Asik Discussion. Pg 50 Sheridan: Bulls will match

[Red Larrivee]

You're missing and avoiding the point. The Nuggets still wanted Noah. The point is though when they wanted him he was a cheap, highly productive and high upside asset. Taj and Omer don't qualify each one of those things and that's what the Bulls are missing in order to make a trade that would involve Omer's $14M expiring in order to get an all-star level player.

Now if Marquis Teague showed behind Derrick Rose that he's a starting-caliber PG and has the upside to be an all-star, then you would start seeing teams bite on such a deal, and a Teague-Butler-Asik-Picks deal would actually look really good.

[bullsnewdynasty]

You're missing and avoiding the point. The Nuggets still wanted Noah. The point is though when they wanted him he was a cheap, highly productive and high upside asset. Taj and Omer don't qualify each one of those things and that's what the Bulls are missing in order to make a trade that would involve Omer's $14M expiring in order to get an all-star level player.

I just don't understand what makes Noah a different player than he was in 2010. Cheap? Not for long, he needed a new contract. High upside? You're really stretching things.

[Magilla_Gorilla]

Was Denver not planning on extending Noah? We're they going to let him walk after trading for him?

[Red Larrivee]

So Noah coming off his 3rd season in the league, averaging 11pts, 11reb, 2ast with a PER of 18 at age 24 isn't high upside? If Denver would have dealt for Noah/Deng, Noah would be that teams center for a long, long time.

Being cheap for that one year still appeals to a team. Plus you can negotiate your own terms instead of just getting the contract already in place like Deng's. I'm not stretching anything at all. Cheap, high-upside, really productive assets have been apart of trades for superstars for years.

Was Denver not planning on extending Noah? We're they going to let him walk after trading for him?

Of course they were going to extend him, but he was still cheap for that season. They extended Gallinari after 1.5 seasons with them and Chandler. But being cheap for a season or two still holds relevance.

[GetBuLLish]

I don't mean to derail the thread. But Red, isn't it a bit ironic how you are so ardently against matching Asik for reasons of "flexibility" and "2nd option," when you have for the past two years relentlessly and unequivocally defended the player pretty much every single person can agree is the biggest reason why the Bulls lack a true second option and flexibility, Carlos Boozer?

[Red Larrivee]

I don't mean to derail the thread. But Red, isn't it a bit ironic how you are so ardently against matching Asik for reasons of "flexibility" and "2nd option," when you have for the past two years relentlessly and unequivocally defended the player pretty much every single person can agree is the biggest reason why the Bulls lack a true second option and flexibility, Carlos Boozer?

I don't relentlessly and unequivocally defend Boozer. And what would make you any better than someone who does defend Boozer when you're in every thread whining about the minority who does? Does being the kettle instead of the pot really generate that much pride in you?

And none of this has anything to do with what we're talking about, despite the fact that I've long acknowledged the Boozer signing as a bust. You did mean to derail the thread, otherwise you wouldn't have brought up what you have.

[League Circles]

Just FYI, when I talked about a package including possible Omer, Taj, and/or the Bobcats pick for an all-star caliber player, I wasn't talking about someone like Melo or Paul, who had tremendous value when they were dealt. I'm talking about a SG notably better than RIP, that's all. Not even really an all-star, but just all-star caliber. Basically the Luol Deng, Carlos Boozer of SGs. A guy as good or a little better than RIP but younger and more durable. I don't know who, but that's the caliber of player I'm talking about.

[kyrv]

I don't mean to derail the thread. But Red, isn't it a bit ironic how you are so ardently against matching Asik for reasons of "flexibility" and "2nd option," when you have for the past two years relentlessly and unequivocally defended the player pretty much every single person can agree is the biggest reason why the Bulls lack a true second option and flexibility, Carlos Boozer?

Red is in the minority in that he accurately and objectively discusses Boozer. Strengths and flaws, not just flaws fueled by intense dislike.

If it seems like he really likes Boozer it's probably because of the, shall we say, less than accurate evaluations that we often read here.

As for the Bulls lacking a true second option *because of* Boozer, interesting question, the answer is probably no he's not? Maybe there are some made up scenarios where it is true, I don't know. On second thought - if you are considering Young or Mayo as second options?...then probably true.

[Red Larrivee]

Just FYI, when I talked about a package including possible Omer, Taj, and/or the Bobcats pick for an all-star caliber player, I wasn't talking about someone like Melo or Paul, who had tremendous value when they were dealt. I'm talking about a SG notably better than RIP, that's all. Not even really an all-star, but just all-star caliber. Basically the Luol Deng, Carlos Boozer of SGs. A guy as good or a little better than RIP but younger and more durable. I don't know who, but that's the caliber of player I'm talking about.

Ok, then that changes a lot. So basically a fringe all-star. I think that's a reasonable deal to think about. I'm not sure what player that is though.

Red is in the minority in that he accurately and objectively discusses Boozer. Strengths and flaws, not just flaws fueled by intense dislike.

If it seems like he really likes Boozer it's probably because of the, shall we say, less than accurate evaluations that we often read here.

As for the Bulls lacking a true second option *because of* Boozer, interesting question, the answer is probably no he's not? Maybe there are some made up scenarios where it is true, I don't know. On second thought - if you are considering Young or Mayo as second options?...then probably true.

I really don't know what it is about Boozer that inspires such ludicrious and emotional arguments. My entire stance about him is that he's productive, though frustrating, yet could be used a whole lot better than the 28-29mpg PF he has been. I don't understand how that qualifies as defending someoen relentlessly. Sorry if I don't **** on him unconditionally like a good portion of this board will.

[GetBuLLish]

And none of this has anything to do with what we're talking about, despite the fact that I've long acknowledged the Boozer signing as a bust. You did mean to derail the thread, otherwise you wouldn't have brought up what you have.

I think it's fair to point out when someone is vehemently arguing two viewpoints that when compared are diametrically opposite of one another, even if the two viewpoints focus on different subjects.

Again, it just seems a bit hypocritical. You pretty much refuse to acknowledge that Asik will be on a bargain contract for two years and will only be on a bad deal for one year; you focus on that one year. On the other hand, Boozer has been on a terrible contract for the past two years, yet that did not stop you from defending him.

Seems fair to point out.

[LobosJordan]

I was vehemently opposed to the Bulls matching Asik. But over the past few days from hearing multiple viewpoints I would actually prefer the Bulls to match him. Losing him for nothing is just something I don't want to see happen and I am damn sure the Bulls don't either.

[Red Larrivee]

I think it's fair to point out when someone is vehemently arguing two viewpoints that when compared are diametrically opposite of one another, even if the two viewpoints focus on different subjects.

Again, it just seems a bit hypocritical. You pretty much refuse to acknowledge that Asik will be on a bargain contract for two years and will only be on a bad deal for one year; you focus on that one year. On the other hand, Boozer has been on a terrible contract for the past two years, yet that did not stop you from defending him.

Seems fair to point out.

So you're going to continue to ignore that I've admitted the Boozer signing is a hopeless bust and that I think the Bulls should amnesty him before his contract ends? You're also going to ignore that I've been saying for months that Boozer's contract is difficult to move for a variety of reasons and that I could see why no team would want him right now? You read what you want to read as usual. If someone says "Boozer isn't that bad" you take that an unconditional defense, rather than a neutral stance and reasonable discussion.

Maybe you should be questioning yourself instead of me. My view on Asik has nothing to do with my view on Boozer and vice versa. Both of them I feel will be gone in the next few seasons, though I think it was very much possible to win titles with both of them on the team even given their flaws.

Oh no I'm doing it again. I'm relentlessly defending Boozer. Boozer army unite!

[kyrv]

I really don't know what it is about Boozer that inspires such ludicrious and emotional arguments. My entire stance about him is that he's productive, though frustrating, yet could be used a whole lot better than the 28-29mpg PF he has been. I don't understand how that qualifies as defending someoen relentlessly. Sorry if I don't **** on him unconditionally like a good portion of this board will.

I don't either. I think he inspired it in Utah, so it's probably us. His contract was much better for the prior CBA, no doubt, but he provides more production than most of the players people want to swap him out for, or trade assets for.

I do think you hit on it the other day, Chicago basketball fans really have very little tolerance for players who aren't good on defense. Players with good defense aren't really expected to get better at offense, or at least don't inspire as much anger when they don't. But I feel in my many years here, there is an assumption that anyone can be a good defender, just by trying. I think that's not entirely true. I think you can hope to play good team defense, even great team defense, with guys like Gordon and Boozer - and we've seen that. I think people sometimes think Boozer chose to have pretty bad defensive instincts.

It is ironic, this forum is asking for players (like Young) that would just get lit up on this forum.

[BIGGIEsmalls 23]

I was vehemently opposed to the Bulls matching Asik. But over the past few days from hearing multiple viewpoints I would actually prefer the Bulls to match him. Losing him for nothing is just something I don't want to see happen and I am damn sure the Bulls don't either.

Now, this is where I fault GarPax.

Like you Lobos, I hate seeing Asik leave for nothing in return (if they don't match). It's the FO's fault for not trading him when they reportedly had chances & it's their fault for not signing him to a longer rookie deal.

All that being said, I still think we should let him walk.

[LobosJordan]

I think it was a pretty unfair to bash Red on his Boozer defense. I do think that sometimes he defends him to a fault, even during games where he plays awful. But most of the time he is just defending him from irrational haters who don't have any sensible solutions or no understanding of his contract or financial situation. And I think he is right on the money and is justified when sets some people straight who say let's amnesty Boozer right now. When it isn't even a possibility.

[Red Larrivee]

I don't either. I think he inspired it in Utah, so it's probably us. His contract was much better for the prior CBA, no doubt, but he provides more production than most of the players people want to swap him out for, or trade assets for.

I do think you hit on it the other day, Chicago basketball fans really have very little tolerance for players who aren't good on defense. Players with good defense aren't really expected to get better at offense, or at least don't inspire as much anger when they don't. But I feel in my many years here, there is an assumption that anyone can be a good defender, just by trying. I think that's not entirely true. I think you can hope to play good team defense, even great team defense, with guys like Gordon and Boozer - and we've seen that. I think people sometimes think Boozer chose to have pretty bad defensive instincts.

It is ironic, this forum is asking for players (like Young) that would just get lit up on this forum.

At the time his signing was a good deal I thought. 5/75, given the old CBA didn't look bad. On paper fit what we needed perfectly and a Boozer/Noah prime frontcourt was definitely drool-worthy.

But just too much has gone on that's contributed to him being a poor signing for us and I don't see it getting better and I would guess the Bulls don't think so either. If there's any type of silver lining for next season, it's hoping Boozer plays well, boosts his value and we can drop his contract for early relief.

If not, we can always amnesty him in the summer of 2014 when we're expected to have a great deal of cap room.

[GetBuLLish]

So you're going to continue to ignore that I've admitted the Boozer signing is a hopeless bust and that I think the Bulls should amnesty him before his contract ends? You're also going to ignore that I've been saying for months that Boozer's contract is difficult to move for a variety of reasons and that I could see why no team would want him right now? You read what you want to read as usual.

Fair enough. If this is the case, then I must have missed it.

I just wanted to see if you could rationalize the two different stances. But if you changed your opinion, then there is no need.

[LoveDaBoo]

I think it was a pretty unfair to bash Red on his Boozer defense. I do think that sometimes he defends him to a fault, even during games where he plays awful. But most of the time he is just defending him from irrational haters who don't have any sensible solutions or no understanding of his contract or financial situation. And I think he is right on the money and is justified when sets some people straight who say let's amnesty Boozer right now. When it isn't even a possibility.

How is it not even a possibility? Of course its a possibility. It's not even unreasonable, especially if you plan to do it eventually.

[D_GoLow]

I would not keep Asik if it meant losing Taj

[BG7]

Update from K.C.

The Bulls will have three days to match Asik's offer sheet once it is signed. Though management has agonized over the decision and hasn't shared its definitive plans, multiple league sources are under the impression they will match. Brewer said he heard Joakim Noah's lingering ankle issues are a factor in the decision.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/ba ... 8993.story