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.