Bulls Offseason Thread

[imb]

redflush's brain: "malfunction, malfunction"

[RedFlash]

redflush's brain: "malfunction, malfunction"

 

You're as funny as Jay Leno.

[imb]

bzzzzt

 

 

try again.

 

please list who was a better chicago gm than jerry krause. seriously, try.

[RedFlash]

bzzzzt

 

 

try again.

 

please list who was a better chicago gm than jerry krause. seriously, try.

 

If you go back and reread what I said, and you will see I didn't give a candidate as to who is better. I take offense to calling Krause the best GM, when in reality he was just as terrible as other GMs in this town. But if push come to shove, then I would say Jerry Angelo has been as good if not better GM in Chicago (despite obvious flaws in his M.O.) then Krause.

[SpongeWorthy]

I'll give Krause credit for Pippen over everything else. That was some real sleuthing on his part. Pippen came from complete obscurity at a tiny school and Krause was one of the very first people on him.

 

Kukoc and the Cartwright trade were nice moves as well. The Rodman thing was an obvious move that was possible because MJ and Phil were on the team. Everyone knew the Bulls were one rebounder and a rust-free Jordan away from being back on top.

 

And let's not forget that the post MJ years were an utter disaster. Drafting Fizer, trading Brand for Chandler, drafting Curry, trading a young Ron Artest and Brad Miller for Jalen Rose.

[imb]

bzzzzt

 

 

try again.

 

please list who was a better chicago gm than jerry krause. seriously, try.

 

If you go back and reread what I said, and you will see I didn't give a candidate as to who is better. I take offense to calling Krause the best GM, when in reality he was just as terrible as other GMs in this town. But if push come to shove, then I would say Jerry Angelo has been as good if not better GM in Chicago (despite obvious flaws in his M.O.) then Krause.

 

oh so you're really just talking for the sake of it, should have known

[USSoccer]

What the hell has Jerry Angelo ever done?

[RedFlash]

bzzzzt

 

 

try again.

 

please list who was a better chicago gm than jerry krause. seriously, try.

 

If you go back and reread what I said, and you will see I didn't give a candidate as to who is better. I take offense to calling Krause the best GM, when in reality he was just as terrible as other GMs in this town. But if push come to shove, then I would say Jerry Angelo has been as good if not better GM in Chicago (despite obvious flaws in his M.O.) then Krause.

 

oh so you're really just talking for the sake of it, should have known

 

Hey, you aksed. I know alot of people here don't like Angelo, but he has made some good moves, like

Alex Brown, Lance Briggs, Charles Tillman, Bernard Berrian,Nate Vasher, Kyle Orton,Chris Harris, Devin Hester, then made a couple of solid signings, John Tait, Julius Peppers, and Thomas Jones, and even has made two risky trades; Wale for Booker, and Orton and change for Cutler. In other words, Angelo has been a better GM then Krause.

[Derwood]

Krause - 6 rings

Angelo - 0 rings

 

 

you lose again, RedFlash

[Garwilly]

Krause - 6 rings

Angelo - 0 rings

 

 

you lose again, RedFlash

 

While I don't disagree with your conclusion (about Redflash, or Kraus), this is not the way measure this.

[Guest]

Krause - 6 rings

Angelo - 0 rings

 

 

you lose again, RedFlash

Six to nothing is a tough one to overcome, but in general I agree with his statement that success isn't the only measure of a GM's job. It wouldn't take a great GM to build a championship basketball team that already has Jordan as a foundation. Success in the NBA is largely driven by great players and Krause inherited one heck of a head start on success. So his point there is well taken.

 

However, I think Krause did a great job putting together those two teams and isn't getting enough credit from some for the moves he made there. After all, in the period of two seasons, he completely remade the original threepeat team into something new and better. He does have to get marked down for his hand in breaking up a team that could have had one or two more great years and then fumbling the ball badly trying to rebuild.

 

But Angelo? Really? Hendry or Kenny Williams would have been better choices.

 

If I had to pick someone to run up there against Krause, I'd probably go back to Dallas Green. In his fairly short stint with the Cubs, he put together a team that could have won it all and built the foundations for future years by building up the minors and bringing in young talent like Sandberg. If you want to go with the Bears, Vanisi would be a much better choice for putting together the truly great Bears teams in the mid-late 80's.

[Magnetic Curses]

So the most successful GM isn't the best? Good luck arguing that, especially since the competition doesn't really offer up anyone close.

 

Billy Beane has been successful as a GM, but he is not regarded as the best GM in baseball. So being successful and being the best GM are not mutally exclusive. For instance, when Cashman eventual steps down as Yankees GM, will you consider the next Yankees GM the best GM if the Yankees continue to win? Being the best GM and being the most successful do not alway go hand in hand.

 

this doesn't make any sense.

 

there's no one even close to krause in terms of success, how could you even begin to compare anyone to him?

[Sammy Sofa]

So the most successful GM isn't the best? Good luck arguing that, especially since the competition doesn't really offer up anyone close.

 

Billy Beane has been successful as a GM, but he is not regarded as the best GM in baseball. So being successful and being the best GM are not mutally exclusive. For instance, when Cashman eventual steps down as Yankees GM, will you consider the next Yankees GM the best GM if the Yankees continue to win? Being the best GM and being the most successful do not alway go hand in hand.

 

But it often can. Krause wasn't in Cashman's position of having an unlimited budget to work with, yet he look at the results. There's no Chicago GM that even comes close.

[Magnetic Curses]

I'll give Krause credit for Pippen over everything else. That was some real sleuthing on his part. Pippen came from complete obscurity at a tiny school and Krause was one of the very first people on him.

 

Kukoc and the Cartwright trade were nice moves as well. The Rodman thing was an obvious move that was possible because MJ and Phil were on the team. Everyone knew the Bulls were one rebounder and a rust-free Jordan away from being back on top.

 

And let's not forget that the post MJ years were an utter disaster. Drafting Fizer, trading Brand for Chandler, drafting Curry, trading a young Ron Artest and Brad Miller for Jalen Rose.

 

he was guilty of outthinking himself in those years, but granted, there just weren't a lot of good players that came from those eras or drafts, either. basketball completely sucked.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm sorry, how could anyone seriously suggest Angelo and Krause are even comparable?

[RedFlash]

So the most successful GM isn't the best? Good luck arguing that, especially since the competition doesn't really offer up anyone close.

 

Billy Beane has been successful as a GM, but he is not regarded as the best GM in baseball. So being successful and being the best GM are not mutally exclusive. For instance, when Cashman eventual steps down as Yankees GM, will you consider the next Yankees GM the best GM if the Yankees continue to win? Being the best GM and being the most successful do not alway go hand in hand.

 

But it often can. Krause wasn't in Cashman's position of having an unlimited budget to work with, yet he look at the results. There's no Chicago GM that even comes close.

 

He was given a substantial payroll to work with. As for his abilities as a GM, they sucked. He pulled out a couple of moves out of his ass (based on part from his scouts, especially on Kukoc) and all of the sudden he is consider the best? Correct me if I am wrong, but who drafted Jason Caffey right in front of Michael Finley? Who drafted Fizer we the Bulls already had Brand? His later years as GM showed him for the fraud he was.

[Magnetic Curses]

So the most successful GM isn't the best? Good luck arguing that, especially since the competition doesn't really offer up anyone close.

 

Billy Beane has been successful as a GM, but he is not regarded as the best GM in baseball. So being successful and being the best GM are not mutally exclusive. For instance, when Cashman eventual steps down as Yankees GM, will you consider the next Yankees GM the best GM if the Yankees continue to win? Being the best GM and being the most successful do not alway go hand in hand.

 

But it often can. Krause wasn't in Cashman's position of having an unlimited budget to work with, yet he look at the results. There's no Chicago GM that even comes close.

 

He was given a substantial payroll to work with. As for his abilities as a GM, they sucked. He pulled out a couple of moves out of his ass (based on part from his scouts, especially on Kukoc) and all of the sudden he is consider the best? Correct me if I am wrong, but who drafted Jason Caffey right in front of Michael Finley? Who drafted Fizer we the Bulls already had Brand? His later years as GM showed him for the fraud he was.

 

it's funny how you pick and choose your situations. angelo traded down in 2003, passing on kevin williams, terrell suggs, and jordan gross to take michael haynes and rex grossman. angelo is full of draft-day blunders, as well. pick a year and he's done it.

 

as far as the fizer draft, that's one of the worst drafts ever, just look at it, look at it, i dare you. and michael finley? joe smith was the number one pick that year! everybody passed on michael finley.

 

next.

[Sammy Sofa]

So the most successful GM isn't the best? Good luck arguing that, especially since the competition doesn't really offer up anyone close.

 

Billy Beane has been successful as a GM, but he is not regarded as the best GM in baseball. So being successful and being the best GM are not mutally exclusive. For instance, when Cashman eventual steps down as Yankees GM, will you consider the next Yankees GM the best GM if the Yankees continue to win? Being the best GM and being the most successful do not alway go hand in hand.

 

But it often can. Krause wasn't in Cashman's position of having an unlimited budget to work with, yet he look at the results. There's no Chicago GM that even comes close.

 

He was given a substantial payroll to work with. As for his abilities as a GM, they sucked. He pulled out a couple of moves out of his ass (based on part from his scouts, especially on Kukoc) and all of the sudden he is consider the best? Correct me if I am wrong, but who drafted Jason Caffey right in front of Michael Finley? Who drafted Fizer we the Bulls already had Brand? His later years as GM showed him for the fraud he was.

 

Payroll is irrelevant if you're bringing up someone like Cashner. No other GM in professional American sports has the resources he has to work with. And you're faulting him for listening to his scouts? Isn't that what a GM is supposed to do? AND you're bringing up draft failures while propping up Angelo, who is the king of highly touted draft busts and first round failures? Nobody is saying that Krause was without his obvious faults and mistakes, but [expletive], he made better moves than Angelo in the long run and had much more success. Again, it's ridiculous to compare the two.

Edited May 2, 2010 by Sammy Sofa

[imb]

redflush doesn't actually think angelo was better than krause. he just took a contrary position and is flailing wildly now that he realizes he has to back it up.

 

if he was more intelligent i'd laugh it off as funny trolling, but, well ...

[17 Seconds]

redflush's brain: "malfunction, malfunction"

 

You're as funny as Jay Leno.

 

so you find him hilarious then

[Derwood]

Billy Beane would have been a better comparison for Angelo, not Krause

[SpongeWorthy]

Krause - 6 rings

Angelo - 0 rings

 

 

you lose again, RedFlash

Six to nothing is a tough one to overcome, but in general I agree with his statement that success isn't the only measure of a GM's job. It wouldn't take a great GM to build a championship basketball team that already has Jordan as a foundation. Success in the NBA is largely driven by great players and Krause inherited one heck of a head start on success. So his point there is well taken.

 

However, I think Krause did a great job putting together those two teams and isn't getting enough credit from some for the moves he made there. After all, in the period of two seasons, he completely remade the original threepeat team into something new and better. He does have to get marked down for his hand in breaking up a team that could have had one or two more great years and then fumbling the ball badly trying to rebuild.

 

But Angelo? Really? Hendry or Kenny Williams would have been better choices.

 

If I had to pick someone to run up there against Krause, I'd probably go back to Dallas Green. In his fairly short stint with the Cubs, he put together a team that could have won it all and built the foundations for future years by building up the minors and bringing in young talent like Sandberg. If you want to go with the Bears, Vanisi would be a much better choice for putting together the truly great Bears teams in the mid-late 80's.

 

I wouldn't say he completely remade the original 3 peat team. I mean he still had Jordan, Pippen, and Jackson. That's 90% of the equation right there.

 

Auerbach going from the Cousy/Russell era to the Cowens/Havlicek era to the Bird/Mchale era would be an example of someone completely remaking a team.

[RedFlash]

redflush's brain: "malfunction, malfunction"

 

You're as funny as Jay Leno.

 

so you find him hilarious then

 

No.

[RedFlash]

Krause - 6 rings

Angelo - 0 rings you lose again, RedFlash

 

If that how you get throught the day, is taking pot shots at me, then fine, but at least do it with some creativiity, and not as if you are still in 8th grade. Otherwise, I might confuse you with a White Sox fan.

[Magnetic Curses]

Krause - 6 rings

Angelo - 0 rings

 

 

you lose again, RedFlash

Six to nothing is a tough one to overcome, but in general I agree with his statement that success isn't the only measure of a GM's job. It wouldn't take a great GM to build a championship basketball team that already has Jordan as a foundation. Success in the NBA is largely driven by great players and Krause inherited one heck of a head start on success. So his point there is well taken.

 

However, I think Krause did a great job putting together those two teams and isn't getting enough credit from some for the moves he made there. After all, in the period of two seasons, he completely remade the original threepeat team into something new and better. He does have to get marked down for his hand in breaking up a team that could have had one or two more great years and then fumbling the ball badly trying to rebuild.

 

But Angelo? Really? Hendry or Kenny Williams would have been better choices.

 

If I had to pick someone to run up there against Krause, I'd probably go back to Dallas Green. In his fairly short stint with the Cubs, he put together a team that could have won it all and built the foundations for future years by building up the minors and bringing in young talent like Sandberg. If you want to go with the Bears, Vanisi would be a much better choice for putting together the truly great Bears teams in the mid-late 80's.

 

I wouldn't say he completely remade the original 3 peat team. I mean he still had Jordan, Pippen, and Jackson. That's 90% of the equation right there.

 

Auerbach going from the Cousy/Russell era to the Cowens/Havlicek era to the Bird/Mchale era would be an example of someone completely remaking a team.

 

the only players to get six rings are jordan and pippen though. i'm not even sure if anyone else has more than 3.