ZoomSlowik

I just want to see a better SG at some point. They're going to have a very tough time if we keep seeing their wing players brick open 3's like they did in the 2010-2011 Heat series, especially since Miami got better.

QUOTE (RZZZA @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 03:30 PM) I think this team was good enough to win a title had they had good health to their core players. This team is like a well-oiled machine. Take cogs out of that machine, and the machine weakens. This team is completely reliant on great PG production and excellent front court rebounding and defense. We've had injuries to main pieces both years this group was together, that prevented us from playing our best in the post season. Due to health issues and financial matters, this teams window is drawing to a close. The only question now is to proceed with caution or blow it up in a hurry. I think the Bulls know they need to put a younger, more athletic core around Rose now to help him. But going all in on a Dwight Howard rental is not the course they've chosen to pursue. I agree with them on that. There will be many more opportunities in the future to improve this team, so let's not fret about it too much. So basically you think they need to make changes like everyone else in the thread that you've been arguing with.

QUOTE (RZZZA @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 03:14 PM) Being the best team and having the most stars are two different things. The clippers and knicks arguably have more star power than we do. Yet they're not a better team. I didn't say more stars, I said more talent. Amare Stoudemire might be a "star" by some definitions, but he's not as good as Westbrook, Wade or probably either of LA's big men (or arguably Bosh, who is also less injury prone). The Clippers and Knicks also have zero solidly above average players combined outside of some flashes from Lin, and most of them are below. That's not the case with the Heat, Thunder or Lakers (well, only because Nash is there in that case).

QUOTE (RZZZA @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 03:12 PM) They can still do it though. You keep going back to the Cavs as if them not having won a title justifies your logic that they never would have. Seems like a post hoc fallacy to me. Again, the Bulls management knows that they need to put a legit 2nd star next to Rose before he's tool old. They know it, I'm sure they know every point that's been made in this entire thread. Nobody can tell me they think they know more about basketball than coach Thibs. And nobody can tell me that they know more about GMing them our GM. I wasn't the one arguing that the #1 seed actually means something. All I'm saying that we have 4 very recent examples of a #1 seed not even making it out of their conference. Sure, Cleveland MAY have eventually pulled one out, but it likely would have required some kind of miraculous trade or draft pick that reduced their reliance on Lebron. I'm confused now, are you arguing for them to keep the band together or not? On the one hand you keep saying that this team is good enough as is, on the other you're saying they know they need to add another star. Which one is it?

QUOTE (RZZZA @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 02:56 PM) Again a person who says #1 seed doesn't matter? It matters a little. If you play consistently well enough, disciplined enough to win #1 seed multiple times in a row, you're a good team. Period. End of story. Bad teams are inconsistent, bad teams are ill-disciplined, bad teams are unstable and disorderly. None of which describes the Bulls. Winning the #1 seed doesn't matter if all you care about is winning the title. But if you ever have to question whether or not the Bulls are good enough to contend, just watch them play. Watch how consistent they are, how hard they try, how disciplined and fluid they are when everything is clicking. Make no mistake about it, this is a good team when healthy. We're not debating good or bad, we're debating good or great. "Good teams" don't win titles very often. The #1 seed doesn't remotely matter in that discussion, winning in the playoffs does. The Bulls had 4 more wins than the Heat each of the last two years, but no sane follower of the NBA would argue that the Bulls were more talented or better than them. Again, the Cavs were the #1 seed several times, that doesn't mean their roster was perfect and set up well to win the title. Lebron basically had to dominate every single game for them to win against other good teams, and that frequently wasn't enough either. Being scrappy and trying hard doesn't win you the title, being the best team does. There's a reason the Bulls were better than Indiana last year and would have beaten Philly with a healthy Rose and Noah. It's not that those teams didn't defend well or try, it's that the Bulls had Derrick Rose and they didn't. When it came down to it, those teams didn't have a guy that could get them shots while the Bulls did. The teams they have to beat to win a title all have that guy, most of them several of that guy. They're simply not as talented as Miami, OKC or the Lakers, which is going to make it hard for them to win a title.

QUOTE (RZZZA @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 02:40 PM) And the FO is well aware of what they have to do. They just aren't in any rush to do it. The fans are free to make panic moves, the FO of a professionaol basketball franchise has to tread more carefully. While you and others may think that a #1 seed doesn't mean anything, it is actually a tangible positive affirmation that this team was an elite contender. You don't play that well, that consistent, that disciplined for that long without being a legit contender. It really doesn't mean anything. In 10 years, no one is going to remember that the Bulls were the #1 seed these two seasons. The NBA champ is just as likely to be a 2 or 3 seed that coasted a bit in the regular season as it is to be the top seed. The regular season and the playoffs are two very different things. The Bulls have basically proven that they can consistently beat teams that are either at a significant talent deficit or don't play as hard as they do. They have yet to win a playoff series against another team that's a legitimate contender. Everyone plays hard in the post-season and you don't get to steamroll teams that rely on Andrea Bargnani for their offense. They can't just get by with defense and depth against the Heat or Thunder, they actually have to execute and put the ball in the net. It's going to be at least another year before we really know if they can do it or not. The odds don't look good when their second and third scorers are Deng and Boozer, both of which are injury prone and likely on the wrong side of their peak. The only reason they have any chance is Rose. If they had Tony Parker at the point instead, they'd be a 5 seed that might get out of the first round.

QUOTE (RZZZA @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 02:30 PM) Lol, jesus. We're a few years removed from being a .500 team with Vinnie D-umbass as our coach. Now we have an elite team that wins 1st seed every year, with the NBA coach of the year that all our players love, and some fans still aren't satisfied with any of it and want to blow it all up? Why do people not realize that making moves just for the sake of making moves is not guaranteed to make us any better? Getting the #1 seed twice doesn't really do anything for you as we've learned the last two years. Hell, the Cavaliers did that too. "Blow it up" might be a bit much, but 2012-2013 is pretty much a lost year with Rose's injury and it would be prohibitively expensive to keep the entire roster together. They have to start making some decisions on who to keep and who to get rid of. They also have to find some way to upgrade the SG position if they want to have any shot against the other contenders. If you're going to keep playing retread veterans at the position, it puts a ton of pressure on Rose to be super-human since we've seen the frontcourt isn't exactly going to pick up the scoring slack.

This article makes a really good point: not enough has been made about how stupid it was for Dwight to opt in. This superteam would have happened if he hadn't done that, the Nets could have just signed him outright and then used all those trade assets to get Johnson.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 11:02 PM) They'd get blackballed if the pulled that bad boy back. They're not really "pulling it back", today would have been the first day they could submit it.

QUOTE (RZZZA @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 06:26 PM) I'm saying I hope its a 3 way trade: Bulls get Mathews, Portland gets Korver and picks, Wolves get Batum I seriously doubt Portland gives up their two best perimeter players for Kyle Korver and picks. Edit- Looks like a moot point now, Blazer to match

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 06:15 PM) The Bulls can always trade Asik a year from now. I can't imagine anyone would eat that $15 million year without some serious enticement. If I remember right, Houston only gets dinged at the $8 mil a year average due to some quirk in the CBA.

QUOTE (RZZZA @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 06:09 PM) see post #959 That's Batum, not Matthews.

QUOTE (RZZZA @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 06:06 PM) They haven't matched Asik yet so no need to panic. If we can swing a 3 team deal for Wes Mathews....that would be very good. Rumblings are that they are leaning towards matching. What exactly are you moving for Matthews? You can't trade Asik because he signed an offer sheet. Not sure they'd move Matthews anyways.

QUOTE (RZZZA @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 05:13 PM) K.C Johnson ‏@KCJHoop Re Minnesota talks, Bulls have liked Luke Ridnour in past. He'd add $ next season but jibe with 2014 plan since deal expires then. How the hell are you going to do anything in the 2014 off-season if you're paying $45 mil to Rose, Noah and Asik?

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 01:37 PM) Okay, gotcha. And could there be a subsequent deal to add to the TPE, or can that not stack as well? It can't be combined with other salaries under any circumstances.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 01:30 PM) So if we traded extra players in the S and T then Mayo's contract could be as large as those additional players' contracts plus the TPE? No, the exception can't be combined with other salaries. It can only be combined with cash or picks, neither of which have a salary value for trading purposes.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 01:16 PM) Can someone explain to me exactly what is gained by getting the TPE? How does that help us get Mayo? Basically, if they traded Korver and took on no salary, they'd get a trade exception that allows them to add $5.1 mil (Korver's salary plus 100k, can't be combined with other salary figures) via trade. So in theory, they'd be able to have Memphis sign-and-trade Mayo to the Bulls at a salary starting at up to $5.1 mil and use the trade exception and maybe send the Grizz a 2nd rounder to make it work.

QUOTE (RZZZA @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 12:18 PM) There's no SG on the Wolves roster that are good, that we could get. The choice is either 2 unproven rookies (who so far haven't been good), Luke Ridnour or Chase Budinger on a 1 year rental, or perhaps a back up center in case we let Asik walk. They got Brad Miller on a 1 year $5 mill or Darko Milicic on a 2 year $5 million Darko Milicic is horrible They're the Timberwolves. They're all horrible. Most likely they're going to take a body like Ellington and save a little money.

Taking Ridnour's 2 years and $8 mil left on his contract would be epically stupid. That would commit the Bulls to $8 mil in salary to three backup point guards for the next 2 years when they're already giving the starter a max deal. They would have used basically every asset they have this off-season to add to that position while removing players from what was already their shallowest/weakest positions (wing players, especially SG). You'd basically be down to three guys on the wing, 2 of which have proven to be highly injury prone.

QUOTE (RZZZA @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 10:45 AM) uh, I wasn't judging him based on 5 summer league quarters? I was just stating a fact. I can judge him based on his rookie season stats though, especially his shooting statistics, which were below average. You do know rookies frequently get better, right? He's not likely to be a star, but there are far worse players in the league and his contract is extremely reasonable.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 07:50 AM) This is the NBA. If Love told the Wolves trade me to the Bulls, they pretty much have to. Not really since he's under contract. Melo and Howard had leverage because their deal was expiring and they knew they were gone. This would be more like the Kobe scenario, where they can pretty much tell him to shut up and play. At that point his options are either do it or sit out in protest, which isn't terribly likely and would probably allow the T-Wolves to file some kind of grievance to not have to pay him.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 12:34 AM) Your post made it seem like you were referring to the collective as eating "most" of the cap, not just one. My bad. Why can't the Bulls sign three max contracts when Miami can? Two things worked in their favor: 1) All three guys took less than the full max value. You can't count on guy giving up money though. 2) Even if they hadn't, they'd have still just barely been able to fit because they dumped literally every other player on the roster except Mario Chalmers, who was on a late-round rookie contract. You pretty much can't have anyone else on the roster making over a million bucks, the Bulls in this scenario would have Richardson, Kirk and Taj's qualifying offer.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 11:15 PM) Rose-Harden-Richardson-Gibson-Bynum would be a pretty damn nice lineup. There isn't a chance in hell you'd be able to sign both of those guys, nowhere near enough cap space.

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 09:38 PM) I believe Kaplan came up with idea a while ago saying Bulls should trade for Howard and worst case scenario if he doesn't sign extension you have bunch of cap space to work with, then I'd try to do everything I can to bring in Love if he is available. I hear him and Rose are good buddies. Kevin Love isn't a free agent for at least 3 more years, and if you trade for Dwight you wouldn't have any assets to get him in the event the T-Wolves decide to trade him rather than lose him for nothing. There are several problems with this approach: 1) Every Dwight trade scenario has them taking back at least one bad contract. So even with Noah, Deng and Boozer gone, you're probably going to have a fair amount of money tied up in Rose, Gibson, someone like Jason Richardson, and a few draft picks. 2) You would need to add one really good player or two solid ones (one of which needs to be a center) to be any more than a 5 seed. 3) At least for next year, the two best players on the market wouldn't really be options. Dwight would have theoreticallly decided that he doesn't want to be a Bull and they're not going to sign another PG in Chris Paul. That leaves guys like Bynum and Harden as the best options, who are solid but not top-10 players, and they'd both eat most of their cap room to get another solid player. That's basically my problem with this; if they do it and Dwight decides he isn't staying, they have to pull off some kind of miracle to avoid being the Cavs 2.0.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 08:30 AM)