Rowand44 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Assuming we sign another wing, the beautiful thing is the depth this squad is going to have. Our 11th and 12th players are going to be guys with some potential who can possibly earn themselves more minutes and if they're not ready to get consistent playing time this year, well it's not too big of a deal because we wont need them much anyways. I really am loving this team. Just get me one more wing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maggsmaggs Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 (edited) QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jul 23, 2010 -> 11:56 AM) Assuming we sign another wing, the beautiful thing is the depth this squad is going to have. Our 11th and 12th players are going to be guys with some potential who can possibly earn themselves more minutes and if they're not ready to get consistent playing time this year, well it's not too big of a deal because we wont need them much anyways. I really am loving this team. Just get me one more wing. I may be the only one, but I am not a fan of going 12 deep on a roster. I think it screws the minutes up for the better players. Here is what I predict for the minute distribution this year: PG: Rose (35 minutes), Watson (13 minutes) SG: Brewer (30 minutes); Korver (10 minutes); FA or Johnson (8 minutes) SF: Deng (33 minutes); Korver (10 minutes); Johnson (5 minutes) PF: Boozer (35 minutes); Gibson (13 minutes) C: Noah (35 minutes); Gibson (10 minutes); Thomas/Asik (3??) I just don't see how the numbers align with all this depth. I would much rather have eight strong player than 12 above-average players. Taj deserves 20+ minutes per game easily, but if he does, Asik/Thomas get nothing. You can't take away from Noah. Gonna be some minute problems. Edited July 23, 2010 by maggsmaggs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Jul 23, 2010 -> 11:10 AM) I may be the only one, but I am not a fan of going 12 deep on a roster. I think it screws the minutes up for the better players. Here is what I predict for the minute distribution this year: PG: Rose (35 minutes), Watson (13 minutes) SG: Brewer (30 minutes); Korver (10 minutes); FA or Johnson (8 minutes) SF: Deng (33 minutes); Korver (10 minutes); Johnson (5 minutes) PF: Boozer (35 minutes); Gibson (13 minutes) C: Noah (35 minutes); Gibson (10 minutes); Thomas/Asik (3??) I just don't see how the numbers align with all this depth. I would much rather have eight strong player than 12 above-average players. Taj deserves 20+ minutes per game easily, but if he does, Asik/Thomas get nothing. You can't take away from Noah. Gonna be some minute problems. No, I completely agree. What I'm saying is that there's a possibility that Johnson and Asik can earn there way into the rotation taking some minutes away from Thomas and well not sure about Johnson but you get my point. And if they don't, well no big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Jul 23, 2010 -> 12:10 PM) I may be the only one, but I am not a fan of going 12 deep on a roster. I think it screws the minutes up for the better players. Here is what I predict for the minute distribution this year: PG: Rose (35 minutes), Watson (13 minutes) SG: Brewer (30 minutes); Korver (10 minutes); FA or Johnson (8 minutes) SF: Deng (33 minutes); Korver (10 minutes); Johnson (5 minutes) PF: Boozer (35 minutes); Gibson (13 minutes) C: Noah (35 minutes); Gibson (10 minutes); Thomas/Asik (3??) I just don't see how the numbers align with all this depth. I would much rather have eight strong player than 12 above-average players. Taj deserves 20+ minutes per game easily, but if he does, Asik/Thomas get nothing. You can't take away from Noah. Gonna be some minute problems. With the injury history's of the guys on this team, you go as deep as you can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Jul 23, 2010 -> 12:10 PM) I may be the only one, but I am not a fan of going 12 deep on a roster. I think it screws the minutes up for the better players. Here is what I predict for the minute distribution this year: PG: Rose (35 minutes), Watson (13 minutes) SG: Brewer (30 minutes); Korver (10 minutes); FA or Johnson (8 minutes) SF: Deng (33 minutes); Korver (10 minutes); Johnson (5 minutes) PF: Boozer (35 minutes); Gibson (13 minutes) C: Noah (35 minutes); Gibson (10 minutes); Thomas/Asik (3??) I just don't see how the numbers align with all this depth. I would much rather have eight strong player than 12 above-average players. Taj deserves 20+ minutes per game easily, but if he does, Asik/Thomas get nothing. You can't take away from Noah. Gonna be some minute problems. I see it like this: I see Boozer and Noah getting just a few less minutes (33ish) to keep them some rest during games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chi Town Sox Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/sports/sports_...itness'-ale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 23, 2010 -> 01:21 PM) With the injury history's of the guys on this team, you go as deep as you can. There you go. Rose...injured for a month last year. Deng...walking wounded. Noah...Plantar Fasciitis. Boozer...injury history too long for me to look up. That's 4/5 of the starting lineup with injury histories. Then throw in a guy like Asik. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Jul 23, 2010 -> 01:10 PM) I just don't see how the numbers align with all this depth. I would much rather have eight strong player than 12 above-average players. One other benefit of being 11-12 deep...a lot of these guys at the back end are either young and on rookie contracts or are veterans and on short term contracts. That means they make solid trade bait if a serious upgrade is put on the market midway through the season or after the end of the lockout. If you wind up being too deep, you can turn that depth into a guy who fills a hole and make yourself even better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderBolt Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 This Bulls team is deep as hell. GarPax nailed this offseason.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoxAce Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Bulls really like Asik. I believe he will get every opportunity to win the backup job over Thomas who is 38. If he winds up not playing well/adjusting to the NBA level, Thomas will easily step in and get his minutes. That is what good depth does. Bulls still need another shooter, but this is a very deep team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 i think this is a good team but nailing this offseason probably would be applied to not losing out on the biggest 3 free agents of the last 10 years and having them all go to a single other team that will beat the s*** out of everyone, including your team, for the foreseeable future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vote4Pedro Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 QUOTE (Thunderbolt @ Jul 23, 2010 -> 04:50 PM) This Bulls team is deep as hell. GarPax nailed this offseason.. +1.....i was upset we missed out on the big 3 but so did everyone else...i really believe they had that all planned out all along.... and this roster that has been configured this offseason is the best possible scenerio....i'd still like to have T-MAC as our 6th man....if that happened i would definately carry a smile on my face Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 QUOTE (beckham15 @ Jul 23, 2010 -> 05:00 PM) +1.....i was upset we missed out on the big 3 but so did everyone else...i really believe they had that all planned out all along.... and this roster that has been configured this offseason is the best possible scenerio....i'd still like to have T-MAC as our 6th man....if that happened i would definately carry a smile on my face I think he'd be more like the 12th man than the 6th man at least going in to training camp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chw42 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 They did the best they could, I would say. I'm perfectly fine with all the signings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dasox24 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jul 23, 2010 -> 09:35 AM) Jud Buechler: "Lebron is right to play with superstars" Classic... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 23, 2010 -> 03:59 PM) i think this is a good team but nailing this offseason probably would be applied to not losing out on the biggest 3 free agents of the last 10 years and having them all go to a single other team that will beat the s*** out of everyone, including your team, for the foreseeable future. Yeah, but the Bulls never had a chance to grab any of those 3 free agents. These 3 guys were set to go to Miami way before free agency started and there was nothing the Bulls could have done to convince them differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Count me as one that's not overly impressed with depth. At least not in the NBA. If you're playing 9-10 guys every night that usually means your top guys aren't that great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Very interesting piece- Paul bends to King James’ rule Chris Paul(notes) had come into the NBA with so much of Kevin Durant’s(notes) pureness of purpose: humble, grateful, still the kid who worked summers pumping gas and changing tires at his grandfather’s gas station in North Carolina. He constructed himself a reputation of values and character, and separated himself in all the best ways. He should stay on course to be his generation’s Tim Duncan(notes), but that no longer appeals to Paul. He’s veered the wrong way, into the wrong clutches. Bad enough that LeBron James(notes) damaged his own standing in the sport this summer, he wants to take down Chris Paul with him too. James, his business manager Maverick Carter and powerbroker William Wesley have far too much influence over Paul’s career, and they’re running it right out of the sunshine and into darkness. They’re using Paul as a commodity to elevate their clout, to show how they can take a player with no contractual leverage and muscle him out of New Orleans. What they don’t care about – and maybe don’t understand – is that Paul built such a beautiful, unique relationship with the city of New Orleans. He’s been so truly invested there, a beacon and ambassador in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Yet, the James gang see these bonds as disposable and they’re convincing Paul of it, too. In a Twitter pronouncement on Thursday, King James declared, “Best of luck to my brother [Chris Paul] … Do what’s best for You and your family.” James was referencing Paul’s half-baked trade request that’s come through Worldwide Wes. Do what’s best for your family? Here’s an idea: What Paul ought to do is run away from James, Wesley, Carter and not stop moving until he’s returned to New Orleans and reaffirmed the obligations he’s made there. No, this isn’t a championship team, but a franchise player reveals himself in good times and bad. What’s best for Paul’s family is best for everyone’s family in the NBA. It needs James to restrict the polluting onto others of his own warped value system. James plays for the Miami Heat, but somehow he wants control of transactions elsewhere, too. He wants the building of these so-called super teams to protect his own legacy, to make it look like he isn’t the only superstar searching for the easy way to championships. (more at the link) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jul 23, 2010 -> 10:13 PM) Yeah, but the Bulls never had a chance to grab any of those 3 free agents. These 3 guys were set to go to Miami way before free agency started and there was nothing the Bulls could have done to convince them differently. that doesn't mean they nailed free agency though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenksycat Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 23, 2010 -> 04:47 PM) that doesn't mean they nailed free agency though. What else could they have done? LBgay Wade Bosh JJ - bulls had 0% chance at any of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 23, 2010 -> 04:47 PM) that doesn't mean they nailed free agency though. Yeah, Miami is the only team that made itself a title contender, but there were no players available to the Bulls that would have made them a title contender, so they "nailed" it as best they could with the players they could get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderBolt Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 (edited) QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 23, 2010 -> 05:47 PM) that doesn't mean they nailed free agency though. There was never any guarantee that they would land any of the Big Three and i believe that they made the necessary basketball decisions in the wake of those Miami signings.The Bulls did everything possible to make themselves into a competitive organization for years to come. Edited July 23, 2010 by Thunderbolt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 23, 2010 -> 04:31 PM) Very interesting piece- Paul bends to King James’ rule King James' Rule? I'm pretty sure he no longer should be allowed to use the King moniker. King's don't play second fiddle and win rings. King James is a great nickname, but bad now for him. Maybe something like "The Decider" for him would be better. Also, the Bulls depth/flexibility to make trades is what sets this team up to do just about anything the next few years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 23, 2010 -> 07:11 PM) King James' Rule? I'm pretty sure he no longer should be allowed to use the King moniker. King's don't play second fiddle and win rings. King James is a great nickname, but bad now for him. Maybe something like "The Decider" for him would be better. Also, the Bulls depth/flexibility to make trades is what sets this team up to do just about anything the next few years. It is? It's one of the most unoriginal, and more importantly retarded, nicknames in sports history. I thought this WAYYYY before the "Decision." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHizzle85 Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 About the whole Chris Paul thing... If he wanted out so much, why the hell did he sign a 3 year extension in '08? Guess what CP3? You know what you got yourself into, now deal with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.