@theone86 said:
@kod: Here's the problem with Boozer, he is THE guy you signed. In the four years he was on the team we didn't have money to sign a big name free agent, and no one was lining up to play with Boozer the way they would have with Lebron or Bosh. He's not going to lead your team for years, he's going to be a very good player for a few years, that's why I say he was a long term rental. They were never going to come out of that contract saying "oh my god, you turned this team around, you need an extension!"
Yes, but that does not say anything about Boozer. All that speaks on is your expectations of who you were going to sign. It does not change Boozers contributions or value to a contending team. You're degrading the value of a extremely good basketball player who you could at a great value, all because he was not Lebron or Bosh? Which btw you cant build a team around Bosh either and i highly doubt Bosh would have been more valuable on that roster than Boozer.
@theone86 said:
@kod: I'm not saying Boozer was overpaid or that he wasn't good, I'm saying he was a bad fit for the team and a bad signing. And more skilled than anyone else? Come on. Noah in his prime was twice as good as Boozer. I'd take Taj, Deng, or Noah over Boozer any day of the week. Plus Taj was riding the bench, and every time he came off it and Boozer went out our unit numbers went up. Taj was more effective in the same role, he was younger, and he costed less. And like I said, Boozer helped them win more games, but what good does that do? He disappeared in the playoffs, and even if he hadn't would he have gotten them a title? Better to get a higher draft pick and hopefully a better player.
It was an absolute perfect fit.
No one else in the east had a trio of big men or could deal with Chicago's. That was actually a great move by management, bringing in Boozer, created a special match up situation for the Bulls. The problems came in when Rose could not stay healthy and they let Ben go. Because as great as those big men are, and as well as Nate and that rockets guy, did for the Bulls, they still needed more from their guards. They needed healthy guards.
Taj is an energy guy. He's a guy you throw in for 20 minutes and is super effective. Kanter is the same way right? He's a guy you throw in for a short period who can score and defend, but at a certain point you're not getting a return on him, hes not holding that value. Kanter will come in for 12 minutes and put up 16 points and 7 rebounds, but if you keep him in for 30, he might end up with 18 points 8 rebounds. Taj is the same way, and even the same way on defense, he tends to peter out. I was super happy when we got him last year, ive always been a Taj fan and honestly, i wanted him to retire with us sadly he didnt really function too well in Donovan's system. Which is a shame. Anyway, the point was that if you have an energy guy like Taj, youre either going to want two more energy guys or a full time starter. IMO its better to go with a full time starter like Boozer, because its far more reliable.
"He disappeared in the playoffs, and even if he hadn't would he have gotten them a title? Better to get a higher draft pick and hopefully a better player."
And be in this perpetual half rebuild? That's kind of why they continue to get themselves sin these situations.
He didnt disappear in the playoffs, he simply is not the ball handling guy to take over. No PF should be and the one's who are, are complete abnormalities.
Had they traded Rose, and i suspect they very easily could have gotten Rondo and Avery Bradley for him, they could have won a title with that line up. It would have been a short window when they could it, but they could have.
@theone86 said:
@kod: And you're right that they should have added veterans, but they didn't. They signed Boozer, and then every time there was a free agent we might be able to sign they were like "grumble, grumble, luxury tax, grumble grumble." If Boozer's contract was putting them too close to the luxury tax, and it was even hurting us the year after we let him go, then it's a net loss for the team. Adding veterans means more than just one, and they kept telling us that Boozer prevented them from adding more. I know that you can't always control which free agents are interested in Chicago, but we really could have used at least one more big signing, or failing that a better player than Boozer.
I think at this point in NBA history everyone knew that they had to hit the lux and go over if they were going to contend. So at that point, you go for it. Its not like this was the Nets of four years ago or whenever that whole thing happened. This was a Bulls team that without the "MVP" made the second round of the Playoffs two years in a row. This is when you spend that money, its when you make that hard trade of Rose, its when you go in all in.
"My beef is that we needed a player or players to put us over the top, and Boozer wasn't that player."
Which is your problem, not Boozers problem... theres nothing wrong with Boozer in this equation.
But they did have this and they fucked it all up. i don't know how much you remember about Ben Gordon but at the time, something about that Bulls team, made him one of the best SGs in the game. He was right there, nipping at Kobe's heels and the Bulls let him go and if i remember correctly, they didnt even offer him a contract. And they still would have had Rose. So even if injured, they would have had one of the best SGs in the game on the floor.
@theone86 said:
@kod: Now in hindsight you can say that Rose's contract was a bigger drag, but they looked at him and saw potential (oooh, that word again, potential). But you also have to consider what it does to their chances of signing a free agent.
At the time of his first injury, it was before his contract extension and one of my closest friends who i watch NBA with all day long, was living with a guy from Chicago and was a huge Bulls fan. We were all watching it when he got injured and i remember a couple days later i brought in two articles, one of them was in SI and the other i printed from a website. But it was two different sports doctors explaining how bad his knee injury was and how its a specific type of injury that we've only seen with a handful of players and both of these doctors started mentioning the players who had this injury........ Greg Oden..... Antonio McDyess..... Hardaway.... King.... just these long lists of players who had this very specific tear that Rose had, and none of them ever got back to form.
It sucks to throw a guy away like that, but you didnt need hindsight to know to not resign him or that they should have traded him.
@theone86 said:
@kod: Was anyone lining up to play with Boozer? No, but there were (reportedly) a lot of players willing to play with Rose. I'll take Rose over Boozer if it gets Carmello to join the team.
Id be willing to bet my left nut that over half the league would have loved to play with Boozer in his prime. We know for a fact Kobe said he did, DWill in his prime loved playing with him and im betting Stockton would have loved it too.
BTW, he was old enough then to where that stuff would not have come up. That was really the beginning of the social media "lets all play together" thing and Boozer was already a grown man simply doing the best at his job.
@theone86 said:
@kod: And, BTW, there were a lot of Chicago fans who were saying the same things about Rose. But, come on, a hometown boy winning MVP? You can't blame fans for being swept up by him. You can blame execs, not fans.
If someone is degrading other players and pretending to evaluate a team, yes, ill blame them as well.
And of all the people i knew from Chicago or where Chicago fans, only one agree'd that this narrative, that even ESPN was running wild with, was nonsense.
OKC trio makes their debut.
What im more impressed with is Felton looks like 2010 Felton.
Log in to comment