Ask Sam | 12.19.08

Sam Smith opens his mailbag to respond to the latest round of questions from his readers.

Smith Archive Bulls Blog mybulls Print RSS

The contents of this page have not been reviewed or endorsed by the Chicago Bulls. All opinions expressed by Sam Smith are solely his own and do not reflect the opinions of the Chicago Bulls or their Basketball Operations staff, parent company, partners, or sponsors.

Posted by Sam Smith | asksam@bulls.com | 12.19.08 | 3:00 p.m. CT

I wanted to point out that Hughes seems to have turned a corner and shouldn't be shopped around anymore for inferior backups. After watching the team struggle early against the Nets on Saturday, I actually looked over to my friend and said "they should bring in Hughes." Surprising, considering that I've wanted him out of town or on the bench for much of the last few months. Then he came in, played tough D and definitely bothered Vince Carter (easier to see live than on tv), was in the flow of the offense making some good passes and unbelievably, passed up an OPEN shot on the break and reset the offense to Rose. His performance was overshadowed by Thomas/Noah, but just as instrumental to the win. Is it possible that he realized how diminished his value was around the league and has adjusted his game accordingly—like we'd like to see from Thomas/Noah? If he continues to play like that and provide offense while not jacking up crazy shots, he is the veteran big guard we need for now and should stay until 2010 unless he could actually be moved for a big guy like Kamen (I don't see that happening). I'd like to see Sefolosha get more minutes, but only if it doesn't cost too many W's—which Hughes has been providing lately. Instead, the guy that really needs to go is Noc—whose minutes could be taken over by Sefolosha. What is his value around the league right now? I still think the best possibility is Utah for Harpring and Koufos if they are in a win-now mode.

Will

Sam: What a difference a few good shots make. I guess until Tuesday when Larry missed his first five, all pretty badly. I'm not sure if he saw the sub waiting, but he squeezed off a quick drive after that for a score and was soon out of the game and not to return. But I have been getting more of this kinder and gentler sentiment of late. And you are correct in that Hughes is not the only obstacle to Sefolosha playing. If Nocioni weren't there, Sefolosha could easily fill in at small forward, though in the small ball scheme of things the Bulls often play when Thomas is having one of his no show games, Nocioni moves to four. Given his size and long arms, I think that's possible as well in a small lineup. I've always believed the Bulls need to see Sefolosha on the court more, if only to make a decision about his future and with the team. And I've believed Nocioni at his salary is too much of a luxury for a team in this redevelopment stage the Bulls are in. Still, you don't find many guys like Nocioni and the Bulls always are somewhat short on toughness. But there are two main issues. I think Nocioni as a tough, hard working guy is the kind of player a lot of coaches love and I'd keep him around to have him available in a deal for a player you want to move forward with. I still believe the Bulls will make a major deal this season from the talk I've heard from other GM's who have talked to the team. There's nothing major imminent now, though my sense is the Bulls have laid the groundwork for a few deals and it would only take a bit of desperation on the part of one of the teams. The way coaches are being fired, that could pop at any time, though mid-January always is about the time things really heat up. The other issue is seeing the future. Fans are totally unforgiving on this, basically always going in reverse to look at draft picks and wondering why their GM missed since they (fans) never do. My exhibit one is the genius economists and Federal Reserve poohbahs who completely missed their financial mess. While Hughes is doing fine now, will he remain this way as Kirk Hinrich returns and playing time diminishes? I think he got a bit of a wakeup call as I believe his reputation was taking a hit as a guy who was becoming a problem and he's smart enough and basically not a bad guy that he took it seriously. And you are right: He can be an asset and has talent. I'm just not sure it's in the long run for this team.

OK, This is my first email to you so be gentle if this sounds crazy. I have watched every Bulls game this season and is it just me or has Ben Gordon actually been pretty decent on defense this year? After years of seeing guards break down Ben, Kirk Hinrich and Chris Duhon off the dribble only to get fouled or get "and 1s" at the basket, I haven't seen that a lot this year. Now some of it may be Derrick Rose but even when Rose is resting I haven't noticed Gordon getting overmatched defensively. I bring this up because it's my contention that if Ben Gordon was 6'6 instead of 6'1, no one would have a problem with his game. I often hear the complaint that he can't dribble... well guess what? Most 2-guards can't. I think there is a perception problem and an under appreciation for what Ben has done in this town and I really think Pax should try to figure out a way to keep him. He's averaging over 20 points a game, he and Rose's assists are up since he's been inserted in the starting lineup, and he helps spread the floor. He can also hit a big shot or two when needed. I think because of his height and because of Skiles, he's been typecast as Vinnie Johnson but to me he's as consistent a scorer as any one else who's starting at that position in the league right now. Also unlike Deng or Hinrich, you have the luxury of knowing what he's good at... scoring. Isn't that what any great point guard needs, players who are defined in their roles?

Dillon

Sam: You hit a home run in your first at bat. Good for you. It's why with one caveat I've come around to believe Gordon will be back with the Bulls. The hesitation, of course, is Ben's recalcitrance. He did have two significant chances to sign big extensions with the Bulls, so it's difficult for me to suggest the Bulls never wanted him. Ben and his representatives got caught up in the game so many working people do. And it is dangerous, especially in this economy. You get a salary which is great and you are happy... until you find out the guy next to you who does half the work makes more. Then you are inconsolable. It's a mistake we all make, though I have worked hard over the years to persuade myself that if I am happy and it's a fair deal, who cares. But you can't imagine some of the morons who were making more than me at the Tribune. It used to be great barroom talk after work until we all started going to the health clubs. It's also why I stopped hanging around with fellow reporters. They generally poison your view of the world because they are by nature, especially the good ones, big time skeptics leaning to the cynical side. So take your usual office gossips and malcontents and triple that.

Oh, yeah, Ben. He fell into the notion that he's the top scorer so he had to be the top paid. Remember, life is not fair. Wait until I tell you who was making more than me. Anyway, Ben wasn't offered more than someone else who scores fewer points. That's all that really mattered. The irony is I'm sure Ben would have taken it if it were the highest salary on the team. Dumb, eh? But that's what always happens in sports. Wait until this C.C. Sabbathia gets to New York. Even $40 million extra isn't enough to live in New York and play for those fans and media. I lived there. I know. Especially when he could have gotten maybe $120 million in L.A., where they're just happy to get to the beach before the game is over. I think Ben is going to find out this summer that with the economy starting to hit the sports world teams are going to pull back spending, the salary cap could decrease along with the luxury tax level, and more teams not wanting to be in the luxury tax. And the Bulls will realize that replacing Ben and those pretty much guaranteed 20 points isn't easy. You are right. Scoring is a great skill in the NBA, and not as easy to come by as one would imagine. Ben's a good guy. He doesn't cause trouble. He doesn't embarrass the franchise. He's a bit remote, but, hey, I'm not sure I'd want to hang around with some of those guys, either. His size is the issue, and while I don't think his defense has improved greatly, I have noticed that teams haven't been able—for whatever reason—to take great advantage of him posting him up. Sometimes the small forward, Deng, has to pick up a big guard, like against New Jersey, and it's hurt Deng some. Though there's usually a non-scorer on the floor Ben can play. And I'm not opposed to having him guard someone who doesn't post up well, like Richard Hamilton, and perhaps luring that team into a game they don't want to play to try to take advantage of Ben. As long as you have a third guard who can defend some, like Hughes or Hinrich, it should be fine and I, too, would like to see Ben return next season.

Thanks for your years of insight, but the time has come for you to be the beneficiary of my creative basketball mind. I have two trades for you to consider. The first involves finding a long-term backcourt partner for Derrick Rose. The Bulls send Kirk Hinrich, Andres Nocioni, and Drew Gooden to Milwaukee for Michael Redd, Charlie Villanueva, and Dan Gadzuric's awful contract. The deal gives Milwaukee significant per-season savings (though they'd be committing to more years), and allows them to shed Gadzuric's albatross deal while picking up two Skiles favorites in Hinrich and Nocioni. The acquisition of a shooter like Redd gives the Bulls an ideal complement to Rose—just think of the Redd-Rose backcourt; at the very least, they'd have to go off on Valentine's Day (sorry)—and also eliminates any apprehension about losing Ben Gordon this offseason. But why lose Gordon for nothing in a few months when you can package him with Tyrus Thomas, Aaron Gray, and a protected first-rounder to the Clippers for Chris Kaman and Steve Novak? This would largely be a salary dump for the Clippers, with about $30 million in long-term savings. Still, Thomas would give them a potentially better fit in the frontcourt with Zach Randolph and Marcus Camby, while Gordon could replace their Gordon (Eric) in the lineup in the short-term, or provide offensive firepower off the bench. And yes, this deal works without the Gray/Novak aspect, which I included solely because I hate Aaron Gray. Thanks for humoring me.

Dan

Sam: Thanks for the benefit of your not-so-beautiful mind. I'm not a big fan of Redd becase he has that huge contract, doesn't play much defense and is a shoot first and always and no matter who else is playing guy. Frankly, I'd rather make the investment in Gordon. I don't see the Bulls making a deal with the Bucks given the proximity and Skiles being there unless it was one the Bulls were sure would be one-sided. Likewise, the Bucks don't like doing anything that would help the nearby neighbors. I've always had some curiosity about Villanueva, but you just have to accept with him he'll show up for 40-50 games a season and not give you anything the rest. I'm not sure I want to do that, though the guy's a talent and if he ever wakes up, someone will have a heck of a player. It's unlikely Gordon is traded since the rules in his type of deal require his permission and then losing his Bird extension rights, which I doubt he'd give the Bulls. Though I still think there's a deal to be made eventually with the Clippers—by someone if not the Bull—for Kaman or Camby.

I like Ray Allen's take on All-Star voting. To think Yi will/could be starting for the east... yeesh. I am astounded and very disappointed more Bull's fans are not voting for Derrick so at least he might be considered as a bench/picked player. He could be so entertaining, and provide a very special moment(s) for Bulls fans potentially playing alongside D-Wade, Dwight Howard etc. I vote for him every day on Bulls.com. I was voting for Kevin Garnett along with Chris Paul etc. as the best at their spots, but had to stop on the (Big) Scalped Ticket when I saw him (deleted) wording the bejesus out of Portland's players on ESPN/TNT whichever was broadcasting that evening. Somebody really needs to pop him in the mouth. They should be re-named the Boston Technicals (though I really only take issue with Garnett and maybe Kendrick Perkins).

Mark

Sam: It would be great to see Rose on that team, not only for the entertainment value as I'd love to see him sometime in a situation where he tries to do something just for fun on the court, but for his development as a player. I know he is good enough to be on their level as I think already he's one of the top point guards in the NBA and as he improved his shot will quickly move into the top five. As for the Celtics, I've seen that as well and to me it remains the only blemish on what has been a terrific start and is a wonderful team. They just keep yapping and in an embarrassing way. It's beneath great teams to rub it in the way they do with their language. You'd think they are playing for Bob Stoops. Garnett always has been quite the talker, but it seems to have infected much of the team, though not Ray Allen, one of the classiest guys ever in the NBA. It's more the scrubs like Perkins, who are enhanced by Garnett. Put him on virtually any other team and he'd be deep down the bench and practicing which foot to put in front of the other when he walks. But you win and you can talk, and the Celtics seem to be taking advantage. I don't recall much like that with the truly great teams.

It seems like most questions for you involve trade scenarios with one team or another. But it seems to me people fail to consider that the other team has to agree to a deal and that all the Bulls have to do is propose something and POOF it's a done deal.

Phillip

Sam: Exactly. Which is why I don't run that many of the trade scenarios offered to me. I know I've gotten a reputation for being this guy who likes to come up with deals, but there is a subtle message in all of it, though perhaps too much so for some. The main reason I do it is to engage in a discussion about the teams and to be able to talk about teams and their needs. Thus it's a way to discuss teams around the NBA without getting into a dry straight forward dull analysis. Fantasy leagues, which came well after I'd been doing this for years, suggest fans love this. So it's also fun to consider the possibilities, and there have been occasions when teams actually have read some of my proposals and a trade occurred. Ask the Warriors, who made the Jason Richardson deal as I suggested it after I wrote it. One of their executives told me it gave them the idea and they called Charlotte. Though that's hardly a regular occurrence. Nor is it supposed to be. But I make two distinctions. I never say it's a rumor I heard unless I have heard about that specific deal. And my deals always are done to make sense for both teams. Unless I do it that way, the gimmick doesn't work. I do more for the Bulls, obviously, but never want to make it so the other team is a loser. Also I give the Bulls credit for when we started talking about me working for Bulls.com, I said to Steve Schanwald, "Well, I guess I'm done doing Bulls trades." He said no, that if it was to work and fans would want to come to the site I had to be in position to write like I did when I was with the Tribune. Anyone who reads Bulls.com should see that I've written for the site just as I did for the newspaper. I have never once been asked not to write something I wanted to. Including using the occasional double negative when I feel like. Hey, Ben Franklin wrote that way. I believe it's a great part of the future of a changing journalism. Team sites. Not double negatives.

Oden "having almost no impact on what has been a good Blazers team."

Oh really, being doubled teamed every time he gets the ball doesn't impact the rest of the players? It doesn't affect the game at all? Why don't you watch a few games before you start making idiotic statements like that. Since you don't watch our games (especially when we trounced the Bulls earlier this year,) let me tell ya a little something. We don't need Oden to be a offensive threat, we got Roy, Aldridge, Outlaw. Shall I go on? That's not his roll or what is expected. So when idiots like you run with comments that Jason Quick made, you look just as stupid as he does. No one cares that Oden doesn't want to speak to Quick. Quick has made such horrible negative comments that he later apologized for them. Even he realized what a fool he looked like. What's your excuse? And saying the Quick is a terrific beat writer, Really? come on? It just shows what you know.

Red

Sam: I included this ranting email because I don't get many like it but when I do they almost always are from Portland. For those of you who missed it—and it clearly had to ruin your week—I wrote in what I thought was sympathetically about the struggles of Greg Oden, the fabulously hyped No. 1 pick in 2007. About how the Portland players apparently were so anxious to make him feel better about his uneven play he got a standing ovation from the team in a 10-point, 10-rebound game. I printed an unusual apology from the team's beat writer for the local newspaper, who had said on a radio station how unpleasant to deal with Oden had become. This was interesting because he was a year ago one of the most engaging young men to come into the NBA in some time. So I'd been feeling badly for him and how the community glare and his own competitiveness was putting him in such a poor mood at what should be the best time in his life. But I've noted this curiosity for several years. Whenever I write anything even slightly questioning the Trail Blazers, I get a load of angry, hysterical mail of the "how dare you" kind. I rarely see this phenomenon with fans from any other teams, and I've had questions about every team at some time. It seems a curious insecurity, defensiveness and overreaction that I'm not sure affects the basketball team's fans or the entire city. I did write I thought Oden would become a fine defensive player. I wonder what the tone would be if I'd written he would be a bust. I know Nate McMillan is a terrific coach and Kevin Pritchard has done a terrific job as GM, but it had been an odd organization for years with almost Nixon-like spying and enemies list tendencies when you were around. I assume much of that has changed since the excellent media relations whiz Cheri Hanson went there. And I will say the Oregonian's basketball site on the 'Blazers is the most detailed I've seen, though it does have quite a bit of the small town mentality of excitement when others are talking about or writing about the Trail Blazers. Maybe it's the weather. Supposedly the sun came out last August.

If you want to talk about over-hyped players why don't you spend a little more time on Tyrus Thomas and wait to make judgments on a 20 year old kid after a year of recovery and just a handful of games.

Jonathan

Sam: See. There's another.

Recently I noticed in your "Ask Sam" your reference to all the Blazers fans. I live in Portland and have for over 13 years but I was born and raised in Chicago and lived in Chicago during the first three-peat and then lived in Oregon during the second three-peat.

It has been in the back of my head for awhile, but for some reason Portland and Chicago seem to have some interesting ties; I was wondering what you thought.

For me it probably starts with Jordan/ Bowie, Bulls/Blazers championship, Pippen on Blazers, Aldridge for Ty Thomas, Allen and Reinsdorf, and the whole way each team has kind of blown themselves up after several successful years with trying to rebuild from scratch. Lately Blazers fans seem to be enamored with Hinrich. Do you have any thoughts on the concept of why two franchises might be so intertwined or is it just a matter of coincidence?

Elvis

Sam: Perhaps it's the weather as it's two tough places to live, breathtaking when it is clear but too often dark and either rainy or snowy. Given the Bulls got six championships out of Portland's ill-fated 1984 draft, I can understand some bitterness on their part given so many years of coming close and coming up short and what could have been a dynasty destroyed prematurely by Bill Walton's injuries. I believe I've heard Pritchard say he modeled a lot of what he's doing after Paxson with the Bulls with a young, hard driving, defensive oriented coach and building through the draft. Thus far it's working better for the Trail Blazers, though, again, the difference in making that jump relies either on a center who's started slowly in Oden and had injuries or putting several pieces together and making the right deal. The Bulls didn't do it when the time was right and now they are trying to recover. If Portland doesn't, they could find the same fate.

I have to ask this: How politically correct do you have to be in working for the Chicago Bulls? At the Trib, you weren't affiliated with the team. For example, you get nothing but roses when you check out chicagobears.com but more objectivity when checking out the Trib. Do you have free rein, so to speak, to write totally objectively and come up with great trade ideas?

Speaking of that, you know, I actually have no idea what could realistically be done with Gordon and Hughes. Gordon will walk with us getting nothing but cap relief and Hughes will continue to be such a burden. Can we move either and for whom?

Josh

Sam: I addressed some of that above, but it is the natural reaction when someone looks at a team site, which the Bulls were one of the first to understand and I think will change with many teams. If you look at MLB.com, you see plenty of former newspaper reporters covering the games and writing critical commentary. I just saw the Detroit newspapers cutting delivery and, in effect, the printed version, to three days a week. I'd been bemoaning this for some time before I left the Tribune, that the newspapers were hastening their own decline by pushing out their veteran people no matter how much reader interest there was and effectively using this business model as they suffered: "We'll give you less and charge you more." I sympathize with financial distress, as we all understand that now. But seeing a great paper like the Tribune revert to these huge pictures and charts and continue to take out content is cataclysmic for so many of us. For years I fantasized about working for a paper like the Tribune. It was a dream to get there and every day I'd walk into that ornate lobby, I'd read the journalism dictums engraved on the walls and couldn't believe I was working there. I know. That's the old guy in me wishing for the way it was, as all us old guys do. But it has changed. Teams always used their sites and publications to be cheerleaders, but the whole world is savvier now. The Bulls understand this. One of the Bulls staffers kidded me when I wrote in one of my first articles the team probably wouldn't be making the playoffs this season. "We're sending this to season ticket holders," he said. But that's the point the Bulls realized and I believe other teams will. Fans are more sophisticated and smarter than teams have given them credit for before. They won't stop coming if you tell them what's going on. It's what they want to know. You cannot fool them by standing in a building on fire and assuring them it's just what you expected. I believe fans will respect you more for being upfront, and I think with the decline of newspapers and magazines and the rush to the Internet, you will see more team sites becoming professional journalism vehicles. I can say with pride now that I've had more freedom and less interference about what I wanted to write now than perhaps anytime I worked at the Tribune. Pssst. Pass it on.

There seems to be negativity or just ambivalence in a lot of discussions about Drew Gooden. I know his numbers aren't the greatest in the league, but he's pretty consistent and (sadly) our best post player. Maybe I missed something, but I don't get why he isn't more well-liked. Especially with that beard.

Chris

Sam: Gooden has been a pleasant surprise. He's always had this reputation as a bit of a flake—OK, perhaps justified with naming his facial hair—but more so as a player who showed up occasionally, giving you a good game and taking off a few weeks. I haven't seen it. He plays hard. He isn't a great defender, though he makes an effort, especially on help defense. He has a nice shot and makes some big ones and good passes in games. He has court awareness and appears to be a good teammate. He's obviously undersized for where he plays for the Bulls, but he makes an effort against better players. He's not a classic inside answer, but he's a player I'd think twice about before getting rid of too easily.

I was wondering how great it is to be in the position of Portland right now. They have a young team, young talent that have yet to reach their ceiling. However, all these stars are still under their rookie contracts. How can Blazers keep this team together in a few seasons when everyone will try to get what they think they deserve?

Is it just me or are fans in Chicago are as impatient as they are passionate? I know our players have had plenty of time to prove themselves, but I still believe in Tyrus and Thabo. Yes, it is their third season in the league, but their minutes in the first two were so thin they are still inexperienced.

Does the team make Rose carry the bags since he is a rookie? If so, it should be the other way around!

Nina

Sam: Rose does carry bags and brings the players donuts in the morning before practice. It's a little fun thing and shows just another element of how much Rose "gets it" since some rookies in previous seasons refused to do this. Tyrus has been showing some nice flashes the last few games, and Thabo doesn't get any chances, so who knows. But impatience is the nature of being a fan. It's OK. It's up to management to balance that with the right combination. As Bill Veeck once said, "If you spend your time listening to the fans in the stands, you'll be sitting up there with them soon." And that's my point in the previous emails about Portland. They do have an impressive young team that's playoff bound. Isn't that enough? There is an issue when you build that way in that they all come up for money around the same time and you can't pay them all. That's why you have to combine some "assets" and make a deal to thin out your ranks and get a veteran, and it also helps to have some players who are All-Star caliber who can be anchors for your franchise, and the Trail Blazers seem to have that in Roy and perhaps Aldridge.

Here's a trade proposal that makes sense monetarily & jives with the needs of the teams involved:

3-Way Trade between Chicago, Portland, and the Lakers

The needs:

Chicago: dump salary for 2010
Portland: Veteran leadership
LA: Veteran wing defender with a manageable contract

The Trade Breakdown:
Chicago gets: Raef LaFrentz ($12,722,500) and Lamar Odom ($14,148,596)

Portland gets: Kirk Hinrich ($ 10,000,000), Aaron Gray ($711,517) and Cedric Simmons ($1,742,760)

Los Angeles gets: Andres Nocioni ($8,000,000), Tyrus Thomas ($3,749,880) and Joakim Noah ($2,295,480)

Everyone gets what they want and walks away from the table happy:

Chicago shaves off $34,022,279 in salary this summer (including Gooden's deal - no pun intended) to attempt to become the powerhouse they should be in 2010. Portland gets a solid floor general to lead their "team of the future." Los Angeles wins the title this year and next or at the very least gives the Celtics a run for their money and aggravate the hell out of Boston's Big Three. Let's get these guys on the horn!

Charlie

Sam: There are pieces there that make sense as I know Portland wants a point guard and always has liked Hinrich. But there are way too many ifs. I think the way the money is the Bulls could go over the luxury tax this year because they are taking back more money (deals are allowed within 25 percent difference, so money doesn't have to match exactly). No one in this new economic climate is going to risk going into the luxury tax. Plus, that's an awful lot for the Bulls to give up—way too much—for Odom with an expiring deal and a shot at 2010 when I don't think the team has decided yet whether it even wants to go that route. It is intriguing and appealing, but what if you get left with almost nothing again, like in 2000? That probably is the biggest decision facing the franchise, and a lot of franchises now. I see the Lakers sticking it out with Odom this season and seeing if they can get over the top with Bynum back. If it doesn't work, then I can see them not retaining Odom or making a sign and trade with him.

All those trades sound good but Paxon signed too many guys that did not pan out and no one wants them now so we are kind of stuck with them and no room left for any body descent. I think the only guy people want is Kirk and he is hurt and will not pass a physical until he is healthy and by then the trade deadline will be passed. So I don't see much change AGAIN this year. I can't find any trade rumors regarding the Bulls whats so ever, only negative comments involving the Bulls players we have, of course other than Rose. I can't see any good player out there that would even want to be on this team until there are good players here already, Rose is not enough to attract them yet.

Boaters

Sam: Don't be surprised if the Bulls make at least two deals this season. I know they've talked with perhaps a dozen teams in recent weeks, though this is hardly news since that's what general managers do all the time. I think because media members actually hear so little of what is discussed, there are few rumors out there. I've often had general managers ask me to sit on some talk because it might cost a deal, which has happened. When word leaked out of the Bulls-Sonics Kemp-Pippen deal in 1994, the Sonics backed out because of negative fan reaction on talk radio. I know of one general manager who I'm told talked with 25 teams in the last week. Will he make 25 trades? Of course not. What these guys generally do is play fantasy league with their players and hope someone is desperate. So you can be sure every player on the Bulls but Rose has been mentioned in trade talk, and every one but Jordan was mentioned in the 1990's. Gordon is probably the most difficult to trade because the Bulls need his approval and Deng because of his base year status. If I were anyone else on the team, I would be renting. My guess is two players are traded this season, though I cannot figure out yet which two. And that doesn't count Hunter and Simmons.

What's up? They won against NJ, lost against the Bobcats, the freaking Bobcats. Then required an OT to beat the Clippers, and barely at that. I thought we were going to go 41-41. I think we can sneak into the playoffs with that record, although if you're 7th and 8th seed most likely you'll be cannon fodder for Boston and Cleveland. Also, who do you think are "locks" in the East right now, besides Boston and Cleveland? Atlanta? Orlando? Miami? Where do you think Chicago will finish?

Sam: It is the rest of the season now. Obviously Boston and Cleveland and likely Orlando and I'd say Atlanta. And I assume Detroit holds it enough together to get five. That makes seven teams going for three spots. Obviously, you don't beat Boston. Probably not Cleveland, though the Bulls could make them nervous. And I don't see either Orlando or Atlanta locks over anyone in the first round. It's getting there. I'd say it's the Bulls, Nets, Knicks, 76ers, Raptors, Bucks and Heat. I don't see the Wizards, Bobcats and Pacers in it. Can the Bulls get in there? Of course. It's not that the Bulls are fearsome, but, after all, which of that seven scares you. So it comes down to who stays healthy and who makes a move that helps. The other X-factor is some of those teams will be dumping players to begin preparing for 2010 free agency. I'd say the 76ers have the best chance of pulling something together for sixth. With Mike D'Antoni's style, which teams cannot prepare for well in the regular season, the Knicks might have the edge for seventh and unless the Raptors make a big-time move, I'd say the Bulls get that eighth spot.

I was pondering the other night; Remember a couple of years back when players where making a fuss about the shooting background at the United Center? (Kirk Hinrich comes to mind) Whatever happened to this? Is it really a poor background? Was something done to fix it? Or was it just another excuse from guys who seem to be more professional excuse makers than professional basketball players?

Jim

Sam: It does come off as an excuse sometimes, though the Bulls made plenty when they were winning titles. I remember every bad home game Phil Jackson talking about the traffic jams on the Kennedy. I asked Ben Gordon, who does most of the shooting, and he said he doesn't find it any problem. I'd have guessed that, and Ben isn't an excuse maker. I really enjoy talking with him by the way. He's not particularly revealing, but always cooperative. He never hides or pouts and answers directly. He seems to view everything with an air of amusement, which I like. And he also helped me with my latest styling tip, wearing a long sleeved T-shirt under a golf shirt. I always wear golf shirts, and though I don't play much, I like the idea of thinking about golf. Anyway, Ben usually dresses like that in the winter with a short sleeved shirt and long sleeved under shirt or sweatshirt. I'm not certain Ben is flattered since I wear saddle shoes. Ben did say the UC rims are unusually stiff.

If Tyrus Thomas can just focus like this every night the Bulls would be a dangerous team, because no one would be able to guard him straight up.

Neal

Sam: So do you suppose anyone in the organization has thought that yet?

I'd love to see the Bulls try to grab one of the big free agents Lebron, D. Wade, or Chris Bosh. The problem is that to clear cap space John Paxson would have to let Drew Gooden and Ben Gordon go at the end of this year, and then not renew Larry Hughes contarct next year. Drew gooden is the team's starting power forward and the only decent big man the Bulls have. Hughes and Gordon are the starter and backup shooting guards. I really doubt that Paxson will let two starters go for nothing, just to have a low-percentage shot at one of the big free agents. I think he's way to conservative and a play-it-safe kinda guy to take such a big gamble.

Could Derrick Rose play the Pippen role to Lebron's Michael?

Do you think he drafted Tyrus thomas instead of Lamarcus Aldrige because of community pressure, or because he believed in Tyrus more?

Bob

Sam: Forget LeBron. Wade, as I've said before, makes the most sense given the frustration I think he's already feeling in Miami and the strong Chicago connection and presence of Wade. I wouldn't characterize Paxson quite that way. I think he's anxious for a big time change in the franchise and might be frustrated about plodding along and finding it so difficult to get a star. Now with Wade, I could see him wading into the 2010 free agency race aggressively. I think he's growing tired of the slow development of many of his players, but, as you note and we all do always, it's a big, big all-or-nothing risk, and you wonder if that is even wise for the franchise at this time. As for that community pressure, I must have missed that. I really can't recall much sentiment for Thomas at the time and it was the gambling move on Paxson's part—not being conservative—to reach for Thomas. I believe at the time the thought was that the team had enough solid players, but no great athletic players, and Thomas was and remains an amazing athlete. So Paxson gambled. Does that make him less likely to again? No one really knows now and I wonder if he does.

We all know that the Bulls are desparate for a big man but I don't think it's Drew Gooden. Instead, the Bulls might want to go for a Nowitzki-type player, a guy that can open the inside for Rose. Maybe Troy Murphy? He could open up the middle for Rose to drive and be available for the kickout for the three. He's also a good rebounder, averaging 11 boards a games and seems to not get enough touches in Indiana with Ford and Granger running the show and he'll probably get even less touches and minutes once Mike Dunleavy returns so he might as well get traded. How about this:

Troy Murphy for Cedric Simmons, Thabo Sefolosha, Drew Gooden, and two first-round picks.

With the Pacers struggling badly, they need draft picks in order to rebuild and ultimately mold a team to fit Danny Granger. Thabo can provide depth at their 2 guard position and free up the Bull's heavy backcourt. Gooden can fill in Murphy's spot at the 4 and play a bit of 5 as well since Rasho probably won't be resigned at the end of this season and Jeff Foster is on a downhill slope.

Jabari

Sam: Is this really Larry Bird? The Pacers would love that deal, a useable piece in Thabo, an expiring contract and two picks. Geez. With two more seasons after this at more than $11 million, Murphy is one of the league's most overpaid. He's slow and unathletic and the Pacers would love to be rid of him for a lot less. I'm not much of a fan. In fact, I think straight up Gooden is better. I still think there's something there with Thabo and would be reluctant to deal him until he plays more, and unless I get something of real value.

For a team that runs high pick-and-roll, why are they so poor at defending it? We knew interior defense would be a weakness, but it seems either Derrick Rose is trailing on those sets or taking bad angles allowing quick guards to get into the lane.

Mike

Sam: You are exactly right. I've heard this is gone over repeatedly in practice without much result. Rose does have trouble staying in front of his man for now, but I think the larger issue is there is no established system the players can fall back upon, which is what Skiles had. There seems to be more day-to-day switching according to the opponent and the situation, and some of the players (Thomas, Noah) haven't been too good adjusting from game to game whether they'll blitz the pick and roll, go under, go over, play the pick and pop. Plus, Hinrich has been their best at that defense and he hasn't been there. And Hughes isn't a good system defender but plays the passing lanes more. All in all, just not the right personnel or system for now.

Don't you think that you and a lot of others are a little too hard on Tyrus Thomas? When given the chance to play, he is the most explosive guy on the court and he brings something to the Bulls that no one else on the team does. Personally, I hope these trade talks are nothing but rumors with no merit after watching him in games like the home games against the 76ers and the Nets.

Josh

Sam: I think, for the most part, everyone has been fair with Tyrus. I know I was a bit hard on him before I left the Tribune when he was acting out so much when he first came. It culminated in those remarks that he was going to the dunk contest for the money and didn't care about the All-Star weekend. I know the league people were furious and some pushed Stern to ban Thomas, but Stern didn't choose that. Also, Tyrus had a terrible attitude when he arrived and treated so many low level Bulls employees whom I've known for years with contempt. I have a soft spot for that, which translates into a tough streak. All that has changed. Tyrus has been much better to deal with and much better with everyone. So now all I ever see is anyone talk of his play. When it's good, he gets credit. When it's not, he gets faulted, and I've written several times he should play more to see if he can sustain rather than getting a quick hook. I think he will now when he recovers from his concussion and we'll see what he's got.

Is there any reason why Rose has become passive offensively in the last few games? He seems to be looking to pass and not score as much these days, I wouldn't have a problem with his passiveness if he had someone other than Gordon to pass the ball to. As of right now Gordon is the only guy outside of Rose whose offensive I trust.

Elizabeth

Sam: I'm with you on this one. I understand the balance that's needed when you are playing point guard to keep your teammates involved. But I also believe Rose doesn't use himself as a weapon often enough. It's one thing when you are playing with, say, Dwyane Wade, but Rose is the best on the Bulls driving to the basket. I think because he is a rookie and aware of his teammates' desire to shoot, he defers perhaps too much at times. But I believe he has to be more of an offensive weapon along the lines of a Jordan or LeBron or Wade and then teammates will get more open opportunities as defenses collapse on him. Rose probably can't score like those guys, but he can score more than he does. Right now he's suffering with his outside shot, so I think he's being a little too tentative offensively.

It's my feeling that the best potential trade partners are always the teams that have recently fired their coaches. In almost all cases the owner or GM knows the coach wasn't the main reason the team was losing, it was the roster they assembled. So step one vote of confidence for the coach, step two fire the coach, step three trade some of the veteran players, lose with youth and get Steve Schanwald to score a miracle lottery pick. Hey he did it once.

A slight exception might be Minnesota. McHale got the 'you got these guys you make them win some games' edict and since he's not a coach anyway he'll be done when the year is over. So they might wait for a new GM after the season is over.

But the rest of the teams that fired coaches might be ready to deal. It's a longshot but I would see if the 76ers might decide they added a low post scorer with a long deal to a running team and slowed themselves out of the progress they made last year. Could they trade Brand to the Bulls for Thomas and Hughes, speed their team up and get out from under the long term deal and sign someone else. The Bulls could get by at center if Brand was at the 4.

To me that would be a more attractive option than Brad Miller or Chris Kaman. Otherwise for trades this season I would like to see Etan Thomas or Nick Collison, good fits up front. Now that Tyrus has shown he's a budding superstar (he needs a good salesman more than one good game) and Larry Hughes is back baby, (sell him while he's hot) now is the time to get them plane tickets out of town. Supposedly Thabo is on the block but I can't see that many takers for a guy who hasn't played much and I would rather trade Hughes now play Thabo and see what he can do by the time Hinrich returns. Then maybe make another move by the deadline.

Like Jerry Krause said, we don't want to become the Boston Celtics, ooops wait a minute he's gone and they dealt and won, well maybe yes.

Kurt

Sam: I like your thinking and your style. I've wondered about that as well with the 76ers and Elton, and when he went out they played the best I've seen them the other night against the Bucks with the fast guys running. GM's, though, have trouble getting past their mistakes. That's why Jerry West was maybe the best. When he did something he saw didn't work, like drafting Drew Gooden No. 4 and thinking he was a small forward, he quickly moved him. Joe Dumars does this and you saw it with Darko in the 2003 draft. Move on and get what you can and don't sit back and try to justify your decision by being "patient" and hoping it will work. Rarely do guys become what we want them to be rather than what they are. I don't see the 76ers Stefanski as a guy willing to move quickly. I do think the Thunder and Kings are open for business and you can get guys from them. The issue would be is how much better you can get by taking on the reserves or tangential players from a miserable team. I doubt very much. Loved the Celtics reference, and for those who forget Krause talked about the post-Bird Celtics when they were a middle of the road team that couldn't get a high draft pick or go very far. It did take some time, but if you watch them, you'd have to say going for trades and free agency and focusing on All-Stars is preferable to the draft.

I have a trade that the Suns, Bulls, and Knicks should make because it looks like everyone is unhappy right now.

Bulls trade Andres Nocioni, Joakim Noah, Kirk Hinrich

Knicks trade Jared Jeffries, Eddy Curry

Suns trade Steve Nash, Shaquille O'Neal

Bulls get Shaq (finally get that post play in Shaq)

Knicks get Steve Nash and Joakim Noah (two contracts that expire in two years which is what they want and plus Nash knows the system better than any other guard they have)

Suns get Andres Nocioni, Eddy Curry, Kirk Hinrich, Jared Jeffries (a younger point guard who can defend, a scoring backup center for Robin Lopez, and two tough players in Noce and Jeffries would be a good bench player for them. This also allows Amare to be the MAN with Richardson the second option. The Suns would become more deep. This fits what Porter and Kerr want.)

Tony

Sam: And all three teams get worse. I know, the classic trade that hurts everyone. Well maybe not the Knicks, though I included this despite the fact I get loads of wacky trade proposals and usually don't mention the ones that make little sense or have little chance of being done. The point is sometimes a so called low post presence is not necessary. Look what Shaq's done for the Suns. Yes, if it's Kareem or Tim Duncan, but don't forget Shaq is aging badly and the Suns would love to dump his contract. As maybe you saw with the Clippers at the Bulls Wednesday with Randolph. He scored 30, and yes maybe if Eric Gordon doesn't go brain dead and foul Ben Gordon for a four-point play the Clippers win. But you can see the disarray with the Clippers in the actions and body language with everyone standing around when Zach has the ball, Zach pouting and acting out when he doesn't, Baron Davis having little impact. Yes, you need someone to throw it to inside on occasion. But it doesn't have to be a big center, just someone who can draw attention or a double team, but who keeps you from slowing down and clogging the middle, like what's occurred in Philadelphia. The Suns made a nice deal for Jason Richardson, which should energize them, and Stoudemire never is going to be happy. It's who he is. And something to consider if he becomes a free agent.

It's a joke that Deng got that long contract. I know Gordon isn't an ideal 2 guard but he is an offensive threat. Compare what Gordon has done in his career and then look at Deng. How does Paxon give Deng that contract over Ben?

Mike

Sam: Again, I know fans have been down on Deng, which is intriguing since two years ago he generally was regarded as the team's most valuable player. I know finances is not a specialty of many fans, and looking at the state of our national economy, not of the Federal Reserve, Wall Street, the SEC or Congress as well. But Deng's deal is not for $71 million. It has some $20 million in deferred money, which brings it down about the range of what he turned down the summer before, about $60 million. Yes, it's still a lot. I might have held off because I don't believe with the market the way it is now that anyone but the ultimate elite players like LeBron and Wade and Bosh and Stoudemire will get top deals. I think everyone else will be scrambling, and one reason I still believe there's a good chance Gordon returns. But I think Ben got bad advice last summer and the summer before. He kept holding out for $15 million a year and everytime the Bulls made a good offer, he said he'd have to be highest paid on the team. So I think the team just threw its hands up in the air and said there's money now for one guy and we'll give it to the guy who compromises and is fair. It was Deng first. So he was smarter first. Good for him. The league makes you have at least 13 players on the roster. The Bulls had to resign someone. I think in the longrun with the right pieces, Deng will be fine.

Pax has been a GM for a long time now. Why hasn't he brought Ray Clay back yet? A younger point guard who can defend a scoring backup center for Robin Lopez and to tough player in Noce and Jeffries would be a good bench player for them. This also allows Amare to be the MAN with Richardson the second option. The Suns would become more deep. This fits what Porter and Kerr want.

Farhan

Sam: One. It's not Pax's prerogative. Two, because Tommy Edwards is very good and professional. Guys move on. Ray is doing some hockey, I think. The Bulls game presentation is regarded as one of the best in sports and Tommy is a good part of that.

I would like to test your objectivity-credibility, etc. in the new position. How can someone of your journalistic caliber "let their hair down" or opine honestly on the state of basketball here or in the League from your current vantage point? Well, here goes... Can you offer your assessment at some point in the "blog-o-shere" on who qualifies for the Top 10 Current, Most over-paid (if not over-rated) NBA players list? We have at least two members on that list here on our favorite, local NBA franchise. If Deng and Hinrich aren't on that list, I'll have to eat my hat or worse. I fear that you aren't in a position to be the Sam Smith that I used to read in the Trib.

Terry

Sam: I'd be glad to be tested anytime, though you fail the question portion. And not only assuming you meant letting my hair down in the figurative sense. I don't see Hinrich and Deng overpaid in the NBA sense, though certainly in humanity's sense. Hinrich averages $9 million over the next four seasons, is signed, plays a valuable position in point guard and $9 million isn't that far above the annual midlevel exception deal. The Bulls could trade him almost any day they choose and get a decent return. Deng has been the target of fans this season as the disappointment, though he is a victim of sorts of the new offense, which calls for him to be in the right corner a lot and hold to keep the middle free. It's an offense without much motion, particularly on the weak side, which is Deng' specialty. Though Deng was no great fan of Scott Skiles' manner, Deng's game benefited tremendously from Skiles' schemes. Plus because the Bulls start such a small backcourt, Deng has to shift and take big shooting guards on occasion. In the long run, if the Bulls go in that direction, his salary won't prevent them from being a player in future free agency. And while his salary is $9.3 million this season, about $5 million is deferred, making him one of the biggest bargains on the team.

But since you asked, which of these players would you rather have at what they are paid in millions of dollars: