Rerisen wrote:Offensively we make up rationales for why we can lose one of our best offensive players last year, probably the best, and likely replace him with someone just flat out worse. It's weird.
Defensively, would anyone ever write that we don't need Gibson or Deng because they just duplicate what Noah does? We don't need Jimmy Butler because he just duplicates Kirk a solid fundamental defender?
This team is badly lopsided toward defense and losing Nate for a worse offensive fill in is only going to increase the imbalance.
Clinging to that #5 offensive rating from 2012 is very dated comfort as well. Even then it was overly bolstered by offensive rebounding, which teams buckle down on stopping late in games. This team will also have a 2 year older Boozer, no Korver, and an unknown production level from our MVP, trying to ringlead it all on that end.
Take Nate off this team and we may well have been the worst offensive team in the league last season. Expecting Rose alone to not only perform like an MVP, but bring all our other struggling committee scores back up to respectability, and drag that rating all the way up from bottom third, to top 5 or 7, which is championship level, is expecting a hell of a lot.
Is Nate the ideal guy, position, height, etc, to be that secondary creator and assistance as a playmaker? No he is not. But who are we going to get in his place that is better, as good, or that we can afford. Hard to see a positive answer.
Completely agree.
I get and appreciate what Doug is pointing out about Nate at the MMLE actually costing 8-9 mil, and he's not actually worth that. But to some degree in that sense, Kirk is costing near 10 mil, and that just makes me want to cry.
We have the revenue to spend that lux tax. Even with Nate's signing, as long as we amnesty Booz, we are sure to be under the lux tax next season.
People are talking about how Bulls are the biggest challenge to the Heat if they hold the team together and add Derrick Rose. Losing Robinson is certainly not holding the team together, it is taking a huge step back and then adding Rose. With Robinson, Kirk, Gibson, Snell, and a vet min (and Teague), our bench can be strong and balanced and give other second units fits. Without Robinson, we have Kirk, Gibson, Snell, Teague, and a vet min or two (since no Robinson likely means we're just not using the MMLE) and that's a frightening second unit that I have no faith in scoring...so that means we're probably extending the minutes of both Butler and Deng to keep offense out there, another problem we all want to prevent.
I am still praying they make an offer to Nate similar to what Miami offered Allen...two year MMLE with player option on year two. That's a guaranteed 6.3 mil. Nate might have better contracts out there, but I also wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't have anything more than two years at 3-4 mil a year. His height always scares GMs away; he can be a loose cannon with the ball so I think a GM would only take a flyer like that if they had a veteran coach; and last year he basically played as a starting PG for most the year, no team is signing him as a starter so they'll have to question if he can produce for them in a different role.
Does he deserve a better contract than the Bulls can offer, yes. Will he get, maybe not.
Aside from the Snell draft pick, this offseason is really going to disappoint me.
