Chisoxfn

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 06:31 PM) McGee is a bonehead, but has proven production and is way more explosive. There's a very big difference between putting up 11-8 and what you get from Asik. McGee is a much better player, who possesses elite athletism. 24 and stupid with size and athletism is going to get you paid. I expect him to eventually end up getting a little more then that offer. History has proven that relatively mediocre bigs can get paid pretty big money.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 06:27 PM) Chandler can actually catch the ball and dunk with someone within 5 feet of him. He's also consistently shot over 55% from the floor on more attempts, has proven he can handle heavy minutes and his foul rate is considerably lower so he can actually stay on the floor. Not to mention he's played against starters pretty much his whole career instead of playing against second line players. Look at what happened when Asik had to fill in for Noah in the playoffs, he was brutal in 3 games out of 4 when he got minutes. Teams paying him doesn't mean he's good. How many of those contracts to players like DeAndre Jordan and Kendrick Perkins actually work out? I'm talking about whether you can trade him. I'm not talking about long-term whether it works. If you can trade him a year from now, then you end up getting an asset out of Asik. That is the question. I'm not looking at what he'll be 3 years from now. A year from now can you trade him for a TPE and a pick (or something along those lines)? If you can, you make this deal and keep working with Asik. If you don't think that sort of market exists, then you don't match. THe fact that there are multiple teams that would give him an offer, at least makes it interesting. And then there are always those teams that need another contract to broker transactions. The NBA cap rules are incredibly strange in how very odd things can actually be assets. Heck, you could make an argument that the 15M might be attractive to a team trading a star player. Why? Because the team trading the star might be in need of a full rebuild where one of the things it wants is to get away from a luxuryy tax spot (and getting rid of a LT deal for an expiring deal like Asik) would prevent LT luxury tax issues all while also getting equal salary back in a major salary clearance (clearly significant picks/other talent would have to go across). But its highly unlikely the Bulls are going to be able to trade for a big name player without needing to send money back and Asik's contract could be a key asset in those plans (again, this is all speculative in nature as I don't know there plans).

QUOTE (RZZZA @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 06:21 PM) Chandler is one of the most efficient C's in the game. Asik is one of the least efficient. Asik has to work on catching and dunking, there's no question about that. Agree on the efficiency. And I love Tyson and Asik is clearly not in the same league as him. However, whose to say Asik can't improve around the hoop. Javal Mcgee was offered 5yrs 50M. Raw and athletic. Lots to still prove. I actually have zero problem if the Bulls don't match either. I am irritated at how they handled this whole situation with Asik and how they failed to turn him into an asset. However, if they match, I'm fine, assuming they intend and believe they can turn him into an asset and have a bigger plan. If the plan is to keep him for 3 years, well the Bulls are likely going to be in trouble.

Are the Rockets going to even offer Asik. Reports out there that they put a huge poison pill in the Knicks deal too (15M in year 4).

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 06:16 PM) No, he's a 26 year old stiff we'll be overpaying. Seriously, 14.7 MPG. He's a backup. Joe Johnson is still a player that has actual basketball skills and can score. Yes, his contract is horrible, but he's still a decidedly above average player. 14.7MPG on the Bulls. Which is a separate argument, but with Noah having ankle injuries, he is the Bulls only backup center. On most teams he gets significantly more minutes then the 14.7. There are more then just a few teams that he probably starts for. He is not a stiff. That is ridiculous. Argue his value to the Bulls, but on the open market, teams will pay him. Look how much Joel Pyrzbilla got in his career. Here's a question, what is the difference between Asik and a guy like Chandler. And I'm not comparing the two, but Chandler isn't all that effective of an offensive player either. Albeit, he will get a lot of outback points and is a better passer (and more efficient at throwing down the dunk). However, Chandler isn't exactly going to create offense. Defensively both are very strong.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 06:07 PM) I don't think you're getting the point, the average is irrelevant. It isn't like the NHL where they pay the average, it's $5 mil and then $15 mil. Even if you think he's your starting center, that $15 million the second year is a major issue, especially if you can't dump $10 mil of your own bad contracts in the trade. There are probably 20 teams that wouldn't touch it just for luxury tax implications. I fully understand the semantics of the luxury tax and the teams that are going to offer Asik big money would be those that are likely under the cap, which typically takes the luxury tax concerns out of the question. Cleveland was talking about making Asik a big money offer, but ended up holding off. Had he been unrestricted, he probably gets even more. While some teams would be impacted/hindered from taking on Asik for that 1 yr with 15M, there are plenty of teams that wouldn't be. All we heard 2 years ago about Joe Johnson was how awful the deal was and he'd absolutely never ever be able to be traded. Guess what, he got moved. The NBA is full of crazy people and when it comes to legit 7 foot centers who can play d and are still developing (and how much better Asik gets offensively, i honestly don't think he can make very major improvements, but he should be able to improve). He's also got youth on his side as well. He's still an attractive player. We aren't talking about some 32 year old stiff we'll be overpaying.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 05:31 PM) Here's the problem with that: if you try to trade him after this year, his salary for the trade would only be the current year's salary, which would be $5 million. That means the receiving team would be taking on a s***load of money in the second year. That basically eliminates any team within $10 million of the luxury tax because it'd cost them a ton to take on Asik, or anyone with any desires of free agency the next year. Hence the "poison pill" part. If you do it in the last year, you'd still have to give up actual assets in order to get anyone of real worth. Jerry hasn't shown any indication he is willing to go comfortably into luxury tax territory, which is what he'd have to do with Asik. You'd basically have to cut loose at least two of Boozer, Gibson and Deng with no cap space to bring in major pieces, otherwise he'd be looking at a massive luxury tax bill, especially since the Bulls would be repeat offenders. This isn't a 1:1 tax if you go over, it could easily be pushing 3:1. Meaning it wouldn't be costing them $15 million to keep Asik, it might be pushing $50 million. That's a lot to swallow if I'm JR, and I'd probably try to avoid using my mini-MLE every year to keep adding more. The future costs of keeping Asik are just absolutely massive, all for a backup center. Seriously, he's strictly defense-only and the costs are going to be extremely high. Just let him go, he's just not that good and not worth potentially killing your team if no one wants to take him at $15 million. I sure as hell wouldn't touch that. Hence my point that the team who acquires him would be paying an average of $10M per year for the 2 years remaining on the deal. However, that $10M/yr is still moveable, in my opinion.

Damn. That was a costly blown strike 3 call. That said, Q still had to make the pitches. However, a couple of them were just nice pieces of hitting (going the opposite way).

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 05:18 PM) That makes no sense. So because he can't make anything inside or outside of 3 feet that somehow makes him more valuable than someone that can actually score? What are you talking about? He's clearly not a better low post scorer then the average center. My point was that you aren't going to be better off leaving him wide open and fouling him 24/7. If you did do that, he'd actually end up scoring at a better rate then an overall offense. I was purely defecting Badger's so called strategy, nothing more. In no way am I making a case for Asik being efficient offensively, because he's not, but the strategy proposed wouldn't have been a good strategy, imo (the fouling). I do think teams would leave Asik alone by and large and you would see some 4 on 5 and he has things to do to improve under the hoop at making teams pay when they do completely leave him.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 04:20 PM) He's going to be making $15 million in 3 years. That's absurdly overpaid. That's really the only year that matters since it's cap-killing bad. The average is a little easier to swallow though still bad, $15 mil is abysmal. Every year you keep him at that reasonable salary makes him a lot harder to swallow as the team getting him. You'd also still have to add assets to get anyone good, and the receiving team is either going to dump a huge salary on your or have to be $15 mil under the cap. It absolutely matters for the Bulls because they have to deal with that total for luxury tax payments. It also absolutely destroys any chance you have of being a player in FA in the 2014 off-season. Without Asik, Deng is off the payroll and Boozer can be amnesty'd. With Asik, you're stuck paying something like $35 mil to three frontcourt players (extending Gibson, who is far more important) and another $18 mil or so to Rose. That obviously doesn't leave any space. Assuming they can dump him on someone is a big risk to take for a guy that you can live without. 8M over the total deal, or approximately 10M over 2 years. That is when the Bulls should be dealing him and that contract is moveable. I'm not saying you will necessarily get a 1st round pick for him, but the financial opportunities alone make it worthwhile. One thing you have to remember is you can't just create payroll, so his contract, in a sense, is a quasi-asset if you utilize it appropriately (along with other assets) to potentially land a star or above average player when otherwise you financially wouldn't be able to do. Now if the plan truly is 2014, well then so be it, but I've yet to see what exactly they will be looking for in that year. Additionally, I still think you can move Asik at the end of the year and thus from a basketball perspective, you get Asik and that is better then not having Asik. Only real loss is Jerry spending potential luxury tax money this year (but that doesn't really prevent the Bulls from making moves, especially if the club plans on moving him a year from now anyway). Yes, it costs money, but unless you think you can't move that deal a year from now (in which case, I think you do have to potentially think hard about not matching), then it really isn't that bad of deal. Expensive yes, but moveable and for the current year better then the alternative. It isn't like the Bulls can take this money and spend it elsewhere. They either match or they let Asik walk and only have the minimum to give to a player to replace him.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 04:15 PM) It's really not, it's well below league average (62%). They're giving up a bunch of offensive opportunities by having him out there and making life harder for the other 4 players. Actually, let's be honest here, he's making life harder for Rose since he's already carrying the rest of the team on his back. The Heat got a lot better offensively when they stopped playing Joel Anthony 30 MPG and they still defended just fine. That's not a coincidence. 62% from the paint, but the point was more in argument with Badger who indicated that they would just consistently foul, etc. My point was 52% > overall scoring (not necessarily in the paint scoring percentages).

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 03:40 PM) This is really just so opposite of the truth. If Thibs shows a ton of new stuff on offense this year, Id want him signed immediately. Its not about winning a title, that has a lot of luck, its about making changes. Its about seeing problems and addressing them. Ill use an anecdote. I love Bo Ryan, Im not that huge of a fan of Bielema. Both have had success, but 1 I have utmost confidence in during the game (Ryan), the other I always am concerned about. Without actually keeping a game log myself, its hard to say here are the X times Thibs did something I didnt agree with. The reason I talk about it, is because well I am in the minority, so I have to respond to about 10 posts at a time. It happens. Understood. By the way, I want to point out that while we disagree here, you are a good poster, and this has been just good natured debate. However, at this point, we'll just agree to disagree, in regards to this. I wish the Bulls would go out and trade for Dwight or make a serious run (consequences be damned). And just to be an ass, didn't Bo make a pretty big in-game coaching mistake in the most recent NCAA tourneys?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 03:36 PM) You have a lot more faith in the Bulls front office than I do. And as much as I am in the minority on Thibs, keeping Asik at 25 mil for 3, is a minority position. But thats why I come to message boards, if I just wanted to hear my opinion, Id talk to myself. I honestly don't know if it a minority decision. I'd say its more 50/50 but understood. And I don't really have a problem of losing Asik, however, if we just lose him, that alone irritates me and would be another mistake by the Bulls front office. Like I said, I believe matching Asik does more good then not (both basketball wise and from a structural perspective in terms of what a smart capologist/gm could do with that contract).

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 03:32 PM) Come on man I explicitly didnt say those things. 1) I never said thibs should be fired, I said he should be a wait and see after this season. 2) I never said Rose's injury was "95%" on Thibs, I said that Thibs should have been more careful. Where is that a percentage? Thibs could have been 1% responsible and thats still to much in my opinion. Now in terms of the bulls trading etc, that would be true if I had any faith in the Bulls actually being able to make good trades. Outside of the Tyrus Thomas trade w/Portland, they've done a very good job drafting, accumulating assets, etc. Really the only thing they haven't done a good job at is landing the secondary star, which isn't easy to do. Gar/PAX sure get a lot of heat for by and large hitting on a lot of not so high draft picks (clearly Rose makes them significantly better). Again, I'm not saying they are perfect, cause they aren't. At some point those inabilities become a problem, however, sometimes it just isn't meant to be.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 03:32 PM) Come on man I explicitly didnt say those things. 1) I never said thibs should be fired, I said he should be a wait and see after this season. 2) I never said Rose's injury was "95%" on Thibs, I said that Thibs should have been more careful. Where is that a percentage? Thibs could have been 1% responsible and thats still to much in my opinion. Now in terms of the bulls trading etc, that would be true if I had any faith in the Bulls actually being able to make good trades. I don't know, I've seen you slam Thibbs for everything. I've watched the team, I've heard the players, I've heard the experts, and I've heard nothing but 100% praise for the way he coaches and prepares his team, for his in-game changes, etc. How often did you see Thibbs run with the 2nd unit for extended periods because it worked. A lot of coaches wouldn't do that (that is an in-game adjustment). He would occasionally go to the bench early, use different guys (e.g., make adjustments). I really think the only way you don't complain about Thibbs is if he won a title. And to be honest, that isn't always the best way to gauge a coach. Heck, given the Spurs got destroyed in the playoffs, why shouldn't Pop be fired? He didn't even have an injury to its MVP and starting center as an excuse. And I'm only being an ass to point out these things because you have been so strong on the other side, constantly berating about it, and quite frankly being in the vast majority. I truly think you are one of those fans that will constantly whine and complain and never appreciate anything unless you win (even if it is due to pure luck or in spite of many things).

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 03:30 PM) You are full of s***, just admit it. In basketball, talent evaluations are made all the time without the basis of money. Your first analysis was totally based off of talent solely focused on free throw shooting, and now you are claiming it's only due to money. You are mitt romney. Who gives a s*** about the money. Worse case he's a 15M expiring which in and of itself has massive value if the Bulls are over the cap and want to add additional assets. I realize the luxury tax might be an issue but in reality, the luxury tax doesn't exactly prevent the Bulls from signing players, etc. They would still be significantly over the cap. And if they want to clear money for 2014, I fully believe the Bulls could move Asik's contract. If they have another strategy, well they still have an asset that can be used to match salaries, etc, which is pretty key in the NBA. And whether it is 6 months or next off-season, I don't really care too much. That still is in plenty of time to prepare for the 2013 season, which is the more important season anyway. I don't get all that hyped about 2014 since there aren't even any good FA's that year that help the Bulls. I've long argued Bulls should go for broke for Dwight.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 03:28 PM) I just can not believe this argument. At least Zoom understands so I have that going for me. For comparison here is Joel Anthony's contract; http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/jul/2...anthony-072310/ 5 years 18mil. If the Bulls could sign Asik for that, Id do it every day of the week. The current offer the bulls have to match is: 3 years 25 mil I just assume that the people in this thread know sports and know that Asik is going to cost more than 2x the amount of Anthony. So you cant say "Oh well hed improve the Heat at the expense of Anthony" because the salaries dont match. As a UFA, I would not be surprised to see Asik get significantly more then 3yrs 25M.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 03:19 PM) NO I WAS NOT. ASIK IS NOT FREE WE CAN NOT LIVE IN FANTASY LAND. I ASSUMED THAT EVERYONE UNDERSTOOD ASIK HAS TO BE PAID TO PLAY. Sorry I didnt make that clear, this is literally become the dumbest argument Ive had today, and I argue with stupid people for a living. Coming from the guy who thinks Thibbs should be fired and that Rose's injury is 95% on him, well, that doesn't say much. The point is, given the overall market, Asik isn't going to be ridiculously overpaid. As a UFA he probably gets paid more on average over the contract, however, the CBA prevented teams from offering more. What did the Rockets too, they back loaded it with one large deal but the overall average contract is probably consistent (if not less) then he would get as a UFA, which means, there is potential value to trade him a year from now, in which case, the contract really doesn't matter much (it isn't like the Bulls can spend the money elsewhere, so by matching him they at least get the benefit of trading him for a TPE or draft pick or something else so that they don't waste the asset).

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 03:20 PM) He doesn't convert at a high percentage. He only made 52% of his shots in the basket area this year, which is the kind of number that you typically see from a 6'1" point guard. The guy is absolutely awful on offense. But the point is, as a 5th option, that sort of percentage is just fine, and as a whole, if your strategy is to leave him open, 52% of your shots is still > the average shooting percentage in the league (excessively) so I don't really see how it is a good strategy to keep fouling him and or letting him have dunks. Seems pretty foolish to me. On a sidenote, if you are playing the Heat, you are going to be doubling Lebron a lot no matter what (irregardless of who your center is) but no team has 5 legitimate offensive options and defensively, they'd be a lot better with a guy like Asik who could just shut down the paint.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 03:14 PM) The Bulls were 8 points worse per 100 possessions on offense when Asik was on the floor this year, and Noah isn't exactly Wilt Chamberlain. You can absolutely cheat off him and make sure a person that can actually do something with the ball if they catch it doesn't beat you. And on the flip side, they were significantly better defensively with him on the court, to the point where he was a net gain. I've never said he's a great offensive player. I've said that on the right teams he's a good fit and as a whole he's a great bench center. I also think given the market for centers, you wouldn't have much difficulty trading him 6 months from now.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 03:10 PM) How many times has Asik been under the hoop and stone handed a pass? Hes just not reliable on offense. When the Bulls have Asik on the floor, id say 80% of possessions have his man doubling someone else. Yes, they are 30 other centers in this league that are better then him. You are correct. Most centers in this league can't score and are butterfingers. No one is saying he's Bynum. The dude would start on quite a few teams in this league and is a very capable player (despite the fact that Pop would just use a crushing defensive strategy against him). Even if he dropped half of the passes, he's still getting dunks and converting at a high percentage. Plus, if teams just leave him, then he's got position for offensive boards.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 03:07 PM) No that was just 1 part of the reasoning. I never said it was the only reason. The other reason is that on offense you can play off asik, meaning that its effectively 4-5. You cant do that with Griffin. You really can't. He's going to be out setting picks and doing other things. It really isn't a 4-5 game and if you really go away, you'll get a lot of dunks when he's under the hoop.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 03:01 PM) What are you talking about? The Heat won the NBA Championship and basically didnt have a true center. You are so far outside the realm of any discussion I cant even understand your point. The comment was regarding whether ASIK would make the HEAT better. And I said he would not, as Asik is a bad offensive player and could be fouled to actually hurt their offensive numbers. Do you have anything to say about the actual discussion? Or are you just posting random nonsense because you dont know the NBA rules? And you could have fouled Joel Anthony too. Asik would have been a massive upgrade. You know how good the Heat's defense would have been with Asik controlling the paint and offensively he would have set some massive screens for LBJ/Wade, which also would create space for Bosh. You are delusional if you don't think Asik would make the Heat a lot better. He's the exact type of player they are missing (a legitimately strong defensive center).

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 03:02 PM) No the comment was about whether Asik on the Heat would make them better. Blake Griffin is a million times better on offense than Asik, I dont even know what you are talking about. Might be better on offense, but your point was based upon free throws and just fouling and fouling a bad free throw shooter. So in that regard, the situation really isn't different.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 13, 2012 -> 02:59 PM) It may be. But the Bulls lost a game because Asik was on the court, was fouled and didnt make his free throws. Bad free throw shooting is just something that cant be ignored. If asik could shoot even a respectable percentage, hed probably be worth the contract. Dude, that wasn't a strategy. That was a foul as the clock expired. That is what you are coached to do regardless of who the free throw shooter was. And given the situation, it was a dumb play by Watson. Had Watson made the right decision, he would have been fouled and the good free throw shooter shoots free throws. All I can say is, you are in the vast majority and you can have your opinion, but letting Thibbs become a FA as a coach would be a major mistake and it would cost the Bulls a lot of money (and possibly one of the best coaches in the league). And I'm not sure what is frustrating. Bulls have made a lot of really good in-game adjustments and are very very prepared.