http://www.blogabull.com/2009/11/29/1178182/no-need-to-panic-everything-is But while depth has become a real issue, and though they are boring to watch (and really hard to blog about), the Bulls aren't in a dire situation. Not yet. The early part of every Bulls season is always the toughest, and then they surge towards mediocrity and an early playoff exit. With more games against their eastern peers (and the Nets) as well as Tyrus Thomas returning, it will likely happen again this year. There may be cries here for an Iverson (or anyone) signing to help 'save' this season, but there's nothing to save. A meaningful season was punted on July 1st, and the narrative surrounding the Bulls is acknowledging more by the loss that they may have been just blowing smoke when saying they'd make a step up this season due to...I don't know, 'ball movement' or something. The idea that a full season of Salmons ('fluke rule') and Miller ('old and out of shape rule') would make a big difference has proven false. Hinrich was supposed to be a better complement to Rose (he can't be if the skills he provides are overshadowed by general suckage) and Rose himself was to be an All-Star now that nobody would be getting in his way on offense (wha?). The defense certainly looks ordinary again after a fast start, and that was one realistic hope for actual improvement. But team improvement wasn't necessary in this grand franchise plan. In fact, the plan is not really a plan at all: it's to be lucky. The Bulls may be positioning (and not there yet, depending on some cap variables) to acquire a max free-agent, and it'll be tough for me to call it an achievement of the team if they're able to pull it off: it'll mostly just be a fortunate occurrence.
This guy's only slightly less cynical about the Bulls than I am. "A meaningful season was punted on July 1st, and the narrative surrounding the Bulls is acknowledging more by the loss that they may have been just blowing smoke when saying they'd make a step up this season due to...I don't know, 'ball movement' or something." And this seems to be a common thread among analysts of the Bulls everywhere: "and though they are boring to watch (and really hard to blog about)"
I’ll take talent evaluation over luck any day. It’s certainly true that most title teams have good fortune. But good fortune is easily and frequently squandered by bad teams making bad decisions. Teams that win a title almost always combine good fortune with good decision-making. I’m fairly certain that if we have the former but not the latter, the former will be moot. Also, the team is more likely to "get lucky" with a max FA if it doesn't stink.
More doom and gloom. Hinrich was never supposed to be a complement to Rose, he was supposed to be a super sub who could effectively backup Rose (not that he's excelled, but still). If he was a complement, he would have started next to Rose. And could somebody please point to a difference maker the bulls let go? And no, BG is not a difference maker. And neither is Duhon, or even Jamal Crawford, so please stop with the "talent evaluation" tears. It's old. Can we just get back to crying about not getting Kobe or Garnett, not that the bulls ever really had a chance there, but at least it is a better criticism than what's been going on around here.
I could have sworn I was told that we wouldn't miss Ben Gordon because Rose would step up his game, Deng would make up the difference in scoring, having Salmons at SG would make us all forget Gordon was here, etc. Instead, not having Gordon out there demanding double teams has put the hurt on Rose's game, as well as Salmons', Deng looks like a black hole on offense, our offense is near worst in the league, and our defense is only marginally better. If Gordon was a complement to Rose, he would have started next to him... Oops, he did! And we were one of the top few back courts in the league last season. Of course it's only fair for people who follow the team and write about it to make the obvious observations about how we got to the sorry state the franchise is at currently. Nobody ever claimed that Gordon is THE guy who can carry a team to a championship. What he did for us was draw those double teams, hit big shots, provide scoring in bunches that meant the team could come back from big deficits, and draw and make the foul shots needed to ice games at the end. The claim was, and still is, that you don't build a championship team by trading better players for worse players, consistently downgrading the roster at each position. That having Gordon and Wade is better than having just Wade (and getting Wade is wishful thinking, not a done deal at all). The opening post is about how our lack of depth is hurting us. Why do we have a lack of depth? Because we're starting guys who should be our bench players and we've let the guys they should be backups to walk or get away in one-sided trades on which we were on the losing side. After 11 years of rebuilding, I think we've seen the team's strategy fail over and over again. The selling point for buying tickets to the games is "wait until next year when X happens." X being, "Chandler and Curry develop" or "we get to use our cap space on Ben Wallace" or "Tyrus Thomas is going to be the real deal." Always a carrot on a stick to entice us, but always never within reach. There's a saying. "Fool me once, shame on thee, fool me twice, shame on me." Well, fool you 11 times.
The thing is, the Bulls have been beneficiaries of good fortune already. Two high lotto picks in return for Eddy Curry (when, at the time of the trade, the Knicks were not considered to be terrible). The #1 pick in the draft falling into their laps. These things were not "supposed" to happen. And we still don't really have much to show for it. TT is looking like a bust. Noah is a pretty good center but not a big difference maker. I have not seen "difference maker" our of Rose. He's been OK. I need to see his game change considerably though until I call him a star much less a superstar.
I'm curious, how many franchises have been to the finals in the last 11 years? You make it sound like the bulls missed their turn in line or something. And the myth of BG is growing. Now he drew double teams? The only time he got double teamed was at the top of the key and he turned it over as often as he scored. And he missed at least twice as many big shots as he made. He's still living off of his rep from his rookie year. So stop. Oh, and the reason the backups are playing is because there is a salary cap in the nba and you can't just give everybody what they think they're worth, especially when they don't deliver. Because then you're the knicks.
So your gripe is about his 2.4 TO/game? But Rose's 2.5TO/game probably doesn't bother you. Kirk's a great ballhandler. He had only 1.7 TO/game in half the minutes, or 2.3/36 minutes (Gordon played 40 minutes). Just wow.
And after all the crying about blowouts the bulls find themselves with a pretty good 7-9 record and at least tied for the 8th and final playoff spot.
The logical response to watching a minor league team. Minor league teams give guys PT until the big league teams call them up.
I think you mean minor league teams overpay for overrated players to sell tickets. And while we are on the subject, did you read where BG said the Bulls didn't even give him an offer before the Pistons offered him $11+ mil per season. They ran the deal up on themselves. That's even worse than the Noc deal.
No, I mean minor leagues' best players go on to the big leagues and those not good enough remain. The proof is in the record and the record is 11 years long.
No need to panic. The Bulls are down by 26 to the Raptors at home. This is the same Raptors team that gave up 146 points to Atlanta and is 29th in the league in defense, giving up 110 points a game.
