One of the best series ever: Celtics win 4-3

[rawaction]

Do whatever it takes to get Wade to Chicago. I would be willing to put up with a 15 win season next year for Wade in 2010.

 

Before Rose I would be on this bandwagon, but after Rose no way. Wade and Rose are both at their best with the ball in their hands, so I think Wade would stunt Rose's development moreso then help. This is part of the reason why when the Bulls mare discussing what their 2010 plan is, either Chris Bosh or Amar'e Stoudamire names are mention. That, and the Bulls need an inside presence. At this point, I don't see the Bulls being interested in Wade.

 

I don't buy that argument. I agree Wade and Rose are best with the ball, but having both assures the ball is NEVER with anyone else, and the Bulls have a good chance to score everytime down the floor. Plus, Wade can do much more without the ball than Rose. Wade can come off screens, post up, cut to the rim and finish if the ball is in Rose's hands. Basically, everytime now when the ball is in Gordon's hands, it will be in Wade's. And I think when Wade has the ball, Rose can do a lot of the same stuff Wade does without the ball assuming he has a smaller defender.

 

That being said, if you can go in another direction and get an elite player, you do that. But if they miss out on Bosh, Amare, Boozer; they shouldn't NOT go after Wade because he may be too similar to Rose.

[Derwood]

Gordon is easy to love when his circus shots are dropping, but easy to hate when they aren't. I was watching Game 7 with my dad and some others who don't follow the Bulls, and early on I said "Watch #7, once he touches the ball, no one else will see it and he'll jack up something stupid." It's like Jalen Rose all over again. His assist to turnover ratio this year was 3.4:2.5. I'm willing to give up a few points of scoring for someone more consistent and less prone to trying to take over a game in the wrong way.

[Tyrant]

His assist to turnover ratio this year was 3.4:2.5.

 

I don't think AST-TO ratio is very relevant for shooting guards, especially when their primary duty is to score.

 

I think Gordon is a really valuable player, but I understand his limited appeal. I'm kind of intrigued by a bigger lineup with Salmons at SG and Deng at SF, but does anyone trust Deng to stay healthy? If Gordon isn't resigned, the SG-SF depth is really thin.

 

On a totally different note, given how the Bulls got hammered on the boards by the Celtics, I'd love to see the Bulls find a way to draft Dejuan Blair.

[RedFlash]

I don't buy that argument. I agree Wade and Rose are best with the ball, but having both assures the ball is NEVER with anyone else, and the Bulls have a good chance to score everytime down the floor. Plus, Wade can do much more without the ball than Rose. Wade can come off screens, post up, cut to the rim and finish if the ball is in Rose's hands. Basically, everytime now when the ball is in Gordon's hands, it will be in Wade's. And I think when Wade has the ball, Rose can do a lot of the same stuff Wade does without the ball assuming he has a smaller defender.

 

That being said, if you can go in another direction and get an elite player, you do that. But if they miss out on Bosh, Amare, Boozer; they shouldn't NOT go after Wade because he may be too similar to Rose.

 

Maybe so, but colour me surprise if the Bulls go after Wade bext yr. I personally think Paxson and Gar Forman are going to be aggressive this summer about getting an inside presence. I just don't see the Bulls persuing Wade unless things change.

[SpongeWorthy]

His assist to turnover ratio this year was 3.4:2.5.

 

I don't think AST-TO ratio is very relevant for shooting guards, especially when their primary duty is to score.

 

I think Gordon is a really valuable player, but I understand his limited appeal. I'm kind of intrigued by a bigger lineup with Salmons at SG and Deng at SF, but does anyone trust Deng to stay healthy? If Gordon isn't resigned, the SG-SF depth is really thin.

 

On a totally different note, given how the Bulls got hammered on the boards by the Celtics, I'd love to see the Bulls find a way to draft Dejuan Blair.

 

I don't trust Deng to be any good even if he is healthy. If you can convince 06-07 Deng to come back then I'm all on board with letting Gordon walk and moving Salmons to SG.

 

Blair would be a nice addition.

[chuckywang]

Do whatever it takes to get Wade to Chicago. I would be willing to put up with a 15 win season next year for Wade in 2010.

 

It seems like a bad idea to have both Wade and Rose on the same team.

 

It's never a bad idea to have the 2nd best player in the NBA on your team.

[Guest]

Blair at 16 would be fantastic. We'll see if he will fall that low.

[UMFan83]

Do whatever it takes to get Wade to Chicago. I would be willing to put up with a 15 win season next year for Wade in 2010.

 

It seems like a bad idea to have both Wade and Rose on the same team.

 

It's never a bad idea to have the 2nd best player in the NBA on your team.

 

You are trying to build the best team not a team with the most overall talent although a lot of times that ends up happening. Is it worth it to get the 2nd best player in basketball when a player you have has a decent shot of being as good? If you get Wade he is going to stifle Roses game and hinder his potential. Instead you can go agressively after a player like Bosh who can improve the team and not at the expense of Rose. This way you likely end up with a better and deeper team instead of one headlined by Wade and a wannabe/could become wade.

[SouthSideRyan]

Now Derrick Rose has a decent shot at being as good as Wade?

[SpongeWorthy]

Depends on your definition of decent.

 

I think there's a decent shot that you could say "I'd rather have Derrick Rose than Dwyane Wade" sometime in the next 2-3 years and have it seem totally reasonable.

[Jehrico]

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/1603/chibos.jpg

Should have had a forfeit after the 7th OT. One of the teams wouldn't have had enough guys left to play after everyone fouled out. Pretty funny though nonetheless!

[Jehrico]

Depends on your definition of decent.

 

I think there's a decent shot that you could say "I'd rather have Derrick Rose than Dwyane Wade" sometime in the next 2-3 years and have it seem totally reasonable.

Considering Rose is a point and Wade is an SG, I'd rather argue that I'd rather have both.

[UMFan83]

Now Derrick Rose has a decent shot at being as good as Wade?

 

Yeah...I chose decent, but I was probably thinking of a word one level of certainty less than decent but couldn't think of it. He definitely has the potential to be as good as Wade...his numbers aren't all that different than Wade's rookie year (at a younger age), and if you could pick the superstar style that Rose plays the most like, in a lot of areas Wade would be a pretty good comparison. There is still obviously a long way to go until Rose is in Wade's stratosphere but he has a decent shot.

 

But the whole point of my post was, because the Bulls have chosen to build their team around Rose (most likely), you cannot acquire a player that would stifle Derrick Rose. Wade is a great player and is probably the second best player in basketball, but for the Bulls a better choice to allocate their resources to would probably be the 15th best player (very relative ranking) Chris Bosh to put alongside Rose and hope that Rose develops into a superstar.

[Tyrant]

Now Derrick Rose has a decent shot at being as good as Wade?

 

Why not? When Wade was Rose's age, he was averaging 17 points a game in Conference USA.

[SouthSideRyan]

Now Derrick Rose has a decent shot at being as good as Wade?

 

Why not? When Wade was Rose's age, he was averaging 17 points a game in Conference USA.

 

Because you can't just look at what guys did at the same age and say they're likely to improve at the same rate? Dwyane Wade didn't have a decent shot at being as good as Wade is now.

[Tyrant]

Now Derrick Rose has a decent shot at being as good as Wade?

 

Why not? When Wade was Rose's age, he was averaging 17 points a game in Conference USA.

 

Because you can't just look at what guys did at the same age and say they're likely to improve at the same rate? Dwyane Wade didn't have a decent shot at being as good as Wade is now.

 

No, you can't. But you can look at a lot of other factors and make an educated guess at how good at player might become.

 

By the way, Rose's rookie year is really similar to Wade's. Per 36 minute stats....

 

Rose (age 20): 16.3 points, 6.1 assists, 3.8 rebounds, 2.5 turnovers, .516 TS%
Wade (age 22): 16.8 points, 4.1 assists, 4.7 rebounds, 3.3 turnovers, .530 TS%

Given Rose's physical gifts, his work ethic and the fact the posted a very similar rookie season to Wade (slightly less efficient scorer; better distributor with fewer turnovers) despite being two years younger, it's fair to say he has a "decent" chance to be as good as Wade.

[wolf stansson]

If Derrick puts on 10-15 pounds of muscle and scores 24 a game next year while at the same time cutting down on his turnovers, we can talk Wade.

 

For now, let's just hold off.

[Tyrant]

If Derrick puts on 10-15 pounds of muscle and scores 24 a game next year while at the same time cutting down on his turnovers, we can talk Wade.

 

For now, let's just hold off.

 

Rose already turns it over less then Wade.

[wolf stansson]

If Derrick puts on 10-15 pounds of muscle and scores 24 a game next year while at the same time cutting down on his turnovers, we can talk Wade.

 

For now, let's just hold off.

 

Rose already turns it over less then Wade.

That's just for me. I just want him to do that. It drives me crazy. Also I want him to stand in front of him man on every play.