mudderfudder77

I cannot tell you how hard I've been searching for this.

It's hard to find a guy contributing so 'across the board' but taking so few shots...But I've found him:

B-R.com

Horford is already the better offensive player (efficiency, passing, win shares). He's also got that "champion's mentality," if you ask me...

Closer to home - I'm surprised how close he and his former teammate are statistically.

B-R Comparison

All Star voting is, yet again, a joke.

Yi 3rd among forwards?

JJ 9th among guards - 3 behind Ridnour? RIDNOUR?

Devin Harris 10th?

Hedo ahead of Granger?

But we can offer 10% raises as opposed ot the 8% the other teams can give. bottom line is he can't get more money elsewhere.

I think the questions should be "could we get any complementary pieces from other teams trying to shed extra dollars? Or extra players?"

I think its 10.5%

A half dozen or so teams will be clearing space for not only 1, potentially 2 max contracts.

As many as 18 teams could have the cap space to sign 1 max FA in 2010.

Its a shame Al can't play against my Bulls pathetic front line every night. God did he look beastly in that game.

I agree, that's why I said they'd have to give us an unprotected lottery pick and a 5-6 million dollar filler. We can't expect much more for Bibby than that if we do trade him.

You also have to keep in mind that Curry has never played with anyone in the front court that is good defensively. If you could put him at center with Horford and Smoove at the 3-4 for stretches of the game he'd be quite productive.

This topic doesn't really belong in the homecourt forum since there's not a rumor of us trading for him or anything like that so I'm going to move it to around the nba.

He played with Tyson Chandler. And don't be fooled - Curry is a waste.

His contract isn't that awful considering the offensive punch that he can give you but we have nothing in that contract range that I'd give up for him.

Curry has 2 yrs at 20 million, plus a player option for a third year at 11.2 million. He's also been a net negative for every team he played for. It's been 7 years and the verdict is in, Eddy isn't very good. And for all the offensive production he gives you, he negates that with turnovers, his aversion to defense, and his atrocious rebounding.

I guess Sekou doesnt understand the rules to RFAgency? Or maybe he doesn't see the benefit in tying up a teams caphold for a week?

I would just tell Smith not to worry, we got ya and then wait til next Friday.

LOL... Memphis isn't signing anyone else. Hell - Atlanta should be thanking Memphis for getting this done and at such a reasonable contract.

I agree it is time to get it done.

11.6 is a lot but it is comparable to Deng, Iggy and the rest of his draft class.

Now lets focus on getting our big man.

Compared to what the others in his class signed for - this contract is a steal. They better match this as soon as they get the paperwork. For their sake, for Josh's sake, and for the fan's sake.

My bad but he is listed as 6'10"....

Al measured at 6'9.75" in shoes at the pre-draft camp.

what's funny out of the RFA's is Ben Gordon. He wants what Deng got,lol he doesn't even start and he's one dementional. If I was a Bulls fan I would be like "see ya Ben"

He actually wants more than Deng got - he wants to be the highest paid player on the team, which also means he wants more than Larry Hughes got in his outrageous contract.

Gordon will either be signed and traded or he'll play out the QO and leave next year.

Just so you know, he may like to play on the perimeter but he also scores almost twice as many points as Al around the basket (more efficiently too) and he gets about twice as many free throws from being aggressive around the hoop.

Yes, but J Smith also has a significantly higher usage rate. 23.6 vs. 15

First off, AI is not as good as he used to be. 12 years have passed and you still think A.I is the A.I. of old ? If that's the case, I agree that A.I. in his prime was better than Joe. BUT He's not in his prime anymore, and he's not the same player he was when he took Philly to the playoffs. If he was, then this wouldn't even be worth discussing. He hasn't proven anything since he came to Denver other than the fact that he still can't play PG and that he can't defend SG consistently. He's been second fiddle to Carmelo Anthony and they can't manage to get out of the first round. How in the hell is he the only offensive player with one of the league's best scorers playing next to him every night ?

To answer your question, no it's not that simple. However, Atlanta beat Denver and lost to Denver without Mike Bibby. If we had Mike Bibby, I think we easily could have swept them this year. Unless there are drastic differences between team's record (15 games+), then I look at head-to-head matchups.

And completely ignore the fact that they play in the Western Conference?

It was a 13 game difference - Denver was a 50 win team - in the Western Conference. The records aren't even comparable.

Oh, and Atlanta went, what, 15-18 with Bibby?

But you understand the point, it's never the boss' job to cater to the employee. If Josh Childress was so upset that he never got to meet with Sund then he should have been proactive and done something about it. Do you disagree?

In professional sports it sure as hell is - at least if they want to keep their job it is. Now obviously there is a line, but lets not act like Pro Sports front offices even closely resemble the offices here on Clark and Adams.

Amen, Dolfan, Amen :clap:

Right on, my brother.

Childress was an EMPLOYEE on this team. If he was so eager to get it done, he has to go to the BOSSES--Sund, ASG.

Bosses don't come to employees--doesn't work that way.

So you've never been recruited for a job? Because I surely have, and that doesn't come close to level of recruitment involved in professional sports. You think Elton Brand had to call Philly? Or Baron Davis call the Clippers?

Deng sure as hell didn't go groveling to Paxson - he made them come to him. Just like Okafor did. And Monta.

I can only laugh when people try to draw parallels between professional sports and any other business. They don't have close to the same rules. And when a sports team does try to run its offices like a corporation (see the bears in the late 80's and 90's) failure seems surely to follow.

I'm not sure if it works this way in basketball like it does in baseball but I would imagine that the team trading for Smith could give him a new contract. If not, at least they will be able to have a few months where they can try and convince him that this is the place he should stay. I do think that we would still get something of value for him and we might get a lot of value, depending on a lot of variables.

According to Larry Coon's FAQ - if Smith signs the QO, the earliest he can be traded is Dec 15th and he would have to agree to the trade. Once agreeing to the trade Smith would lose all Bird rights. He could only re-sign with the traded team if they had cap room or used MLE/LLE/etc. He would be an unrestricted FA without any Bird Rights at the end of the season.

I don't know how much value he would have in that case.

How do you (or I or anyone for that matter) know that there isn't a reason to ask him to wait other than they might want to back out of it? I'm sure there is a lot more going on behind the scenes about why they wanted him to wait than we are aware of or have even thought about it. I'd understand being cautious about a handshake deal if you are talking about doing business with a guy on the street, but not with a guy like Sund who is so well respected around the league. Don't you think that if he offered Childress a handshake deal and then backed out of it that word would get around that he did that and it would destroy his credibility? Why would he risk that? So I'm sorry, it's not intelligence that Childress showed here, it may have been harsh to call it immaturity, but at best it showed his lack of trust and a lack of patience.

Why wouldn't he trust a guy who couldn't take the time to meet with him? Who offered a contract and then told him he'd have to wait to sign it. Who told him to go get a better deal and then said they weren't going to do a trade? Why wouldn't Childress be blindly loyal and accept the word of a man he had never met?

Accepting a handshake deal would have made me question Childress' Stanford education.

Denver = Swept by Lakers.

Atl = Lost in seven to Celts

Celts = beat Lakers in 6

if A=B and B=C.....

If only NBA math worked like that. Utah lost to the Lakers and so did the Spurs - so Atlanta is better than both of them? And the Lakers?

Statistically it's Iverson and it isn't very close.

Iverson:

FG% .458

P/40 25.3

R/40 2.8

A/40 6.8

TS% .567

Ast 21.4

TO 8.9

Usg 25.4

PER: 20.92

Johnson

FG% .432

P/40 21.3

R/40 4.4

A/40 5.7

TS% .535

Ast 20.1

TO 9.4

Usg 24.8

PER: 17.34

Ok, so Chillz is gone. Does anyone here want to focus on the basketball part of the equation? Chillz strengths were rebounding and interior scoring. When Chillz was on the floor with Smoove his need to play close to the basket forced Smoove to take his offensive game to the perimeter where he is much less effective. We replaced Chillz with Evans who is a better perimeter defender and a better shooter. Sure he won't rebound like Chillz but I think he is a better fit for the team as a whole. With Evans in the game Smoove can stay close to the basket where he is very effective along with Horf. From a purely basketball point of view were should be a better balance offensive and defensive team with Evans..Of course for this to work out we must either resign Smoove or get maximum value for him.

So you're saying Childress is the reason J Smith was shooting threes?

The money is the real issue because despite all of his other complaints he was willing to come back, but he showed his immaturity by not understanding the bigger picture and trusting the handshake deal that Sund offered him.

I'd argue that he showed a tremendous amount of intelligence and maturity by not accepting a "handshake deal" from a guy he never met with.

In fact, lately, Chicago has been doing just the opposite with it's FAs (I don't know how)

The max for raises works both ways - meaning the CBA allows a contract to have a 10.5% increase or decrease each year (I believe its the same both directions, but I'm not 100% sure).

The last few years the Bulls have elected to sign FA's(Hinrich, Wallace, Nocioni - sort of) to contracts that decrease so that when Deng, Gordon, and others were eligible their contracts would not push the Bulls into the Lux tax. The Chicago Tribune is reporting that Dengs new deal is done in the traditional sense of a 10.5% escalation each year - so that they have enough to sign Gordon to the qualifying (or a little above) without going into Lux Tax.

You are a Bulls fan right?

Yes.

Does Deng deserve that?

Short answer, no. But does anybody really?

Seriously though, 2005-2006 Deng easily deserves that, 2006-2007 Deng not so much. The Bulls offered 5 for 57 last year, and Deng declined. This offer is only roughly less than a million a year more than that one - so its not that much difference.

How much you think he deserves? I am just being curious.

The Bulls couldn't afford to lose Deng - he's one of the most respected Bulls, and a fan favorite. Additionally hes only 23, so he's still got some room to improve hopefully. I would have liked to see him get Kevin Martin money, but what are you going to do?

Oh, and FWIW, looks like Deng will be resigning for 6yrs 70million.