another rumor Ben Wallace for Kwame and Radman

Post #41 » by **Tommy Udo 6** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:55 am

Many Chicago fans view Wallace like they did Chandler

On the Bulls, he does not do as well as expected. (Although Ben led Bulls in steals last year).

However, a change of scenery does wonders. look how Chandler excelled once he got out of Chicago.

Most Bulls fans believe Ben will do well in LA. With Phil & the triangle and with Kobe, Ben will play much better than he does now.

The Bulls dont have a decent coach, no stars, and no leaders. Ben is not a leader - but a follower. He would fit in with LA.

Teen Girl Squad · Post #42 » by **Teen Girl Squad** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 2:57 am

The funny thing is that the people whho want wallace are the same ones who complain about Lamars contract. Ben is a worse player and more overpaid than he is.

That Nicka · Post #43 » by **That Nicka** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:00 am

Teen Girl Squad wrote:The funny thing is that the people whho want wallace are the same ones who complain about Lamars contract. Ben is a worse player and more overpaid than he is.

People complain about Lamars contract because for that price you should at least be a specialist at something.... What does Lamar excel at? please tell me because I would really like to know...

trippy · Post #44 » by **trippy** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:08 am

bulls6 wrote:Many Chicago fans view Wallace like they did Chandler

On the Bulls, he does not do as well as expected. (Although Ben led Bulls in steals last year).

However, a change of scenery does wonders. look how Chandler excelled once he got out of Chicago.

Most Bulls fans believe Ben will do well in LA. With Phil & the triangle and with Kobe, Ben will play much better than he does now.

The Bulls dont have a decent coach, no stars, and no leaders. Ben is not a leader - but a follower. He would fit in with LA.

Thank you damnit. I've been saying that sh** for too long. Whether we get him or not, I just want our defense to improve. Too many people here assumes so much. It's getting old. It just so happens to be the same people that wanted a Bynum for JO trade and bashed on Mitch for the past 3 years. It's cool to give opinions, but don't make a statement with a weak argument.

trippy · Post #45 » by **trippy** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:12 am

Teen Girl Squad wrote:The funny thing is that the people whho want wallace are the same ones who complain about Lamars contract. Ben is a worse player and more overpaid than he is.

I never complained about Lamars contract. I only complained about his passiveness. Stop assuming and get your facts straight. We all know Ben is expensive, but for Kwame and Vlad? 2 players who we didn't need during the 10 out of 11 stretch. I'm not saying get him, and get him now, but I am suggesting to establish a defensive identity.

lakeshow248 · Post #46 » by **lakeshow248** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:23 am

He shoots .347 from the field and from the free throw line .439 not good numbers offensvily to say the least and his stl and blks are dwn from his carrer average. Granted he has been hurt somewhat this year and Noah has started to take some time from him at the 4 position but he is 33 yrs old now and is in a decline. However the contract is the thing that hurts if he was expiring nxt yrs I thing it would be doable but it's not so I would have to say no.

I think his lack of Offensive skills hurts so much w/ teams being able to foul him in certain close games and teams really not having to play him on defence.

LakerLegendMikeSmrek · Post #47 » by **LakerLegendMikeSmrek** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:33 am

hermes wrote:i wouldn't do it
have you seen ben's contract

Never mind the contract, have you seen him play? His salary is based on the fact that he does one thing good, and that's defense. Nowadays, he plays matador defense. His salary is also based on his huge rebounding numbers. He is no longer top 10. If you say top 30, then he makes the list. The guy is number 29 in rebounds at a whopping 8.7 boards a game. The Ben Wallace you want is the guy that averaged over 12 boards a game to go along with 3 blocks. The overpaid matador defending Wallace we would get is get 1.6 blocks.

Duncan would eat up Wallace just the same as he would Kwame.

No thank you.

Post #48 » by **snaquille oatmeal** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:43 am

That Nicka wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

People complain about Lamars contract because for that price you should at least be a specialist at something.... What does Lamar excel at? please tell me because I would really like to know...

he exels at rebounding.

Sedale Threatt · Post #49 » by **Sedale Threatt** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 4:02 am

bulls6 wrote:Most Bulls fans believe Ben will do well in LA. With Phil & the triangle and with Kobe, Ben will play much better than he does now. He would fit in with LA.

Bet he'd say the same thing.

Honestly, I can't believe any of you think Wallace would actually improve our team. It would be one thing if his contract was coming off the books.

But it's not, which renders him completely useless. No change of scenery, no coach, no teammate is going to change the fact that he'd be nothing more than a drain on our salary cap.

To quote J-Rob, he sucks. Enough said.

UThinkUrSoGood · Post #50 » by **UThinkUrSoGood** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:01 am

Lamar 13m
Wallace 15m

Might as well have kept Shaq haha. All joking aside, I do agree a defensive identity is what this team lacks but putting a 15m investment for a player on the decline isn't the way to fix that. YES it is a fair arguement to say he is on the decline with his play in Chicago this season. It's nothing but a poor assumption to think that moving Ben to LA would magically improve his play. ***Kwame Brown anyone???*** Phil Jackson's "magic" and the tri-offense couldn't fix him. To make that arguement is a poor arguement in itself.
Ben Wallace is up there with Kwame Brown, Lamar Odom, Stephon Marbury ect. Overpaid players that aren't playing up to their contract expectations.

Anyways, Ronny Turiaf, same size more athletism, hussle and energy. He's showing he can bring everything to the table anyones expecting out of a player like Ben Wallace, but he also has that offensive upside.

Frozenropers · Post #51 » by **Frozenropers** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:09 am

The guy that it sounds like would be the perfect fit for the Lakers right now would be Kurt Thomas. He could immediately start at center and is a good low post defender and rebounder.......in addition he's got a great high post game (shot). When Bynum came back, Thomas would be able to play PF and be a threat at the high post, while Bynum operated in the low post. Did I mention, Thomas has an expiring contract?

Being that Thomas always seems to play Duncan tough would just be a bonus if/when you met the Spurs in the playoffs.

Unfortunately, it would probably cost the Lakers more than they are willing to give up, in order for the Sonics to consider trading Thomas, as he is a nice expiring contract and is a great role model/influence for the Sonics young post players, teaching them how to act and play in the NBA every day in practice.

Anyways, seems like almost too good of a fit for the Lakers.

Post #52 » by **LLcoleJ** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 5:17 am

That Nicka wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

good stats.. admittedly, I have not seen much of BW this year and I didnt know it was that bad... there has to be a PF out there though that fits this team better than LO

Fair enough. We need to be more creative then Wallace because actually LO is better a better fit between the 2. So I agree, this team needs a low post scoring and defending PF, but Wallace is NOT the one.

Wallace is Kwame bad on Offense. So, if you have him there the opposing PF will just hang next to wallace until Bynum gets the ball and a quick double team. Then you have wallace as your post threat, and believe me you dont want that.

trippy · Post #53 » by **trippy** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:04 am

UThinkUrSoGood wrote:Lamar 13m
Wallace 15m

Might as well have kept Shaq haha.

On a serious note to respond with, Shaq would have given us 2 years of competing with no Bynum. A Shaq trade has now resulted in a 4-8 years (maybe even more) for a championship run officially starting next year.

UThinkUrSoGood wrote:
All joking aside, I do agree a defensive identity is what this team lacks but putting a 15m investment for a player on the decline isn't the way to fix that. YES it is a fair arguement to say he is on the decline with his play in Chicago this season.

It's not fair if you never watched any of the Bulls games and if your comparing him to a currently dysfunctional team (especially last year when they were decent). Injury prone JO is 20M with an upside of a currently decent offensive skill set versus Ben, but is declining faster due to knee injuries. Come up with a different but realistic, keyword realistic, trade/signing for a good role player that will make up for the lack of defense we have then I'll stop defending my argument.

UThinkUrSoGood wrote:It's nothing but a poor assumption to think that moving Ben to LA would magically improve his play. ***Kwame Brown anyone???*** Phil Jackson's "magic" and the tri-offense couldn't fix him. To make that arguement is a poor arguement in itself.

You're right, Kwame Brown is a poor argument. Since we're talking about Ben Wallace here, he has the physicality, the experience, and his own accomplishments to back him up, unlike Kwame. They call them Veteran Role Players for a reason. You can argue about age, but according to his work ethics and no recent injuries, he should be able to play at a high level. In the end its going to be about where he's at. If he's with the Bulls, he's going to keep playing sh*tty because he's uninterested in playing for a rebuilding team. That's why Bulls fans agree because they actually watch him play unlike 99% of the posters here. You can worry about the offense all you want, but we're still the 3rd best team in PPG, without the suggested players that would be in the trade. I'm not worried about scoring, but I am worried about someone doing the dirty work. So far, only Ronny does the dirty work.

UThinkUrSoGood wrote:Ben Wallace is up there with Kwame Brown, Lamar Odom, Stephon Marbury ect. Overpaid players that aren't playing up to their contract expectations.

I already agreed that he's an overpaid player. We can't have all the good players in the world. Please understand that. If we sign him and whether things go well or not, he's off the books the same time LBJ and D-Wade can opt out (listing as possibilities).

UThinkUrSoGood wrote:Anyways, Ronny Turiaf, same size more athletism, hussle and energy. He's showing he can bring everything to the table anyones expecting out of a player like Ben Wallace, but he also has that offensive upside.

Ronny is a great role player on both sides of the court, but comparing an accompished player vs. one thats not is not a good comparison. We all know what Ronny can do, and we all wish that he can play more minutes, but there's something the coaching staff knows that we don't.

We have everything except defense. I don't want to overpay another player just as much as the next person, but this is the only realistic trade we can do this year. Whether he's a good fit, we will never know unless it happens. I have never assumed he will be, but I have proven why he could be.

In the end, cap space is just a formula for a fixed set of variables which equates into a championship team. And we all know that we're one piece away.

trippy · Post #54 » by **trippy** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:06 am

Phil_2.0 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Fair enough. We need to be more creative then Wallace because actually LO is better a better fit between the 2. So I agree, this team needs a low post scoring and defending PF, but Wallace is NOT the one.

Wallace is Kwame bad on Offense. So, if you have him there the opposing PF will just hang next to wallace until Bynum gets the ball and a quick double team. Then you have wallace as your post threat, and believe me you dont want that.

Tell that to Detroit when they won a Championship then.

trippy · Post #55 » by **trippy** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:11 am

Here's the triangle, then talk.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vk5x6cLJLt0

shortodom · Post #56 » by **shortodom** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:17 am

he's worse then Kwame on offense and worse then Shaq at the freethrow line. imho he's overrated

trippy · Post #57 » by **trippy** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:22 am

shortodom wrote:he's worse then Kwame on offense and worse then Shaq at the freethrow line. imho he's overrated

Highly profound thesis statement. Truly a work of art. Must have been formulated by a person with a PhD or a masters in communication.

It's not about scoring, its about defense. It's about role players that would fit the core of Kobe+Bynum. Damn.

Post #58 » by **LLcoleJ** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:24 am

trippy wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Tell that to Detroit when they won a Championship then.

tell that to the Bulls who are in desperate need of help in the post.

Post #59 » by **LLcoleJ** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:25 am

trippy wrote:Here's the triangle, then talk.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vk5x6cLJLt0

is that directed toward me ?

trippy · Post #60 » by **trippy** » Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:31 am

Phil_2.0 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

tell that to the Bulls who are in desperate need of help in the post.

Guess what? We have everything they don't. They might possibly have the one piece we need. We will never know, until it happens. Till then I'm still waiting for another possible trade/signing that is realistic to argue about.

The link is for those who doesn't understand the triangle, if you don't know then click it.