Sam Smith: Bulls Future Not So Dim...

[dougthonus]

Wallace would look better if he were surrounded by 4 all star caliber players and wasn't counted on to do anything.

I'd look pretty good in that scenario too.

The end result is that Wallace sucks. Hiding his warts by saying he needs better players around him is just hiding his warts.

Johnston797 is completely right about this, and I'm embarrassed that I argued with him at all on the topic on the other side at one point (though I wasn't specifically defending Wallace, but rather the dumping of Chandler).

While most people probably didn't see the rapid decline of Wallace coming and the complete cancer and useless piece of trash that he is in advance, a huge portion of Bulls fans (I would say likely a majority) saw the other problems coming:

How many people were really happy with dumping Chandler for nothing? I think at best, the people on the side of this trade said they understood it, but didn't like it. That's certainly where I came off. I understood why we did it (because we're cheap), and it pisses me off that we're cheap. If I had to work under such restraints I'd have probably made the same move, but it wasn't hard to imagine this one blowing up in our face.

How many people said we should take LaMarcus Aldridge and Ronnie Brewer? I don't know, but it was such a popular bandwagon that there was a Aldridge + Brewer sig campaign.

While Wallace was a mistake that maybe we couldn't have all seen coming perfectly clear (though I think many were concerned about his age and coach killing tendancies, and I for one, certainly didn't think it worked last year either), Aldridge, Thabo, and Chandler were mistakes that basically everyone could see coming. What is even more mind boggling about these mistakes is that they were a deviation from his standard conservative approach to the draft where he went on far riskier players rather than taking the sure things. It's almost like someone replaced John Paxson with Jerry Krause for the day of the draft.

[theawakening]

Wallace would look better if he were surrounded by 4 all star caliber players and wasn't counted on to do anything.

I'd look pretty good in that scenario too.

The end result is that Wallace sucks. Hiding his warts by saying he needs better players around him is just hiding his warts.

Johnston797 is completely right about this, and I'm embarrassed that I argued with him at all on the topic on the other side at one point (though I wasn't specifically defending Wallace, but rather the dumping of Chandler).

While most people probably didn't see the rapid decline of Wallace coming and the complete cancer and useless piece of trash that he is in advance, a huge portion of Bulls fans (I would say likely a majority) saw the other problems coming:

How many people were really happy with dumping Chandler for nothing? I think at best, the people on the side of this trade said they understood it, but didn't like it. That's certainly where I came off. I understood why we did it (because we're cheap), and it pisses me off that we're cheap. If I had to work under such restraints I'd have probably made the same move, but it wasn't hard to imagine this one blowing up in our face.

How many people said we should take LaMarcus Aldridge and Ronnie Brewer? I don't know, but it was such a popular bandwagon that there was a Aldridge + Brewer sig campaign.

While Wallace was a mistake that maybe we couldn't have all seen coming perfectly clear (though I think many were concerned about his age and coach killing tendancies, and I for one, certainly didn't think it worked last year either), Aldridge, Thabo, and Chandler were mistakes that basically everyone could see coming. What is even more mind boggling about these mistakes is that they were a deviation from his standard conservative approach to the draft where he went on far riskier players rather than taking the sure things. It's almost like someone replaced John Paxson with Jerry Krause for the day of the draft.

Doug, what guarantee can you give that Aldridge and Brewer wouldn't have been stapled to the bench in the manner Thabo and Tyrus have been?

[AirP.]

I'd like to see some intellectual honesty here, though that's something of an oxymoron when it comes to sports fans and the media.

+1

I love sports. I love the Bulls. And I love talking about the Bulls, and the NBA in general, on this message board. I even sporadically enjoy sports talk radio.

But the one thing that I absolutely hate about all of these things is the amount if intellectual dishonesty in the discussion from both the fans and the media. After years and years of participation, I've come to accept that this is how it is.

Kudos to Sam for writing an intellectually honest article in the wake of the ignorant hysteria and deliberate sensationalism attendant to the suspension of Joakim Noah. The entirety of the Bulls-covering Chicago media, and a large percentage of fans as well, should be embarrassed for themselves.

It's Sam Smith, his "thoughts" are drastically altered depending on who he talks to. When Skiles was here, his best source of info on the team was... Scott Skiles. Now Skiles is gone and a temp coach is in so who best to get your info from then from the GM who said he's going to be in much more contact with the team so Sam's thoughts are now being shaped by Pax.

He's pretty much a kissass, but that's how he gets his info so when you read about his thoughts, expect them being the thoughts of who he's really talking too.

The youth movement is very close, he knows this from Paxson so he might as well start talking about it so people continue to read his "insider" info.

[babblin-on]

What is even more mind boggling about these mistakes is that they were a deviation from his standard conservative approach to the draft where he went on far riskier players rather than taking the sure things. It's almost like someone replaced John Paxson with Jerry Krause for the day of the draft.

I don't think Paxson was as conservative in the draft as people think. Hinrich was a safe pick, but drafting Gordon was most certainly not in my opinion. He bet on the Hinrich/Gordon backcourt because he thought Gordon was gonna be something special despite being an undersized 2, and he took the risky bet that Hinrich could successfully guard opposing 2 guards full time.

Trading for the Deng pick wasn't all that conservative either.

But yeah, otherwise the Chandler trade sucked and to me, it was pretty easy to see it was gonna turn out badly unless PJ's expiring was turned into something. The good new on that one is that to some extent the team might very well get away with that move because of Noah.

Wallace sucking was foreseen by some, and the signs were there. I thought at first that it might work because I hoped move was going to be made to put a high level F/C next to him. Once we kept PJ and didn't make a move though, having Wallace at this stage of his career, even without the continued decline, didn't make sense given the age/makeup of the rest of the roster.

[DanTown8587]

-= original quote snipped =-



I don't think Paxson was as conservative in the draft as people think. Hinrich was a safe pick, but drafting Gordon was most certainly not in my opinion. He bet on the Hinrich/Gordon backcourt because he thought Gordon was gonna be something special despite being an undersized 2, and he took the risky bet that Hinrich could successfully guard opposing 2 guards full time.

Trading for the Deng pick wasn't all that conservative either.

Hinrich was a proven four year player, Gordon was a college player with proven stats, as was Deng. If Paxson was a risk taker, he would have Andre Igoudala here instead of Gordon (two guys about the same) because he had higher risk/reward status. And for the makeup of the team, wouldn't the ability of AI to dribble drive AND create contact scoring chances be better with a 6-7, 6-8 guy?

[Manigault]

Ok, it we might have done logical movements, but as things are not working and Wallace is not going to turn this around, the logical movement is to try to dump Wallace for expirings.

[kyrv]

-= original quote snipped =-



Hinrich was a proven four year player, Gordon was a college player with proven stats, as was Deng. If Paxson was a risk taker, he would have Andre Igoudala here instead of Gordon (two guys about the same) because he had higher risk/reward status. And for the makeup of the team, wouldn't the ability of AI to dribble drive AND create contact scoring chances be better with a 6-7, 6-8 guy?

Hmm. You are suggesting that if he was a risk taker and instead of taking Gordon would have taken someone else.

Why do you conveniently believe Iggy is the lone choice? There were a lot riskier players than Iggy.

I don't buy the risk thing. Paxson gets blamed for not taking risks, then is blamed for taking risks in taking Noah and especially Tyrus. Not sure he can win.

[Susan]

Wallace would look better if he were surrounded by 4 all star caliber players and wasn't counted on to do anything.

I'd look pretty good in that scenario too.

The end result is that Wallace sucks. Hiding his warts by saying he needs better players around him is just hiding his warts.

Johnston797 is completely right about this, and I'm embarrassed that I argued with him at all on the topic on the other side at one point (though I wasn't specifically defending Wallace, but rather the dumping of Chandler).

While most people probably didn't see the rapid decline of Wallace coming and the complete cancer and useless piece of trash that he is in advance, a huge portion of Bulls fans (I would say likely a majority) saw the other problems coming:

How many people were really happy with dumping Chandler for nothing? I think at best, the people on the side of this trade said they understood it, but didn't like it. That's certainly where I came off. I understood why we did it (because we're cheap), and it pisses me off that we're cheap. If I had to work under such restraints I'd have probably made the same move, but it wasn't hard to imagine this one blowing up in our face.

How many people said we should take LaMarcus Aldridge and Ronnie Brewer? I don't know, but it was such a popular bandwagon that there was a Aldridge + Brewer sig campaign.

While Wallace was a mistake that maybe we couldn't have all seen coming perfectly clear (though I think many were concerned about his age and coach killing tendancies, and I for one, certainly didn't think it worked last year either), Aldridge, Thabo, and Chandler were mistakes that basically everyone could see coming. What is even more mind boggling about these mistakes is that they were a deviation from his standard conservative approach to the draft where he went on far riskier players rather than taking the sure things. It's almost like someone replaced John Paxson with Jerry Krause for the day of the draft.

Faulty reasoning goin on here Doug.

So say they drafted LA & Brewer. Brewer starts off as 4th guard no matter what and gets no defined role besides the mop up guard. This team has shown an incredible amount of trust in Duhon for no real reason.

LA would have been in the same spot as Tyrus and wouldn't have played until Nocioni went down. Then he'd be the starter for a few games before proven vet Joe took the starting gig away from him. Then he too would battle with Noah for backup minutes and lose because Noah is freaking awesome. Aldridge was afforded the chance to play 25-30 mpg reguardless of how well he played and Portland is benefiting from this right now.

[Dominator83]

Doug is pretty much right on in everytihng he has stated. The only thing from that post I might not agree with is The Tyrus/Thabo thing. Sure, these guys could very well be busts, but I also dont believe that they have been given many oppertunitys here. Tyrus actually had some pretty big games at the beginning of the year when he was starting. Thabo had a big game just the other night. granted, he played a Horrible Miami team, but it was also the first time all season that he was given quality PT.

That is why they should really just play thses guys and see what they could do. The chances of us competing with the Celtics, Magic, or any of those Western powerhouses this year are almost zero, so why not just put in guys like Tyrus/Thabo, Gray, and Noah and let them log heavy minutes just to get a legit look at them. Guys like Deng, Noce, and Smith dont deserve to be punished, but at the same time we need to see if these kids can play.

[sporadiclee]

This is the second time in the last couple of weeks that Sam called for more Tyrus. It's yet another thing that baffles me about the Tyrus situation. I would understand a little more if he was the only one who's late and doesn't know the plays all the time, but Noah apparently has the same issues, got into it with a coach and still moved ahead in the rotation. Not saying that I don't think Noah should be getting minutes, but I don't see what Tyrus did to put him on a Viktor level. A lot of people seemed to be against him from the start, and he's clearly lost confidence. As Thabo said to McGraw,

"There's no substitute to playing in a real game. I can practice all day long, but if I don't have that experience to get on the court, that's really what I need."

Also, I realize these guys are pros and shouldn't care, but this organization does grate heavily on some players. This is a quote from Sam's most recent mailbag,

"I don't think Chandler would have gotten through last season. He was practically in tears and an emotional wreck almost every day two years ago. It was he or Skiles and at the time it seemed the Bulls made the right choice."

This is why I'm still not sold on the theory that Brewer and Aldridge would have been better picks. Until Thabo and Tyrus get a fair shot, I won't be. Brewer's role has diminished greatly since Korver got there, and oddly enough, his production has, too. I live in Portland, and while I believe Aldridge is a very solid player, I don't see him as that elusive final piece some others do. Roy, on the other hand, is something special.

In a way, I believe this team's instant success hurt its future. There were some high expectations of them early, and when they failed to meet those expectations, the media, fans and management grew impatient. It's what makes a team start Chris Duhon instead of developing a guy like Thabo. It's what made people, including me at the time, think that they were a Ben Wallace away from being a contender. And now, it's what makes this team anchor its young guys to the bench while Wallace and Griffin find their way to the floor.

Developing your bigs after your smalls is a difficult proposition. It's even more difficult when you don't give them a chance.

[topper09]

Yeah.. Ok Sam. You ran out of things to say this week so you wrote this article to finish your task for the day.

I don't believe a word you're saying buddy.. But nice try.

[babblin-on]

-= original quote snipped =-



Hinrich was a proven four year player, Gordon was a college player with proven stats, as was Deng. If Paxson was a risk taker, he would have Andre Igoudala here instead of Gordon (two guys about the same) because he had higher risk/reward status. And for the makeup of the team, wouldn't the ability of AI to dribble drive AND create contact scoring chances be better with a 6-7, 6-8 guy?

Regardless of the fact that Gordon was a proven college player, he still was a very small guard who couldn't play point. Plenty of proven college players have gone on to the NBA and not done crap, especially those that are undersized/without a true NBA position like Gordon. Other than Iverson, no other little two guards have found success in today's NBA game. Taking Gordon with the hope that he could be another very rare exception was a gamble. Taking a guy with an actual NBA position in Iggy would have been a safer, and in retrospect, maybe better choice.

When Paxson made the trade for the pick Deng was taken with, he didn't have any guarantee Deng would be available, and in fact, Deng being available at 7 was a surprise if I remember correctly. There's also the reality that giving up the 05 draft pick could've blown up in Paxson's face if the 04-05 team had played as poorly as teams that young usually do, and the Bulls turned out losing out on a better pick in 05.

Beyond that, how would Iggy represent a change from being conservative, taking proven college guys, while Deng was a "proven college player"? Deng was a one and done, Iggy left after his sophomore year.

[topper09]

-= original quote snipped =-



Hinrich was a proven four year player, Gordon was a college player with proven stats, as was Deng. If Paxson was a risk taker, he would have Andre Igoudala here instead of Gordon (two guys about the same) because he had higher risk/reward status. And for the makeup of the team, wouldn't the ability of AI to dribble drive AND create contact scoring chances be better with a 6-7, 6-8 guy?

Agreed.. But you have to remember.. Paxson has no balls and he doesn't even know what "chance" means.

(I hate Paxson with a passion)

[Magilla_Gorilla]

Agreed.. But you have to remember.. Paxson has no balls and he doesn't even know what "chance" means.

(I hate Paxson with a passion)

And to think I didn't get that from your 2914 other hate filled posts.

How was drafting Tyrus not a ballsy move - when LA was the logical?

How was drafting Thabo not a ballsy move - when Brewer was still there?

How was drafting a 5' tall SG who can't dribble without bouncing it off of his foot not a ballsy move?

How was hiring Skiles not a ballsy move after he had been unemployed and run out of Phoenix?

[DASMACKDOWN]

-= original quote snipped =-



Doug, what guarantee can you give that Aldridge and Brewer wouldn't have been stapled to the bench in the manner Thabo and Tyrus have been?

I dont think anyone can guarantee anything with the Bulls. Especially if you are young. We can only go by the actual track record.

Would have Aldridge played? Yes. As much as he does now or as a rookie? No way.

The strongest example for that is Joakim Noah.

I firmly believe that no one is stopping Noah from putting up highly decent numbers but Ben Wallace. And if you had Aldridge behind Ben Wallace and Joe Smith we would say the same things about him as we do Tyrus.

So its apples and oranges really.

I keep bringing up Al Horford to my friends when I talk about Noah. And Horford avgs 9/9.7 in 31mins of action. There is nothing about Noah that says he couldnt do that year if he had that time. But yet Noah cant get off the bench here unless he is going bananas or someone is in foul trouble.

[DuckIII]

I don't believe a word you're saying buddy.. But nice try.

Interesting. Its not really an opinion piece. He's basically just going back through what happened and citing the factual context with accuracy.

Whats not to believe?

[Johnston797]

Interesting. Its not really an opinion piece. He's basically just going back through what happened and citing the factual context with accuracy.

There is tons of opinion in there.

I would recommend Skiles for another job in a second.

It's no coincidence that Chandler's increased production with the Hornets comes while playing with a great point guard, Chris Paul. It makes all the difference for big men.

The plan with Wallace, really, was to get two good years out of him, have him tutor a young big man a third season and then move him to a team looking to get under the salary cap. It looks like the Bulls got one good season instead

This last quote is the biggest laugher. Talk about revisionist.
This last

[Scott May]

This last quote is the biggest laugher. Talk about revisionist.

No kidding. I wondered for a second there if sloth had gotten an internship with Sammy S.

[Magilla_Gorilla]

There is tons of opinion in there.

I would recommend Skiles for another job in a second.

So one off the cuff line an opinion piece makes?

It's no coincidence that Chandler's increased production with the Hornets comes while playing with a great point guard, Chris Paul. It makes all the difference for big men.

I'd say that is a generally well recognized fact in basketball. Big man more than anyone else count on a PG to get them in a position to score.

The plan with Wallace, really, was to get two good years out of him, have him tutor a young big man a third season and then move him to a team looking to get under the salary cap. It looks like the Bulls got one good season instead

Again - this seems pretty reasonable, and what most people thought. No one, not even Pax could have thought they were going to get 4 years of top level play from Wallace. Most hoped for three, but probably considered two more realistic.

[Johnston797]

[quote="Magilla_Gorilla"][/quote]

Look...I'm not going to go line by line and point out the dozens of opinion. Especially since you don't seem to grok fact vs. opinion.

For example, it's far from a fact that Chris Paul is responsible from Chandler going from 5&9 in his last year here to 12 & 12 this year.

And it's downright laughable to say that Wallace got paid $60M with the plan that 1 of 4 contract years is for tudoring (how is that going?) and 1 of the 4 years is for an expiring contract (how well did that work with Tim Thomas?).