This excerpt is from blogabull.com, one of the best NBA blogs. It probably reflects the view of many Bulls fans. Should the Bulls have tried to sign a scorer instead of dropping all the money on Ben? How long will the honeymoon last for Ben?


Wallace is not at all what the Bulls need right now. We need a top-flight scorer in the worst way ... at crunch time, we rely on Ben Gordon and Andres Nocioni to score. 'nuff said. We also need some sort of presence in the post. Wallace provides us with none of that.
In fact, what big Ben gives the Bulls is more of what we already have. The Bulls were the best defensive team in the NBA last season, and picked up its top defender. At a certain point, there begins to be diminishing marginal returns to more defense.

In fact, the NBA is evolving away from players like Ben Wallace. A few years ago, the Pistons were the right model to use to build a team. Tough, bruising interior defense won championships. But the rules changes have made the game more scorer-friendly, more guard-friendly, and more slash-to-the-basket friendly. In the playoffs, big Ben was often on the sidelines and wasn't a dominating force. In fact his weak shooting made him a liability at times.

And, of course, we overpaid for him. He's not worth $15+ million a season. And he's already 31, so he'll be 35 in the last year of his deal. Not good. The bottom line is that in a vacuum, the Wallace deal is not the right move for the Bulls to make. He's not what we need, he's too expensive, and he's aging. The "smart" move would have been to sign Pryzbilla and wait for the right trade.

We will see what happens. It's going to suck for the Bulls though because unless Ben becomes a good free throw shooter he's going to be a big liability in the 4th quarter.

Flip goes to Hack-A-Ben?
Sheed loves it?

This is the consensus of what the sportscasters have been saying based on my streaming.

Nice find Bills.
I agree with all of that post, except the age bit. Modern warriors can play until they are 40. Easy.
And to qoute Max or Merc, F' the league rules. What coaches and players want chose to do is a different deal.

The problem is they needed a scorer AND size inside / a true center.

You aren't going to get both in the same package unless its Shaq or TD. The majority of chicago fans love this deal. It was the right move. Hell even Jay Mariotti said it was a good move.

I think Eddy Curry filled that need and thats why the Bulls had HCA in the first round a couple years ago. The Bulls will be better, but 60 million is way too much money and it's going to cost the Bulls later on.

Some stuff I've read by Bulls posters says getting Ben "has crippled" an Eastern Conference foe. They, however, have also said that they overpaid to get Ben and he can't score.

I've heard of win-win deals. I've heard of zero sum game deals, with one winner and one loser. But this could be the first lose-lose deal I've come across.

I was wondering the exact same thing - and was about to post it as soon as I saw himat's post. Good thing I kept reading first.