New Benny, and Other changes (Bulls offseason)

[WrigleyField 22]

All I was saying is it would have been possible to sell higher on him, like, after that season.

Hindsight, he improved a little bit that next year, but the book that was written on him probably is unchanged. He wasn't a franchise changer, not before the draft, not after two years, not after three years.

There are very few players that are capable of single-handedly turning a bad team into a playoff team. You could probably put Lebron James on any team in the league and they would make the playoffs, but who else can you say that about? Elton Brand could have been a very nice piece on a contender if we had been able to pair him with a couple other elite players. He could have been, like, the Chris Bosh of a Big 3.

How about leading a team to 30 wins? I think Bosh handled that without much more help than Brand had. And yea, Bosh is basically also the definition of not a franchise changer. If the qualifier is third best player on a Championship team with the best player on Earth.... yea.

 

I mean, do you remember freaking Kevin Garnett being dogged for not being a winner, and that was for leading his teams to a bunch of second round appearances in a tough Western Conference.

[Cubbie Swagger]

Elton Brand was really good, dammit.

 

That is all.

[WrigleyField 22]

Elton Brand was really good, dammit.

 

That is all.

He was, which is how he got traded for the number 2 pick in a pretty hyped draft (the hype of course ended up being silly, but at the time that pick held value).

[David]

tbh elton brand bored the horsefeathers out of me

[WrigleyField 22]

tbh elton brand bored the [expletive] out of me

Well he certainly wasnt a flashy player, but even non flashy teams are fun if they can win some games.

Edited July 20, 2016 by WrigleyField 22

[UMFan83]

Hindsight, he improved a little bit that next year, but the book that was written on him probably is unchanged. He wasn't a franchise changer, not before the draft, not after two years, not after three years.

There are very few players that are capable of single-handedly turning a bad team into a playoff team. You could probably put Lebron James on any team in the league and they would make the playoffs, but who else can you say that about? Elton Brand could have been a very nice piece on a contender if we had been able to pair him with a couple other elite players. He could have been, like, the Chris Bosh of a Big 3.

How about leading a team to 30 wins? I think Bosh handled that without much more help than Brand had. And yea, Bosh is basically also the definition of not a franchise changer. If the qualifier is third best player on a Championship team with the best player on Earth.... yea.

 

I mean, do you remember freaking Kevin Garnett being dogged for not being a winner, and that was for leading his teams to a bunch of second round appearances in a tough Western Conference.

 

Kevin Garnetts twolves only made it out of the first round once

[WrigleyField 22]

There are very few players that are capable of single-handedly turning a bad team into a playoff team. You could probably put Lebron James on any team in the league and they would make the playoffs, but who else can you say that about? Elton Brand could have been a very nice piece on a contender if we had been able to pair him with a couple other elite players. He could have been, like, the Chris Bosh of a Big 3.

How about leading a team to 30 wins? I think Bosh handled that without much more help than Brand had. And yea, Bosh is basically also the definition of not a franchise changer. If the qualifier is third best player on a Championship team with the best player on Earth.... yea.

 

I mean, do you remember freaking Kevin Garnett being dogged for not being a winner, and that was for leading his teams to a bunch of second round appearances in a tough Western Conference.

 

Kevin Garnetts twolves only made it out of the first round once

Point stands.

 

Brand was sold at a his functional high point. You could try to get real technical on what selling high means, but even looking at the history of high picks being traded where the return wasn't primarily another high pick, and you can see players just don't get traded with much more value than that.

[Cubbie Swagger]

Points taken. But, I should point out that the entire concept of trading away a star player that you JUST drafted with the #1 pick is extremely rare. Let alone trading them for another draft pick. It's rare because it's stupid, so that's why you won't find many comparable situations. Usually, the only time recent top draft picks get traded is when they still haven't proved themselves, and there is a bit of risk involved (maybe Anthony Bennett as an example). You saw how the Bulls had no interest in trading Jimmy for one of the top picks in the draft.

 

When you roll the dice and WIN, like we did with Brand, you don't ask for a do-over. You don't roll the dice again.

[Sammy Sofa]

"Star player." Elton Brand was basically Horace Grant in terms of value; that's a very, very good player to have if you've got a decent or better team, but those Bulls teams were wretched, and they knew it. As we saw when he want to the Clippers, Brand, despite his talent, wasn't good enough to be someone to really anchor a team or be THE guy. The Bulls keeping him wouldn't have made much of a difference.

 

Speaking of Horace, I had no idea the Bulls FO hired him this past April.

[David]

"Star player." Elton Brand was basically Horace Grant in terms of value; that's a very, very good player to have if you've got a decent or better team, but those Bulls teams were wretched, and they knew it. As we saw when he want to the Clippers, Brand, despite his talent, wasn't good enough to be someone to really anchor a team or be THE guy. The Bulls keeping him wouldn't have made much of a difference.

 

Speaking of Horace, I had no idea the Bulls FO hired him this past April.

 

Did you know that his nephew (which is basically like his son since it's his twin brother) is on the Bulls now?

[Sammy Sofa]

Hot damn; I did not know Jerian Grant was related to him. That's cool. I always liked Horace, and was bummed as a kid when he got signed away by the Magic.

[David]

Hot damn; I did not know Jerian Grant was related to him. That's cool. I always liked Horace, and was bummed as a kid when he got signed away by the Magic.

 

I kinda hated him when he got carried off by the Magic when they beat us in 95.

[Sammy Sofa]

Hot damn; I did not know Jerian Grant was related to him. That's cool. I always liked Horace, and was bummed as a kid when he got signed away by the Magic.

 

I kinda hated him when he got carried off by the Magic when they beat us in 95.

 

I remember that particular moment really stinging, especially with Jordan being back, but I was always torn on the Magic; I couldn't help but love Shaq and Penny, and Horace being there made me like them even more. I definitely remember being worried they were going to become the Bulls' big nemesis with that talent, but fortunately things worked out like it did. Plus that moment with Grant being carried off must have been one of the main things that drove the Bulls, and especially Jordan, to be so dominant the next year.

[Cubbie Swagger]

"Star player." Elton Brand was basically Horace Grant in terms of value; that's a very, very good player to have if you've got a decent or better team, but those Bulls teams were wretched, and they knew it. As we saw when he want to the Clippers, Brand, despite his talent, wasn't good enough to be someone to really anchor a team or be THE guy. The Bulls keeping him wouldn't have made much of a difference.

 

Speaking of Horace, I had no idea the Bulls FO hired him this past April.

That's kind of an odd comparison. In Horace's best scoring season, he was still 10 points shy of Elton's best season, and significantly shy of even an average season for Elton. I know Horace was playing alongside prolific scorers, but they weren't very similar players. Kinda hard to compare value.

[Andy]

Hot damn; I did not know Jerian Grant was related to him. That's cool. I always liked Horace, and was bummed as a kid when he got signed away by the Magic.

 

I kinda hated him when he got carried off by the Magic when they beat us in 95.

I was 8, had no concept of free agency, and thought he was a dirty rotten traitor.

[Sammy Sofa]

"Star player." Elton Brand was basically Horace Grant in terms of value; that's a very, very good player to have if you've got a decent or better team, but those Bulls teams were wretched, and they knew it. As we saw when he want to the Clippers, Brand, despite his talent, wasn't good enough to be someone to really anchor a team or be THE guy. The Bulls keeping him wouldn't have made much of a difference.

 

Speaking of Horace, I had no idea the Bulls FO hired him this past April.

That's kind of an odd comparison. In Horace's best scoring season, he was still 10 points shy of Elton's best season, and significantly shy of even an average season for Elton. I know Horace was playing alongside prolific scorers, but they weren't very similar players. Kinda hard to compare value.

 

It's not hard to compare, but you've already stated you don't bother looking at any kind of advanced basketball stats, so here we are. I would encourage you to peruse the very delightful Basketball Reference when you have the time.

 

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/grantho01.html

 

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/brandel01.html

[WrigleyField 22]

Points taken. But, I should point out that the entire concept of trading away a star player that you JUST drafted with the #1 pick is extremely rare. Let alone trading them for another draft pick. It's rare because it's stupid, so that's why you won't find many comparable situations. Usually, the only time recent top draft picks get traded is when they still haven't proved themselves, and there is a bit of risk involved (maybe Anthony Bennett as an example). You saw how the Bulls had no interest in trading Jimmy for one of the top picks in the draft.

 

When you roll the dice and WIN, like we did with Brand, you don't ask for a do-over. You don't roll the dice again.

I didnt say even it was a good move, just they sold high. If Pax is at the helm a few years earlier they probably do something like select Battier at number 4 that year and start building a nice mid 40s win team 2 years earlier than they did and been a very enjoyable to watch, but also wasn't championship material. Krause did the blow up that so many want now and wanted circa 2006. :dontknow:

[Cubbie Swagger]

"Star player." Elton Brand was basically Horace Grant in terms of value; that's a very, very good player to have if you've got a decent or better team, but those Bulls teams were wretched, and they knew it. As we saw when he want to the Clippers, Brand, despite his talent, wasn't good enough to be someone to really anchor a team or be THE guy. The Bulls keeping him wouldn't have made much of a difference.

 

Speaking of Horace, I had no idea the Bulls FO hired him this past April.

That's kind of an odd comparison. In Horace's best scoring season, he was still 10 points shy of Elton's best season, and significantly shy of even an average season for Elton. I know Horace was playing alongside prolific scorers, but they weren't very similar players. Kinda hard to compare value.

 

It's not hard to compare, but you've already stated you don't bother looking at any kind of advanced basketball stats, so here we are. I would encourage you to peruse the very delightful Basketball Reference when you have the time.

 

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/grantho01.html

 

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/brandel01.html

I use Basketball Reference all the time. I just don't put much stock into advanced stats, because that's just not how basketball really works.

 

Out of curiosity, which advanced stats should I look at that would make a person think Grant and Brand were similar in value? VORP?

 

In the six seasons after we traded Brand, he put up a total of 31.9 VORP. Over the best 6 year stretch of Grant's career, he put up 26. Is that comparable? That puts Brand at about 1 more per year, obviously.

[Sammy Sofa]

VORP, PER, the PM stats, WS and ORtg and DRtg are the ones I typically zero in on.

[Cubbie Swagger]

VORP, PER, the PM stats, WS and ORtg and DRtg are the ones I typically zero in on.

Brand kinda kicks Grant's ass in some of those. I don't see ORtg or DRtg on there.

[Sammy Sofa]

They're in the box above.

 

Here, I'll be helpful:

 

Grant:

ORtg: 117

DRtg: 104

PER: 16

OBPM: 0.7

DBPM: 1.8

BPM: 2.6

VORP: 44.4

 

Brand:

ORtg: 110

DRtg: 104

PER: 20.5

OBPM: 1.3

DBPM: 1.8

BPM: 3.1

VORP: 45.2

 

Value-wise, these are very similar players. Brand is technically better, obviously, but not significantly so, and certainly not the point that he's someone you'd anchor a team with.

[Cubbie Swagger]

They're in the box above.

 

Here, I'll be helpful:

 

Grant:

ORtg: 117

DRtg: 104

PER: 16

OBPM: 0.7

DBPM: 1.8

BPM: 2.6

VORP: 44.4

 

Brand:

ORtg: 110

DRtg: 104

PER: 20.5

OBPM: 1.3

DBPM: 1.8

BPM: 3.1

VORP: 45.2

 

Value-wise, these are very similar players. Brand is technically better, obviously, but not significantly so, and certainly not the point that he's someone you'd anchor a team with.

I made it clear, like, pages ago that I was not talking about Brand from a career perspective. I was only talking about the first 8 years, before he got hurt. 2 with the Bulls, and 6 with the Clippers. That's why I was comparing the 6 years with the Clippers to the best 6 year stretch of Grant's career.

 

If we were talking career numbers, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Sammy Sofa]

Using arbitrary endpoints that vary for either player seems a bit...odd. Those 6 years are meaningless in terms of hypothesizing how long the Bulls would have had him, so why restrict it to that?

[David]

Using arbitrary endpoints that vary for either player seems a bit...odd. Those 6 years are meaningless in terms of hypothesizing how long the Bulls would have had him, so why restrict it to that?

 

Eh, I don't think "before he suffered major injury" is arbitrary

[Sammy Sofa]

Using arbitrary endpoints that vary for either player seems a bit...odd. Those 6 years are meaningless in terms of hypothesizing how long the Bulls would have had him, so why restrict it to that?

 

Eh, I don't think "before he suffered major injury" is arbitrary

 

It is in terms of this hypothetical "what if the Bulls kept him" scenario. Plus Grant had a 7 of 8 season stretch of putting comparable value, but I can't count 2 of them because he had a down year? The dude put up a close enough value, both over a career and in a similar career stretch.

Edited July 20, 2016 by Sammy Sofa