Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 32 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 477
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    6 minutes away from United Center
    Posts
    36,621
    vCash
    6200

    Around the NBA: Who cares Edition


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Chicago , IL
    Posts
    12,550
    vCash
    1500
    I still like Timmy over Snell eventhough Snell has physical gifts .

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    13,744
    vCash
    1500
    I like Snells ceiling better with his size and tools to be good defensively and offensively. Will be interesting to follow both their careers big difference I see is Thibs.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Chicago , IL
    Posts
    12,550
    vCash
    1500
    Lance not taking the snub well lmao http://youtu.be/bxIQPRS7s2U

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    13,744
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Stunnerko123 View Post
    Lance not taking the snub well lmao http://youtu.be/bxIQPRS7s2U
    Not exactly the smartest guy hence him being my 5th choice on SG/SF acquisition for the off season.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    23,612
    vCash
    11250
    Written by ________

    The following examples aren't necessarily of teams that are good but more so examples of how other teams are able to sign several high priced players many of which are max-type salaries while we have Rose as a max contract and that's it. If we want to even think about signing a secondary max player we have to drop 10 other guys to even think about it (hyperbole).

    NY Knicks: Amare, Chandler, Melo
    Heat: Lebron, Wade, Bosh
    OKC: Durant, Westbrook, Ibaka
    Houston: Harden, Howard

    These are just a few examples. Not to mention some of these teams not only have these multiple max players but they are constantly in rumors of signing even more big time players without losing their stars. There were rumors that Bynum might go to the Heat. Sure he's not that great but the fact that they could even possibly afford him is crazy. Houston was rumored to be able to get Melo. With Harden and Howard how the hell is that rumor even possible.

    Meanwhile if we want to sign Melo...we have to get rid of Deng, Boozer and Taj. This isn't a knock on the Bulls organization, or me saying other teams/players are better. Your 'grass is greener' notion is not at all the case here. It just seems (true or not), like we are sooooooo cap strapped while other teams are wheeling and dealing with multiple high priced players.
    The Bulls were able to have Deng, Boozer, Noah on the books at one point because of Rose's rookie contract. Look at the Thunder - they actually couldn't afford their guys and had to trade away Harden. In which, HOU was able to afford Dwight just like the Bulls were able to afford other guys - they had a lot of young cheap players locked into rookie deals.

    NYK threesome costs $57M
    MIA threesome costs $57M
    OKC threesome costs $45M
    Houston twosome costs $34M
    Bulls' foursome of Rose, Boozer, Deng, Noah once cost $58M

    I don't see any difference at all. And what teams with multiple max players are "constantly" in rumors of signing even more "big time" players without losing their stars? And what "big time" players are they rumored to sign? Bringing up Andrew Bynum made me laugh. The Heat can afford Andrew Bynum because there's this thing called "vet min" in which no matter how much team salary you have you can sign players. It's really not that difficult to make happen. Just like the Bulls, even with a $70M+ salary were able to sign DJ Augustin.

    You know what, the Bulls were rumored to get Melo too. And ****ing rumors, how do you know if ANY of it is remotely true? I'm not one to get caught up in that **** at all.

    I mean c'mon, WHAT teams are wheeling and dealing????? Seriously - what teams? You know what Miami had to do to sign their three guys? They had to enter free agency with JUST Mario Chalmers' $4M contract or something like that. They got rid of EVERYBODY. Yes, if we want to SIGN Melo we'd have to get rid of people too. New York would've had to do the exact same thing if they didn't trade for him - they wouldn't have been able to afford it and thus would've needed to trade players for picks/expirings.

    Again, this team just like ANY other contending team is cap strapped. The only contending team that is not cap strapped right now is San Antonio because Manu/Duncan are the definition of loyalty and leave a lot of money on the table so they stay in San Antonio.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    13,744
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Shammyguy3 View Post
    The Bulls were able to have Deng, Boozer, Noah on the books at one point because of Rose's rookie contract. Look at the Thunder - they actually couldn't afford their guys and had to trade away Harden. In which, HOU was able to afford Dwight just like the Bulls were able to afford other guys - they had a lot of young cheap players locked into rookie deals.

    NYK threesome costs $57M
    MIA threesome costs $57M
    OKC threesome costs $45M
    Houston twosome costs $34M
    Bulls' foursome of Rose, Boozer, Deng, Noah once cost $58M

    I don't see any difference at all. And what teams with multiple max players are "constantly" in rumors of signing even more "big time" players without losing their stars? And what "big time" players are they rumored to sign? Bringing up Andrew Bynum made me laugh. The Heat can afford Andrew Bynum because there's this thing called "vet min" in which no matter how much team salary you have you can sign players. It's really not that difficult to make happen. Just like the Bulls, even with a $70M+ salary were able to sign DJ Augustin.

    You know what, the Bulls were rumored to get Melo too. And ****ing rumors, how do you know if ANY of it is remotely true? I'm not one to get caught up in that **** at all.

    I mean c'mon, WHAT teams are wheeling and dealing????? Seriously - what teams? You know what Miami had to do to sign their three guys? They had to enter free agency with JUST Mario Chalmers' $4M contract or something like that. They got rid of EVERYBODY. Yes, if we want to SIGN Melo we'd have to get rid of people too. New York would've had to do the exact same thing if they didn't trade for him - they wouldn't have been able to afford it and thus would've needed to trade players for picks/expirings.

    Again, this team just like ANY other contending team is cap strapped. The only contending team that is not cap strapped right now is San Antonio because Manu/Duncan are the definition of loyalty and leave a lot of money on the table so they stay in San Antonio.
    This Indy next year can be added to that group. People don't understand just because we don't have 2-3 max guys doesn't mean we aren't paying a lot of people big money. Rose, Boozer, Noah, Gibson, and Deng were all making big money.
    Last edited by Rndy; 02-02-2014 at 02:31 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,210
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Rndy View Post
    Rose, Boozer, Noah, Gibson, and Deng were all making big money.
    I don't think some Bulls fans realize how much of a mistake that was. Rose was the only star of that group. It was obvious then and it's still obvious.

    Deng and Boozer are not players you designate lots of money to then later when it doesn't work say "well who would have thunk it".

    The Bulls consider Taj a backup and are paying him starter money which is stupid. Either start him or don't pay him so much because that very money could have been used for an actual starter who wants max.

    We can't/don't sign Korver so we bring back Kirk, which makes it impossible to resign Nate/Marco. It stupid stuff like this that hurts the future of the team.

    We need to stop investing in adequate players and instead focus on only signing legit stars/playmakers and if that means we hit rock bottom record wise for a few seasons then so be it.

    It's not easy to find grade "A" talent, I know. I'm just voicing what I see/think.
    Last edited by _____; 02-02-2014 at 05:09 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    23,612
    vCash
    11250
    Quote Originally Posted by _____ View Post
    I don't think some Bulls fans realize how much of a mistake that was. Rose was the only star of that group. It was obvious then and it's still obvious.

    Deng and Boozer are not players you designate lots of money to then later when it doesn't work say "well who would have thunk it".

    The Bulls consider Taj a backup and are paying him starter money which is stupid. Either start him or don't pay him so much because that very money could have been used for an actual starter who wants max.

    We can't/don't sign Korver so we bring back Kirk, which makes it impossible to resign Nate/Marco. It stupid stuff like this that hurts the future of the team.

    We need to stop investing in adequate players and instead focus on only signing legit stars/playmakers and if that means we hit rock bottom record wise for a few seasons then so be it.

    It's not easy to find grade "A" talent, I know. I'm just voicing what I see/think.
    Bringing back Kirk didn't make it impossible to resign Nate or Marco first off. Hindsight is great considering Nate wasn't expected to get more than half a season's worth of serious minutes if Rose indeed returned. I don't think signing Kirk was stupid either, and I don't think he was overpaid. Now again in hindsight, he hasn't lived up to the duration of his contract. So what though?

    The same issues this team has with spending is associated with every other team, we just don't notice it because we don't follow those teams everyday.

    And Gibson's definitely worth that contract, market value wise. He's just not worth it to THIS team unfortunately.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,210
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Shammyguy3 View Post
    He's just not worth it to THIS team unfortunately.
    That's all I care about...this team. I know other teams have the same issues but I care what my team does/doesn't do most.

    Kirk signing is not hindsight IMO. I'm never a fan of bringing back players especially if they are old and expecting them to play and important role even if as a backup.

    I don't want Ben Gordon back as some are asking for and I certainly don't want Deng back next year. We need to move on from these guys.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    23,612
    vCash
    11250
    I agree that moving on is good, but i do disagree with the Kirk signing (i liked it from the beginning, glad we moved on from Watson). I however now hope that we don't resign Kirk unless it's for the vet min, that's the max i want to give him

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,497
    vCash
    1500
    I got Kirk returning for BAE.
    http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/image.php?u=209452&type=sigpic&dateline=1385118807

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    23,612
    vCash
    11250
    Sacramento now has the 4th worst record in the league after losing 7 straight and 9 out of their last 10
    Minnesota is now 3.5 games out of the playoffs, needing to jump both Memphis and Dallas (also tied with Denver)
    Our Bulls are 2.5 and 3.5 games ahead of Brooklyn and Charlotte respectively in the East. Those teams' next 10 games:
    CHI - @SAC @PHO @GSW @LAL ATL BRK @TOR DEN @MIA @ATL
    BRK - PHI SAS @DET NOP CHA @CHI @UTA @GSW @LAL @POR
    CHA - @GSW SAS DAL @BRK @DET DET NOP MEM @SAS @OKC

    I fully expect the Bulls to go 3-7, the Nets to go 5-5, and CHA to go 3-7. Which would put the Bulls only .5 game ahead of BRK in a couple weeks, with CHA maintaining the 8th seed hopefully

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,497
    vCash
    1500
    Bulls can pull a 4-6 in this. But the worst has yet to come. The march sched will knock them out of .500 for sure. CHA pick though is within reach.
    http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/image.php?u=209452&type=sigpic&dateline=1385118807

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,485
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Shammyguy3 View Post
    Bynum's played awful this year, and so has David West.

    Also, you're neglecting the recent acquisition of DJ Augustin, who has had an exponentially greater impact on the Bulls than anything Andrew Bynum does.

    If Paul George tore his mensiscus and missed the entire season, do you think Indiana would be any better than the Bulls without Rose? I certainly don't.
    Awful? David West? Expect a horse head in your bed tonight.

    Last year offensively David West was at 0.95 ppp, this year he is at 0.9 ppp. Defensively he hasn't changed much and the team still leads the league in defensive rebounds becuase of those thieving wings.

    Bynum has been awful offensively but defensively he hasn't and lets consider the alternative per synergy.

    Defensively:

    Ian Mahinmi
    ppp 0.85 fg% 40.2

    %Time
    7% Isolation 0.78 ppp
    45% Post up 0.95 ppp
    25.6% PnR roll man 0.82 ppp
    17.8% Spot up 0.65 ppp

    Rim protection via sportsvu fg% 43%

    Andrew Bynum 0.77 ppp fg% 36.5%

    %Time
    13.6% Isolation 0.67 ppp
    28.4% post up 0.64 ppp
    27.3% PnR roll man 0.58 ppp
    27.3% Spot up 1.13 ppp

    Rim protection via sportsvu fg% 37.6%

    So the glaring weakness in Bynums defense is his spot up defense. I haven't look hard at it but my guess is that he doesn't close out nearly as well as Ian but he also may just concede that shot more often to protect the paint where he sees less attempts at the rim per game than Ian and does a pretty good job at defending the rim as well.

    Their perecentage of shooting fouls are about the same at around 7%.

    The suprises to me are the highlighted in red and specifically the PnR defense of Bynum. Giving up 0.58 ppp is absurd and I need to look further into it and see what kind of help defense he was getting but it was most likely the typical ICE play the Pacers run with Ian.

    Offensively:

    I need more time but I will point out two things that probably many of you already have noticed.

    Ian is a turnover machine at 20.8% while Bynum is a modest 11.3% per possession

    Ian's offensive ppp is 0.75.

    Bynums offensive ppp is 0.82.

    The largest disparity in offensive plays is Bynum post up 58.9% to Ians 8.1%. Bynum on post ups ppp is 0.75, Ians is 0.5 ppp with a eye popping 18.2% field goal percentage.

    Ian is the much better roll man on the pnr as you would expect as well as a better cutter to the basket. This is where he makes up his efficiency.

    Bynum however is much better at getting to the free throw line and like I said he doesn't turn the ball over on a fifth of his possessions.

    As for offensive rebounds Bynum is also better and he is also better at passing the ball.
    Last edited by Pacerlive; 02-03-2014 at 03:58 PM.

Page 1 of 32 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •