Re: 2009-10 Chicago Bulls Thread

[UMFan83]

Bulls are 2 games over .500 for the first time since the end of the 06-07 season.

[Derwood]

Bulls are 2 games over .500 for the first time since the end of the 06-07 season.

 

a quick start is something that has eluded this team for years....it's nice to see

[bcl412]

Bulls are 2 games over .500 for the first time since the end of the 06-07 season.

 

a quick start is something that has eluded this team for years....it's nice to see

 

We have a brutal schedule to start the year. I'd say the stretch lasts for a bout the first 25 games, yeah there are some winnable games in there but there are also a lot of tough games. I'd say if we get to 12-13 wins after the first 25, we are in really, really good shape.

[Flames24Rulz]

I'll take 21 and 16 from Noah every day of the week.

 

If he keeps up his solid play (obviously he won't be that good for the rest of the 1st half), he should garner some serious All-Star consideration.

 

I was worried about this game and I figured it'd be a close game. I'll definitely take the win. Nice to see Salmons actually have a good shooting night as well.

[bcl412]

I'll take 21 and 16 from Noah every day of the week.

 

If he keeps up his solid play (obviously he won't be that good for the rest of the 1st half), he should garner some serious All-Star consideration.

 

I was worried about this game and I figured it'd be a close game. I'll definitely take the win. Nice to see Salmons actually have a good shooting night as well.

 

Have the Bulls ever beaten the Bobcats soundly? It seems like, no matter how bad they are, they always play the Bulls tough.

[SpongeWorthy]

I'm so stoked on Noah. Hopefully he can keep it up. He's really a fun player to watch even if he can't score much on his own. Aside from the obvious good stuff tonight I thought he looked really great defending smaller guys out on the floor. He has a good defensive technique. I also like how you can feel comfortable with him handling the ball on the break or nabbing a board and pushing it a bit before throwing an outlet pass. When Miller hit him with that interior behind the back pass for the dunk all I could think was what would happen if someone threw a pass like that to Chandler. I think it would've given him a brain aneurysm.

 

And Rose isn't anywhere near where he needs to be on offense but I think the offseason focus on defense for him has really improved him on that end. He's getting in a good stance and really fighting through screens to keep the opposing PGs in front of him.

[UMFan83]

I'll take 21 and 16 from Noah every day of the week.

 

If he keeps up his solid play (obviously he won't be that good for the rest of the 1st half), he should garner some serious All-Star consideration.

 

I was worried about this game and I figured it'd be a close game. I'll definitely take the win. Nice to see Salmons actually have a good shooting night as well.

 

Have the Bulls ever beaten the Bobcats soundly? It seems like, no matter how bad they are, they always play the Bulls tough.

 

Nope they always play us tough. Remember this game?

 

One of my favorite regular season games over the last ~10 years.

[DivineBovine]

like it or not, the offense is missing Ben Gordon right now

 

Myth. The Bulls are shooting about the same % this year as they did last year. Of course the Bulls are scoring about 8 points per games less this year, despite playing a slightly tougher five games this year as they did last year. The Bulls are not aggressive enough this year, as can see by the lower FTA so far (112 through 5 games this yr, as opposed to 149 attempts last year), and Gordon wasn't a real factor in getting to the line. Personally the Bulls are missing Rose's explosiveness moreso the Gordon's offense.

 

The Bulls had an effective field goal percentage of .493 which was only good for 20th in the league. The problem is that they're at .427 so far this season which is second to last in the league. They were 7th in 3 point FG percentage last year and they're dead last so far this season (.381 vs. .234). You can attribute that to no Gordon and Salmons/Hinrich being ice cold so far.

 

The good news is that their rebounding on the defensive glass is vastly improved. They're 3rd in defensive rebounding percentage so far when they were 28th last year. Deng and a consistent Noah have been huge their so far. Sadly, Thomas not getting much run has helped that too.

 

Keeping in mind a small sample size so far I think you can expect that letting Gordon going and replacing him with Salmons at the 2 and allowing Deng to slide in at 3 has had the effect you'd expect--trading much better rebounding/defense for a drop off in outside shooting. The good news is that Salmons should start shooting better and Rose will get healthier to help mitigate the losses on offense.

 

In other wrods the Bulls are not really missing BG at all.

 

 

Here we go with Gordon talk. Even if the Bulls are winning.

 

Losing Gordon was good for the team.

 

1) Cost: That money is better spent elsewhere and allows the Bulls to be in a good position for 2010 free agents

 

2) His limitations as a player: Yes, he can shoot. But that's it.

- He can't defend

- He can't pass

- He can't rebound

- He can't dribble

- He was a terrible complement to Rose: I can't believe how many people actually think BG was good for Rose. Rose is best when he drives and creates. BG was a guy who would get the ball, take a few dribbles, and jack up a shot. Sorry, not enough balls for the two of them.

- He cannot score in crunch time with the game on the line. He cannot create his own shot. I can't believe so many Bulls fans haven't realized this by now. How many times do they need to see him get swatted or stripped with the game on the line before they realize it.

 

 

Get over Gordon. I appreciated what he did, but he was overrated, one-dimensional, and getting rid of him was better for the Bulls. Period.

[Flames24Rulz]

like it or not, the offense is missing Ben Gordon right now

 

Myth. The Bulls are shooting about the same % this year as they did last year. Of course the Bulls are scoring about 8 points per games less this year, despite playing a slightly tougher five games this year as they did last year. The Bulls are not aggressive enough this year, as can see by the lower FTA so far (112 through 5 games this yr, as opposed to 149 attempts last year), and Gordon wasn't a real factor in getting to the line. Personally the Bulls are missing Rose's explosiveness moreso the Gordon's offense.

 

The Bulls had an effective field goal percentage of .493 which was only good for 20th in the league. The problem is that they're at .427 so far this season which is second to last in the league. They were 7th in 3 point FG percentage last year and they're dead last so far this season (.381 vs. .234). You can attribute that to no Gordon and Salmons/Hinrich being ice cold so far.

 

The good news is that their rebounding on the defensive glass is vastly improved. They're 3rd in defensive rebounding percentage so far when they were 28th last year. Deng and a consistent Noah have been huge their so far. Sadly, Thomas not getting much run has helped that too.

 

Keeping in mind a small sample size so far I think you can expect that letting Gordon going and replacing him with Salmons at the 2 and allowing Deng to slide in at 3 has had the effect you'd expect--trading much better rebounding/defense for a drop off in outside shooting. The good news is that Salmons should start shooting better and Rose will get healthier to help mitigate the losses on offense.

 

In other wrods the Bulls are not really missing BG at all.

 

 

Here we go with Gordon talk. Even if the Bulls are winning.

 

Losing Gordon was good for the team.

 

1) Cost: That money is better spent elsewhere and allows the Bulls to be in a good position for 2010 free agents

 

2) His limitations as a player: Yes, he can shoot. But that's it.

- He can't defend

- He can't pass

- He can't rebound

- He can't dribble

- He was a terrible complement to Rose: I can't believe how many people actually think BG was good for Rose. Rose is best when he drives and creates. BG was a guy who would get the ball, take a few dribbles, and jack up a shot. Sorry, not enough balls for the two of them.

- He cannot score in crunch time with the game on the line. He cannot create his own shot. I can't believe so many Bulls fans haven't realized this by now. How many times do they need to see him get swatted or stripped with the game on the line before they realize it.

 

 

Get over Gordon. I appreciated what he did, but he was overrated, one-dimensional, and getting rid of him was better for the Bulls. Period.

 

Gordon was able to get to the line better than anyone else on this team. He's a better shooter than anyone we have on our team right now. It really isn't a coincidence that we're the worst three-point shooting team in the league. Yes, I realize it's a very small sample size but I expect us to be in the lower third in that stat this year. And if Gordon couldn't score in crunch time, how did we get our points late in close games? Salmons had a few key games last year but Gordon was big in the closing seconds of several games.

 

That being said, I do understand the move and I do think it will pay off in the long run. Even if we don't land Wade or Bosh, we should (hopefully) have enough to entice Joe Johnson coming here. It's just going to be extremely nauseating watching this team in certain stretches this year, but we do have a better defensive team as a result of it as well.

[UMFan83]

I'm actually with you about not having Gordon being good for the Bulls long term, but I have to say that in my mind, the scenario where the Bulls strike out in free agency and end up getting a player who is worse than Gordon is more likely than the Bulls actually hitting it big and getting a superstar this summer.

 

Imagine the Bulls striking out in FA and having to settle for Rafer Alston or something like that, and giving him Ben Gordon money.

[Flames24Rulz]

I'm actually with you about not having Gordon being good for the Bulls long term, but I have to say that in my mind, the scenario where the Bulls strike out in free agency and end up getting a player who is worse than Gordon is more likely than the Bulls actually hitting it big and getting a superstar this summer.

 

Imagine the Bulls striking out in FA and having to settle for Rafer Alston or something like that, and giving him Ben Gordon money.

 

Oh, I'll be furious if that's the case. I know it's irrational, but I'll use hindsight to bash Paxson and Foreman for letting go of Gordon for nothing. I was pissed at the time but I understand their line of thinking, as I said. But if we reach the summer and we can't get any of those free agents? That erases that line of thinking and instead of having a guy that can pour in 21 points a game, we're going to be relegated to keeping John Salmons for a long-term deal when BG should be getting that money.

 

I hope it doesn't come to that. I really hope we don't screw this up in the summer.

[UMFan83]

I'm actually with you about not having Gordon being good for the Bulls long term, but I have to say that in my mind, the scenario where the Bulls strike out in free agency and end up getting a player who is worse than Gordon is more likely than the Bulls actually hitting it big and getting a superstar this summer.

 

Imagine the Bulls striking out in FA and having to settle for Rafer Alston or something like that, and giving him Ben Gordon money.

 

Oh, I'll be furious if that's the case. I know it's irrational, but I'll use hindsight to bash Paxson and Foreman for letting go of Gordon for nothing. I was pissed at the time but I understand their line of thinking, as I said. But if we reach the summer and we can't get any of those free agents? That erases that line of thinking and instead of having a guy that can pour in 21 points a game, we're going to be relegated to keeping John Salmons for a long-term deal when BG should be getting that money.

 

I hope it doesn't come to that. I really hope we don't screw this up in the summer.

 

I don't know if its a matter of screwing up. The Bulls saw how many great FAs were out there, positioned themselves to be a player that offseason (and actually got better in the process), and now they just have to hope that they can attract a FA to come there.

 

I see this offseason (for the NBA in general) going one of two ways:

1) Almost all the FAs end up going back to their current teams because they can offer more money and security; this offseason is a huge bust in terms of the hype it's gotten.

2) Due to the economy, many of the smaller market teams with FAs, can't afford to give their players max deals and/or deem it more fiscally responsible to work out sign and trades so they get something back in return.

 

I think 1 is more likely by far. If that's the case, you can rip the Bulls for their plan not working out, but I tend to think the Bulls are in a better position long term now than they were a year ago this time, so all is not lost if we get shut out.

 

Anyways, if FAs are looking elsewhere, there is gonna be a lot of competition and I think there are several more attractive options for most FAs than Chicago. Look how things turned out in 2000 when we went out looking for stud FAs. Chicago wasn't as attractive as Orlando, despite neither team having much in the way of talent. Yes the Bulls have a better team now, but Chicago isn't considered by many players a destination NBA city (IMO). Who wants to go out at night and deal with 15 degree temps in January when they can be living it up on South Beach or something. I could be wrong though. I will anticipate the offseason hoping something happens, but I'm not counting on it.

[Flames24Rulz]

Another thing; I don't really thing we got better by letting Gordon go. With Gordon and Salmons on board at the end of last year, we were one of the hottest teams in the league. Add the fact that Deng is back this year and I think if we were to keep Gordon this year, we'd probably push 50 wins. I really don't think that's going out on a limb.

 

I do agree with you though on what will more than likely happen this offseason.

[UMFan83]

Another thing; I don't really thing we got better by letting Gordon go. With Gordon and Salmons on board at the end of last year, we were one of the hottest teams in the league. Add the fact that Deng is back this year and I think if we were to keep Gordon this year, we'd probably push 50 wins. I really don't think that's going out on a limb.

 

I do agree with you though on what will more than likely happen this offseason.

 

Well, I don't think we got better without Gordon, I was more referring to the cost cutting moves at the deadline last year, but I think we are better long term without Gordon. Gordon is a unique talent and a unique scorer, but I don't think it's something that can't be mostly replaced. Maybe you aren't gonna find a player with the shooting ability that Gordon has (the ability to catch and shoot, the ability to get unbelievably on fire, etc), but you might find a player that can create more on offense, one who can slash better, one who can get to the line when his shots not falling. Scorers are a dime a dozen in the NBA, but finding players who can create offense in multiple ways, and play solid defense are much harder to find.

 

That's just my opinion, I don't think the Gordon debate will ever have a clear victor unless we do get a stud FA this offseason. It doesn't help that the offense has come out noticeably weakened this season, but then again the defense looks revitalized so who knows.

[UMFan83]

Haha, I say all of this, and then I goto RealGM and read about this....

 

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/knicks/lebron_will_have_better_options_h6US69ienG0jhqziBG49cJ

What's more, according to someone in the know, LeBron is viewing the Bulls as a wild card challenger; no other suitor need apply.

That explains why rising restricted free agent Tyrus Thomas, who suffered a forearm fracture in the weight room Friday that required surgery (out six weeks minimum), wasn't given an extension. Chicago definitely believes it has a shot at luring LeBron. As talented as Thomas is, the Bulls secured two excellent rookie forwards -- Brooklyn's Taj Jami Gibson and James Johnson -- in the draft and figure to have roughly $20 million in cap room in case LeBron feels the urge to replicate Air Jordan's Windy City flight plan.

[RedFlash]

Haha, I say all of this, and then I goto RealGM and read about this....

 

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/knicks/lebron_will_have_better_options_h6US69ienG0jhqziBG49cJ

What's more, according to someone in the know, LeBron is viewing the Bulls as a wild card challenger; no other suitor need apply.

That explains why rising restricted free agent Tyrus Thomas, who suffered a forearm fracture in the weight room Friday that required surgery (out six weeks minimum), wasn't given an extension. Chicago definitely believes it has a shot at luring LeBron. As talented as Thomas is, the Bulls secured two excellent rookie forwards -- Brooklyn's Taj Jami Gibson and James Johnson -- in the draft and figure to have roughly $20 million in cap room in case LeBron feels the urge to replicate Air Jordan's Windy City flight plan.

 

Dagnabit UMFan, you couldn't atleast put that in a spoiler? I'm trying not to get excited about the possibility of this offseason, but this isn't helping. :?

[Derwood]

I think Rose has to get healthy and have a great year in order to lure FA's to Chicago. he has to show that he's a PG that a championship team is built around

[DivineBovine]

I'm actually with you about not having Gordon being good for the Bulls long term, but I have to say that in my mind, the scenario where the Bulls strike out in free agency and end up getting a player who is worse than Gordon is more likely than the Bulls actually hitting it big and getting a superstar this summer.

 

Imagine the Bulls striking out in FA and having to settle for Rafer Alston or something like that, and giving him Ben Gordon money.

 

Oh, I'll be furious if that's the case. I know it's irrational, but I'll use hindsight to bash Paxson and Foreman for letting go of Gordon for nothing. I was pissed at the time but I understand their line of thinking, as I said. But if we reach the summer and we can't get any of those free agents? That erases that line of thinking and instead of having a guy that can pour in 21 points a game, we're going to be relegated to keeping John Salmons for a long-term deal when BG should be getting that money.

 

I hope it doesn't come to that. I really hope we don't screw this up in the summer.

 

I don't know if its a matter of screwing up. The Bulls saw how many great FAs were out there, positioned themselves to be a player that offseason (and actually got better in the process), and now they just have to hope that they can attract a FA to come there.

 

I see this offseason (for the NBA in general) going one of two ways:

1) Almost all the FAs end up going back to their current teams because they can offer more money and security; this offseason is a huge bust in terms of the hype it's gotten.

2) Due to the economy, many of the smaller market teams with FAs, can't afford to give their players max deals and/or deem it more fiscally responsible to work out sign and trades so they get something back in return.

 

I think 1 is more likely by far. If that's the case, you can rip the Bulls for their plan not working out, but I tend to think the Bulls are in a better position long term now than they were a year ago this time, so all is not lost if we get shut out.

 

Anyways, if FAs are looking elsewhere, there is gonna be a lot of competition and I think there are several more attractive options for most FAs than Chicago. Look how things turned out in 2000 when we went out looking for stud FAs. Chicago wasn't as attractive as Orlando, despite neither team having much in the way of talent. Yes the Bulls have a better team now, but Chicago isn't considered by many players a destination NBA city (IMO). Who wants to go out at night and deal with 15 degree temps in January when they can be living it up on South Beach or something. I could be wrong though. I will anticipate the offseason hoping something happens, but I'm not counting on it.

 

 

Relax guys. 2010 is not 2000. In 2000, the Bulls weren't even close to being a playoff team and had a terrible reputation with hated Jerry Krause running the show.

 

In 2010, they will hopefully be coming off another decent playoff showing and have many young and promising players. Any free agent would have to look very favorably upon the Bulls. It would seem to me that they are a perfect fit for LeBron, DWade, or Bosh. There are no superstar scorers on this team to take away their points, just a bunch of good solid young players, decent defenders, and a good young PG.

 

If they do strike out in free agency, which is always very possible, then it you can't blame it on Pax and the Bulls for putting themselves in a bad position. And I still think it was a good move in losing Gordon. He is not worth the money Detroit gave him. We don't need his 20 points, 2 rebounds, 2 assists, horrible defense and horrible ballhanding. There will be better options for improving the team. Relax.

[DivineBovine]

Haha, I say all of this, and then I goto RealGM and read about this....

 

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/knicks/lebron_will_have_better_options_h6US69ienG0jhqziBG49cJ

What's more, according to someone in the know, LeBron is viewing the Bulls as a wild card challenger; no other suitor need apply.

That explains why rising restricted free agent Tyrus Thomas, who suffered a forearm fracture in the weight room Friday that required surgery (out six weeks minimum), wasn't given an extension. Chicago definitely believes it has a shot at luring LeBron. As talented as Thomas is, the Bulls secured two excellent rookie forwards -- Brooklyn's Taj Jami Gibson and James Johnson -- in the draft and figure to have roughly $20 million in cap room in case LeBron feels the urge to replicate Air Jordan's Windy City flight plan.

 

 

LeBron may indeed pick the Knicks over the Bulls because of the NYC factor, but it would be a dumb move. As great a player as he is, it is not easy to win rings and that's what makes a career. LeBron may never win a ring in NY. He could get into the cycle of Ewing, Barkley, Malone where he's always on a good team but never a championship team. If the Cavs lose again this year, which they will, he will really see that championships are not to be taken for granted. The Bulls are already a decent playoff caliber team with decent big men, decent defense, and a good young PG.

 

We'll see how much he values the NYC glamour factor. Yes, it would be cool for him to win a championship in NY. He'd be a NYC hero forever. But he would make nearly as much money in Chicago. If he never wins a championship, his career would be tainted forever.

[UMFan83]

Yes, but if he did end up winning a title in NYC, it would mean 10 times more for his legacy than a title win in Chicago. Just how it is. Plus it's not like the Knicks will be bad forever. LeBron signs with NY and suddenly tons of talented players will immediately make NY their number one choice. It's not like Isiah is the GM anymore. They now have someone in charge that looks at things like salary cap before he makes a move. It might take them a couple years but they will build a team good enough to be title contenders. Besides, they probably still have enough to sign another superstar to go along with LeBron, especially with sign and trade being an option to offset some of the salary. Put Bosh and James together, use the MLE and LLE and you got a top 5 playoff team in the East next year. Building from there and it might not take long before they are competing for championships.

 

So due to having more money available this offseason, and having a more attractive destination, I don't think the Knicks are that much less equipped for a LeBron led team to be a title contender.

 

Just my opinion and certainly open to debate...

[Derwood]

local radio show here was talking about LeBron to the Lakers next year to play with Kobe (lol)

[David]

local radio show here was talking about LeBron to the Lakers next year to play with Kobe (lol)

 

 

All based off of Sam Smith's stupidity.

[ConstableRabbit]

I don't think he would come to Chicago and play in Jordan's shadow. He would also have to change his number.

 

Not exactly sure that's what he's looking for.

[Soul]

I don't think he would come to Chicago and play in Jordan's shadow. He would also have to change his number.

 

Not exactly sure that's what he's looking for.

 

I'm finding it difficult to believe that 11 years after Jordan left Chicago, a superstar player would still be playing in Jordan's shadow. I'm sure there would be comparisons, but who really cares? LeBron doesn't strike me as the kind of player that would avoid something out of fear.

 

That said, I can't imagine him coming to Chicago.

[ConstableRabbit]

I don't think he would come to Chicago and play in Jordan's shadow. He would also have to change his number.

 

Not exactly sure that's what he's looking for.

 

I'm finding it difficult to believe that 11 years after Jordan left Chicago, a superstar player would still be playing in Jordan's shadow. I'm sure there would be comparisons, but who really cares? LeBron doesn't strike me as the kind of player that would avoid something out of fear.

 

That said, I can't imagine him coming to Chicago.

I just feel like if I were LeBron, I'd want to play somewhere where I could make my own legacy. He's already been compared to Jordan a lot as it is and I don't really think he can create his own legacy here in the same way he could in a "non-Jordan" city.

 

It's not really "fear" as much as it is being his own man. (Barring something amazing like... him developing a deadly jumpshot and leading the bulls to 7 titles) no matter what he would do in Chicago, he would still be second-fiddle to MJ. I don't think he wants that.