SB Nation User Blog: California Al

Two squad suggestion revisited

California Al — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:59:41 -0000

Posted here early last year about how much I liked the Lakers approach, and, assuming the signings of Deng and Gordon, it looks good again this year for a different reason, along with some of the same ones

Irregular rotations left confused roles, intersquad rivalries, morale issues, etc. Knowing that being on the starting squad only insures PT if your squad performs creates a good dynamic for energetic starts to games. And being on the bench as a squad that knows it's going in with the opportunity to stay in longer with good play also has a great dynamic.

Best nights? Both squads perform, the system works, Bulls win easily. Worst nights? Nothing works on those nights anyway. Normal 50 or so games a year? One of the squads has it in gear and gets the heavy minutes, and we are in position to win 30ish of 50 games because we had the hot unit on the floor longer, or at least didn't stagnate with a lineup that just didn't have it.

This approach keeps the emphasis on team success, not individual. The key to better minutes is for your squad to play winning ball, period. And the only thing keeping you on the bench longer is winning play by the other squad. It's all about winning. Like I said, it worked out great for LA until too many parts went down with injuries. Kobe and LO were real cheerleaders when the 2nd unit went in, and the bench won a LOT of games for the Lakers. The additional benefit of logging fewer minutes for Kobe while still winning didn't hurt either.

The different reason this year is that we need to shop some of the players. No way they can afford everyone if TT, Tabo, Noah etc all materialize in their roles.

What we do know

California Al — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 22:50:34 -0000

Paxson is not in charge; Reinsdorf has always made the critical decisions for both the Bulls and the Sox. Sorry if I'm redundant, but if Pax was making the decisions, D'Antoni would be the coach, Rose would be the pick, and Pax would be busy reforming the roster to the new needs.

There is also serious conjecture that Jerry's ominous shadow is in the background of the whole Wallace-Chandler decision. Whether he prompted it or not, I'd think it moronically naive to believe he didn't have the rubber stamp power for a $15m free agent signing. Ditto the trades scenarios, the contract non-negotiations, and every other money decision. He was very public about his involvements with Pippen's and Grant's contract problems.

Years ago, I walked away from a lifetime of Bears fanaticism in protest of McCaskey's handling of Ditka's firing. Similar to the current crisis, McCaskey had financially stripped one of the greatest teams in history, forcing out Finks and then the business manager, and tossing away an all-pro or two per year. It wasn't that Ditka wasn't done; he was. I just felt that his sendoff should have been worthy of a coach who won 100 games in 10 years and a Super Bowl; instead, he found out about Wannstedt's hiring on the 6:00 news with the rest of us.

This mess feels just as sickening. I don't know how good Pax is; be honest, it's obvious that none of us do. But he has always represented the team with dignity and given it body, heart and soul. There hasn't even been a charade of respect from Reinsdorf. He has pantsed him, and told to him go get his shine box.

I'm beginning to get the feeling that I should make the same sad decision I did with the Bears. What Reinsdorf has earned is an empty arena, with zero TV money. Anyone up for trying to get Jerry his just rewards?

MJ v Kobe, let the great debate begin

California Al — Sat, 31 May 2008 14:40:40 -0000

LA is fine, the sun shines most the time, etc. I thnk Sportcenter was about to do a segment on the subject last night as I was on my way out to the pool, and my wife and I got into a conversation with another couple from the midwest who are a lot more anti-Kobe than myself. Personally, I think he's great, but I'm from the Bobby Knight camp: Michael Jordan might be the greatest ANYTHING that ever lived. Try to have that conversation in any logical fashion out here; good luck. But, I think I may have come up with an appropriately antagonistic closing argument for those who insist on pushing my buttons for the next month or so:

If you have the absolute greatest, no question about it, Elvis impersonator in history, can you ever say, "He's even better thant Elvis!"? Your thoughts?

(Preemptive needle to HSCS) No, MJ wasn't the second or third best player on the Bulls, Bill Lambier wasn't the best on the Pistons, and Rony Turiaf is NOT the reason LA's improved so much this year.

Pax, you're fired

California Al — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:03:02 -0000

Anyone familiar w my posts knows I'm a Pax fan and hope he succeeds for years to come. But the only approach I see to correcting this team is to throw out the baby with the bath. A new GM wouldn't be married to anything that's transpired over the past 5 years. So, Pax, now you're interviewing for the job of the Bulls' new GM; what would you do to fix this team? Seems to me that's the only course of action for him to save his job.
If I'm Reinsdorf, I want to hear a 5 year plan from all candidates that: A, gives my season ticker holders reasons to re-up; B, gives the players reasons to want to be here; C, has an NBA title as its only goal. The current mess does none of the above.
Seems to me that lotto picks within two years are the only hope for landing the player we need to build around any time soon (is five years soon?). Cap relief is a possible route, but I haven't been able to conjure up a scenario that sells our troubles to another team. There are no sacred cows. Where would you start? (Scary thing is that giving Boylan an extension and encouraging him to run with our vets to try make the playoffs next year might be the BEST route to get some high picks!)

Maybe someone's listening: Mike Brown

California Al — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:58:59 -0000

Article in the Herald says they're interviewing Mike Brown for an asst position to work with the big men. I guess that answered my question about who was working with them at present. I like what he might be able to pass on to TT about playing the 4 for a living.
Now, if only they've read rest of the blog!

One more idiotic trade, anyone? (trade for Shaq)

California Al — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 21:53:12 -0000

Is it at all possible that Riley is as anxious to get rid of Shaq near as much as we want BW to go away? If he'd include their number one draft pick, give him BW and anything else he wants. Shaq, unlike Wallace, DOESN'T want the minutes, and he can sit all season long if he wants to. Makes a lot of $ense for the Bulls; the $5 mil per difference would be made up in merchandise sales in about a week.
On the possibility side, Riles is out there "officially" denying that there's any consideration of a Shaq trade going on (even though he's discussed the types of teams that he thinks would benefit from him). And, if its true that Shaq's impending divorce is going to keep him out of early retirement, who knows, maybe he logs some decent PT for us next year or two. Wouldn't it be nice to see how Deng/TT/Noah might develop with minutes to go around, and Shaq giving us an occasional low post presence? We'd be lottery bound w our own pick, and if we could somehow pry theirs away, we get a second (3rd? 4th?) whack at building through the draft.
The draft pick is a dream, I know, but seems like Riles needs a center who can log some minutes with Shaq and Zo injured. Seems like BW and Noc are around the right money, and if Memphis wants Noc that much, maybe a 3 way could serve all three team's needs.
Judging from the observations here, this lineup is spinning its wheels like Minnesota the last 4 years, with the obvious difference being the difference between KG and BW. I can't see any team taking our albatross w/o replacing it with an equal or greater one, but maybe this one would fit better?

Do the Bulls even have a 2nd unit?

California Al — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:00:23 -0000

It seems to me that irrational substitutions and lack of PT for the young players were the two biggest gripes about Skiles. It would seem like the answer would be to run 2 separate units like PhilJax did/does. TT starts, Noah subs. Deng starts, Noc subs. BG wants to play PG, a lot of people see him as 6th man; pair him w Thabo on the 2nd unit. Heinrich/Du might be a better unit starting. Depending on performance and matchups, this would get these guys on the court 6-10 minutes per half and show Pax what he has to work with. If the starters want 30+ minutes, earn them on the court by performing.
The Lakers were sliding back into last year's funk, and it was the 2nd unit that sparked them. Now the first unit's playing better. Seems like it would solve a lot of suspected issues for the Bulls. It could be that they picked up the wrong players, but if that's the case, burying them doesn't move the team forward. Also, excluding players doesn't do much in the way of team building. If the perception is that you're either going to play 40 minutes or none, that really doesn't do much to encourage you to support either the guy in front of you or the guy behind you.
A little experimentation would show who performs best in what role, but obviously, they've already proven that there's no magic starting lineup that deserves ALL of the PT, and the development/morale issues are way past stale. They're what, 5th worst record in NBA? I'd rather see them get worse than continue the same way by giving all of the minutes to a lineup that can't play .500 ball in the East.

Fantasy trade (Kobe)

California Al — Mon, 17 Jul 2006 02:09:36 -0000

No inside tips here, I promise you! Lakers and Bulls are 2 teams going in opposite directions. Bulls have everything Lakers need; Lakers have one thing we need. What do you think it would take to make a Kobe trade make sense? Gordon is not THAT bad a fall-off at 2, and we have ALL the building blocks they need to start over. With Kobe and Shaq slugging it out for the East title, it would really give the NBA a marquis matchup, and I have a feeling the Lakers would somehow end up with Olden next year.

OT: Reporters or snitchers?

California Al — Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:40:44 -0000

I was driving to work Thu and switching among 3 sport talk channels, and was surprised that I was flipping away from the Danica Patrick "story" over and over. It made me stop and think, why is this a story?
In case you were lucky enough to miss it, she's thinking about switching to NASCAR, and some driver made the comment that she WAS aggressive enough for NASCAR, especially if you catch her at the wrong part of the month. Now you probably reacted the same way I did: that was stupid, he's dead, etc. But think about it, if anyone, male or female, who ever made a comment that a woman was more aggressive during her cycle got fired, we'd have 100% unemployment!
So it started me thinking, at what point is it reporting, and what point being a crybaby, snitch-bitch? I think it was Dan Patrick's show that made the comments along the lines of "what was he thinking? Before you say something like that, you better make sure there are NO mikes in the room!" So here are a bunch of reporters talking about the fact that you better not trust reporters, and they're doing it so matter of factly that it implies that it is their right and duty to be rats and normally that would have slipped right by me; that day it didn't. If the mikes are off and a "friendly" reporter asks my opinion about Danica being aggressive enough, isn't there an element of trust implied there? And if the reporter runs out and makes public what I said in private, who's the a-hole?
So I'm asking this esteemed blog: should there be a campaign to put an end to this business of putting the screws to public figures who make an off-the-record comment that was politically incorrect but wasn't really intended to do any harm? Personally, I'm growing tired of this stuff? The man expressed an opinion that we probably all harbor. Again, if it was said in a way to hurt Ms Patrick or her career, go after him; that's reporting. If it was just a guy trying to be humorous with no ill intent, why was it made public, and why are Fox and ESPN carrying the story?

Just joining and thanks to all

California Al — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 15:57:50 -0000

Got transferred to CA 10 years ago and this is the ONLY significant bb talk I could find on the web. Been following it for over a year, and am very grateful to all of you for the intelligent discussions found here. I'm old school; go back to the Packers and Walt Bellamy and was a Guy Rogers wannabe. Only comment on the current team? This is a very good class; I wouldn't change a thing. The game hasn't been won from the low post since Chamberlain and I certainly wouldn't stall the rebuilding to chase down an answer to Shaq. The game is won by 48 minutes of smart, team ball, and I really think this team has that makeup (Thanks Pax). I don't see any answers that makes them dominant this year, but I see a lot of suggestions that could make them worse 2-3 years out.
If we get a mobile big in next year's draft, we are on the way. In the meantime, let these kids get their minutes and find out who wants to win championships, not play to show up on SportsCenter. Thanks again for a great blog!