Chicago Bulls, NBA Trades and Why the Twain Shan't Meet

I am frequently asked by readers what I think the Bulls should do with the trade deadline approaching. There's the short answer and the long answer to this question. What I think they should do is nothing. That's easy.

Perhaps I should clarify, then, that the short answer and the long answer is to why they should stand pat more than about what they should do. 

The Short Answer

The great Bill Simmons, of Grantland.com and the author of The Book of Basketball, the singularly best book on basketball ever written, provides us with the short answer to the question, 

"

On TV a few weeks ago, Chris Webber said something that made me say, "I wish I had thought of that first." They were talking about trades, and C-Webb pointed out that championship teams are always stubborn. In other words, instead of caving to the whims of their fans, the pressure of the media, the ebbs and flows of a season (or even someone's career) or especially conventional wisdom, they say to themselves, "Screw this, I know what I have, I'm sticking with it."

"

Simmons apparently learned of this from David Aldridge. I learned of it from Simmons, though. So I'm saying that Simmons said that Alridge said that Webber said that championship teams are stubborn and don't make panic trades. 

It's true. Go back through the championship teams over the last couple of decades and how many of them made a major trade where they gave up key components in the middle of the season. Only one team, the 2004 Pistons, even acquired a piece in Rasheed Wallace, and they got him for so dirt cheap that they essentially just added a big piece. 

You could argue the same thing about the Lakers when they got Pau Gasol. They didn't win it all, but they did get to the Finals. 

The only other team to do it was the 1995 Houston Rockets, who acquired Clyde Drexler. 

If there were a move whereby the Bulls could get a player of the caliber of Drexler, Gasol or Wallace without really having to give away key components, I would be all for it. However, that trade's not there to be made, so those two scenarios don't really apply. 

The Long Answer

In order for the Bulls to land a big piece, they would have to give up big pieces, and that's where the problem lies. 

Whenever the trade questions come up, there are usually at least one of two things which are consistent. First, they tend to undervalue what the Bulls would be giving up. Second, they tend to be overvaluing what they would be be getting in in return. 

Enter my Rocket Chef. I love to cook. One day, the Rocket Chef commercial came on, and I had to have it. I could be free form all those horrible complications of that old-fashioned knife and cutting board. 

So I called up the number ordered my Rocket Chef, and lo and behold, it did exactly what they said it would do, sort of. 

There's also the fact that it's a pain to clean and you have to crank the heck out of it to get it to work at all. If you fill it to full, you have to take the whole thing apart and take out some of the contents to get it to work right. And if you're not careful, you cut yourself on the blade. 

In the end, I found myself just going back to my knife and cutting board, which really isn't nearly so bad as I thought it was. 

The moral of the story is this, before buying, make sure you really have a need and that it's not just generated through some kind of hype. Second, make sure that the need is really going to be fulfilled by what you are getting. 

So, that raises the question: Do the Bulls need to get better in order to win the championship this year? Not "are they a cinch" and not "is it theoretically possible?" but do they need to get better. Do they have a reasonable shot at winning it all without making changes? 

Need

In order to answer that let's look at some things. First, and most obvious, they have the best record in the NBA. Pay attention to the word "first" there please. That means this is the the first of a series of points to be made, so don't go rushing to the comment section rebutting me with, "Well, they had the best record last year too." 

Having the best record in the NBA is not an assurance they will win it all, but it's at least enough of an argument we don't have to be pounding the plastic off of the panic button, though. It means we can at least take a bit of time to measure if there really is a need to take the risk of a trade here. 

The Offense

This might be news to some people, but the Bulls are actually a really good team, and that's why they have the best record in the NBA. In fact, they are even better than they were last year, especially on offense. 

Last year, they were 12th in offensive rating . This year, they are third and are very close to being second, as they trail Oklahoma City by 0.2 points per 100 possessions, or about one field goal every thousand possessions. Do you see anyone complaining about whether Oklahoma City has the offense to win it all?

While a marginal amount of that improvement is due to Derrick Rose, that's far from being all of it, or even being the bulk of it. In fact, as hard as some have tried to push this notion that the Bulls offense is so reliant on Rose, it's actually just not true. 

In fact, the Bulls are less reliant on Rose this year than last. His usage percentage (which means the percent of possessions he uses, i.e. that end with him attempting a shot or turning it over) is down from last year. 

So, when we set aside all the talking-head talk and just look at oh, reality, we notice that the Bulls offense is better because they are individually better offensively. Let's look at the Bulls from last year to this year and the difference in their Player Efficiency Rating. 

Player	2011	2012	Difference
Derrick Rose	25.0	25.0	0.0
Carlos Boozer	18.8	19.5	0.7
Joakim Noah	18.8	19.2	0.4
Taj Gibson	14.3	16.7	2.4
C.J. Watson	12.8	16.7	3.9
Luol Deng	15.5	15.1	-0.4
John Lucas	-0.1	15.0	15.1
Kyle Korver	13.0	13.5	0.5
Brian Scalabrine	6.5	13.2	6.7
Omer Asik	11.8	12.6	0.8
Ronnie Brewer	13.8	12.5	-1.3

Last year, the Bulls had three players with a PER over 15.0, which is considered "average." This year, they have seven, and that's not counting Mike James, whom they let go. Only two players have a lower PER this year than last: Luol Deng, whose numbers are taking a hit because of his wrist injury, and Ronnie Brewer.

This reveals two things about why the Bulls are winning, apart from the fact that they have Derrick Rose on their team and Tom Thibodeau coaching it. They have length, and they have depth. 

Their next three best performers after Rose are Boozer, Noah and Gibson. While this doesn't reflect Boozer's defense, it doesn't really reflect Asik's value as a defender either.

But while we're on the subject, let's linger on the much-maligned Boozer, who is more criticized than any Boozer who is not actually boozing in history.

Carlos Boozer

To hear tell he's the most overpaid player in the NBA, but realistically, he's not. He's making $13.5 million, making him the 29th-highest paid player in the NBA. Compare him to the other power forward/centers that were available and how much they make. 

Player	Cost	Pts/36	TRB/36	FG%	PER
David Lee	$11.6	18.7	9.6	.512	19.8
Carlos Boozer	$13.5	18.8	9.8	.533	19.5
Chris Bosh	$16.0	18.6	8.3	.490	19.2
Amare Stoudemire	$18.2	19.0	8.7	.459	16.7

When you consider what the other players are getting paid with his experience and what they are producing, Boozer, at worst, is about your money's worth. And let's not forget defense isn't exactly the strength of any of these other guys either. 

In fact, you could make the argument that this Carlos Boozer's best defensive year ever. That's not to say that he's a great, good or even average defensive player, but he is at least as good as any of the other three. 

The reason he "disappeared" in the playoffs last year is that he had turf toe, an injury which Ray Lewis once described as the most painful he's ever experienced in his life. No one has ever called Lewis a wimp and lived to tell about it. 

Sometimes, people get so entrenched in a position that they just ignore logic. Turf toe limits a person's ability to jump.You can't ignore that. 

Yes, he was fat. Yes, he was an idiot to trip over his own gym bag days after signing a gazillion dollar contract. Having said all that, he's been a better player this year. On top of that, he's been the ironic iron man (see how I did that?), the only Bull to start every game this year.

Taj Gibson

The only reason Boozer looks so awful defensively is that Gibson looks so darned good. He's an amazing defensive player who had better make the All-Defense team, or I'm going to figure out how to protest the whole process.

Gibson's Synergy numbers are just flat-out ridiculous for a power forward. He yields just .72 points per play on the defensive end. That's better than Serge Ibaka (.83)., LaMarcus Aldridge, (.78), Kevin Garnett (.77) or Tim Duncan (.73). In fact, I cannot find a power forward with better defensive numbers than Gibson. 

Where it gets silly, though, is in his isolation numbers. He gives up just .52 points per play, and opponents have a field goal percentage of just .214. 

As good of a defense as the Bulls are, they are 11 points per 100 possessions better when Taj Gibson is on the floor. As good of an on-the-ball defender as he is, he's as good of a help defender. 

And, since all things Bulls are seen through the prism of matching up against Miami, how about this little diddy? When Taj Gibson was on the court with LeBron James in their previous game, James got one field goal on seven attempts in the paint and shot just 38 percent overall. 

If the Bulls need someone to go all Shawn Marion on James, Gibson is the answer. Where would the Bulls be without him?

Counting the Cost

That's the big part of the thing we have to bear in mind when we're talking about a trade. There is always a risk.

You're giving up something to get something, and you run the risk that what you're giving up won't be compensated by what you are getting. 

The $29.95 I gave up for my Rocket Chef wasn't a huge loss, but if I could sell it back for $29.95, I would do it in a heartbeat. 

I'm fairly certain that if the Memphis Grizzlies could go back in their time machine, they wouldn't have traded Kevin Love for O.J. Mayo. 

I'm pretty sure if we could go back in time, we would somehow stop the trade of LaMarcus Aldridge for Tyrus Thomas.

Making a trade for the sake of making a trade isn't always a win. We don't want to be sitting here a year from now contemplating where we might be if "that trade" we made hadn't been made. 

When you have the best record in the NBA, you don't go around making willy-nilly trades without thought of the consequences. People are willing to toss out Taj Gibson and/or Omer Asik along with Kyle Korver for the likes of Mayo without regard to how  little sense that makes. 

We could probably debate all day about how "good" Mayo is. Whether he even is an upgrade over Richard Hamilton is questionable. I suppose ultimately the argument "is he healthy?" could win it out, but then I might say, so what?

All that matters is that Hamilton is healthy for the playoffs, and there, he's eminently more valuable than Mayo for the simple fact of his championship experience. Who would you rather trust in the finals, Hamilton or Mayo?

Counting the Gain

But let's set aside that argument because even if that's won, it's moot. Consider it this way, you have your pick of any two wings in the NBA apart from Dwyane Wade and LeBron James. Give me a pair of wings that is going to give you one that matches up with Miami's?

Would even Kobe Bryant and Kevin Durant match up with that? I suppose it would be arguable, but that shows the difference we're discussing here. It doesn't matter who you add at the shooting guard. You aren't going to match up with the Heat at the wings no matter what you do for the simple reason that those players don't exist anywhere in the world. 

In order to beat the Heat in a seven-game series, it's going to require being strong where the Heat are weak, which the Bulls are, which is why they have given the Heat more trouble than any team in the NBA over the last two seasons. 

And make no mistake about it. The Bulls have given the Heat a ton of problems in the last two years. In the nine games they've played, the Heat have outscored the Bulls by a grand total of seven points.

Whether you're looking at Hollinger's rankings, the SRS rankings at basketball-reference, the efficiency recap difference at hoopsstats or the schedule adjusted ratings at nbastuffer, the Heat and the Bulls are a very close first and second across the board. 

The only serious statistical advantage that the Heat have the Bulls beat in is number of times described as "by far the best team in the NBA."

Don't let perception be a cheap substitution for reality, though. If the Bulls aren't just as good as the Heat, they are within a car's length. While you can't say emphatically that the Bulls "will" beat the Heat, there's no reason to think that they can't. 

If your answer to that is last year, my answer to your answer is, look up. Re-read what you just read. Then read down. Whatever you do, just make sure you read before you comment. I really have thought about this. 

Perhaps the biggest myth perpetrated on the Americans this year is that the Heat are somehow deeper this year than last. 

In contrast to the Bulls' seven players with a PER above 15.0, the Heat have three. I bet you can figure out which three they are. For the most part, after those three, they have one decent player, Mario Chalmers, with a PER of 14.7 and then not much else, at least on offense.

In fact, among players who have played at least 750 minutes this season, the Heat have four of the 20 lowest PERs in their rotation: Joel Anthony, 9.2, Shane Battier, 9.8, Norris Cole, 10.4 and Udonis Haslem, 10.8. These are the names frequently mentioned as "proof" of how much "deeper" the Heat are this year. 

They aren't particularly effective on defense either, as only two teams gave up more points per 48 minutes to opposing benches 

Meanwhile, Chicago and Taj GIbson give up the fewest, at 14.9 points. 

There are two areas were the Bulls are better than Miami and which give them a chance to beat the Heat in a seven-game series: their length inside and their depth.

The Heat are 7-6 in games where they've been out-rebounded. They are 16-7 when their bench has been out-produced. They are 18-7 when they have given up more three-point shots than they've made. That's still winning, but in the majority of their losses, those three factors have been present. 

The best way to beat Miami is to get the rebounds, make a run with your bench and hit the deep ball. Many of the trade proposals I see involve bundling Taj Gibson and Kyle Korver, the keys to pulling off that strategy. And for what? To have a marginal upgrade at shooting guard?

The Bulls don't want to dig one hole to fill another. They can' be worried about what they need to do in order to not get beaten. They have to worry about what to do in order to beat Miami. They have a team that can do that if healthy. Right now, that's all their concern needs to be. 

I feel obligated to head of a particular argument here which I've heard mentioned several times. That's that it is inevitable that the Bulls will lose Omer Asik or Taj Gibson anyway, so why not trade them while we can get something for them?

There are two reasons for that. First, because of how much money they make, we wouldn't get anything close to what they are worth. If there were some spectacular wing available for what Gibson makes, it might be worth a thought, but that person is not O.J. Mayo or Courtney Lee. 

The other thing is that it's not true that the Bulls are going to lose them inevitably. They are restricted free agents, so the Bulls can match offers. 

This team this year is good enough to win it all. There's no reason to risk changing the personnel and having new players learn the system, only so we can be better at what Miami would still be better at, but not as good at what Miami is not good at. 

I'd rather concede that they are going to win the battle of the wings, but go with the idea that if we are better at everything else (which we are), we can win. 

The reason Chicago isn't going to make a trade—and I emphatically say should not make a trade—is that they are already good enough to beat the Heat, but if they make a trade, they will be worse, not better. 

Follow @KellyScaletta