Okay, well, after losing at home to Detroit I'm getting more open to the idea that the Bulls screwed up by not making the a deal for Pau Gasol. That said, even in this loss, Luol Deng who they would have had to give up, did play really well. How much better would Gasol really have done than 21 points, 14 rebounds, and two blocks?
« Obama and Social Security | Main | Delicate Flowers »
Missing Pau-er?
11 May 2007 09:00 am
Comments (72)
One way to think about it:
Is Luol Deng, as good as he is, really much better than Tayshaun Prince?
If not, how good would a team with Tayshaun Prince as its featured offensive player really be?
The only reason you make that trade is if it will bring a championship this year. And it absolutely would not have.
"The only reason you make that trade is if it will bring a championship this year."
Pretty brain dead reasoning, in my humble opinion.
Pretty brain dead reasoning, in my humble opinion
Explain.
"Explain."
Why wouldn't you rather have Gasol over Deng next year, and the year after, and the year after that?
You can build a team around Gasol, which you certainly can't do around Deng.
-----
Paxson, who has made some very nice decisions in the past, has been the worst GM in the league over the past 12 months.
He's got enough talent stockpiled to be able to recover from doing Chandler for Wallace and not doing Deng for Gasol, but his margin of error is getting tighter.
Once he gives contracts to Deng, Gordon, and Hinrich, Chicago is going to have a lot less upside that they currently appear to have.
You've got some good points, but...
You can build a team around Gasol, which you certainly can't do around Deng.
I just fundamentally disagree. What has Gasol ever done in this league? Been an All-Star a couple times, been bounced in the first round a couple times.... You accuse Bulls fans of overrating Dengs talent, but I feel you have a wildly overrated appraisal of Gasol.
He's got enough talent stockpiled to be able to recover from doing Chandler for Wallace and not doing Deng for Gasol, but his margin of error is getting tighter.
This is the kind of thing where I think being a fan of a particular team really does improve your understanding of a teams moves. A lot of people have criticized the Bulls for getting rid of Chandler and Curry, pointing to the quality years both of those guys have had. But you don't understand, we had to get rid of them. Had to. You don't understand the psychological toll having those guys on the roster took... they were supposed to be the future and they just kept not panning out and not panning out. If they were one player-- if you got Chandler's erbounding and Curry's offense together in one pacakage-- it'd be different. But Curry is a horrid defender and rebounder. And Tyson Chandler's offense is simply painful to watch. I mean he's like a child. The only reason he got double-digit points on the season was because he had Chris Paul on his team.
The team just had to move on.
It's painful to watch this series, but the Bulls are following a well-traveled path in the NBA of gaining playoff experience and working to make it to the next level. This experience can only help the team in the long run.
Especially once we get Greg Oden.
The chief thing that stands out in this series is that the Piston backcourt duo of Hamilton and Billups and is at this point way better than the Bulls' duo of Heinrich and Gordon, at both ends of the court. The Pistons' backcourt has dominated the series.
However, to be fair, the presence of two defensive specialist, offensive non-factors in the Bulls starting frontcourt has enabled the Pistons to be very aggressive in hounding and trapping the Bulls's guards. By about halfway through the third quarter Heinrich and Gordon both looked exhausted, and completely off their games.
The Pistons were successful in inducing the Bulls to give P.J. Brown way too many shots. The Piston guarding Brown usually left him to help on whichever Bull was driving from the wing. That frequently resulted in either a turnover by the driving Bull, or an open (missed) shot by Brown.
I agree that while Gasol would help, it wouldn't make much difference if he was only a replacement for Deng. The Bulls need a major offensive threat at one of the other front line positions.
"It's painful to watch this series, but the Bulls are following a well-traveled path in the NBA of gaining playoff experience and working to make it to the next level. This experience can only help the team in the long run."
The thing Bulls fans should take from this series is that the future of their team is not necessarily that bright (whatever happens with the Knicks 1st rounder aside). It's painfuly obvious that...
Billups > Hinrich
Rip > Gordon
Rasheed > PJ Brown
Weber/McDyess > Wallace
Deng > Prince (but only by a little)
Bulls Bench (outside Tyrus Thomas) = role players
Tyrus = great athlete, but may be years away from being a great player
The Bulls main players have been around long enough that it's unlikely they're going to get significantly better than they are now. The only player they have like that is Tyrus Thomas. So, barring a miracle with the Knicks pick, these Bulls resemble nothing so much as the Miami Heat teams of the 90s that would win a bunch of regular season games by outworking teams, then wilt in the playoffs when other teams increased their effort.
That's why it probably wasn't a bad thing to pass on the Gasol trade. The Bulls just don't have enough talent to really challenge for a title yet, and swapping Deng for Gasol doesn't really get you any closer.
Mike
"And Tyson Chandler's offense is simply painful to watch."
And you've replaced him with Ben Wallace, who has worse offense, gets paid $5m a year more, and has already started his physical decline.
Simply among the worst NBA GM decisions of the past decade.
-----
You think like a team fanatic, Freddie. And more power to you.
But Paxson's job is to think like a rational GM, not a fanatic. And he's been badly falling down at that job over the last 12 months.
"Deng > Prince (but only by a little)"
I think you've got that one backwards, though Deng is younger than Prince and thus has a chance to overtake him.
But if I were picking a team for next season only, I'd take Prince over Deng in a heartbeat.
"The Bulls just don't have enough talent to really challenge for a title yet, and swapping Deng for Gasol doesn't really get you any closer."
Swapping Deng for Gasol would have indeed gotten them closer. It would have made Hinrich and Gordon both much better players, for one thing.
Given the Bulls' surfeit of modest talent, failing to acquire a serviceable low post scorer just entering his prime is criminal behavior.
wouldn't it help any team to have a player the announcer could introduce as "POW! Gasol"?
Petey, you're thinking that if you swapped Chandler for Wallace, you'd get the same production from Chandler that he gave Charlotte. That just isn't the case. Chandler quit on the Bulls. He's as much as admitted it. He needed out.
Billups= leaving via free agency
Rip= Not a #1 guy
Rasheed= old and volatile
Webber= old with one leg
Prince= Deng with less upside
The Pistons are a great team now, but to suggest that they have a brighter future than Chicago is just contrarianism. If they still had Darko (or if they had Bosh, Wade, Carmelo...) it'd be different. But I think this is a very good team making one of its last runs.
"Chandler quit on the Bulls. He's as much as admitted it. He needed out."
While I think there is a reasonable case to be made for Scott Skiles, I tend to think he's going to run into the same kind of problems that Rick Carlisle has run into, if he's not running into them already.
Byron Scott is notorious for not being a player friendly coach, but even he's had no trouble getting along with Chandler.
The Pistons are a great team now, but to suggest that they have a brighter future than Chicago is just contrarianism.
Who said the Pistons have a brighter future than Chicago? Sure, if both teams stand pat the Bulls might pass the Pistons in a couple years, but that wouldn't bring the Bulls a championship.
The point is that the Pistons, as they are right now, are a reasonable benchmark for what it takes to be a championship contender (and of course, they remain underdogs to win it all even now). Unless the Bulls have the potential to be a better team than the Pistons are right now, they don't have championship potential.
I see a very good team in Chicago, a team that can play with a lot of energy, but I totally don't see them having that degree of upside. How did the Jordan-era Bulls know they had championship potential? By extending the Bad Boys in the conference final for 2 straight years. The Pistons of that era were the same way - take Bird's Celtics to 7 games, take Magic's Lakers to 7 games, and you can be pretty confident you're championship material with a little growth.
The current group of Pistons, though, didn't fit that model. Prior to the 2004 title, the closest they came was getting swept in the Eastern Finals the year before. And that's why they didn't stand pat, figuring a little growth would get them over the hump - they made a major acquisition in Rasheed Wallace, and it won them a title.
What did the Bulls have prior to this year? 2 straight first-round losses. Standing pat on that record and expecting to simply grow into a championship was criminal. And now, on the brink of a second-round sweep, to maintain even with the benefit of hindsight that it was the right call? Positively Cheney-like, I hate to say.
the simple reality is that the pistons are a better team than the bulls; gasol alone wouldn't change that.
a good team is a living demonstration of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, and it takes a certain amount of time for a team to come together. indeed, offhand (and i'm probably forgetting an example) i can only think of a couple of champs that made a major mid-season trrade, when the rockets acquired drexler for their second championship and when the pistons acquired rasheed (and possibly, of course, this year will be a third, with the pistons acquisition of chris webber).
the rockets were already champs, so i'm down to one comparable, and i don't really think we can say that the bulls this season were virtually as good as one of the best defensive teams in a long time, the championship pistons.
sometimes better is just better, and the pistons have too many edges over the bulls for one player to have made the difference.
Petey's right, Scott Skiles is an asshole, and that's probably been the source of some problems for the Bulls. I see him growing up to be an even more bitter and contemptible Jerry Sloan.
And Freddie, this argument is really bad: "What has Gasol ever done in this league? Been an All-Star a couple times, been bounced in the first round a couple times..."
Gasol plays for the Memphis Grizzlies. They've made the playoffs 2 or 3 times as a #8 seed. What is Pau Gasol going to do that's going to get them past the Suns, the Spurs or the Mavs? Would a team led by Luol Deng have won any of those playoff serieses?
I won't waste your time posting Gasol's numbers, you can look them up. You'll see that he's one of the top young big men in the game. He can pass, he can score, he can rebound, he can defend. Watch him play and you'll see the same thing. Deng is a nice player, but he's turning into a slightly longer Rip Hamilton. Nothing wrong with that, but a perimeter guy who doesn't shoot the 3, doesn't get to the rim much, and doesn't create for other guys isn't a super-valuable player. At least not when compared to a Gasol.
The thing is though, with Gasol in the front court, it would matter less that Ben Wallace's offensive arsenal consists entirely of putbacks, as that is all he did on the Detroit championship team while Rasheed Wallace scored in the post (and also on the high-scoring Detroit team that lost to Miami in the conference finals). Gasol would draw double teams in the post, opening up jumpers for Nocioni, Gordon, Hinrich, etc. A Nocioni that people have to leave to double Gasol isn't really a significantly worse player than Deng. Yes, this Bulls team might still lose to Detroit-this year. But in the next couple years, as Thomas and Sfelosha(I know I spelled it wrong) mature, they can start to fill in for the wing position that Deng vacated. There is no one on the Bull's roster who could turn into a low-post scorer anywhere near the caliber of Gasol.
I would say that going from two straight first round loses to making the second round is pretty good progress. And I think there's a very good chance Chicago would have made the Finals had they beaten Jersey the last game of the year.
I'm still pleased with this season. Playoff experience matters; it's what this team needs and what it's getting.
Huh? Chicago, down 3-0, is just not as good as Detroit. They would both be in the Eastern bracket regardless of the outcome of that last game.
"We would go to the finals if only someone would knock off the team we can't beat" isn't much of an inspirational rallying cry.
I meant the next round, the conference finals. I'm going with the notion that we're building towards the future.
But fine, you guys are right. My team stinks and we're going nowhere, ever. Does that make you happy? Jeez.
i think deng is massively underrated...the efficiency he brings to the offense is absolutely critical. in the future? he's still very young at 22, so he's got plenty of room to improve (integrating a three-point shot, better dribbling skills, etc.) to me, therefore, trading deng for gasol, who's about to hit his peak, it's a tough deal to make, especially since it's deng + knicks pick + pj for gasol (that was the deal offered).
the question is, if you make that deal, who plays SF? thabo? nocioni? thabo will probably be evolutionary raja bell, but he isn't good now. nocioni is a defensive liability (and plays better as an undersized 4 anyway), as is gasol, leading to a lot of matchup problems in the frontcourt for chicago.
further, you can't underestimate the value of the ninth pick. obviously you've got a chance of getting a young superstar, but at the ninth slot, i think spencer hawes, for example, would be absolutely perfect for the bulls' plans in the future/present.
if it was just deng + pj + cap filler for gasol, maybe i make it, but the combination of nine pick and deng is too valuable.
Everyone needs to let the Chandler thing go. He was atrocious for the Bulls. Atrocious.
Here was what the Bulls had in Chandler:
*A center who had no offensive game
*A center who they had to avoid passing the ball because of his poor decision making and terrible hands
*A center who couldn't pass
*A center who couldn't stay on the floor (6.48 fouls per 48 minutes)
Only the first critique applies to Wallace.
Anyone who thinks Chandler-Wallace is a wash doesn't know basketball (or else didn't watch any Bulls basketball).
My previous post wasn't to imply that signing Wallace was an ideal move.
But getting someone to take Chandler off their hands was the right move.
goosen is absolutely correct. tyson's improvement this season came out of nowhere.
Maybe it came from not being coached by Scott Skiles.
that's a plausible explanation. skiles is weird and uneven as a player-developer. also you could point out the difference between chris paul and the bulls backcourt.
Sorry, Freddy. I misunderstood your post, and I am a Royals fan, so I know what it is like to be kicked when your team is down.
I think you are correct in that Chicago might well be the second best team in the East.
How do people feel about the seeding arrangements, by the way? The change this year is a slight improvement from last year, but it seems to me that the most obvious thing to do is to guarantee each division champ a spot in the play-offs, but then seed entirely according to records of the play-off teams. If you are a division champ with the sixth best record in the division, then you should get the sixth seed.
I also think it would be cool to let teams choose their opponents. Top seed gets first pick of the remaining seven. Second seed (unless picked) gets its choice of the remaining five, and so on. But that is probably too radical, though it makes for great psychology.
Any comments on how the NBA MVP is, again, a white dude?
Just for this, we need Obama to win in '08.
"goosen is absolutely correct. tyson's improvement this season came out of nowhere."
I saw maybe a bit upwards of 5 Bulls games last year, and I was utterly aware that he was really valuable. I argued that in these virtual pages last summer. Dude was a 23 yo big man last year with obviously developing skills. It was in plain sight last year that he was a rich man's Dalembert or Kaman or Diop.
"Anyone who thinks Chandler-Wallace is a wash doesn't know basketball (or else didn't watch any Bulls basketball)."
Dude, you are absolutely insane.
Check out their lines. Same minutes. Tyson wins rebounding. Tyson wins offensive production by a huge margin. Ben wins steals and blocks.
Ben is a better on the ball defender, which doesn't completely show up in stats. Tyson is quicker up and down the floor.
It's very close to a wash this year, with an edge to Ben for his on the ball defense. But years beyond this year happen to exist, and one of these players is going to be getting dramatically better while the other one gets dramatically worse.
Ben is 32. Tyson is 25.
Ben made $16m. Tyson made $9m.
Once Deng/Gordon/Hinrich/Nocioni get their money, you'll be capped out, and that'll be $7m you can't spend on another player.
If you think this exchange works out positively for the Bulls, then as previously stated, you are absolutely insane.
Or as Simmons put it, by exchanging Chandler for Wallace, you won a first round series beating a team you'd have beat without doing the deal.
And you've made yourself a worse team for the future.
It's as if you'd swapped Deng for Antawn Jamison.
Petey, I just don't get your fascination with either Pau or Chandler. Chandler simply wasn't performing for the Bulls any more. He wasn't going to, except unless Skiles left and that wasn't happening. As others have said, signing Ben Wallace is debatable but getting rid of Chandler really was not.
Now, as for Pau -- really, why does everything suddenly think this guy is so great? He's got some decent skills but his track record in the playoffs is atrocious -- not just series losses, but sweeps all three years. This Bulls team is obviously not just one piece away, and Pau wouldn't be that piece even if they were. He's OK. He's not going to propel you to the elite of the league.
And yet, you think the Bulls should have given up one of the top young talents in the league, plus a high pick in one of the deepest drafts in league history, plus a chance at a possible Kevin Garnett sweepstakes -- all this for a guy who IS STILL AVAILABLE THIS SUMMER. How does that make sense?
"I meant the next round, the conference finals. I'm going with the notion that we're building towards the future."
But how are you going to get to that future? I think this Pistons series is proving that, barring some really unexpected level of improvement, this Bulls team as currently built doesn't have the talent to be a serious championship contender.
Mike
I would say that going from two straight first round loses to making the second round is pretty good progress.
Look, I'm a lifelong Pistons fan, so I wish nothing but sadness and misery for the Bulls. But still, in response to this, I can only quote the wise words of BlogaBull:
The NBA doesn't work where you lose in the first round a couple years, then the second round a year, and eventually you get to the Finals. It worked that way 20 years ago because they had Michael Jordan. It doesn't work that way for every young team, and the history of the league is littered with abandoned young squads that once had the promise but never made it.
Two first-round losses followed by getting swept in the second round is just not going to get you to the mountaintop. You don't get to slowly grow up and get a tiny bit better each year while the rest of the league stays exactly the same.
Right now is a great time to be in the Eastern Conference. There's only one legit team, all you have to do is catch them at a weak moment, like the Heat did last year, and you're in the Finals and can at least take your best shot at the title. It's not always going to be like that. The Pistons may be on their way down after this year, but plenty of other teams are on their way up, and somewhere down the road the East is going to be the dominant conference again.
That does not mean you have to give up hope - hope springs eternal in the sporting world - but it does mean you shouldn't be content to stand pat and win a couple more playoff games each year. If you want to win a title, you should be agitating for more. Or you could just become a Pistons fan; we accept converts.
It's obvious, right Petey?
I don't know which games you saw last year, but you couldn't have seen that much of Chandler because he was always on the bench with foul trouble.
FOULS PER 48 MINUTES: 6.48
That's beyond bad. It's downright embarrassing for a guy who's value supposedly lies in defense and rebounding to not be able to stay on the floor long enough to provide those benefits.
haha you think gasol will still be available this summer? after the grizzlies draft either oden or durant? i doubt that very much.
plus, now PJ Brown's expiring contract can no longer be used, so it'll be a lot tougher to get Garnett. And there's no guarantee Minnesota even makes him available-McHale is stupid.
Plus seriously, look who has surrounded Pau on those Memphis teams. Mike Miller and Shane Battier? Even sans Deng, the current Bulls with Pau would be much better than that. Remember also that getting out of the East is often easier than getting out of the 1st round in the West.
"Now, as for Pau -- really, why does everything suddenly think this guy is so great? He's got some decent skills but his track record in the playoffs is atrocious -- not just series losses, but sweeps all three years. This Bulls team is obviously not just one piece away, and Pau wouldn't be that piece even if they were. He's OK. He's not going to propel you to the elite of the league.
And yet, you think the Bulls should have given up one of the top young talents in the league, plus a high pick in one of the deepest drafts in league history, plus a chance at a possible Kevin Garnett sweepstakes -- all this for a guy who IS STILL AVAILABLE THIS SUMMER. How does that make sense?"
Pau is a legitimate 20+ a game low post scorer. How many non-Jordan teams have won a title without at least one of those? And you might want to consider the Griz play in the West and look at exactly who's swept them in the playoffs.
Unless you luck into a top 4 pick, you're probably not getting a player better than Gasol. And getting KG will require one of the top 2 picks this year, or Deng AND either Hinrich or Gordon. So congratulations, you'll become the T-pups east and can watch a declining KG struggle to get you out of the first round. And salary cap rules make it impossible for any team to offer your players more than you can, so if they Bulls traded for Gasol they'd be almost guarateed to keep him.
Mike
I think Matt W. puts his finger on it. Concede that the Bulls were never likely to win a championship this year, Gasol or not. The right calculation is not "are they better making a trade for Gasol or standing pat" but "are they better in the long term making a trade for Gasol at the trade deadline vs. making some other move in the future." If the Bulls seriously think they have a shot at trading for Garnett this summer--or landing Gasol for less than the Grizzlies were asking at the trade deadline--then they were right to hold out. It's hard to argue that Deng + the ninth pick for Gasol is better than the deals they could make during the summer. That said, they shouldn't come back next year with the same team and expect everything to work out.
It's hard to argue...
Though I see that while I was typing that comment several of you argued it. So that part is not so clear-cut. I still think it's the right question.
"all this for a guy who IS STILL AVAILABLE THIS SUMMER."
The PJ Brown contract no longer exists this summer. You have no easy way to do the deal anymore.
"And yet, you think the Bulls should have given up one of the top young talents in the league, plus a high pick in one of the deepest drafts in league history"
Deng may be a "top young talent", however you define that. However, he is also likely the third guy on a championship squad, not the star. And he's your only elite player under 32 years old, other than the potential of one of your first year players.
Your team, as currently constructed, is going nowhere for years.
You'll be developing players for a while and hoping to create some elite ones. But if you were developing those players around a serviceable low post scorer like Gasol, you might be able to make some deep playoff runs in the next couple of years while enhancing the development process.
petey, i don't know what 5 bulls games you watched last year, but you must've caught chandler in his good days. he was an absolute trainwreck last year. besides the fouls issue mentioned by goosen, he also had a weird conditioning ailment (he lost wind easily), and he turned the ball over continually. he showed little to no instinct or touch in the post. in your universe, maybe that's obviously developing skills, but in mine, that's atrocious. at the time that the decision was made, it was absolutely correct. now, if you tell me now the miracle that ends up occurring in tyson's game, sure, i'd take tyson. but this was utterly incomprehensible taken from last year.
now, as to pau. i like pau a lot. he'd be perfect in the high post for the bulls. if we could sign him in free agency, i'd absolutely do that. but, deng + ninth pick is far too much for pau.
will the team get steadily better? i would think, yes. obviously it doesn't have to be the case, but a number of improvement seems plausible to me. for example: that instead of taking a ton of shots from one foot inside the three point line, deng steps a foot back and reintegrates three-pointers in his game. or another: tyrus thomas cuts the turnovers down and adds a midrange jumper. the knicks pick turns out to be a solid contributor. etc. does it have the talent to eventually compete for the championship? absolutely. how many other teams have three young perimeter talents? how many teams compete with a total noncontributor as a starter (pj brown)? not too many. obviously the situation right now sucks, but i still believe the future is bright.
deng will probably end up being an elite talent. this summer will only be his second summer as a pro, really, to improve his skills--between his rookie and soph years, he injured his wrist. so, given that and just the peaking of skill, i think he'll make a move into 20+ PER next year, with a ceiling at around 26 PER (in the hypothetical future at around age 27)
Are we sure Petey isn't Bill Simmons?
bill simmons is funnier.
also, bill simmons admitted that luol deng would've been untouchable; so petey's staked out a more extreme position, i guess.
However, he is also likely the third guy on a championship squad, not the star.
Of course, you have no evidence for that claim, except, as always, your willingness to call people insane when they disagree with you.
As far as my team going nowhere, does anyone who knows anything about basketball think that the Nuggets have a brighter future than the Bulls? With the Kenyon Martin contract? With Iverson on the wrong side of 30? With Carmelo Anthony not developing in any meaningful way? With Marcus Camby having another year and another seasons worth of games taking a toll on his body?
"i don't know what 5 bulls games you watched last year, but you must've caught chandler in his good days."
I wasn't the only one. The position I'm taking that exchanging Chandler for Wallace was insane was almost the conventional wisdom last summer.
"tyrus thomas cuts the turnovers down and adds a midrange jumper. the knicks pick turns out to be a solid contributor. etc."
Sure. In other words, if things go well, the situation starts looking interesting 2 or 3 years down the line. And in the meantime, you take your god-given 45 wins and your competitive first round playoff series.
Of course, if Thomas and the pick don't develop as hoped for with some alacrity, you watch Toronto and Orlando pass you in the east without ever having been a contender.
At the end of the day, there is a window opening in the East with the aging of Miami and Detroit. And without Chicago picking up another serious player above the age of 21, you'll allowing Cleveland to waltz right through that opening unchallenged.
------
Also, it's worth noting that one can have too many young players to develop simultaneously. Having Ben Wallace and a steady if mediocre point guard keeps you from entirely turning into Atlanta, but there are still trade-offs to be made if you want to play Thomas and the pick and Thabo.
"does anyone who knows anything about basketball think that the Nuggets have a brighter future than the Bulls?"
Sure. The Nuggets have two windows.
The first window is before Iverson and Camby expire.
And then there's a second window as Anthony and Nene hit their prime.
The Bulls are much deeper in young talent than the Nuggets. But the Nuggets have the two most valuable young players on either team.
And given a choice between a surfeit of modest young talent and two highly valuable young players, I'd take the two highly valuable ones every time.
Plus, the Nuggets, unlike the Bulls, have an owner willing to pay tax, so a problem like the Kenyon Martin contract can be overcome.
(The Nuggets second window is moot for me. I'll be a Sixers fan again after Iverson retires.)
who cares about the conventional wisdom; let's just talk about facts. and the fact of the matter was, last year, tyson chandler was an absolute disaster.
your point about the rest of the east catching up is well-taken, although orlando will, mark my words, never be a contender unless they try to go uptempo. cleveland? obviously LBJ is great, but the rest of the roster's a mishmash. too bad for cleveland that redd didn't jump ship; he would've been perfect. toronto, i think, will be serious. they're a good-shooting 2 or 3 away (and some bulk for either bosh and bargnani, for they can play the 4 and 5 together.)
now, will the bulls develop or will they not? who knows? weird shit happens. but i like the odds to reach the finals in the next five years.
Of course, if Thomas and the pick don't develop as hoped for with some alacrity, you watch Toronto and Orlando pass you in the east without ever having been a contender.
Says who?!? Making these predictions with this tone of absolute certainty is just baffling to me. Who the fuck knows what is going to happen next year, let alone three years down the line? You're accusing people of having too rosy an outlook about the Bulls, but you're perfectly willing to accept the notion that the grand strategies of every other team in the East go exactly as planned. Yeah, Orlando and Toronto might pass them. Or they might win the championship next year. Or Atlanta could suddenly become the best team in the league. Who the hell knows? You're holding Chicago to this impossible standard, imagining all the ins and outs of how things going-- including the notion that none of their players ever develop into the kind of players they could be. But what about everyone else? How does Orlando replace Grant Hill? Does Dwight Howard ever develop an offensive game? Does Chris Bosh demand a trade for some reason in two years? Who knows?
Did anyone predict Detroit winning it all in '04? How many lucky bounces determine careers?
I don't know. Neither does Petey.
I'm not that sure about Deng's upside. He's gotten better, yes, but it's his third season and most college guys do most of their development in their first three seasons anyway. Plus, how much better can he really get? Dtah mentions 20+ PER and a ceiling of a 26 PER. Now, I can totally see Deng having a 20+ PER, which is about what Rashard Lewis or Shawn Marion have, but I can't see him having a 26 PER, which is Lebron territory. He's not that good. So he's at most the second best player on a championship team. And the thing is, the salary cap punishes the strategy of building a championship team with a lot of really good but not great players. In a couple of years, you'll have to pay Deng and Gordon (let's say about 10 million apiece, which is Hinrich salary) and suddenly, you'll have 44 million dollars tied into 4 players, none of which is a superstar (and one of those is seriously declining). Not a good strategy, I think.
I'm not that sure about Deng's upside. He's gotten better, yes, but it's his third season and most college guys do most of their development in their first three seasons anyway. Plus, how much better can he really get? Dtah mentions 20+ PER and a ceiling of a 26 PER. Now, I can totally see Deng having a 20+ PER, which is about what Rashard Lewis or Shawn Marion have, but I can't see him having a 26 PER, which is Lebron territory. He's not that good. So he's at most the second best player on a championship team.
Inform me again who on the 2004 champion Pistons had a 26+ PER.
Denver isn't going anywhere. They had a nice run leading into the post-season, but they aren't going anywhere and face a salary cap nightmare this off-season unless they dump Camby, who is the veteran, steadying influence that they desperately need. And they have no first round picks in this deepest draft in memory.
So if I had to choose between Chicago's next few years and Denver's, I would go with the Bulls. But where did the Nuggets come from anyway?
"Who the fuck knows what is going to happen next year, let alone three years down the line?"
Folks who don't think that winning has no actual value, Freddie. Those folks pay a lot of attention to the design of winning.
Folks who are evaluating teams on the basis of trying to win titles can pick up a few tricks on how things should be best structured.
Other folks, of course, evaluate teams on the basis of how entertaining their style of play is. And those folks get befuddled and baffled at trying to see into the future.
Paxson's job is to architect a team, over time, that will compete for a title. He's been making some decisions of late that don't lead one to think his building plan is sound.
In fact one begins to wonder if there is any plan at all, other than "lets get even more 20 year olds!"
"face a salary cap nightmare this off-season unless they dump Camby"
All indications are that Kroncke is willing to pay tax.
The Pistons were the exception. And I didn't said that you need to have a superstar to win a title, just that for salary cap reasons, it was far easier doing it with one. But if you plan on following the Pistons plan, you need to watch the salaries. That Pistons team had only one guy earning more than 7 million and it was the guy who took them over the hump.
"Inform me again who on the 2004 champion Pistons had a 26+ PER."
Again, as stated at the very top of the thread, Deng is about the same player as Prince. Neither of them is ever going to put up crazy high PER numbers.
The difference between the '04 Pistons and the '08 Bulls is that Prince was surrounded by elite players and Deng won't be
And neither Deng nor Prince is well suited to being 'the man' on a contending team.
Hey, since this is the basketball thread of the moment, is anybody else totally unsurprised by this:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/sports/ci_5870666
(The fans in Utah were yelling racial slurs -- yes, including that slur -- at the Warriors. God, I hate Utah.)
first off, i said 26 PER would be the absolute ceiling for deng...not something he is going to reach. second, 26 isn't that far out there; pau just concluded a 24 PER season.
now, is deng that good?, as carlos asks? i don't know; i think he could be. his midrange jump-shooting ability looks lethal (the only guy he has trouble shooting over is prince) and his finishing is pretty good. i don't think it stretches the bounds of credulity to see him as a 22 PPG 50 FG% guy. And is that a franchise guy? Absolutely.
is anybody else totally unsurprised by this:
Yes.
In part because of this FD comment explaining that Larry Miller is racist.
"Denver isn't going anywhere."
Assuming Camby is kept, you got another 2 or 3 years for the young talent to develop while playing competitive basketball with Camby and Iverson.
Then when Camby and Iverson are gone, Anthony and Nene are 26 or 27. The Camby and Iverson money come off the books, and you get supporting pieces for what should be by then a 1st team All-NBA small forward and a 3rd team All-NBA power forward.
It's a far better scenario than what is likely to come out of Chicago, either 0 to 2 years out, or 2 to 4 years out either.
And that, is team architecture through time.
i don't think it stretches the bounds of credulity to see him as a 22 PPG 50 FG% guy. And is that a franchise guy? Absolutely.
A jump-shooting 22 PPG swingman? Not as the best player on a championship team, no. You're talking about Ray Allen.
"now, is deng that good?, as carlos asks? i don't know; i think he could be. his midrange jump-shooting ability looks lethal (the only guy he has trouble shooting over is prince) and his finishing is pretty good. i don't think it stretches the bounds of credulity to see him as a 22 PPG 50 FG% guy. And is that a franchise guy? Absolutely."
50%? How many wing players shoot that? And 22 PPG for a "franchise guy"? Only if he's pulling down 10 RPG and 4 APG.
Outside of overwhelming a profoundly unathletic Heat team, when has Deng ever consistently looked like he could be The Man on a championship team?
Mike
You're not even talking about Ray Allen, because Allen can stretch the D with 3s, and he can create a little bit off the dribble. Deng doesn't do either.
Like I said, you're talking about a bigger, longer Rip Hamilton.
Dtah, a few days ago I tried to answer that question by comparing Deng's numbers to other good SFs and trying to see if anything stood out. What I saw was a guy very similar to the other top small forwards; rebounded, passed, used possesions, etc, basically as well as the rest. He could use a bit more possesions and improve his shooting, I think, but that's about it. I simply can't see Deng increasing his usage rate from 20% to 30%, a la Lebron or Carmelo, and that's what it would take him to get to the superstar level.
"i don't think it stretches the bounds of credulity to see him as a 22 PPG 50 FG% guy. And is that a franchise guy? Absolutely."
It's franchise guy of a team with zero chance of winning a title.
Joe Johnson is a franchise guy, y'know. Andre Iguodala is a franchise guy too.
Looking at some other very nice players, with vaguely similarities to Deng, players like Prince or Ginobilii aren't going to be the franchise guy on an elite team.
You're barking up the wrong tree a bit with PER. Ginolbili has had high PER numbers, but couldn't be the franchise guy on a title winner. Same story with Shawn Marion.
Deng's problem is his position and his game. You need a be a dominating perimeter player, usually the point, and/or a low post player, and Deng is neither. If he wins a title, it's in the role of a Ginobili, or a Pippen, or a Robert Horry. He's the third key guy.
To take the history way back, Julius Erving, one of the great SF's of all time couldn't win a title as a franchise player. And then the Sixers acquired Moses Malone and had a true franchise guy, letting Erving become the second guy, and letting the team win.
"Chandler quit on the Bulls. He's as much as admitted it. He needed out."
That's a franchise's failure. Someone had to mediate it, or find some way out that didn't involve the two moving away.
And if someone absolutely had to go, it obviously not even a close calculation. Tyson means far more to the franchise than Skiles.
------
Plus, Skilles has a long history with this kind of stuff, showing him to be the bad guy. While Tyson was able to get along just fine with Byron Scott at his next gig, showing him to be the good guy,
If a coach want to use to disciplinary methods that work, fine. But when they break down, it's on the coach to make things right.
And Skiles never made the Chandler thing right.
------
Conversely, in the Smush/Jacson war, Smush was the bad guy and Jackson was the good guy.
Jackson meant more to the franchise than Smush, so it was on the player to make things right.
Folks who don't think that winning has no actual value, Freddie. Those folks pay a lot of attention to the design of winning.
Are those the same folks who thought that Dallas would obviously lose to Golden State, Petey? The same folks who thought that San Antonio was too old and slow to beat Denver?
I think recent history gives me plenty of reason to ignore your basketball predictions, Petey.
So in other words, Petey, everything the Bulls front office has ever done is wrong AND immoral, whereas every other team (but mostly the Nuggets) are wise stewards shepherding their teams Nirvana.
The Nuggets are going nowhere. Nowhere. It's amazing that you're so quick to say that Deng is another Tayshaun Prince, but you won't look at the reality of Carmelo Anthony, which is a guy who peaked as a freshman in college. When is he going to make a leap? People thought he was the man when he scored so much early in the season. But then what? Look at the playoffs. You don't bring in a guy like Allen Iverson if you truly believe you have a young superstar. Now you've got an aging, 160 pound volume scorer who takes as much punishment as anyone in the league and has a huge cap number to go along with an underachieving, poor-shooting volume scorer with character issues. And Kenyon Martin's contract, perhaps the worst in basketball.
You keep talking about the Nuggets being willing to pay the cap. But is anyone at all suggesting that the Nuggets are going to get a marquee free agent this year? Anyone at all?
But wait! I must be clinically insane to think that being a fan of the Bulls is anything but futile! All the experts who talk about how the Bulls nucleus of young talent is the envy of the league just don't understand the way you do, just like the people on this comments thread didn't understand that it was obvious Dallas would win the series. Right? Because I'm just being a fanatical homer, whereas your grand strategy for the Nuggets is a sober, rational vision.
If only I understood team architecture like you.
"So in other words, Petey, everything the Bulls front office has ever done is wrong AND immoral"
No. I think Paxson has made some excellent decisions prior to this past summer.
I just think he's made lousy decisions since then, and is moving ever closer to turning an amazingly good opportunity for the Bulls into a long stretch of mediocrity.
"It's amazing that you're so quick to say that Deng is another Tayshaun Prince"
That's a high compliment, not an insult. Deng is 22, and already playing at a very high level.
"but you won't look at the reality of Carmelo Anthony, which is a guy who peaked as a freshman in college."
Well, the level of competition Carmelo faced in college made it a bit easier on him than NBA level competition does. I think I'm well within the consensus to say that Carmelo has improved each year in the association.
And actually, I think Carmelo is going to face problems down the road, for reasons not altogether dissimilar to Deng. At the end of the day, it's much harder to build a champ around a small forward than it is around a post player or a ball handling guard.
If Deng is the third guy on a championship team (or the first guy on a mediocre team), then Carmelo is the first guy on an elite team that never wins a title.
If I were building a team around a young NBA player, I'd choose a half dozen different player before I got to Carmelo. It's not a knock on how good he is, it's a knock on the position his body makes him play.
-----
"You keep talking about the Nuggets being willing to pay the cap. But is anyone at all suggesting that the Nuggets are going to get a marquee free agent this year? Anyone at all?"
Being willing to pay tax doesn't mean you are exempt from cap rules. The Nuggets can't sign a marquee free agent due to the cap rules.
However, being willing to pay tax means they don't have to dismantle their team due to Carmelo moving from a rookie contract to a normal contract, as Sam Smith suggested.
-----
"But wait! I must be clinically insane to think that being a fan of the Bulls is anything but futile! "
No. You're insane because you think team style is more important than winning, but yet you still think you're a good evaluator of the Bulls' future prospects of winning.
The Bulls have a good storehouse of prospects. If I were buying shares in team prospects 5 years down the road, I'd rank the Bulls as having better than average prospects.
But Paxson is making some missteps of late that are creating some potentially fatal flaws in the foundation of the house.
Comments closed May 25, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I think, obviously, the issue is not one of the individuals so much as one of requiring their opponents to shift priorities. A team with Pau Gasol leading the way must be defended -- and attacked -- differently from a team with Luol Deng leading the way. It's not about Deng vs. Gasol; it's about all non-Dengs on the Bulls vs. all non-Gasols on the Bulls.
Posted by jhupp | May 11, 2007 9:21 AM