Chicago Bulls Offseason

[cubbyvirus00]

2010 was more about the rising of Derrick Rose then about anything that Paxson did. Nobody expected Rose to be the MVP and dominate the way he did. The team was too reliant on one person dominating the ball and creating offense.

 

So they weren't actually a good team...only Rose was good and they tricked everyone to make it where they did? This is damn near gibberish.

 

2011 the Bulls lost to an inferior Sixers team in the first round with or without Rose.

 

Wait...what?

 

Don't get it twisted. Paxson did very little to make that team better in 2010. They still had the players in place before that season started and Rose covered up the huge hole of deficiencies on that team.

 

*If this team was so great in 2011, the bulls should have gotten past the first round. With or without Rose they should have anyways.

 

Yes, because the only issue was Rose going down. It's not like Noah and Deng were dealing with injuries, too.

 

Noah went down at the end. I don't know about Deng, because every quote I read from him it goes along the lines of 'the injury didn't affect me because I got used to playing with it.'

[Sammy Sofa]

And then you would have just been screaming about their lack of depth behind Deng and Noah and Boozer.

 

So now you're going to predict my reaction to moves they could have made?

 

I would have been fine with 48 year old Kurt Thomas getting minutes behind the gimpy Boozer in 2010.

 

Annnnnd of course you would have.

[UMFan83]

2010 was more about the rising of Derrick Rose then about anything that Paxson did. Nobody expected Rose to be the MVP and dominate the way he did. The team was too reliant on one person dominating the ball and creating offense.

 

So they weren't actually a good team...only Rose was good and they tricked everyone to make it where they did? This is damn near gibberish.

 

2011 the Bulls lost to an inferior Sixers team in the first round with or without Rose.

 

Wait...what?

 

Don't get it twisted. Paxson did very little to make that team better in 2010. They still had the players in place before that season started and Rose covered up the huge hole of deficiencies on that team.

 

*If this team was so great in 2011 the bulls with or without Rose should have gotten past the first round.

 

OK I've obviously wasted my time as you know nothing about basketball.

 

Guess how many 2009-2010 Bulls played on the 2010-2011 Bulls? 4! They went from 27th in offense and 13th in defensive rating to 11th and 1st. So you're telling me that Derrick Rose singlehandedly made them go from a mediocre team to the top 2-3 in the NBA just from an offseason of improvement? And that the addition of Thibs, Brewer, Bogans, Asik, Thomas and Watson had nothing to do with the Bulls improving into the best defense in the NBA? It was just Derrick Rose learning how to guard all 5 positions at once?

 

Please read a book on basketball before continuing to post in this thread. Any book. Seriously, I'm would think even a book like this one would somehow help you improve your basketball knowledge:

 

http://s.ecrater.com/stores/158321/4c0efe86bb026_158321n.jpg

Edited July 10, 2012 by UMFan83

[Sammy Sofa]

2010 was more about the rising of Derrick Rose then about anything that Paxson did. Nobody expected Rose to be the MVP and dominate the way he did. The team was too reliant on one person dominating the ball and creating offense.

 

So they weren't actually a good team...only Rose was good and they tricked everyone to make it where they did? This is damn near gibberish.

 

2011 the Bulls lost to an inferior Sixers team in the first round with or without Rose.

 

Wait...what?

 

Don't get it twisted. Paxson did very little to make that team better in 2010. They still had the players in place before that season started and Rose covered up the huge hole of deficiencies on that team.

 

*If this team was so great in 2011, the bulls should have gotten past the first round. With or without Rose they should have anyways.

 

Yes, because the only issue was Rose going down. It's not like Noah and Deng were dealing with injuries, too.

 

Noah went down at the end. I don't know about Deng, because every quote I read from him it goes along the lines of 'the injury didn't affect me because I got used to playing with it.'

 

Despite, y'know, his numbers saying otherwise. Noah didn't just go down "at the end;" you're making it sound like he was injured in the final minutes of the last game.

[cubbyvirus00]

He's done poorly in free agency and he's drafted mediocre players.

 

This is hilarious especially the part about the draft

 

2003: 1 (7) Kirk Hinrich

2004: 1 (3) Ben Gordon

2004: 1 (9) Traded essentially cash for the rights to Luol Deng

2004: 2 (8) Chris Duhon

2006: 1 (2) Tyrus Thomas (essentially)

2006: 1 (16) Thabo Sefolosha (essentially)

2007: 1 (9) Joakim Noah

2007: 2 (21) JamesOn Curry

2008: 1 (1) Derrick Rose

2008: 2 (?) Omer Asik

2009: 1 (16) James Johnson

2009: 1 (26) Taj Gibson

2011: 1 (23) Nikola Mirotic

2011: 1 (30) Jimmy Butler

2012: 1 (29) Marquis Teague

 

I mean jeez, relative to pick in the draft, how can anyone look at that drafting history and say Pax has done a poor job drafting? Being able to get a border line All-Star in Deng for nothing. Finding a servicable backup PG in Duhon in the middle of the 2nd round. Getting a top 5 NBA Center in Noah at 9. Getting an excellent defensive guard who starts for the current WC champs at 16. Having the foresight to draft Asik in the late 2nd round and waiting for him to develop and come over to become one of the best defensive big men in the NBA? Drafting a 6th man of the year candidate in Taj Gibson 26th. Turning a situation where they didn't have room on the roster for a second 1st round pick into one of the Bulls best assets currently in Mirotic.

 

Yes he missed big time on Tyrus, James Johnson is ok but disappointing and JamesOn Curry was nothing (but was a late 2nd round pick). Other than that, they have drafted nothing but solid players since 2003. You are looking at 1 superstar, 3 minor stars (Noah, Deng, Gordon), 3 more solid starters (Hinrich, Gibson, Thabo), and 4 solid rotation players on winning teams. I'm not putting Mirotic, Butler and Teague on this list but Butler already looks like he's earned enough trust to replace Brewer in the rotation, Mirotic looks like a potential star in the making or at least a solid starter, and most people gave the Bulls high marks for Teague.

 

So yeah once again, you make a statement that is so far from the truth, you look completely silly. Can we somehow ban virus from the Bulls and Bears threads?

 

Yet again, I see a lot of 'solid' mediocre players. He's done very little in terms of first round picks and you're omitting the blunder of trading Aldridge for TT among others.

 

In almost 10 years hes drafted 1 superstar with the first pick of the draft and drafted a 1 time borderline all star in Deng who is a nice complementary piece, third option.

 

His free agent gets (and lack of) are below average and I'm not sure he's learned to utilize the 'trade' option in the league. The Bulls also bungled the Skiles situation which leaves me curious to see what they do with Thibs.

 

I'm not omitting Tyrus, I mentioned him right there.

 

Considering he hasn't had had a top 10 pick since 2007, he's done an awesome job drafting. In 2004, the only players to make an ASG from that draft were Dwight Howard (drafted before any Bulls picks) Devin Harris, Lu Deng, Andre Iguodala, and Jameer Nelson. Tell me what superstar the Bulls should have drafted there? Considering names like Josh Childress, Shaun Livingston, Rafael Araujo, and Luke Jackson were top 10 picks that year, you would have to be an idiot to say anything about that draft.

 

In 2003, the Bulls drafted Hinrich after the first 6 picks were LeBron, Darko, Melo, Bosh, Wade and Kaman. After that the only future all-stars taken were David West (18th), Josh Howard (29th) and Mo Williams (41st). Again, there's no way you can criticize Pax for taking Hinrich, especially because Jay Williams decided to end his NBA career leaving the Bulls a huge hole at PG.

 

In 2006, Tyrus was a bust of a pick, despite still being a really solid rotation player that would fit on many good teams. He missed out on the following 3 stars, Aldridge (essentially 4th), Roy (6th) and Rondo (21). Roy we can use hindsight to excuse Pax for that, and if you want to be a dick you can rip on him for not taking Rondo 19 picks ahead of where he was expected to go but whatever. Same thing for Thabo, Rondo is the only player you could definitively say is better than Thabo where the Bulls picked (and probably Kyle Lowry).

 

In 2007, the only All-Star taken after Noah was Marc Gasol (48th). Noah is a borderline all star in his own right. He is clearly the best or 2nd best player that was available when the Bulls picked

 

In 2009, at the 26th pick, there were no All-Stars (so far) picked after Taj. The best player picked after Taj is probably Toney Douglass. Obviously at 16, even while understanding that James Johnson was one of 2 first round Bulls picks (out of 12) in the Pax era that he missed out on, the best player taken between James Johnson and Taj is either Ty Lawson or Jrue Holiday. Good players, definitely not stars, and understandable considering the Bulls drafted a pretty good PG in the previous year's draft.

 

In 2011, when he traded for Mirotic at 23, the best players following him are names like MarShon Brooks, JuJuan Johnson and Norris Cole. I'd take Mirotic and his potential a million times over. Jimmy Butler was picked 30th....I honestly couldnt tell you a better player picked after Butler...maybe Chandler Parsons? No stars

 

 

So where are all these All-Stars the Bulls should have taken? The only All-Stars you can actually say the Bulls could have drafted at their position and didn't are LaMarcus Aldridge and possibly Rajon Rondo. In 10 years of GM, he's missed on exactly 3 of his 15 draft picks, with only 1 lottery miss (out of 7), and 2 first round misses (and James Johnson is being kind calling a miss). And in those 10 years, he's only missed out on 2 All-Stars that would have been better than the picks he made, both in the same draft. In his 15 draft picks, he arguably took the best player that was available to him in 11 of them (the 4 he didn't being Tyrus, Thabo, James Johnson and JamesOn Curry.

 

I know you are rather stuborn in your pessimism, but I can tell you with certainty that probably 28 of the other 29 NBA GMs would kill for that track record of draft picks (assuming San Antonio is happy with their drafting too).

 

This is the best post I've read on here. So essentially the Bulls didn't have much to work with in terms of draft slotting because they have been mediocre for so many years toiling around with mid to late first round picks. So I'll give it up and admit that maybe I'm harping on the Bulls draft record a little too hard. But that only strengthens my point that they've been far too conservative and too focused on toiling fruitlessly instead of tearing down the team and trying to rebuild with higher draft choices. Their trading record is nearly blank.

[Sammy Sofa]

The results of the last two season are not "toiling fruitlessly."

 

By your standards everyone except two teams every year "toil fruitlessly."

[cubbyvirus00]

2010 was more about the rising of Derrick Rose then about anything that Paxson did. Nobody expected Rose to be the MVP and dominate the way he did. The team was too reliant on one person dominating the ball and creating offense.

 

So they weren't actually a good team...only Rose was good and they tricked everyone to make it where they did? This is damn near gibberish.

 

2011 the Bulls lost to an inferior Sixers team in the first round with or without Rose.

 

Wait...what?

 

Don't get it twisted. Paxson did very little to make that team better in 2010. They still had the players in place before that season started and Rose covered up the huge hole of deficiencies on that team.

 

*If this team was so great in 2011 the bulls with or without Rose should have gotten past the first round.

 

OK I've obviously wasted my time as you know nothing about basketball.

 

Guess how many 2009-2010 Bulls played on the 2010-2011 Bulls? 4! They went from 27th in offense and 13th in defensive rating to 11th and 1st. So you're telling me that Derrick Rose singlehandedly made them go from a mediocre team to the top 2-3 in the NBA just from an offseason of improvement? And that the addition of Thibs, Brewer, Bogans, Asik, Thomas and Watson had nothing to do with the Bulls improving into the best defense in the NBA? It was just Derrick Rose learning how to guard all 5 positions at once?

 

Please read a book on basketball before continuing to post in this thread. Any book. Seriously, I'm would think even a book like this one would somehow help you improve your basketball knowledge:

 

http://s.ecrater.com/stores/158321/4c0efe86bb026_158321n.jpg

 

So you're going to tell me that Brewer, Bogans, Asik, Thomas and Watson had a whole lot to do with their jump in offensive rating?

 

Yes I am telling you Derrick Rose made that ENTIRE team better.

[cubbyvirus00]

The results of the last two season are not "toiling fruitlessly."

 

By your standards everyone except two teams every year "toil fruitlessly."

 

I never said the last two seasons they have been 'toiling fruitlessly.' Read better plz.

[Sammy Sofa]

"So you're telling me that role player valued for his defense made the team a whole lot better OFFENSIVELY?!? CASE DISMISSED."

[cubbyvirus00]

"So you're telling me that role player valued for his defense made the team a whole lot better OFFENSIVELY?!? CASE DISMISSED."

 

Yikes, 32k posts of elitist junk like this?

[Sammy Sofa]

The results of the last two season are not "toiling fruitlessly."

 

By your standards everyone except two teams every year "toil fruitlessly."

 

I never said the last two seasons they have been 'toiling fruitlessly.' Read better plz.

 

So what does this mean?

 

But that only strengthens my point that they've been far too conservative and too focused on toiling fruitlessly instead of tearing down the team and trying to rebuild with higher draft choices.

 

That only applied to every year except the last two?

[UMFan83]

2010 was more about the rising of Derrick Rose then about anything that Paxson did. Nobody expected Rose to be the MVP and dominate the way he did. The team was too reliant on one person dominating the ball and creating offense.

 

So they weren't actually a good team...only Rose was good and they tricked everyone to make it where they did? This is damn near gibberish.

 

2011 the Bulls lost to an inferior Sixers team in the first round with or without Rose.

 

Wait...what?

 

Don't get it twisted. Paxson did very little to make that team better in 2010. They still had the players in place before that season started and Rose covered up the huge hole of deficiencies on that team.

 

*If this team was so great in 2011 the bulls with or without Rose should have gotten past the first round.

 

OK I've obviously wasted my time as you know nothing about basketball.

 

Guess how many 2009-2010 Bulls played on the 2010-2011 Bulls? 4! They went from 27th in offense and 13th in defensive rating to 11th and 1st. So you're telling me that Derrick Rose singlehandedly made them go from a mediocre team to the top 2-3 in the NBA just from an offseason of improvement? And that the addition of Thibs, Brewer, Bogans, Asik, Thomas and Watson had nothing to do with the Bulls improving into the best defense in the NBA? It was just Derrick Rose learning how to guard all 5 positions at once?

 

Please read a book on basketball before continuing to post in this thread. Any book. Seriously, I'm would think even a book like this one would somehow help you improve your basketball knowledge:

 

http://s.ecrater.com/stores/158321/4c0efe86bb026_158321n.jpg

 

So you're going to tell me that Brewer, Bogans, Asik, Thomas and Watson had a whole lot to do with their jump in offensive rating?

 

Yes I am telling you Derrick Rose made that ENTIRE team better.

 

There's no [expletive] doubt about that. But Pax's FA moves build a solid core around him that made the team much better. And I'd say that Korver instead of Hakeem Warrick, Watson instead of Flip Murray and Boozer instead of Chris Richard had something to do with the Bulls offense improving. Again, Derrick's the biggest improvement offensively but not even Michael Jordan could turn the 2009-2010 Bulls into a 62 win team. Their best 3 point shooter was Flip Murray...Chris Richard was their backup PF, etc etc.

[Sammy Sofa]

"So you're telling me that role player valued for his defense made the team a whole lot better OFFENSIVELY?!? CASE DISMISSED."

 

Yikes, 32k posts of elitist junk like this?

 

It's not "elitist" to point out how obviously flawed your reasoning is.

[cubbyvirus00]

The results of the last two season are not "toiling fruitlessly."

 

By your standards everyone except two teams every year "toil fruitlessly."

 

I never said the last two seasons they have been 'toiling fruitlessly.' Read better plz.

 

So what does this mean?

 

But that only strengthens my point that they've been far too conservative and too focused on toiling fruitlessly instead of tearing down the team and trying to rebuild with higher draft choices.

 

That only applied to every year except the last two?

 

Yes. Our discussion/debate was centered around their Bulls drafting in years past. My point is that they've played it too conservative for too long.

[cubbyvirus00]

"So you're telling me that role player valued for his defense made the team a whole lot better OFFENSIVELY?!? CASE DISMISSED."

 

Yikes, 32k posts of elitist junk like this?

 

It's not "elitist" to point out how obviously flawed your reasoning is.

 

Not but it is to post a mock quotation of somebody else in a fake courtroom setting, straying off-topic to show the internets how you're the almighty king of all Chicago sports.

[Sammy Sofa]

The results of the last two season are not "toiling fruitlessly."

 

By your standards everyone except two teams every year "toil fruitlessly."

 

I never said the last two seasons they have been 'toiling fruitlessly.' Read better plz.

 

So what does this mean?

 

But that only strengthens my point that they've been far too conservative and too focused on toiling fruitlessly instead of tearing down the team and trying to rebuild with higher draft choices.

 

That only applied to every year except the last two?

 

Yes. Our discussion/debate was centered around their Bulls drafting in years past. My point is that they've played it too conservative for too long.

 

...

 

You just said that the post that broke down how you're wrong was "the best one here." What players do you think they missed out on with their conservative drafting? Do you really expect them to regularly "tear down the team" to trade up their picks?

[Sammy Sofa]

"So you're telling me that role player valued for his defense made the team a whole lot better OFFENSIVELY?!? CASE DISMISSED."

 

Yikes, 32k posts of elitist junk like this?

 

It's not "elitist" to point out how obviously flawed your reasoning is.

 

Not but it is to post a mock quotation of somebody else in a fake courtroom setting, straying off-topic to show the internets how you're the almighty king of all Chicago sports.

 

It's not off topic. Stop complaining just because everyone disagrees with you.

[bcl412]

I understand being critical and all but there has to be a point where you ask yourself if you enjoy following sports as a hobby.

[cubbyvirus00]

"So you're telling me that role player valued for his defense made the team a whole lot better OFFENSIVELY?!? CASE DISMISSED."

 

Yikes, 32k posts of elitist junk like this?

 

It's not "elitist" to point out how obviously flawed your reasoning is.

 

Not but it is to post a mock quotation of somebody else in a fake courtroom setting, straying off-topic to show the internets how you're the almighty king of all Chicago sports.

 

It's not off topic. Stop complaining just because everyone disagrees with you.

 

People I dont know disagree with me? Oh no! If UMF makes a quality post to help change my reasoning or line of thought I'm all for it. You choosing to stray off topic is unproductive.

 

The Bulls have been too conservative the last 10 years because they refused to completely rebuild and instead put mediocre players on a team that never had a chance. You can't draft mid first round year in year out and expect to field a championship contender without the addition of big-time impact FAs and trades to help with that process.

 

Without looking, the Bulls have whiffed on early every major FA target they ever had that I can remember. T-Mac and even the possible Kobe trade come to mind. Didn't the Kobe trade come down to Pax not wanting to part with Deng? I can't completely remember.

[Sammy Sofa]

They refuse to completely rebuild because they haven't needed to completely rebuild. This is obviously circular, but "basketball hell" isn't the thing you think it is.

 

The Bulls are in a good position in that they've constructed a well-rounded, competitive team that's one of the best in the NBA. There's a primo FA period coming up. Mirotic will probably be here in a couple years. Talking like they should or need to "rebuild" is an unrealistic expectation.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Sammy Sofa

[cubbyvirus00]

I understand being critical and all but there has to be a point where you ask yourself if you enjoy following sports as a hobby.

 

Following sports is not limited to watching the games and occasionally turning on ESPN. Some people enjoy the debates. :hello:

[cubbyvirus00]

They refuse to completely rebuild because they haven't needed to completely rebuild.

 

I disagree with that and I think part of the reason that they've stood pat is because fans are filling the stadium and that we're still high over the MJ title runs. Business is good for Reinsdorf.

[Sammy Sofa]

They refuse to completely rebuild because they haven't needed to completely rebuild.

 

I disagree with that and I think part of the reason that they've stood pat is because fans are filling the stadium and that we're still high over the MJ title runs. Business is good for Reinsdorf.

 

What? They were still selling out even when the team sucked.

[cubbyvirus00]

They refuse to completely rebuild because they haven't needed to completely rebuild.

 

I disagree with that and I think part of the reason that they've stood pat is because fans are filling the stadium and that we're still high over the MJ title runs. Business is good for Reinsdorf.

 

What? They were still selling out even when the team sucked.

 

I'm talking about from 2000 and forward. Your right, they've been selling out for the better part of a decade. My point is that from then until business has been great and they haven't needed to make major shakeups and changes.

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't understand what your point is. They can sell the place out without putting much money or even effort into a competitive team, yet they do. They haven't needed major shakeups and changes because they've done a good job of putting out a competitive team the last few years, not because of some made-up concern about losing ticket sales.