I've been debating this question in my head since the deadline passed, I'm torn between three of these choices (Orlando, Chicago & Detroit), so I thought I'd see what y'all think.

Do you consider the Webber signing as part of deadline moves?

I don't see how we can be in the same breath as those two teams. Chicago had a load of assests (picks and players) and a couple big time players to trade for. Not getting Gasol was stupid.

Orlando is not going to win the title, Hill will be gone, Darko may leave too...and they did nothing. What a waste. I'd say Chicago was the worst because they could have had Gasol for a wing player, backup big and a pick. Instead they still have no post player. Orlando missed an opportunity, but still get cap space for a chance at redemption. We might not have had a good deal to take. I would have liked to see DD and Flip go for something (maybe Mo Pete or a backup PG), but maybe the best deal on the table was Jaric.

I'm talking trade deadline deals (or non-deals) only.

Detroit is in that conversation IMO because they could have really put a stranglehold on the conference with another move to bolster the bench.

It's almost an instant replay of last year, and I'm starting to feel like the same result is entirely possible.

I was really hoping that Joe D learned something last year.

That said, I'm still leaning towards Paxson/Bulls by a slight margin.

I agree that Chicago blew it. They have a ton of tradeable assets and came away with Zilch. In the big picture of things I saw this and next year as Chicago's big chance and they missed out. Ben is only going to decline and I can't see them keeping all of their young talent. Nocioni, Gordon, Duhon, and Deng will all be RFA's this season or next and will demand decent coin. PJ Brown and his large expiring were also wasted. This trade deadline could have been a turning point but instead leaves the Bulls as a good team with tons of question marks in a mediocre conference.

I say Detroit because it is so obvious that Nazr and Flip are not happy. Also, I do not count Webber as part of a deadline move.

I say Detroit because it is so obvious that Nazr and Flip are not happy.

Like I said, it depends on what was offered.

It will be interesting to see if the responses to this change if the Pistons bomb out on the west coast trip.

If they go 1-4 or 0-5 things are going to get real sketchy.

If we go 0-5 then we surely shouldn't have made a move as we are no longer contenders and burning a draftpick on some guy giving us 15mpg would be dumbsville.

Hmmm, so if we go 0-5, the rest of the dreck in the East suddenly supasses us?

So if I understand you correctly, then you've got Joe in a win/win either way Herm?

Win: He did the right thing by not making a move

Lose: He did the right thing by not making a move

That's mighty forgiving of you.

I would have to know what trades he had as an option. if he passed on a DD and Flip for Mo Pete deal, then that was bad. If he passed on Jaric, I don't see that as a bad job by Joe. I was dissapointed we didn't solve our backup shooter problem, but I also didn't want to give up our picks for a couple month rental marginal player.

which deadline deals we re talking about? no team made a deal, no one got worse, no one got better.

Deals or non-deals.

Who needed to make a deal the most and didn't?

To tell you guys the truth, I think there were more than a few deals we could have done, which would have made us contenders rather than ECF contenders or really aided us in our rebuilding process. If we are going for it this season, then maybe we should have picked up one of the numerous guards that were never moved. If our intention is to rebuild this offseason, then maybe moving Billups, Dice, or Dale Davis would have been a good move to get us more picks and prospects. I just think the status quo was a bad idea.

Personally, I think it wouldn't have taken more than a salary commitment to get Mike James or Wells. Of course, we all knew that Bill D. was going to do that though.