Brian Hanley of the Chicago Sun-Times had an interesting and rather revealing little Q&A with Bulls Chairman Jerry Reinsdorf. (And the interview continues here.) I highly suggest reading the whole thing, but here are a few quick hits:

Ben Gordon no longer fit in with the Bulls:“Now, fast forward to the end of [last season], we have [John] Salmons and we have a hell of a three-guard rotation with [Kirk] Hinrich and Derrick [Rose]. Ben wasn’t going to get a whole lot of playing time. [It] was going to be diminished. So Ben really no longer fit. Ben’s a terrific player. But Ben needs minutes. He would not have been happy with the minutes he was going to get.”

Signing Ben Wallace back in 2006 was a oopsie:“But the only way you can avoid making a mistake is not to make a decision. Even Jerry West has made mistakes, and he’s probably the best in the business. Even [Red] Auerbach made mistakes. Was Ben Wallace a mistake? Probably. Because what we didn’t think about is Ben needs to play alongside somebody who can score a lot of points. But I don’t think it’s about Ben Wallace that makes us be careful. It’s the thought that when you make a mistake, you own that mistake. So we’ve got to be careful.”

The Bulls did not want Pau Gasol:“Gasol, we didn’t move slowly, we said, ‘No.’ We were prepared to give [Memphis] players. What they wanted to do was to basically dump stuff on us and we’d be immobilized; we wouldn’t have been able to improve our team. Gasol made sense for the Lakers because he is their third-best player, probably. He would have been, at that time, our best player. It would have been a wrong role for him. John and Gar decided they didn’t want Gasol under those circumstances, where he would have been the last piece and we would have been immobilized because of the [salary] cap.”

He planned to win the draft lottery last year…seriously:“But I knew right along we were going to get Derrick. John [Paxson] can tell you. John said several months before the draft, ‘We really need a point guard.’ I said: ‘We’ll win the lottery and take Derrick Rose.’ Honest to God, I said that. I was acting silly, and it worked out.”

He’s not a miserly old cheapskate…seriously: “I don’t mind [paying] the tax if it’s an intelligent expenditure. I don’t care what the tax would be; if we had a guy who was going to put us over the top and put us in the Finals, I’d pay the tax. I wouldn’t hesitate.”

The post Jerry Reinsdorf answers questions appeared first on Bulls By The Horns.

Zach Lowe of Celtics Hub was kind enough to answer a few Leprechaun-related questions leading into the Bulls-Celtics playoff series.

1. With Kevin Garnett, the Celtics surrender only 90.8 PPG. Without him, they’re giving up 99.4 PPG and (gulp) 107.5 PPG versus playoff teams. Why can’t they stop people sans KG?

I think these numbers are a little skewed by some games against lesser opponents in which the Celtics either came out flat or were short-handed beyond just missing KG. I’m thinking specifically of games like an early March game at New Jersey (111 points allowed) and the mid-March at Chicago.

When they’ve focused, they’ve shown they can play defense without KG. They held the Cavs and Magic to 94 and 86 points, respectively, in consecutive games in early March. Of course, the defense is less consistent without KG for all the reasons you’d expect — the other bigs don’t rotate down low quite as quickly or show out on the screen/roll as well. There is a level of precision and crispness that is lost without KG and won’t ever be there without him. But there is enough defensive ability left to win in the playoffs, in part because Paul Pierce and Kendrick Perkins have both become elite defenders at their positions.

2. Conversely, without Garnett, they score a little better (103.2 PPG versus 99.9 PPG) and their shooting improves (49.8 comparied to 48.0). Why is that? Are they really a more efficient scoring team without Kevin?

I don’t think the Celtics would put up better offensive numbers without KG over a larger sample size. Other players (especially Rajon Rondo, Paul Pierce, Glen Davis and even Perk) have stepped up their scoring without KG without sacrificing much, if anything, in terms of shooting percentages. It has been a pleasant surprise. But there are more easy baskets to be had when KG’s in the line-up — because of his consistently great shooting and his interior passing. Things just seem like less work, and I think the number, over a full 82 games (or more), would reflect that.

3. As a team, the Celtics withstood KG’s absence better than anybody could have predicted. I mean, how many teams could win 62 games when their best player misses almost a third of the season? But up until now, they had the hope of Kevin’s return to sustain them. How do you suppose the latest news will affect their group psyche?

I think the Celtics are strong mental team, and I think they will come out hungry and eager to prove themselves as worthy champions. Paul Pierce said today that “guys have to be ready to step up” and that “we know we’re still a pretty good team and capable of winning a championship.” Ray Allen has talked about how a championship would be “sweeter” given the KG adversity. This is a proud, proud team — you saw that on Sunday during the Cleveland blow-out and again Tuesday when they beat an amped-up Philly team even without Ray Allen and KG (and with no reason to work so hard). Paul Pierce was screaming at the team in the huddle during the second quarter because the defense was so sloppy.

I think they’ve been preparing themselves for this eventuality for a while. Even Glen Davis has talked often about how he plays with a different intensity when KG is not in the line-up, because he knows he has more responsibility. This team will play hard, and they will truly believe they can and should win every game.

4. The Bulls are, primarily, a perimeter team that relies on streaky shooting and a steady diet of drive-and-kicks. How will the C’s defend that?

If the Bulls get overly reliant on perimeter jumpers, the Celtics should defend them well. The team generally closes out on shooter, and they rarely make mistakes or fall too far behind in their rotations. There’s a reason the Celtics finished second overall in defensive efficiency (and were #1 for most of the season) and were held opponents to the fifth-lowest three-point shooting percentage in the league. They don’t allow a lot of easy jumpers — especially from the most efficient parts of the floor.

That said, the quickness advantage Thomas and Noah have over the Celtics bigs worries me. If Derrick Rose can break down the defense either through one-on-one penetration or screen/rolls, I worry that as the C’s big men help, Thomas and Noah will be able to find the right spots on the floor before Davis/Powe/Perkins can get back to them. I also worry about Rose’s ability to finish around the rim. He’s so athletic, and so good at going around big guys standing straight up.

5. With the possibly exception of Tyrus Thomas, the Celtics seem to have an advantage (at best) or a stalemate (at worst) at virtually every position. Are there any matchups that worry you?

I think I may have answered this question a little bit above. Rose scares me. I think Rondo is a very good defensive player, but I think his ability to keep quick guards in front of him is a little over-rated — it’s why he resorts to trying to poke the ball away from behind so often. If Brad Miller and Ty Thomas are stretching the C’s defense by hitting 20-footers, it will put a let of pressure on Boston defensively.

On the positive side (for us), I don’t see how Chicago can stop Boston consistently. With Salmons hampered by a groin injury and Deng out, I don’t seen anyone who can guard Pierce. I think Rondo will blow by Rose just as easily (if not more easily) than Rose will beat Rondo on the other end, and Perkins, because of his size, has a chance to score 10-12 points per game in this series. Ray Allen should also have an easy time getting shots off when Hinrich is on the bench.

Celtics in 6.

The post Q&A with Celtics Hub appeared first on Bulls By The Horns.