spaces and high lottery draft picks for the last five years and we are as bad as we have ever been. If Curry/Chanlder doesn't turn out to next Shaq/KG, we might not even be in playoff in the next five years, let alone win NBA champs.
I guess I am one of the few who don't feel the Bulls purposefully tanked seasons just to get high draft picks. What they did was refuse to sign marginal players to long-term, overinflated contracts just to quickly get back to respectability like so many other teams (cough, Knicks, cough) did. That resulted in several seasons with really bad rosters while Krause rebuilt the talent base of the team through the draft.

As for becoming "as competitive as possible so that we can try to attact top coaches and players through FA," ... please tell me, other than the Lakers (who got Shaq largely because of the fact they are located in L.A.), what team has won an NBA championship-- or even come close to winning one-- with this approach?

I agree with becoming as competitive as possible, but I believe the best way to become competitive is to identify young players, draft them, and develop them. This is the way the 90's Bulls were built, in case anyone forgot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,149 Posts
Problem is, we've consistently mis-evaluated talent, missed opportunities, and failed to provide the supporting cast necessary when we did have good players.

We didn't put enough around Brand, Miller, and Artest

We had every bit as much ammo, in the form of a guy like Kukoc and future picks, to offer for Steve Francis as the Rockets. We just didn't.

We were offered Eddie Jones plus a starting calibre center for Kukoc

We were offered Jermaine O'Neal for Fizer and Crawford but didn't want to give both of them up

We were offered Baron Davis (who currently is playing like one of the league's top 5 players) for JWill

It's not a matter of luck, it's a matter of making the right decisions. In most cases, it's VERY hard to consistently make the right decisions, of course.

And when you look at the NBA, it becomes evident that the Bulls are a team that consistently makes the wrong decisions. the great irony is that going to the lotto several years in a row should theoretically make the decisions easier. And for some teams it does. Some teams fall down, get a couple good players, and then go back up. Other teams fall down, squander their opportunities repeatedly, and then blame the results on bad luck.

It's not bad luck, it's bad decisions. We've had numerous opportunities at some of the top players in the NBA. But every time we should have zigged to get them, we zagged for the other alternative and it's bitten us in the ***.

More importantly, the mixed signals, recriminations, and unmet (and misguided) expectations eminanting from the Bulls organization give me no confidence that they've done much to correct and correct these issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,543 Posts
Originally posted by <b>lorgg</b>!
A team that's above average like say...Boston Celtics or NY?...makes playoffs, maybe win a round or two, but will not be a champion, let alone a dynasty.

-or-

A teams that loses all the time, never makes the playoffs, in hopes to one day have another dynasty? Current Bulls.


To me, it would be glorious to vie for the 8th seed every year, compared to what we have now. Maybe I'd go see a game or two.
OK, I want the championships and am willing to take some risks to get there.

However, it doesn't have to be an either or thing. I believe in "crawl-walk-run." Unfortunately, the Bulls have been crawling for too long and it's making me a little crazy. Still, I'm going to remain on the side of patience through next season.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,925 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
Problem is, we've consistently mis-evaluated talent, missed opportunities, and failed to provide the supporting cast necessary when we did have good players.

We didn't put enough around Brand, Miller, and Artest

We had every bit as much ammo, in the form of a guy like Kukoc and future picks, to offer for Steve Francis as the Rockets. We just didn't.

We were offered Eddie Jones plus a starting calibre center for Kukoc

We were offered Jermaine O'Neal for Fizer and Crawford but didn't want to give both of them up

We were offered Baron Davis (who currently is playing like one of the league's top 5 players) for JWill

It's not a matter of luck, it's a matter of making the right decisions. In most cases, it's VERY hard to consistently make the right decisions, of course.

And when you look at the NBA, it becomes evident that the Bulls are a team that consistently makes the wrong decisions. the great irony is that going to the lotto several years in a row should theoretically make the decisions easier. And for some teams it does. Some teams fall down, get a couple good players, and then go back up. Other teams fall down, squander their opportunities repeatedly, and then blame the results on bad luck.

It's not bad luck, it's bad decisions. We've had numerous opportunities at some of the top players in the NBA. But every time we should have zigged to get them, we zagged for the other alternative and it's bitten us in the ***.

More importantly, the mixed signals, recriminations, and unmet (and misguided) expectations eminanting from the Bulls organization give me no confidence that they've done much to correct and correct these issues.
Man, great post. It comes down to misevaluating talent which is something I've noticed over the years in the draft.

We've had probably the most 2nd round picks of anyone in the league over the past 5 years, and not one of them has been a decent player, for us atleast. I mean, one year we had four 2nd round picks, and not one became a decent player. I believe they were El-Amin, Guyton, Voshkuhl and actually Bagaric was selected 24th. Voshkuhl turned into a decent player, but hes 26 in his prime and doesnt deserve to start on any decent team...but the rest of those guys are no where to be seen in the NBA.

Thats just terribly misjudging talent. Especially when guys like Michael Redd and Eduardo Najera were still available.

They traded Brand for what they thought would be the next KG, but obviously totally misjudged the offensive game.

They traded Artest and Miller for Rose and Mercer, because Chicago is too damn impatient and cant sit through the bad to get to the good.

I like the Rose trade to the Raptors, but they shouldnt have included Marshall so easily without demanding another quality player in return. If that trade hadnt gone down though, Chandler would still be playing and would have probably severly hurt his back by now.

Either way, terrible decision making.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top