Derrick Rose

talking about whether or not they should is not the same as it might happen. people here are talking about whether or not gerald wallace should sign with the bobcats. does that mean it might happen? anything is possible, but it seems pretty clear that it's a very unlikely scenario.

so what dishonesty did i employ? i quoted directly for the article. did i make something up?

holy shit! carlos boozer had a bad game! quick, cut him a check for $50 million so we can get rid of him.

so what you're saying is carlos boozer at the PF position can't carry a team offensively? is that supposed to be news?

he's not there for his defense.

of course, boozer started every game this season so all of his stats are going up against other starters for the most part. gibson and asik spend more time playing against other teams' bench, so numbers will be skewed. but the bigger issue is that you can't win with defense alone. nobody is going to guard asik or gibson 15 feet from the basket like they would with boozer. that means the paint is more easily packed in and their #1 option will have a much more difficult time getting to the basket.

 

They wouldn't be talking about it otherwise. I would say that you confused "might" and "will," but it's you so it's pretty safe to assume that you knew the difference and were just being a dishonest piece of shit as usual.

You pretended that the article was talking about how great Boozer was instead of proving you to be an absolute fool for saying that he was more responsible for the Bulls' success than Rose's improvement as a player. You also posted: "might get amnestied? holy shit, that's got to be the stupidest thing i've ever heard" as if you didn't already know that's exactly what the link was about.

Each of the last two seasons, he has been horrible defensively. For a team to be 9 points better in defensive efficiency without a player is a damning indictment. Over the last two seasons he also has significantly more turnovers per game than any Chicago player except Rose.

Hey, you're the one who said:

So he can't carry the team offensively when Rose is out and he's beyond horrible defensively, but he supposedly put the Bulls over the top and was more important to the win increase than Rose's improvement.

By all means, keep posting. I'm going to keep this thread going for as long as you post on TBR because there is no better example of your stupidity and your complete unwillingness to ever admit to being wrong about anything. The more you try to make excuses for your stupidity, the worse you look to everyone else.

 

wow, you get dumber with every post. you're proposing that everything a fanbase talks about in the offseason is something that "might happen"?

oh i see, so now what i said is that adding boozer was more responsible for the bulls going from mediocre to elite than rose elevating his game? is that your new version of events? that's like the third different variation you've come up with and not one of them is an accurate portrayal of what i stated, but please, keep telling me how i'm being dishonest.

he also has a very high usage rate, so of course he's going to get turnovers. i'd be worried about guys who turn the ball over without having a high usage rate. and you might want to check the oppg with rose vs without. you might notice a similar difference between the two numbers. with rose, the bulls gave up 8+ more points in 2011.

i did indeed. are those statements supposed to mean that i think boozer can carry the bulls offense by himself?

pretty soon, you're going to morph it into me saying that boozer is the reason the team won 62 games. ironically, you'll probably use the same quotes and STILL be unable to see how those quotes don't support your argument.

please do.

 

It's a columnist on SI, you dishonest dumbass, not some random fan. Every time you pretend to be so exceptionally stupid, you make people wonder how much of this is an act or if maybe you really are a moron.

That's what you said. I have quoted it repeatedly, and that's why people have been making fun of you.

He led all playoff performers in turnovers this season, was 20th worst among all forwards during the regular season in turnovers per game (and the vast majority of those ahead of him were small forwards who handle the ball on the wings), and 10th worst among all forwards in 2010-11.

Rose is not a good defender either, although he's not as horrendous as Boozer. But Rose is obviously a vastly superior offensive player than Boozer, unless you intend to make yourself even more stupid by arguing otherwise.

I haven't morphed at all. You're the one who keeps coming up with one bullshit excuse after another. I only have to quote your dumb ass:

 

that article was written as a measured response to the fanatics out there calling for boozer to be amnestied.

what people? you hearing voices in your head again? and please, keep quoting me cuz it's the only intelligent thing you've posted in this whole thread.

and? you just got thru saying rose has more turnovers, so what does the # of turnovers have to do with anything? among pf's, boozer is at about 2.8 to's per 48 minutes. that sits him right in there with kevin love, pau gasol, chris bosh and kevin garnett. so what exactly is your point here?

wait, so is offense important or not? you seem undecided on the issue.

no, you don't only have to quote me, you have actually read it an process it. apparently something you're incapable of.

how does boozer's cost effectiveness relate to whether or not the bulls without boozer playing and without thibodeau coaching would be able to break the 50 win mark in a regular season?

 

Why do you keep blatantly lying? It did point out some good things that Boozer does, but it also pointed out the laundry list of bad things he brings and suggested that it's possible the Bulls would be better without him. The column does conclude that they probably won't amnesty him, but not because he's good, just because it wouldn't actually create significant cap space since they would still be over the cap.

Did you seriously just try to compare Boozer with Love, Gasol, Bosh, and Garnett? This is what I mean. Because you cannot ever admit to being wrong about anything, you end up making yourself look ever more stupid by saying outlandish things to cover your previous outlandish statements. Boozer has as many turnovers as those guys do despite being much worse both offensively and defensively. That means he's a liability.

Because according to you, the season where Derrick Rose won the MVP his improvement was actually less important to Chicago than getting Boozer (mediocre offense, terrible defense) and Thibodeau. Remember, you said without those two guys "maybe they get to 50 wins. maybe." So you didn't think Rose's improvement was necessarily even worth a 9 win improvement when the Bulls won 21 more games than they did the previous season.

Again:

 

no, it didn't suggest the bulls would be better without him. it suggested the bulls would be better with somebody else replacing boozer, but they weren't sure who that would even be. the ONLY reason to amnesty boozer is to clear cap space to sign somebody else. you've gone so far off the deep end that you're no longer just saying boozer is overpaid (who in the nba isn't overpaid?) but you're actually saying he's a net negative to the bulls. wow.

i didn't compare them, i simply looked at the stat you used to sum up boozer's usefulness. i noted that the names directly surrounding boozer in the list of pf's are the ones i listed. so either turnovers mean something or they don't. they can't mean one thing for boozer and something else for kg, love, et al.

and what does that have to do with cost effectiveness? but hey, at least you didn't leave out thibodeau this time...

you keep retreating to this notion that you can assign how many wins a player (or coach) is worth as tho it's some kind of linear thing. it's not. you can't take a team apart and assign how many wins each guy is worth and then mix and match different players around the league to make new teams and expect them to win however many games each player brings. teams are dynamic. small changes can yield dramatic results.

 

He makes them nine points worse in defensive efficiency, which is a staggering handicap. Taj Gibson is not nearly nine points worse in offensive efficiency. In fact, he has a slightly higher offensive rating than Boozer (109 to 108), although that could certainly go down if he played bigger minutes. Still, there is a strong statistical case that says the Bulls would be a better team with Taj Gibson instead of Boozer.

Yes, actually they can, because those other guys add things that Boozer clearly doesn't. You were being a dishonest piece of shit yet again by trying to equate Boozer with Love, Gasol, Bosh, and Garnett when he isn't remotely on their level.

That's exactly what you did, you colossal dumbass.

 

you should read the rest of that sentence where it indicates there's nobody on the team that can replace boozer. the conclusion of the article states:

"Dumping Boozer might work in conjunction with other moves to improve. But it’s no sure thing, and it’s hard to see what those other moves might be."

clearly indicating that boozer helps the team and getting rid of him would require getting somebody else to replace him and even that might not work. yeah, he's definitely suggesting that the bulls would be better off without boozer. good lord.

and who would back up gibson? or does he just go ahead and play 48 minutes a night? you'd think the coach of the year last year and the runner up to coach of the year this year would maybe know a thing or two about his personnel. why doesn't gibson start if he's so good offensively? the fact is, he doesn't provide the offense that boozer does. you think the bulls are going to run plays thru gibson on the block? he'll get a pass if he's open on the baseline. he'll get some tip ins. i doubt they have more than a handful of plays that involve gibson getting the ball.

um, okay. that makes a ton of sense. the evidence of boozer sucking needs to be measured differently depending on whether somebody sucks or not. i equated those players based on your measure -- turnovers. if you want to measure them in some other way, then please feel free. simply saying boozer sucks isn't cutting it.

maybe in your head, but that's a fucked up place i'd prefer not to spend much time thinking about.

i stated that the bulls team without boozer and without thibodeau would be highly unlikely to break 50 wins. that does not mean that thibodeau and boozer contributed 12 wins to the 62 win season. that means a bulls team coached by thibodeau and with carlos boozer playing for them is better by 12 wins. boozer on the court gives rose more room to operate. thibodeau's defensive schemes make rose's offense more valuable. you're trying to remove different parts of the team and assign them some kind of win value as tho you can then add up those values to get to the # of wins for that team. it's stupid.

 

so this is funny. apparently john hollinger estimates "wins added" for players.

for 09-10 he estimated rose added 11 wins to the bulls team. in 10-11 he estimated rose added 19 wins (to lead the league among pg's). kind of funny that he'd come up with about an 8 win improvement based on rose's stats.