Chicago Bulls Thread

[Lamrock]

Yeah, The Suns are very deep. Its a shame they lost Amar'e.

[benji]

Even if we accept those two criterias as valid for measuring one team's depth, I still think Bulls pass. Rose may not be top 15 yet, but he's bloody near that ranking, and the rest of the starters certainly combine for one of the best starting lineups in the League. They're not championship material, but they're most certainly top 4 seed material.

What criteria are you going to use to judge how deep a team is? That they have a starter and a backup at every position? Doesn't every team pass this?

Boozer is far closer to top fifteen than Rose is currently, Boozer could sneak onto an All-NBA team because of the absurdities of voting. Rose would only get there at this point because all the voters worked themselves into an illogical lather. (Which should not be counted out as possible!)

Calling them a top four seed in a conference with only three contenders is damning with faint praise. Especially when you consider how horrible seven or eight of the teams are.

Look at Orlando, look at Portland, look at Dallas, the 2004 Pistons, if you want to see what actual depth looks like. It's wretched excess, hell even Golden State if healthy last season was deeper than this Bulls team. A team that's rotating Luol Deng, Ronnie Brewer, Kyle Korver, C.J. Watson and Roger Mason on the wing while potentially relying on significant minutes from Kurt Thomas and playing a guy who should probably be at forward for most of the game is not the "deepest team in the league."

It's good to have the blinded by the horns Bulls fans back this summer, I've missed them.

[air gordon]

how can you NOT be excited?!

Pargo, Chris Richard, Hakim Warrick, Devin Brown are replaced with Watson, Gibson, Korver, Thomas

forgive us bulls fans for being happy that the bench players are no longer a collective embarrassment

no one said the bulls are winning the title, though surprisingly sportsinteraction has them with the 5th best odds to win it all.

Asik- i'm pretty intrigued by this guy. is he the next Bargaric or Gortat?

Fenix- who the heck is MILES? this is the 2nd time you've mentioned him

[benji]

Nobody said anything about being excited or happy, I was talking to the delusional strain that's throwing around things like "the deepest team in the league" and "LeBron's best chance to win a title" as it reminds me of the true believers of yore who were convinced Curry was a 25/10 guy and Chandler was a 20/25 guy.

[Andrew]

Andrew: I meant to say that McGrady presents a risk of ruining our chemistry in the sense that he is most likely to pout if not given enough playing time. Sure, he can give us his word now, but for someone with his ego and long history of being the man, it's just a matter of time before he explodes. I'd be willing to take that risk if the reward was worth it, but it isn't. He was never much of a defender or spot shooter, and he lost most of the athleticism that made him such a special player. He can probably still create for others, but I we have enough players I'd rather see with ball in their hands (Rose, Miles and perhaps even Brewer).

Where's the risk though? He's not going to be signed to a long term deal with a big salary, if he doesn't work out they can just cut him loose. I don't think he'd have the opportunity to ruin their chemistry, he'd be banished long before that. They already did that with Tim Thomas some years back.

[Lamrock]

What chemistry? Half the team's been replaced.

[Andrew]

That's what I said before.

[J@3]

I'd homer pick the Bucks if they had a back-up C.

[air gordon]

Fuk u for bringing up the twin towers, mr benji Wade...

Andrew- so who do u prefer: tmac, mason JR, bogAns, house?

[Fenix]

What criteria are you going to use to judge how deep a team is? That they have a starter and a backup at every position? Doesn't every team pass this?

Overall quality of the roster should be the main factor, obviously, meaning that you need have two to three quality to cover each position on the court. Starting lineup should consist of proper talent, but there's no need for one of starters to be one of the best players in the League. See Larry Brown's (and also Flip Saunders') Pistons, which were your own example.

Boozer is far closer to top fifteen than Rose is currently, Boozer could sneak onto an All-NBA team because of the absurdities of voting. Rose would only get there at this point because all the voters worked themselves into an illogical lather. (Which should not be counted out as possible!)

So that gives us at least two starters, while not one of the top 15 players in the League, are still amongst the best at their respective positions. Now add Deng (18/7), Noah (11/11) into the mix, and you have four very solid blocks to build your depth on.

Calling them a top four seed in a conference with only three contenders is damning with faint praise. Especially when you consider how horrible seven or eight of the teams are.

I would say the Bulls (if reasonably healthy and with some minor tweaks, such as adding Mason and Lucas) are a 50-55 team team in any conference.

Look at Orlando, look at Portland, look at Dallas, the 2004 Pistons, if you want to see what actual depth looks like. It's wretched excess, hell even Golden State if healthy last season was deeper than this Bulls team.

A team that's rotating Luol Deng, Ronnie Brewer, Kyle Korver, C.J. Watson and Roger Mason on the wing while potentially relying on significant minutes from Kurt Thomas and playing a guy who should probably be at forward for most of the game is not the "deepest team in the league."
[/quote]

I could accept some other examples, but Orlando and Portland? They both had decent players coming off the bench, but neither of two had a bench that could easily trump ours. Adding Golden State makes thing all that more confusing - would they even remotely fill any of the criterias you've mentioned, even if completely healthy?

A team that's rotating Luol Deng, Ronnie Brewer, Kyle Korver, C.J. Watson and Roger Mason on the wing while potentially relying on significant minutes from Kurt Thomas and playing a guy who should probably be at forward for most of the game is not the "deepest team in the league."

Perhaps I'm too big of a homer, but a wing rotation of Deng (a 18/7 guy this past season), Brewer (a starting guard for some very successful Jazz teams), Korver (a lights-out shooter), C.J. Watson (one of the best backup combo guards in the League) and Mason (an important part of Spurs' rotation for the past couple of years) doesn't sound all that bad to me. Does it lack a standout player in the mold of Lebron or even Carmelo/Pierce? It does, but all of the mentioned players are either decent starters or can at least play important roles on a championship, which makes a wing rotation consisting of them, by definition, deep.

I did predict Kurt Thomas as Noah's primary backup, but he'll probably soon become our 5th big man (the first four being Noah, Boozer, Gibson and Asik). And even if he doesn't, you're still in a pretty good shape with him being your 4th big, although I wouldn't describe that role as playing "significant minutes". And as far as Noah being forward goes: I once again disagree. He may not be a physical specimen in the mold of Howard or Shaq, but can hold his own against any other starting center in the League.

+
Fenix- who the heck is MILES? this is the 2nd time you've mentioned him

I'm confusing CJ Watson with CJ Miles.

Where's the risk though? He's not going to be signed to a long term deal with a big salary, if he doesn't work out they can just cut him loose. I don't think he'd have the opportunity to ruin their chemistry, he'd be banished long before that. They already did that with Tim Thomas some years back.

It's not just about the risk, it's also about the reward: I don't see any. It has been years since McGrady had positive impact on the court, and even then he had quite a few problems as a player, problems that wouldn't make him the best fit for our team.

What chemistry? Half the team's been replaced.

Okay, I give up: perhaps chemistry isn't the best word to describe what I mean, but that doesn't change the fact that him pouting for playing time and feeling privileged simply because he used to be a big shot back in the day wouldn't exactly help us winning basketball games, would it. In fact, it would present quite of distraction, which is to be easily avoided by signing someone more willing to accept his role on the team.

Nobody said anything about being excited or happy, I was talking to the delusional strain that's throwing around things like "the deepest team in the league" and "LeBron's best chance to win a title" as it reminds me of the true believers of yore who were convinced Curry was a 25/10 guy and Chandler was a 20/25 guy.

Wait, what? I don't see how discussing whether Bulls are the deepest team in the League puts me on the same level with people who claimed that Curry and Chandler will be superstars? Also, if not Bulls, then which other team presented Lebron the best chance to challenge MJ for the title of the GOAT (my exact formulation)? Nets, Knicks, Clippers? We were the only team with the neccessary combination of narrative framework, personnel, cap space and market size.

[J@3]

I think Portland (when healthy), Denver, Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston (when healthy) are deeper than the Bulls.

[benji]

Narrative framework.

Every team allows LeBron to stake his claim as the best player ever, that's an individual achievement.

Chicago was not the best chance for LeBron to win a title, Dallas was. (We're discounting of course the route LeBron did take, which was to join with Bosh and Wade.)

Overall quality of the roster should be the main factor, obviously, meaning that you need have two to three quality to cover each position on the court.

Exactly, and the Bulls aren't even close to the best in the league.

Starting lineup should consist of proper talent, but there's no need for one of starters to be one of the best players in the League. See Larry Brown's (and also Flip Saunders') Pistons, which were your own example.

Two points here. First, Chauncey Billups and Ben Wallace? Second, Saunders only had a Pistons team with depth in 2008, both 2006 and 2007 were basically seven man teams. (And that 2006 team was really closer to six-and-a-half men.)

I could accept some other examples, but Orlando and Portland? They both had decent players coming off the bench, but neither of two had a bench that could easily trump ours.

2009-10 Orlando reserves who were good enough to start for many teams: J.J. Redick, Jason Williams, Marcin Gortat, Ryan Anderson, Brandon Bass
Portland reserves good enough: Marcus Camby, Joel Pryzbilla, Dante Cunningham, Rudy Fernandez, Travis Outlaw
Current Bulls reserves good enough: Maybe Taj Gibson? And...

Perhaps I'm too big of a homer, but a wing rotation of Deng (a 18/7 guy this past season), Brewer (a starting guard for some very successful Jazz teams), Korver (a lights-out shooter), C.J. Watson (one of the best backup combo guards in the League) and Mason (an important part of Spurs' rotation for the past couple of years) doesn't sound all that bad to me

You are. Deng is good enough to start but I doubt you can win a title with him as your best player on the wing. I love Brewer but he's yet another Bull who has to operate within 18 feet offensively. Yes, Korver can shoot, but that's all he does. Watson's hardly anything special and is 6-2. Mason's nothing special either, and the Spurs and he soured on each other to the point he wanted to be bought out before Parker got hurt, at least he can shoot from three though his shot deserted him season.

I'm not saying that's a horrible rotation, but it's hardly anything to crow about. I'd consider it very debatable that that rotation on the perimeter is even better than the one from 2008-09 which didn't exactly light the world on fire. And it's definitely part of how the depth on this team is not that great which hurts the Bulls. Is the depth better than the Heat's? Yes, but not THAT much better, and the Heat peak far far higher, their THIRD best player is better than or as good as the Bulls BEST player. Dwight's better than anything the Bulls have and Orlando is basically the definition of wretched excess to the point where they only had to play twelve guys last season. The Bulls top three are closer to Boston's, but Boston easily runs deeper. And that's just the East.

And as far as Noah being forward goes: I once again disagree. He may not be a physical specimen in the mold of Howard or Shaq, but can hold his own against any other starting center in the League.

So you disagree that Noah would be more effective as a forward when paired with the proper center on a traditionally constructed team? Much as Varejao would be.

[shadowgrin]

I could accept some other examples, but Orlando and Portland? They both had decent players coming off the bench, but neither of two had a bench that could easily trump ours. Adding Golden State makes thing all that more confusing - would they even remotely fill any of the criterias you've mentioned, even if completely healthy?

Current roster as of now and if healthy:

Blazers:
Oden/Pryzbilla
Aldridge/Camby/Pendegraph
Batum/Fernandez/Cunningham/Babbit
Roy/Matthews/Williams
Miller/Bayless

Magic:
Howard/Gortat/Orton
Lewis/Bass/Anderson
Richardson/Pietrus
Carter/Redick
Nelson/Duhon

Bulls:
Noah/Thomas/Asik
Boozer/Gibson
Deng/Korver/Johnson
Brewer/Mason
Rose/Watson/Lucas

LOL Fenix. lol.

[atlwarrior]

Thats not fair all the teams you used were in the west. But youre right. But the Bulls might just be one of the deeper teams in the East especially if they can add T-Mac .

[shadowgrin]

Magic is in the East and 9 of their players (Duhon and Redick excluded) can be starters in most teams, while Redick and Duhon are good backups for any teams in their position. lol at Knicks and Bulls for making Duhon a starter
That's 11 man deep.

Comparing the Magic to the Bulls, Chicago is 10 man deep and they have 7 players that are capable starters while Thomas, Korver, & Watson are good backups.
Big fan of Kurt Thomas but he's old now to be even considered a good starter.

[Lamrock]

Had Orlando not matched his offer sheet, Redick would have been the Bulls' best wing by far.

[benji]

Redick can start, he's made huge improvements to his defense and that's why he was on the floor for Orlando at the end of every game. He didn't start for most of the season because SVG wanted to start Carter at the two-guard. They finished almost every game with Carter-Redick though.

A team that started Gortat-Bass-Anderson-Redick-Williams would obviously not be as good as the Magic, but they'd have been a playoff team last year in the East. That five can still probably beat the Hawks in a seven game series.

I've noted a lot of times that you can't win without depth unless you have a Shaq-type who can be paired with a Kobe-type. People tend to overlook how deep basically every champion or Finals team actually is. It buys you a ton of leeway that helps you get through 100 games in a season.

[J@3]

Just read the Bucks are going to be bringing Maggette off the bench. Count my homer vote ..... now.

Brockman, Sanders, Ilyasova, Mbah a Moute/Delfino, Maggette, Chris Douglas-Roberts, Dooling, Hobson, Gallon. Ilyasova, Moute and Delfino all got major minutes on a play-off team last season and Maggette averaged 20 a game (yes, for the Warriors).

[Lamrock]

Maggette's the shit, Ilyasova's starter caliber, Moute kicks boute (thanks realGM), and I love the brockness monster. No Orlando or Portland, but its definitely better than the Bulls' bench. And as a whole, Milwaukee's just better than Chicago

[Andrew]

Andrew- so who do u prefer: tmac, mason JR, bogAns, house?

I admit I've been leaning towards T-Mac. I think if he's healthy and willing to take a lesser role, he can give them some decent minutes. He had some respectable games for the Knicks last year, he's got size and if he has a couple of throwback performances when foul trouble grants him a bigger opportunity, he'll be a worthwhile insurance policy. They'd be setting the bar pretty low with him. Following him, I'd say my preference would be Mason, House then Bogans in that order.

It's not just about the risk, it's also about the reward: I don't see any. It has been years since McGrady had positive impact on the court, and even then he had quite a few problems as a player, problems that wouldn't make him the best fit for our team.

Like I said, he had a couple of decent games for the Knicks and the bar would be set pretty low. I know it's comparing apples and oranges but consider Grant Hill, whom many had written off. I'm not expecting that big of a revival and I'm not saying T-Mac should get the same kind of minutes as Hill does but Hill was able to revive his career as a solid role player. I think McGrady still has the tools to be that if he's healthy and will accept a lesser role. If he doesn't, so be it. They can cut him loose, call someone up from the D-League, whatever. I really don't think the Bulls have anything to lose by giving it a shot. I'll concede that it's a possibility he doesn't work out, I don't see it as being a disaster.

[air gordon]

benji- Dallas was never in the running for Lebron. Noah is effective at PF or C if he's paired with a big guy who can score. Post trade Salmons combined with Gordon, Hinrich,and Rose. good times. i'd have to give that edge to them over the current cast.

shadow- at least the bulls made the playoffs when Duhon was a starter

i'd love to see Reddick prove me wrong. fancy efficiency #'s. Show me you can chase around/stand up to bigger/stronger/quicker SG's and still have the legs to hit 3's as a starter/in starter minutes. otherwise, he's just a Rodney White. you like that one??

Andrew- personally i prefer a guy that has a history of knowing/accepting his role. T-mac returning to relevance on a consistent basis is a pipe dream. and i don't want this distraction. we saw this already with Pippen in '04. t-mac can't be an insurance policy when there needs to be one for him. besides- we don't have the Suns training team

Jae- bring your bucks shit to the bucks thread. ha but seriously- the Bucks/Bulls matchups should be fun. we should have a bet before the season starts. could be all in fun or put some $ on it. either way i'm game. that goes out to anyone...

[Andrew]

From Sam Smith via Twitter:

Bulls worked out McGrady and it went well, though it sounds like the Bulls have no plans to do anything with him for now.

That could mean he's not demonstrated much willingness to accept the role available to him. If that's the case, so be it and I'd still go with Mason, House and Bogans in that order.

[J@3]

Jae- bring your bucks shit to the bucks thread. ha but seriously- the Bucks/Bulls matchups should be fun. we should have a bet before the season starts. could be all in fun or put some $ on it. either way i'm game. that goes out to anyone...

I'm up for that. Wanna bet on the series of individual games?

[air gordon]

I'm cool w individual games and division winner

[Lamrock]

I think Indy owes me $20 from way back in the day when he thought the Pacers would finish above .500 some year