Reggie Rose rips Bulls' inactivity

[Rerisen]

Well, you were just wrong. And seeing as how it's nearly March and Rose still isn't back, the FO was obviously right to hedge on this season.

Can't be wrong about something that never happened. People were giving Dallas less odds in 2011 than they would have given us in a ECF rematch. And for this year, all that mattered was Rose play level by the playoffs, not when he came back. None of us know what level he can get to with 20 games back or so. But by all reports he looks dominant already and is the best player in practice.

[Bowl_O_Bulls]

Would have traded Noah for Harden, then kept Asik.

So we can be Houston 2.0?

Houston has Derrick Rose, Luol Deng and Taj Gibson?

That team clearly is superior to the one currently, and James Harden is one of the premier scorers and players in the NBA. Solid depth and elite defense in the starting lineup. That team could win it all.

But when you have a FO that falls in love with its own players and isn't aggressive in looking for a #2 option for Rose, that's what happens.

I dont understand this 'we missed out on Harden' rhetoric.

What evidence do we have that the Bulls had any chance at Harden? What would we give? They wanted Bradley Beal, that got knocked back then they got a solid two on good contract and picks for him. In what world can we better that offer.

[coldfish]

- Rose isn't as good as Lebron
- Because of that, Rose needs more talent around him than Lebron to have a better team. A two star model doesn't work unless that second star is better than Rose..

Minor nitpick, but I don't quite agree with this. Miami just isn't as good as they should be. Somehow, they're not as good as they should be, considering LeBron's surrounded with Wade and Bosh. Theoretically, a great fit #2 could put the Bulls on a similar level, even though Rose and player X aren't as good as James and Wade talent-wise.

In Cleveland, they tried to put Larry Hughes next to Lebron and it was awful. People said that putting Wade next to Lebron wouldn't work because they were both ball dominant were . . . right. Miami isn't nearly as good as they could be.

The teams that maximize their talent have an inside guy and an outside guy. The inside guy has to be an efficient post scorer and passer though and players like that are exceedingly rare nowadays. I hold no hope that the Bulls could find one. Hell, I can't name one. Basically, I don't think that "great fit" guy is even out there.

[dice]

- Rose isn't as good as Lebron
- Because of that, Rose needs more talent around him than Lebron to have a better team.

can't believe what he just read

[dice]

Why don't you take a pay cut?

i would before i'd criticize the organization i work for who has put a solid team around me and is paying the luxury tax

It's time to get off of realgm..

which part is false? that an above .500 team is solid or that the bulls are paying the tax?

[CalilLove89]

- Rose isn't as good as Lebron
- Because of that, Rose needs more talent around him than Lebron to have a better team. A two star model doesn't work unless that second star is better than Rose..

Minor nitpick, but I don't quite agree with this. Miami just isn't as good as they should be. Somehow, they're not as good as they should be, considering LeBron's surrounded with Wade and Bosh. Theoretically, a great fit #2 could put the Bulls on a similar level, even though Rose and player X aren't as good as James and Wade talent-wise.

In Cleveland, they tried to put Larry Hughes next to Lebron and it was awful. People said that putting Wade next to Lebron wouldn't work because they were both ball dominant were . . . right. Miami isn't nearly as good as they could be.

The teams that maximize their talent have an inside guy and an outside guy. The inside guy has to be an efficient post scorer and passer though and players like that are exceedingly rare nowadays. I hold no hope that the Bulls could find one. Hell, I can't name one. Basically, I don't think that "great fit" guy is even out there.

Pau Gasol.

[bullsnewdynasty]

Again, I'm not saying that the Bulls wouldn't be better with more talent. Who the hell would argue that?

I keep getting dragged into a team makeup type discussion, so I'll try to put it this way:
- Rose isn't as good as Lebron
- Because of that, Rose needs more talent around him than Lebron to have a better team. A two star model doesn't work unless that second star is better than Rose.
- So, a team that works is something like Rose / Love / Noah / Deng. All of the Rose / Love plus "we will figure it out later" team suggestions are just crap. On that type of team, Rose is a #1 guy.
- The Bulls don't have the ability to create a team like that right now. Any trade using assets today likely makes it much harder to do that later.

So if winning a title is completely dependent on having the best player on the floor, then how did the Pistons and the Mavericks win titles?

[EastBayFJ]

i demand to know what Dwayne and Allan ( two l's not one ) Rose think

[CalilLove89]

Again, I'm not saying that the Bulls wouldn't be better with more talent. Who the hell would argue that?

I keep getting dragged into a team makeup type discussion, so I'll try to put it this way:
- Rose isn't as good as Lebron
- Because of that, Rose needs more talent around him than Lebron to have a better team. A two star model doesn't work unless that second star is better than Rose.
- So, a team that works is something like Rose / Love / Noah / Deng. All of the Rose / Love plus "we will figure it out later" team suggestions are just crap. On that type of team, Rose is a #1 guy.
- The Bulls don't have the ability to create a team like that right now. Any trade using assets today likely makes it much harder to do that later.

So if winning a title is completely dependent on having the best player on the floor, then why did the Pistons and the Mavericks win titles?

Dirk was clearly the best player the entire playoffs, not close.

[LoveDaBoo]

Well, you were just wrong. And seeing as how it's nearly March and Rose still isn't back, the FO was obviously right to hedge on this season.

Can't be wrong about something that never happened.

I disagree. Miami had and has much better top-end talent than the Bulls, and they beat us 4-1 the previous year in the ECF. To call that a 50/50 chance just isn't realistic. Vegas will back me up here.

People were giving Dallas less odds in 2011 than they would have given us in a ECF rematch.

No doubt that anything can happen. Maybe the Bulls would have won. But it would have been a huge upset. Not a 50/50, Bulls ground it out type thing.

And for this year, all that mattered was Rose play level by the playoffs, not when he came back. None of us know what level he can get to with 20 games back or so. But by all reports he looks dominant already and is the best player in practice.

But he's still not playing, and might not play at all. On top of that, Miami would be a huge favorite even if the FO had payed out the ass with contracts that would have severely limited our options going forward. I could have lived with the FO gambling either way, and I stonrgly crticized their seeming half-and-half approach of not re-signing our guys and then senselessly blowing money on Hinrich, but it's not just a matter of spending money, as you imply. In any event, they didn't pass on surrounding Rose with truly great talent. That was simply never an option.

[bullsnewdynasty]

Again, I'm not saying that the Bulls wouldn't be better with more talent. Who the hell would argue that?

I keep getting dragged into a team makeup type discussion, so I'll try to put it this way:
- Rose isn't as good as Lebron
- Because of that, Rose needs more talent around him than Lebron to have a better team. A two star model doesn't work unless that second star is better than Rose.
- So, a team that works is something like Rose / Love / Noah / Deng. All of the Rose / Love plus "we will figure it out later" team suggestions are just crap. On that type of team, Rose is a #1 guy.
- The Bulls don't have the ability to create a team like that right now. Any trade using assets today likely makes it much harder to do that later.

So if winning a title is completely dependent on having the best player on the floor, then why did the Pistons and the Mavericks win titles?

Dirk was clearly the best player the entire playoffs, not close.

LeBron is still a better basketball player than Dirk, talent wise.

[nitetrain8603]

Again, I'm not saying that the Bulls wouldn't be better with more talent. Who the hell would argue that?

I keep getting dragged into a team makeup type discussion, so I'll try to put it this way:
- Rose isn't as good as Lebron
- Because of that, Rose needs more talent around him than Lebron to have a better team. A two star model doesn't work unless that second star is better than Rose.
- So, a team that works is something like Rose / Love / Noah / Deng. All of the Rose / Love plus "we will figure it out later" team suggestions are just crap. On that type of team, Rose is a #1 guy.
- The Bulls don't have the ability to create a team like that right now. Any trade using assets today likely makes it much harder to do that later.

So if winning a title is completely dependent on having the best player on the floor, then why did the Pistons and the Mavericks win titles?

Dirk was clearly the best player the entire playoffs, not close.

What are you smoking? LeBron was and Miami probably would've won had they not pissed off Dallas in Game 2 of that series. With that said, I strongly disagree with coldfish.

[babblin-on]

Is there not a happy medium between dumping assets for nothing and spending like an idiot?

Of course. But what it is is totally debatable. That's the thing. It's not really possible to say who's right on that. If we let go of superstars or even stars, that'd be one thing. But to bomb the FO for letting go of mid-level players just isn't fair. We don't know what their plan is, and we do know that keeping those players likely wouldn't have made any huge difference in our championship trajectory.

Rarely do we know what a team's plan is, other than when a team is obviously tanking for cap space or draft picks.

In this case, we saw the team:
1. Drop productive members of the team for finances. Keeping those guys could've given the team more flexibility to make trades, both with expiring deals and Noah with Asik in the fold as a replacement. You could argue that these moves were the right thing to do in keeping the team flexible in future years and not accruing a year toward being in the repeater tax
2. Hard cap itself
3. Sign Taj Gibson to a deal that to a large extent eliminates some of the flexibility the team could've had as a result of part 1
4. Still end up paying the tax, eliminating one of the theoretical benefits of part 1

Is it possible that management has something great up its sleeve? Sure, but right now it's hard to see the things management is doing moving in any direction.

[Rerisen]

Dirk was clearly the best player the entire playoffs, not close.

Only if you weight the Finals, which of course makes sense. But overall, meh.

Playoff PER 2011

LeBron 27.3
Wade 25.6
Dirk 25.3

LeBron fell apart in the Finals, but singlehandedly disposed of Boston and the Bulls during the clutch periods in both those series.

Rose had a 25 PER through the Atlanta series. He is capable of being on that level.

[LoveDaBoo]

- Rose isn't as good as Lebron
- Because of that, Rose needs more talent around him than Lebron to have a better team. A two star model doesn't work unless that second star is better than Rose..

Minor nitpick, but I don't quite agree with this. Miami just isn't as good as they should be. Somehow, they're not as good as they should be, considering LeBron's surrounded with Wade and Bosh. Theoretically, a great fit #2 could put the Bulls on a similar level, even though Rose and player X aren't as good as James and Wade talent-wise.

In Cleveland, they tried to put Larry Hughes next to Lebron and it was awful. People said that putting Wade next to Lebron wouldn't work because they were both ball dominant were . . . right. Miami isn't nearly as good as they could be.

The teams that maximize their talent have an inside guy and an outside guy. The inside guy has to be an efficient post scorer and passer though and players like that are exceedingly rare nowadays. I hold no hope that the Bulls could find one. Hell, I can't name one. Basically, I don't think that "great fit" guy is even out there.

Probably true, and defintely why so many clamored/clamor for Dwight.

[EastBayFJ]

What does Brenda Rose think ?

Enquiring minds want to know

[EastBayFJ]

I also want to know what Jalen Rose thinks

[EastBayFJ]

Lionel Rose too

[GetBuLLish]

I'll sum up my thoughts with this:

I strongly believe that Rose will come back this year and has worked relentlessly to do so.
On the other hand, I know that the FO made the team worse due to financial considerations.

I know who's side I'm on.

And great post, Babblin-on.

[LoveDaBoo]

Is there not a happy medium between dumping assets for nothing and spending like an idiot?

Of course. But what it is is totally debatable. That's the thing. It's not really possible to say who's right on that. If we let go of superstars or even stars, that'd be one thing. But to bomb the FO for letting go of mid-level players just isn't fair. We don't know what their plan is, and we do know that keeping those players likely wouldn't have made any huge difference in our championship trajectory.

Rarely do we know what a team's plan is, other than when a team is obviously tanking for cap space or draft picks.

In this case, we saw the team:
1. Drop productive members of the team for finances. Keeping those guys could've given the team more flexibility to make trades, both with expiring deals and Noah with Asik in the fold as a replacement. You could argue that these moves were the right thing to do in keeping the team flexible in future years and not accruing a year toward being in the repeater tax
2. Hard cap itself
3. Sign Taj Gibson to a deal that to a large extent eliminates some of the flexibility the team could've had as a result of part 1
4. Still end up paying the tax, eliminating one of the theoretical benefits of part 1

Is it possible that management has something great up its sleeve? Sure, but right now it's hard to see the things management is doing moving in any direction.

I don't disagree with any of that, but it's also not fair to say they were totally stupid or cheap in what they did. No matter what path they took, one could look back and say they could have done something different and possibly better. My main point is that there's no obvious point where them being incompetent or cheap prevented them from obtaining a legit #2. Really, that's all it comes down to.