SB Nation - Jannero Pargo

Bucks 99, Bulls 97: a near ugly-win. By that I mean they were certainly ugly, but lost

your friendly BullsBlogger — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 05:47:22 -0000

Chicago Bulls' Lindsey Hunter (11) shows off one of his old defensive tricks: laying on top of your opponent and crushing him with your fat. (AP Photo/Morry Gash)

Browse more photos »

	Pace	Eff	eFG	FT/FG	OREB%	TOr
Chicago	89.0	109.0	43.8%	33.8	40.0	15.7
Milwaukee		111.2	47.8%	12.0	37.7	11.2

Lindsey Hunter played the entire 4th quarter. That's basically all one needs to know when it comes to determining how an NBA game can be lost. The Bulls have major depth issues and it comes to a head when not only Hunter is required to play at all, or significant minutes, but he actually shares a backcourt with Jannero Pargo (0-3 in 11 minutes. As Barney Gumble once said to Lisa Simpson: "Go back to Russia!").

But, overall, Lindsey was an improbable +6 for the night, and though it may not have been old-man tricks but just random chance, his strategy of chucking the ball as hard as he could at the backboard so Joakim Noah could rebound and score was working. In one of the Bulls final possessions, Hunter took an ill-advised (dubbed so by me as it was a field-goal attempt) leaner that wound up back at the 3-point line for Salmons to hit one of the teams two threes of the night.

After the foul shot dance of late-game deficits, in their final possession the Bulls found themselves down two and Derrick Rose passed to a wide-open Brad Miller who front-rimmed a jumper. I guess it was a bit of irony that Miller for once wasn't the old Bull overused in the 2nd half, as that went to Hunter...yet he still didn't seem to have his legs under that shot. Again, Hunter played the entire 4th quarter. I criticize VDN for a lot of things, but failing in a 'ride the hot hand' strategy is not one of them. I think he's mostly done a good job of identifying his best guys and going to them, not who happens to be 'hot' that night. But he definitely stayed with what was working tonight, and the question is then was Hunter actually doing that well? Even if so, it just meant a higher likelihood that he'd return to dust.

But while Hunter was inexplicably on the floor on an offensive lineup substitution in the Bulls final try, another story is Rose passing instead of shooting in that posession. Him doing that doesn't bother me, what did was his complete disappearance in the first half, scoring 2 points in a game where he had to know he'd have to (even moreso than usual) pick up the scoring load for his undermanned team. I don't mind the mindset that brings an occasional deference on a given possession, but Rose seems to drift through entire stints on the floor. (With nobody else being a meanie and taking the ball from him either)

But Rose did recover and had himself a fairly stellar 2nd half, and outperformed Brandon Jennings in that span. In fact, if we're still sticking (and I'm trying to) to the mindset that only Rose/Deng/Noah truly matter anymore on this team, then it was a pretty good night. But the Bucks have 3 point shooting (including slight PFs, as Ilyasova and Warrick must be Skiles dream...though not quite Malik Allen dreamy), as well as a big they can devote possessions to in Andrew Bogut. The Bulls have no such options, and I don't need to go into their designed inefficiency after every single game. I almost feel bad when they came close in this one, that's how bad they look.

NBA Blog Previews - Chicago Bulls

your friendly BullsBlogger — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 05:34:22 -0000

Below is my entry in this year's NBA Blog Previews. If you're a frequent reader, a lot you may have read before...often. But even for those sick of my offseason whining analysis, there's at least a juicy prediction at the bottom to be mocked in April.

Team Name: Chicago Bulls

Last Year’s Record: 41-41

Key Losses: Ben Gordon, my faith in the franchise

Key Additions: Jannero Pargo, James Johnson (draft), Taj Gibson (draft), cap flexibility

1. What Significant Moves were made during the off-season?

Letting Ben Gordon walk. The significant move of the offseason was effectively made during the last season, in acquiring Brad Miller and John Salmons from the Kings at the trade deadline. Not only did it put the 2009 payroll already very close to the luxury tax, but in acquiring a scoring guard like Salmons they were hedging against a Gordon departure, which wound up happening on the first day of free agency.

The Bulls should be able to compensate for the loss of Gordon to maintain their ultimately average level, through the addition of Salmons, a healthy season from Luol Deng, and steps up in the careers of Derrick Rose, Joakim Noah, and Tyrus Thomas. Jannero Pargo is back for a second go-around with the franchise, attempting his best Gordon impression up until the point where the shots actually need to go in. With a couple of late first-round picks in a weak draft class, the Bulls went with two older bigs in James Johnson and Taj Gibson for added immediate frontcourt depth.

2. What are the team’s biggest strengths?

The Bulls have a very talented, versatile, and cohesive top-7 rotation. Rose won the rookie of the year last season, but also has various areas of improvement (drawing fouls, 3-point shooting, and defense) that could get him quickly to all-star level. If he can get there (and perhaps beyond towards superstardom) it makes all the difference for this team making everyone else's job easier.

Noah has gone from draft-night punchline to a starting-caliber center in his two seasons, and while never becoming a force on offense he's already a significant contributor, extremely active on defense and perhaps the best ballhandling quick center in the league. Tyrus Thomas is slated for his 3rd straight 'no really, he'll make the leap this year' season, but even if he never 'gets it' he always was at least an average player. Salmons and Deng are a very solid two-way wing combination.

And possibly most underrated aspect of the Bulls roster is their top two reserves, Brad Miller and Kirk Hinrich. Miller really stabilized the Bulls frontcourt last season as a complement to the athletic but raw Noah and Thomas, and though he's getting older Miller has skills that will age well. And Hinrich is possibly the best combo backup guard in the league, with the ability to defend either position, serving as both a low-turnover PG or a 3-point shooting SG to fit a lineup need.

This is a team that when they're clicking will play very well together, and while they'll feel Gordon's loss when needing a bail-out in possessions or games, replacing his minutes with Hinrich/Salmons/Deng will lead to an improved defense.

3. What are the team’s biggest weaknesses?

Coaching is certainly an issue, and while one can assume Vinny Del Negro will improve in his second year on the job, that may be because he only had upwards to go. Beyond the occasional timeout mismanagement, Del Negro's Bulls sometimes looked like a team that had no coach. A roster that was once a top-5 defense under Scott Skiles fell to the bottom 10 in the league, and while the Bulls were an improved offensive team after the trade deadline, it was never one that looked organized, instead being simply more talented than their softer end-of-season scheduled opponents.

This could be an even bigger problem with Gordon departing, a player who was able to create his own offense. While the Bulls will be hoping improved ball-movement and unselfishness will raise everyone's game, there are many times in a game where they'll need playmakers, and Gordon was the best they had beyond Rose.

As mentioned above, the top-7 are good enough to not need many rotation decisions from VDN, but a key injury could really throw the season off course. Quality depth is another weakness as the Bulls had to skimp in filling out their roster in their goal to avoid the tax this year and getting under the cap next summer.

4. What are the goals for this team?

Seeing how a first-round playoff loss to a team missing its best player was seemingly treated with such extreme excitement and praise, no doubt it will be important for the Bulls to at least look like a team on the rise, whether it's true or not. And to do that they have to make the playoffs again, entering 2010 free agency as an attractive destination for players looking for a competitive team with the cap space to pay up.

A season where the playoffs are missed could bring a repeat of Bulls free agency past, where Jerry Krause had a league-worst roster and whiffed on plan A through plan Ron Mercer.

5. No really, Gordon was pretty good, but what's the big deal?

The Bulls were average last year, they'll likely be so again this year. Through some internal improvement, they may even wind up slightly better this offseason. But they would have been a favorite for a 4th seed (as opposed to being lumped in with Miami, Atlanta, and several other teams) if they swallowed the tax for one season while holding all their assets, and able to put together the best trade packages together for the next star player to be sold off.

The loss of Gordon was truly significant in signalling a change of direction of the franchise. Where the winning of the 2008 draft lottery could've been seen as the most significant piece of an already talented team ready to contend soon, letting Gordon go meant that in the name of avoiding the luxury tax, the Bulls were instead going to try and get under the cap and re-build around Rose and a 2010 free agent.

And with a declining cap and some decisions to be made on several key players (Hinrich, Salmons, and Thomas) before getting far enough under in that summer, the Bulls may not be able to pull it off. A better plan would've been to use a decade of record profits as justification for a luxury tax bill (even for a non-elite team), and using their expiring contracts to obtain even more talent. The elite teams in the league stockpile good players and get even more, not let them walk in the name of flexibility. And Gordon was the best player ever to have played through his entire rookie deal only to let walk for nothing, a truly spectacular failure from the Bulls standpoint. Things could certainly work out ultimately, but it's a huge risk and the Bulls will need to perform this season as well as get lucky in free agency to make the gamble worthwhile.

Projected Finish: I see this team as fairly fragile, but also with potential for a surprisingly successful season. They really do have talent that could claw their way to a 50 win season, but an injury or some turmoil could have it spiral down in the mid-30s. I could see either scenario playing out, but it's likely that while nothing horrible goes wrong, not everything goes right either, and little bumps in the road keep the Bulls near .500 all year. 40-42.

Rose-less Bulls lose to Milwaukee

your friendly BullsBlogger — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 00:08:15 -0000

It's tough to evaluate the team minus Rose. Well it's not exactly 'tough': they're bad. But it's not exactly fair either. With Tyrus Thomas also out, bench players are forced into roles already jumbled by this being a scrimmage, and it's not how things will look in the regular season. Better not, anyway, since the game was marred with 27 turnovers (many of which on violations) and showed a team that could really struggle to score this season.

The Bulls were able to stay relatively close by getting to the foul line, but with Gordon gone I don't see many nights where the Bulls will have such an advantage. James Johnson seems to have a knack for it (as does Noah and Thomas) but he likely won't get the minutes to do such damage, especially if he's being called for traveling a half dozen times a game.

Hinrich played well (needs to shoot more than one three-pointer in a game, but he should when Rose is back), Salmons looked fine but didn't have a good shooting night, and I think after 3 games I can now stop being surprised that Taj Gibson can contribute. I'm not sure I'm enjoying the subtle campaign supporting him starting by Stacy King, however.

One top-7 player who didn't look good was Deng. While he did unleash another post move (on Charlie Bell, but still...) and was better in transition (who isn't?), there were some reasons to worry. One play stood out in particular, he was guarded by Ilyasova and first couldn't establish post position. Then he came out for the ball, and not being able to shoot over Ilyasova was able to drive by him...only to be cruelly blocked.

Team observers (including KC Johnson on the pre-game show) bend over backwards saying how it will be a group effort to shoulder the scoring load, but it will also take individuals making plays when the magical ball movement stops, and one of those guys needs to be Deng. It was also glaring when the end-of-quarter plays were handing the ball to Jannero Pargo and getting out of the way.

But again, this is with Rose out. He can be one of the guys who steps up, and he should be the guy getting the ball where Gordon used to (for some reason, the Bulls, like the rest of the NBA, stick to isolations instead of running an offense when it comes to these situations). It's not news that they're better with Rose, but he doesn't fix everything. Especially the defense, which looks better but still has problems with skilled bigs like Andrew Bogut.

And how much longer will Rose be out, anyway? Orginally thought to be of no concern, Rose's ankle injury now has him in a walking boot and may take 'a week or two' to heal, according to Mike McGraw.

Game Thread: Bulls/Bucks

Frank Madden — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 16:54:31 -0000

2-0		0-2
	vs.
October 10, 2009 - 7:30 PM CT
Resch Center, Green Bay
TV: WGN Local (nothing in Milwaukee) Radio: 1250 WSSP
Probable starters:
Jannero Pargo	PG	Luke Ridnour
Kirk Hinrich	SG	Michael Redd
Luol Deng	SF	Carlos Delfino
Taj Gibson	PF	Kurt Thomas
Joakim Noah	C	Andrew Bogut

Notes and links after the jump...

Preseason MVP: Jim Paschke
Jim's videos on Bucks.com are the only reason we've been able to see any video of the preseason, so for that we owe him a big thanks.

Gardner: Delfino and Thomas to start on Saturday
Charles Gardner reports that Skiles will be changing up his forward rotation on Saturday. We knew Delfino would get a look at the small forward spot at some point, but the more interesting choice is Kurt Thomas at PF.

"He's in the right place all the time defensively, and he's a conscientious box-out guy," Skiles said of the 6-foot-9 Thomas. "We've been getting killed on the boards. We'd like to present a little tougher front to start a game."

Rebounding is what Ersan Ilyasova should be bringing, but so far he hasn't grabbed a single board in 36 minutes. Of course, Ilyasova's not a bruising postdefender either way, so if Skiles decides to take a game-by-game approach to the 4 spot then we could see Thomas starting at times even if Ilyasova comes around. I'm not a big fan of that strategy, mainly because I'd rather see Thomas soaking up the backup PF minutes but also because I'd hope to see Ilyasova create mismatches on the perimeter against bigger players.

As for Hakim Warrick, he's played well (by the box score at least) in the first two games, but I'm not sure he can start every night. He's not big enough to defend good post players and he can't stretch the floor either. And on the plus side, his offense could be more useful off the bench with the second unit.

JS: Bucks rotation still up for grabs
Garry Howard takes stock of all the confusion surrounding who's going to play where and how much. Scott Skiles isn't tipping his hand, but he's obviously still trying to figure things out himself.

"I could see a 14- or 15-man rotation," he said. "Everybody is going to have to do something as the year goes on. I don't think there's any doubt about that. In an ideal world, we'd have a bunch of guys playing very well and would have a nine- or 10-man rotation and we'd be winning games. But my instinct is - and not that it means we won't be winning - is that everybody is going to get a chance at some point. We're going to need everybody.
"As the season goes on I'd like to have some sort of rotation but I'll bet you that everybody comes into play at some point."

Tribune: No Rose?
Derrick Rose (sore Achilles) missed the Bulls' 102-101 win over the Jazz in London, and is not expected to play tonight either. Would have been interesting to see Rose matchup with Jennings, but we should see plenty of that in the regular season.

Bulls win thriller in London, rookies impress those with little expectations (i.e. me)

your friendly BullsBlogger — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 04:32:44 -0000

More photos » by TOM HEVEZI - AP

I hope this was called a foul. (AP Photo / Tom Hevezi)

Browse more photos »

As preseason games go, that was a fun one to watch. The crowd was late-arriving but very into the game (as KC Johnson noted, they were ooohing and ahhing the most routine of NBA action), and the close back-and-forth score kept them into it. It was nice that they got the excitement of a buzzer-beater, even if it was in a meaningless contest.

(OK, maybe the announcers on NBATV were terrible, what with Steve Smith yelling at us to appreciate Taj Gibson and whoever the play-by-play-guy-was mispronouncing nearly every name (luOWL) and giving the all-to-rare 3...2...1... countdown a minute early. )

First some notes on the top-7 (3 of them out) that were encouraging all around. Noah just looks great, and if he starts this season like he ended the last it's going to be a breakout year for him. He was active all over, and SLC Dunk remarked Noah "looked like he was swatting 6th graders". Miller already was giving out hard fouls, and hitting jump shots. Hinrich was great, finishing perfect from the field. There's no doubt he played great to end last season, I just worry that his 40% 3-point seasons are the outliers. But if he bucks that trend he'll be incredibly valuable in any role he plays this season. Though hopefully there aren't many instances where he has to play point the whole game because Rose is hurt.

Luol Deng was able to thrill his hometown crowd with a solid game, and just like in the opener it was just nice to see him playing without a broken leg. What was different than the opener was Luol showing something different, a couple of post-up plays. If he can use it to exploit certain matchups, it'd be a nice complement to his game. I'm not sure he'll ever be able to dribble-drive by many defenders. He hit a three-pointer in this game as well, the other thing we all wish Luol could do more often. Though as Bulls by the Horns notes, it's worrisome that Deng still mentions soreness in the leg. Wasn't that injury in the spring? I'd almost rather he lied at this point and said everything was fine...though there was a point where a dunk was instead a blocked layup, which could've been the leg.

Now on to the rookies, with James Johnson being the hero and Taj Gibson giving a second-straight 'I may not stink after all' performance. If Taj can get to the point where we don't scream when he comes into the game for his handful of minutes, that's good enough value for that pick. It'll also be interesting to see how it effects the minutes of Tyrus Thomas, and any reduction in Thomas minutes will mean something bad has happened. Either he's playing like crud, or the Bulls really really don't want to pay him this summer. It may be an issue all season whether Taj is yet another Bull who's consistent competence is valued more than possible greatness (or above-averageness).

James Johnson is a trickier guy to peg in this year's rotation. He was able to flourish in this half-hazard 4th quarter in transition, but he won't be able to dominate the ball in the regular season (unless Deng is hurt again, yikes). Can he be useful away from the ball? At least he showed, like Gibson, that he's active, and as much as I like Tyrus Thomas I think Johnson ran the floor faster than I ever saw Thomas. Johnson also has shown more handle and a prettier shot, but that could just mean he's really meant to be a 3.

I actually didn't think Jannero Pargo was too awful, despite being the only Bull who didn't shoot well Tuesday. He just doesn't need to play in meaningful lineups, is all, because he will shoot regardless of who's on the floor with him. I actually liked him chucking in the first half since he was in a srubby lineup, and does have the innate skill to create shots (if not makes). But if he's in there in 3-guard 4th quarter lineups because of some clutch ability that doesn't exist (at least not with him), that's not good.

Chris Richard was definitely bad. Byers was a bit better (nice put-back dunk), and is still leading in the 'which camp invitee should stay' contest.

A great performance all-around. It's not necessarily meaningful that the preseason performance is good, but it's preferred over a poor-looking performance. The top-7 has been real solid. If other players step up to warrant minutes, that's a good problem to have, right?

(So why am I worried that they'll instead ruin a Vinny-proof rotation, with pressure from the Org. to push certain guys (Tyrus) out the door? I'm kidding, the Org. never has direction enough to dictate playing time.)

Who are the Bulls camp free agents, and should we care?

your friendly BullsBlogger — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 23:53:14 -0000

With the Bulls going into camp with only 13 guaranteed contracts (as did most NBA teams, though none quite as profitable), and with a few minor injuries already popping up, the unsigned FAs on the roster may be more important than originally planned.

And 'important' could merely mean 'get through these mandatory preseason games', though with Aaron Gray out for 6 weeks, and Lindsey Hunter really only signed to be a high-paid assistant, someone could actually make the team.

SBNation brother site Ridiculous Upside recently went over the Bulls camp-invitees, so here is some more background on each:

Derrick Byars - Byars got a full-length profile earlier this offseason, so I'll just touch on a few highlights: he was a very smart and skilled college player, but since then has mostly spent time in Europe and the D-League in addition to getting a few preseason NBA looks. He doesn't rebound or get to the free-throw line consistently, and he's not the quickest guy, but he can definitely score and he's a decent passer for a swingman, and he generally makes smart decisions. Byars averaged just under 17 points per 36 minutes in Bakersfield last year, and he shot just over 38 percent on three-pointers. He also does a pretty good job of staying out of foul trouble. I think Chicago would do well to sign Byars, in part because Luol Deng's health is still somewhat tenuous, and because he would give them another bench scoring option on nights when Jannero Pargo's shot isn't falling. I'm not confident that will happen, and Byars isn't really the type of guy you bring in when you're trying to emphasize defense (though what team isn't at this time of year), but I think it would be a solid fit.

Chris Richard - I tend to get him confused with Chris Hunter, but Chris Richard injured his back last year and was released by Tulsa before the all-star break. He was solid if unspectacular when he played, though, averaging about 14 points and nine and a half rebounds per 36 minutes. Those numbers are an improvement on what he did in the NBA after being drafted by Minnesota in 2007, where he averaged six points and just under nine rebounds. His eFG and TS percentages have both improved as well, so while he's not a world-beater, he'd be a solid bench option at power forward for an NBA team. Provided his body can handle it, of course.

Both Byars and Richard played significant time in the preseason opener, and while Byars looked a bit better, I wouldn't be surprised if Richard is the one (and only one) the Bulls keep due to his size. Even after the rise of Taj (sigh), it's likely the Bulls feel the need for frontcourt emergency depth with Gray sidelined, James fat, and Miller always prone to miss games here and there.

I also wouldn't mind seeing Byars given a shot to out-play Pargo (not to try to read too much into the preseason game, I just truly think Pargo is replacement-level) for a spot at the fringe of the rotation, but with the Bulls nearly $1m from the luxury tax line, they'll likely sign only one of the two, if none. And while spots 12-15 are not that significant, with the Bulls insistent on not paying the tax and having a lot of dead (if expiring) money already on the books, I wonder if they're regretting their summer signings (or at least the terms) of Gray, Hunter, and Pargo.

Kevin O'Neill and the Link on D to the 2009-10 Toronto Raptors

RaptorsHQ - Franchise — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:33:23 -0000

More photos » by John Raoux - AP

Way back in 2003-04, Marshall was part of one of the Raptors' best defensive clubs. Franchise hopes this coming season's incarnation can come close to replicating that feat.

Browse more photos »

Franchise takes a look at the 2003-04 Raptors under Kevin O'Neill and wonders just how great of a defensive club they were...

Aaaah the Friday before Film Festival here in Toronto.

For about the fourth year in a row, I got up at the crack of dawn to try and get tickets, only to have the Film Festival's horrific online booking path crash.

You'd think by year four (or longer actually) they would have gotten this thing figured out by now right? I mean, it's not like suddenly this year there are going to be way less people trying to book online!

Talk about maddening.

And of course by the time I probably get through later today, the tickets will all have been snatched up.

So what does this have to do with our beloved Raptors?

Well nothing really...except that my plan today was to talk about the 2004-04 version of the Toronto Raptors and as I was typing I realized that there is a common link between the two:

Both were frustrating as hell to endure.

Remember this incarnation of the Raptors? Kevin O'Neill at the helm and an unbelievable 23 different players who donned a Dinos' jersey that year? It was a motley crew indeed, and one that had future NBA All-Stars like Robert Archibald, Mengke Bateer, Lonny Baxter, Corie Blount, Rick Brunson, Dion Glover, Jerome Moiso, Milt Palacio, and Chris Jeffries.

Yikes.

And did you remember that other names such as Roger Mason Jr., Rod Strickland, Michael Curry and Jannero Pargo were part of that group?

I know what you're thinking: "playground sensation Rod Strickland was a Raptor?"

It was a strange season and indeed a tough one on the fans.

Prior to the start of the season, there was actually new hope thanks to the arrival of coach O'Neill. Fans had lamented that previous coach Lenny Wilkens had been too soft on his troops and hadn't implemented any sort of defensive system. As a result, while the team (when healthy) was still a joy to watch, the results just weren't there in terms of wins and after previous success under Wilkens, the club's record plummeted to 24 and 58.

It was time for a change and GM Glen Grunwald did just that by essentially hiring Wilkens' opposite. KO was a defense-first, no-nonsense coach and the hope was that a healthy core of Carter, Williams, JYD and Davis, along with the addition of promising rookie Chris Bosh, would when combined with KO's philosophies, return the Raptors to the playoffs after a one year absence.

We all know how things turned out.

Davis and JYD were shipped to Chicago for a collection of players including Jalen Rose and Donyell Marshall, and while the club won nine more games, the end of the season marked the end of both O'Neill's coaching tenure in Toronto, and Grunwald's General Manager status as well.

However historically, many look at the 2003-04 Raptors as the best defensive club in the franchise's history and recently, current Raptors' coach Jay Triano re-established a link to this era. He indicated that one of his assistants, Marc Iavaroni, would be implementing many of KO's old defensive philosophies from their time together in Memphis, and the assumption is that Raptors' fans will again see many defensive traits from that 03-04 club.

One of our readers remarked recently that KO's defensive system though could have been vastly overrated. To the agony of fans, O'Neill implemented a snail's pace scheme at both ends of the court meaning fewer possessions for both the Raptors and their opponents, and perhaps this was the real cause of defensive fortitude.

I thought this was a very interesting point and not only that, I remembered that back in 2003-04, the NBA style of play was still quite different as well; hand-checking on D was much more common, immobile big men were still the common theme in the post, and the game was not as dominated by the uber-athlete swingman.

Yes, Kobe was clearly one of the best in the game, but at this point he was still sharing the limelight with Shaq, and 2003-04 marked the rookie year for the likes of Lebron and D-Wade.

For proof of this, one only needs to gaze at the NBA Finals, where a non-star laden Detroit Piston club surprised the favoured LA Lakers and using a KO-esque slow-down pace and tough defensive style, captured the NBA title.

But getting back to the Raptors, was the club truly a great defensive team that year?

Gazing at some metrics from basketball-reference.com, it looks like yes, this was a very sound team on D. The club improved from a defensive rating of 26th in the NBA (fourth worst) under Wilkens to 7th, a huge leap. And considering that for a good portion of the year, players like Jalen Rose (not exacty a great defender) were key cogs in Toronto's system, it's hard not to say that O'Neill implemented a defensive system that was very effective despite his individual players' shortcomings. His club kept opponents from shooting above 43% offensively and across the board, the D was much improved over previous seasons.

But what about pace? Did KO slow things down to such a halt that it made the Raps' defensive numbers look better than they appeared?

Well this could be part of things for sure. Toronto that year played at the 3rd slowest pace in the league (27th out of 29 teams.) However that's not really a black and white resolution. The previous year under Wilkens, Toronto still played at a reasonably slow pace (7th slowest in the league.) So while it may have appeared that KO ground things to a halt, I think the reality was that he simply did a better job of installing defensive principles in his troops, something that admittedly is now a bit shocking considering the amount of personnel changes the club went through. It's one thing to have a full training camp with core players and teach them the ropes on D, it's another when most of those players get traded away a few months into the season and you have to constantly re-teach your philosophies.

So am I lauding the job KO did?

Yes, I suppose I am to a certain degree.

But more than that, looking over the stats from the 2003-04 has me admittedly excited to see just what coach Iavaroni can do to help this club's wonky D. Everyone agrees that Toronto should have one of the most potent offensive clubs in the league and if they can play some semblance of defence, then suddenly this could be a very dangerous club.

And while I have stated in the past that coaching in the NBA is overrated compared to the NCAA, I do feel that it's in areas like this that coaches can have a profound impact. No one would have picked the Magic to be the league's top defensive club last year Howard or no Howard and yet Stan Van Gundy coaxed a solid wall against opponents from a group that individually, weren't top notch stoppers.

Hopefully Mr. Iavaroni can do the same.

And hopefully the transition from one of the worst defensive teams in the league to at least one that can hold its own, for the viewing public, isn't akin to purchasing these film fest tickets...

...which over an hour later, I'm still unable to do.

FRANCHISE

Bulls sign Jannero Pargo: I'll stop mentioning him and Gordon in tandem if you do

your friendly BullsBlogger — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 05:33:59 -0000

K.C., you wily dog:

On the Wednesday Ben Gordon signed his five-year contract that could be worth up to $60 million with the Pistons, the Bulls signed Jannero Pargo to a one-year deal worth roughly $2 million to try to soften Gordon's loss.

Has anyone ever seen a $60m figure for Gordon's deal? On the Trib's own website they have an AP copy having it at $55m.

Pargo, if he is his usual Pargo self (he was worse than that on his overseas adventure last season), is a decent signing. I guess. It's one year, it's for the LLE, not much can be expected. But with the Bulls so close to the luxury tax seemingly inconsequential moves like this matter a lot. So why the rush to use what little room was left?

Sam Smith (who says $58m for Gordon, what the hell?) makes this case:

Although it was possible higher level free agents might have slipped through the cracks without offers and become available later in the summer, the Bulls apparently decided to go with Pargo as a solid scorer and big shot maker who was familiar with the team and a personality who would fit well off the court as well. The team is believed to have talked with several free agent guards, though most wanted more money than the $1.99 exception. Apparently, the Bulls decided not to risk losing one of the players they were interested in, like Pargo, while waiting for someone of perhaps a higher value to end up without a contract later in the summer.

Well, that's just full of odd implications.

Why would the Bulls be especially interested in Pargo? If one can't get worked up over the signing one way or the other, why do it now? Like Sam gleefully pointed out in a piece he wrote earlier in the week, all sorts of free agents will be taking less money than expected this year as the offseason drags on.

I hope the reasoning behind not 'losing out' on Pargo isn't because such a signing could make us think we're getting the value version of Gordon. Someone who not only was 'familiar with the team' but who fans were familiar with as well.

Hey fans, remember his hot shooting nights, including the heartbreaking playoff loss to the Wizards in '05?!?!

I more remember Pargo for the term 'Pargo Time', a point in a Bulls game where Skiles would basically use Pargo as his hail mary pass before entirely giving up. Extra-small ball. It sucked.

Trading Tyson Chandler

atthehive — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:00:18 -0000

More photos » by David Zalubowski - AP

Will the arrival of James Posey force out Tyson Chandler?

Browse more photos »

The Tyson Chandler to Phoenix trade rumors that started on draft day are simply refusing to die out. I've been hearing vague things from non-Hornet sources, but a poster on HornetsReport (who also posted on draft day that the Hornets had serious interest in Collison) offers far more clarity.

"... [E]xpect these moves in the next 2-3 weeks.

1.) TC for Ben Wallace

Devin might be a part of the deal too although it is not a deal breaker either way but the Hornets have no use for him this year so they want to dump him in the trade. The only reason this trade hasnt gone through yet is because of Phoenix's holdup with the Amare trade. That is their #1 priority right now but both teams want to get the TC for Wallace trade done.

Last I heard... Hornets would love to do something between 3-5 million and he wants at least 8. So if this trade doesnt go down, that is the most likely reason."

I'd heard the same on the buyout hangup, but these concrete numbers are very interesting. It allows us to calculate the financial implications with a good degree of accuracy.

If you remember back to my post from a few days ago, I talked about the cap benefits of moving Antonio Daniels and Rasual Butler. The primary benefit I described was trading them for smaller salaries, via either trade exceptions or to teams under the salary cap. This Tyson Chandler proposal explores a new dimension of saving cap space- a new dimension that could render a Butler trade moot.

The trade would be Chandler straight up for Wallace. Trade Machine still hasn't put through the Shaq-Wallace deal, so I can't link to it. But the math is straight forward. Chandler makes 12,250,000 this year, meaning the incoming player can make a maximum of 15,312,500 (125%) this year. Wallace makes 14,000,000, so the deal works. The mechanism behind a buyout is simple. The Hornets would basically pay Wallace a portion of his 14M salary to sit at home (and retire, as he wants to). The buyout contract is the money that goes into the salary cap calculation.

So to calculate the money saved is equally simple. Take Chandler's salary and subtract the buyout deal the Hornets theoretically agree on. If the Hornets agreed to Wallace's supposedly desired 8 million figure, the Hornets would save 12.25 (Tyson) minus 8 (Wallace) for a total of 4.25 million. Yesterday, we came up with the calculation that the Hornets are going to be approximately 8.5 million dollars over the cap. The goal of any deal involving Chandler is that it should put us under the luxury tax in one fell swoop. Otherwise, it probably wouldn't be worth moving TC in such a sell low situation. So to save 8.5 million in a Wallace buyout, the Hornets would have to get Wallace to agree to a 12.25-8.5=3.75 million dollar buyout. This is exactly in line with the HornetsReport post that said the Hornets seek a buyout in the 3 to 5 million dollar range. The more money they save in a Wallace deal, the more they can spend on free agency.

Those are the financial ramifications, but how about the roster implications? By trading Chandler for Wallace, the Hornets would have two big men on the roster- David West and Hilton Armstrong. Two. They'd be right at the luxury limit, so George Shinn could be wary of using the full midlevel (likely what it will take) to acquire a Marcin Gortat. There would only be 12 players on the roster. Basically, they'd have 2 spots left (Scott doesn't like filling out the 15th player until late in the season). Both would have to be used on big men. The team would be a mess otherwise.

But the HornetsReport post also said that the Hornets still want Jannero Pargo. So a Chandler trade necessitates an Antonio Daniels trade, by default. The only way for the Hornets to clear a roster space to get Pargo is to trade Daniels for a big. That way, they'd use one of the two remaining spots on Pargo and the other on another big. Additionally, moving Daniels could provide salary relief in and of itself (trade exception, etc), if the Hornets choose to go in that direction.

I'll try and do a "Trading Antonio Daniels" post tomorrow, basically looking at where he could be dealt. For now, it's pretty clear that trading Chandler and trading Daniels go hand in hand.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Collison

atthehive — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 07:08:46 -0000

More photos » by Frank Franklin II - AP

With the 21st pick in the 2009 NBA Draft, the New Orleans Hornets select... Darren Collison from UCLA.

Browse more photos »

Lots of haterade being drunk in re: this Darren Collison fellow ("9th best PG", etc).

You know what? It was a great pick. This really isn't spin or anything. Last thing I'm going to do is spin the Hornets' front office after the disaster that was Summer 2008.

First, consider the options. It was down to DeJuan Blair or a point guard. Marcus Thornton wasn't in the equation at 21, because no other teams valued him that high. If the Hornets really wanted him that high, they'd have traded down and gotten a 2nd rounder tossed their way. Internally, the front office had made the Blair vs. point guard decision (which turned out to be the right call, as Thornton hung around till 43).

Let's start with Blair. I was super high on him. His rebound rates were mind-boggling, he'd dominated a 7 footer in Thabeet before, and he had apparently gotten into terrific shape. When the decision was made to pass him over, I was startled. Blair filled our biggest need, and some statistics indicated he might be the second best big in the entire draft. How could you possible pass on that? I was not a happy camper.

Then Portland- widely rumored to have traded up to get him- passed on him. Sacramento passed on him. Dallas passed on him. Oklahoma City passed on him. Chicago- widely rumored to be drafting Blair at 16- passed on him at 26. Even the staunchest advocate of Blair had to have recognized something here. And then ten more teams passed. Fifteen times in all, he was passed over. There's some identified or unidentified issue with Blair that teams are scared of. It might be his knees. It might be the fact that his ACL's ~~are supposedly not visible in MRIs~~ do not exist. It might that people don't think his sudden and huge weight loss is sustainable. It might be that he lived on a mostly junk food diet for most of his college career. Sure, the Spurs wound up taking him. They've been absolute geniuses at drafting. But this smells more of "he couldn't have dropped any lower" than it does of the Spurs knowing something nobody else does. The Hornets came to the same conclusion that more than half the NBA did. This includes teams that worked him out multiple times, with enough scrutiny to considering drafting him in the lottery. I trust in that collective wisdom.

Second, let me address the "8th or 9th best point guard" deal. Collison was absolutely not the 8th or 9th best point guard in this draft. He was the 8th or 9th most hyped point guard in this draft. Huge, huge difference. For two straight years, he'd lost his buzz to more famous backcourt mates at UCLA- Russell Westbrook and Jrue Holiday.

Comparison time.

Player A: 49% eFG, 27% threes, 31% FT/pos, 53% true shooting, 23% ast/pos, 21% TO/pos
Player B: 57% eFG, 40% threes, 29% FT/pos, 62% true shooting, 38% ast/pos, 20% TO/pos

Who ya got?

Player A is Tyreke Evans, the first point guard taken in The Draft of the Point Guard. Player B is Darren Collison, the last point guard of the first round taken in the Draft of the Point Guard.

How about the next non-Rubio (total wild card) point guard off the board?

Jonny Flynn: 52% eFG, 32% threes, 37% FT/pos, 57% true shooting, 41% Ast/pos, 21% TO/pos
D. Collison : 57% eFG, 40% threes, 29% FT/pos, 62% true shooting, 38% ast/pos, 20% TO/pos

Looks pretty even to me. Here are all the non-Euro points (Jennings, Rubio) taken in round 1:

Player	eFG	3P	FT/pos	TS	Ast/pos	TO/pos
Tyreke Evans	49%	27%	31%	53%	23%	21%
Jrue Holiday	50%	31%	20%	53%	42%	25%
Eric Maynor	52%	36%	37%	58%	32%	16%
Ty Lawson	61%	47%	47%	66%	51%	15%
Jeff Teague	55%	44%	43%	62%	22%	20%
Jonny Flynn	51%	32%	37%	57%	41%	21%
Darren Collison	57%	40%	29%	62%	38%	20%

Ty Lawson is clearly not human, but everyone else is more or less on even footing. There are non-statistical components to drafting. Absolutely there are. Collison is a college senior, a category of player that empirically does not do well in the NBA. Flynn, Evans, and especially Holiday are absolutely teeming with upside while Collison has almost no upside. But can anyone definitively say Collison is not a top 5 point in this draft, filled with so many excellent ones? Absolutely not.

Darren Collison was a very good point guard in college for four years. He may be more guaranteed to spell Chris Paul for 12-15 minutes than anyone else in this draft.

Two giant cherries on top of this cake. One, this guarantees Jannero Pargo will not be returning. The second is even more important. This allows New Orleans the freedom to trade Antonio Daniels at any point during the season. Not only that, it provides them with a great amount of leverage they wouldn't have had otherwise. Daniels' 6 million expiring contract is one of the Hornets' biggest trade chips. The drafting of Darren Collison will allow them to maximize its usage.

I love Collison already. So should you.