New Benny, and Other changes (Bulls offseason)

[Flames24Rulz]

I had a lot of fun watching various iterations of second round exit Bulls teams. Whether by FA, trade, or draft you need a [expletive] ton of luck, so I say go and compete and remain as flexible as possible while winning some games.

 

I had a lot of fun too, but it was always with the hope that they were going to take the next step, and it was always based on the hope that next year Derrick was going to turn into some semblance of his former self again and we could be a legitimate contender in the East.

 

how much fun did you have watching this game?

 

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200504240CHI.html

 

Because I had a lot of [expletive] fun that day and I'm OK with admitting that.

 

A lot of fun. That whole season was fun, but that's because they were young, it was the first time they were good in seven years, and like umfan said, they had a pretty bright future going forward.

 

Teams like Golden State, OKC, and probably the Wolves as soon as this year only got better by being really bad over the course of time. Of course, you have to actually hit on the draft picks when you get there. I don't care for GarPax at all, but the one positive that the Bulls regime has always had is that they're actually pretty good at drafting players.

 

I just don't get what the Bulls end game is. As of right now, they're going to be in probably the same position next year as they were this year. A .500 team that would either get smoked in the first round, or wouldn't be bad enough to get a high lottery pick. And then you waste another year of Butler as your highest asset while you still aren't any closer to contending for anything anytime soon.

[Sammy Sofa]

This thread title popping up has had this continually stuck in my head:

 

[MarkR]

 

I had a lot of fun too, but it was always with the hope that they were going to take the next step, and it was always based on the hope that next year Derrick was going to turn into some semblance of his former self again and we could be a legitimate contender in the East.

 

how much fun did you have watching this game?

 

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200504240CHI.html

 

Because I had a lot of [expletive] fun that day and I'm OK with admitting that.

 

A lot of fun. That whole season was fun, but that's because they were young, it was the first time they were good in seven years, and like umfan said, they had a pretty bright future going forward.

 

Teams like Golden State, OKC, and probably the Wolves as soon as this year only got better by being really bad over the course of time. Of course, you have to actually hit on the draft picks when you get there. I don't care for GarPax at all, but the one positive that the Bulls regime has always had is that they're actually pretty good at drafting players.

 

I just don't get what the Bulls end game is. As of right now, they're going to be in probably the same position next year as they were this year. A .500 team that would either get smoked in the first round, or wouldn't be bad enough to get a high lottery pick. And then you waste another year of Butler as your highest asset while you still aren't any closer to contending for anything anytime soon.

 

Just for clarification sake. Everyone talks about Golden State, but their three best players were home grown and drafted 7th, 11th, and 38th overall. There are other ways to build championship contending rosters other than strictly bottoming out.

[Guest]

I miss Nocioni

[bcl412]

We had absolutely zero chance at the title in 2013, and to some extent that year was annoying because Derrick Rose refused to admit he wasn't going to play, but if you didn't enjoy the Nets series (Nate Robinson Game, Joakim Noah basically winning Game 7 by himself) and then Game 1 against the Heat, you have no joy in your heart.

The Nate Robinson game and game 1 vs the Heat were fun as horsefeathers.

[bcl412]

 

I had a lot of fun too, but it was always with the hope that they were going to take the next step, and it was always based on the hope that next year Derrick was going to turn into some semblance of his former self again and we could be a legitimate contender in the East.

 

how much fun did you have watching this game?

 

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200504240CHI.html

 

Because I had a lot of [expletive] fun that day and I'm OK with admitting that.

 

A lot of fun. That whole season was fun, but that's because they were young, it was the first time they were good in seven years, and like umfan said, they had a pretty bright future going forward.

 

Teams like Golden State, OKC, and probably the Wolves as soon as this year only got better by being really bad over the course of time. Of course, you have to actually hit on the draft picks when you get there. I don't care for GarPax at all, but the one positive that the Bulls regime has always had is that they're actually pretty good at drafting players.

 

I just don't get what the Bulls end game is. As of right now, they're going to be in probably the same position next year as they were this year. A .500 team that would either get smoked in the first round, or wouldn't be bad enough to get a high lottery pick. And then you waste another year of Butler as your highest asset while you still aren't any closer to contending for anything anytime soon.

 

Being a .500 team sucks. Being a 3-4 seed can be fun even with no chance of winning it all. The playoffs themselves are fun provided you have a chance to win the series.

[David]

I think (some) people are mistaking what I'm saying. I'm not cool with being a mediocre team. I want them to put together the best team they can. I want to watch a good entertaining team. I want them to construct a good roster, find value in free agency, find guys who might not be so much of a value but make you better. draft well. etc. I just don't want to say "well we're not gonna win a title with this bunch, so let's tank and hope we get a great player." and i don't think they need to (nor do i necessarily think it helps them) bottom out to become that type of very good team again. and i don't see how trading jimmy butler on a value contract for the 5th pick in a bad draft helps you do that - even if you're getting the great zach lavine too (which is how this conversation started - when UM said something like "i don't care anymore just blow it up").

 

the best team the bulls have put together since the dynasty was a really good and really entertaining team. it also had no shot, realistically speaking, at a title..especially with lebron on a superteam. i've come to terms with that. maybe some day in our lifetimes we'll be blessed enough to have another of that type of player fall in our laps, but i'm not willing to intentionally endure several terrible and unwatchable seasons on a very outside chance at that.

 

like others have said, be as good as you can and try to maintain flexibility so that you at least have a puncher's chance when an opportunity at a move comes around. as far as blowing it up and tanking, the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

[Sammy Sofa]

the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

 

http://media2.popsugar-assets.com/files/2014/07/08/884/n/1922283/14955da516caee3b_tumblr_inline_my1spziZey1s7fx81wZkGpx.xxxlarge/i/Chris-makes-best-weirded-out-face.gif

 

I was with you until that.

[David]

seriously, though, is there a better expression for that? because i really didn't want to use it either.

[Banedon]

seriously, though, is there a better expression for that? because i really didn't want to use it either.

 

Penny wise, pound foolish?

[Brian]

Tanking just doesn't seem like a smart plan in the NBA. There is just no room for error in the draft.

[UMFan83]

I think (some) people are mistaking what I'm saying. I'm not cool with being a mediocre team. I want them to put together the best team they can. I want to watch a good entertaining team. I want them to construct a good roster, find value in free agency, find guys who might not be so much of a value but make you better. draft well. etc. I just don't want to say "well we're not gonna win a title with this bunch, so let's tank and hope we get a great player." and i don't think they need to (nor do i necessarily think it helps them) bottom out to become that type of very good team again. and i don't see how trading jimmy butler on a value contract for the 5th pick in a bad draft helps you do that - even if you're getting the great zach lavine too (which is how this conversation started - when UM said something like "i don't care anymore just blow it up").

 

the best team the bulls have put together since the dynasty was a really good and really entertaining team. it also had no shot, realistically speaking, at a title..especially with lebron on a superteam. i've come to terms with that. maybe some day in our lifetimes we'll be blessed enough to have another of that type of player fall in our laps, but i'm not willing to intentionally endure several terrible and unwatchable seasons on a very outside chance at that.

 

like others have said, be as good as you can and try to maintain flexibility so that you at least have a puncher's chance when an opportunity at a move comes around. as far as blowing it up and tanking, the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

 

Not as disagreeable now that you spell it out like that. And my point isn't that we should tank, my point is that it is unlikely that we become a legit contender without a star that is better than Jimmy Butler. Now if the Bulls had a lot of intriguing assets that could either develop into an attractive team, or be used as trade bait for either a star or lottery picks, then yes I am completely fine with not blowing the whole team up. But this team is Jimmy Butler and a cast of mediocre role players basically. We are not going to improve our long term outlook by drafting high floor, low ceiling guys like McDermott and Valentine. We are not going to improve our long term outlook by trading Rose for a packaged headlined by Joakim Noah lite (I know Rose's trade value wasn't high and they did get a potential high ceiling low floor guy in Grant, but I'd rather have the cap space than a 3 year commitment to Lopez at 14 per). These are marginal assets for future transactions. So if we are a 50 win team with no hope of the title, that's fine if we are building toward something or accumulating assets, much like the 05-09 Bulls or the last 2 Celtics teams. But every move I've seen the Bulls make lately has been designed to keep the Bulls in that 42-47 win range without much long term upside and no asset accumulation. So yes I would prefer to blow it up and bottom out for what hopes to be a year or two than watch a team led by Jimmy, Taj and Robin Lopez struggle to make the playoffs. I understand the risk that it will make the team unwatchable and I understand 1-2 years could turn into 5-7 years, but at this point I am having a hard time finding other ways to compete long term.

Edited June 24, 2016 by UMFan83

[David]

imagine how the course of everything and our whole bulls narrative would have changed if that secret kobe free agency mission in 04 that (according to kobe) almost worked had worked. or even the 2007 trade effort. that's probably the closest we came to nabbing a superstar, depending on how real you think the initial lebron stuff was and how long the miami thing was truly realistically in the works. Edited June 24, 2016 by David

[David]

Tanking just doesn't seem like a smart plan in the NBA. There is just no room for error in the draft.

 

especially with the lotto.

 

like i said, if there were a lebron type prospect in the 2017 draft, i'd blow it up and tell hoiberg he's fired if they win a game. and even then we'd have to make it through the lottery, but i'd do it.

[David]

I think (some) people are mistaking what I'm saying. I'm not cool with being a mediocre team. I want them to put together the best team they can. I want to watch a good entertaining team. I want them to construct a good roster, find value in free agency, find guys who might not be so much of a value but make you better. draft well. etc. I just don't want to say "well we're not gonna win a title with this bunch, so let's tank and hope we get a great player." and i don't think they need to (nor do i necessarily think it helps them) bottom out to become that type of very good team again. and i don't see how trading jimmy butler on a value contract for the 5th pick in a bad draft helps you do that - even if you're getting the great zach lavine too (which is how this conversation started - when UM said something like "i don't care anymore just blow it up").

 

the best team the bulls have put together since the dynasty was a really good and really entertaining team. it also had no shot, realistically speaking, at a title..especially with lebron on a superteam. i've come to terms with that. maybe some day in our lifetimes we'll be blessed enough to have another of that type of player fall in our laps, but i'm not willing to intentionally endure several terrible and unwatchable seasons on a very outside chance at that.

 

like others have said, be as good as you can and try to maintain flexibility so that you at least have a puncher's chance when an opportunity at a move comes around. as far as blowing it up and tanking, the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

 

Not as disagreeable now that you spell it out like that. And my point isn't that we should tank, my point is that it is unlikely that we become a legit contender without a star that is better than Jimmy Butler. Now if the Bulls had a lot of intriguing assets that could either develop into an attractive team, or be used as trade bait for either a star or lottery picks, then yes I am completely fine with not blowing the whole team up. But this team is Jimmy Butler and a cast of mediocre role players basically. We are not going to improve our long term outlook by drafting high floor, low ceiling guys like McDermott and Valentine. We are not going to improve our long term outlook by trading Rose for a packaged headlined by Joakim Noah lite (I know Rose's trade value wasn't high and they did get a potential high ceiling low floor guy in Grant, but I'd rather have the cap space than a 3 year commitment to Lopez at 14 per). These are marginal assets for future transactions. So if we are a 50 win team with no hope of the title, that's fine if we are building toward something or accumulating assets, much like the 05-09 Bulls or the last 2 Celtics teams. But every move I've seen the Bulls make lately has been designed to keep the Bulls in that 42-47 win range without much long term upside and no asset accumulation. So yes I would prefer to blow it up and bottom out for what hopes to be a year or two than watch a team led by Jimmy, Taj and Robin Lopez struggle to make the playoffs. I understand the risk that it will make the team unwatchable and I understand 1-2 years could turn into 5-7 years, but at this point I am having a hard time finding other ways to compete long term.

 

depends what you call a legit contender.

 

a fake legit contender like the 2010-11 bulls, or an actual legit contender like whatever team has lebron and the warriors? i realize it's convenient to pick the two teams that were just in the finals but lebron is literally in them every year and very few would've predicted anyone to beat the warriors this year (at least before curry started looking vulnerable).

[UMFan83]

This is a whole different argument but I think the 10-11 Bulls were a legit contender. The Heat were better but the Bulls absolutely could have won that series, especially when they were up 1-0 with HCA. In game 3 they led in the 4th quarter, in game 4 they went to OT, in game 5 they had a 12 point lead with 3 minutes left and folded.

 

Because the Heat did the little things to win that game they proved they were better team, but the margin wasn't large enough to make me believe the Bulls couldn't have won the series and were not contenders. Most NBA playoff series there is a clear favorite and that clear favorite usually wins. That was not the case in this series.

[WrigleyField 22]

I think (some) people are mistaking what I'm saying. I'm not cool with being a mediocre team. I want them to put together the best team they can. I want to watch a good entertaining team. I want them to construct a good roster, find value in free agency, find guys who might not be so much of a value but make you better. draft well. etc. I just don't want to say "well we're not gonna win a title with this bunch, so let's tank and hope we get a great player." and i don't think they need to (nor do i necessarily think it helps them) bottom out to become that type of very good team again. and i don't see how trading jimmy butler on a value contract for the 5th pick in a bad draft helps you do that - even if you're getting the great zach lavine too (which is how this conversation started - when UM said something like "i don't care anymore just blow it up").

 

the best team the bulls have put together since the dynasty was a really good and really entertaining team. it also had no shot, realistically speaking, at a title..especially with lebron on a superteam. i've come to terms with that. maybe some day in our lifetimes we'll be blessed enough to have another of that type of player fall in our laps, but i'm not willing to intentionally endure several terrible and unwatchable seasons on a very outside chance at that.

 

like others have said, be as good as you can and try to maintain flexibility so that you at least have a puncher's chance when an opportunity at a move comes around. as far as blowing it up and tanking, the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

 

Not as disagreeable now that you spell it out like that. And my point isn't that we should tank, my point is that it is unlikely that we become a legit contender without a star that is better than Jimmy Butler. Now if the Bulls had a lot of intriguing assets that could either develop into an attractive team, or be used as trade bait for either a star or lottery picks, then yes I am completely fine with not blowing the whole team up. But this team is Jimmy Butler and a cast of mediocre role players basically. We are not going to improve our long term outlook by drafting high floor, low ceiling guys like McDermott and Valentine. We are not going to improve our long term outlook by trading Rose for a packaged headlined by Joakim Noah lite (I know Rose's trade value wasn't high and they did get a potential high ceiling low floor guy in Grant, but I'd rather have the cap space than a 3 year commitment to Lopez at 14 per). These are marginal assets for future transactions. So if we are a 50 win team with no hope of the title, that's fine if we are building toward something or accumulating assets, much like the 05-09 Bulls or the last 2 Celtics teams. But every move I've seen the Bulls make lately has been designed to keep the Bulls in that 42-47 win range without much long term upside and no asset accumulation. So yes I would prefer to blow it up and bottom out for what hopes to be a year or two than watch a team led by Jimmy, Taj and Robin Lopez struggle to make the playoffs. I understand the risk that it will make the team unwatchable and I understand 1-2 years could turn into 5-7 years, but at this point I am having a hard time finding other ways to compete long term.

Good trait bait is usually draft picks, recent top 5 draft picks, and salary filler. You aren't going to get guys at 14 who are really that high potential which significantly improves the return verses solid, young, cost controlled assets with less potential.

 

We should at least see their FA strategy and execution.

[David]

This is a whole different argument but I think the 10-11 Bulls were a legit contender. The Heat were better but the Bulls absolutely could have won that series, especially when they were up 1-0 with HCA. In game 3 they led in the 4th quarter, in game 4 they went to OT, in game 5 they had a 12 point lead with 3 minutes left and folded.

 

Because the Heat did the little things to win that game they proved they were better team, but the margin wasn't large enough to make me believe the Bulls couldn't have won the series and were not contenders. Most NBA playoff series there is a clear favorite and that clear favorite usually wins. That was not the case in this series.

 

as much as i wanted to believe that at the time and shortly thereafter, i don't anymore.

[SpongeWorthy]

Its derricks fault for not pre-recruiting anthony davis and letting him reup in new orleans

[WrigleyField 22]

This is a whole different argument but I think the 10-11 Bulls were a legit contender. The Heat were better but the Bulls absolutely could have won that series, especially when they were up 1-0 with HCA. In game 3 they led in the 4th quarter, in game 4 they went to OT, in game 5 they had a 12 point lead with 3 minutes left and folded.

 

Because the Heat did the little things to win that game they proved they were better team, but the margin wasn't large enough to make me believe the Bulls couldn't have won the series and were not contenders. Most NBA playoff series there is a clear favorite and that clear favorite usually wins. That was not the case in this series.

 

as much as i wanted to believe that at the time and shortly thereafter, i don't anymore.

In the most abstract sense I think it was true, but not actually. We lost Asik and someone else important was banged up I think. After that season they were able to round out the ancillary pieces they needed and even our upgrades couldn't have outpaced their improvement.

[UMFan83]

This is a whole different argument but I think the 10-11 Bulls were a legit contender. The Heat were better but the Bulls absolutely could have won that series, especially when they were up 1-0 with HCA. In game 3 they led in the 4th quarter, in game 4 they went to OT, in game 5 they had a 12 point lead with 3 minutes left and folded.

 

Because the Heat did the little things to win that game they proved they were better team, but the margin wasn't large enough to make me believe the Bulls couldn't have won the series and were not contenders. Most NBA playoff series there is a clear favorite and that clear favorite usually wins. That was not the case in this series.

 

as much as i wanted to believe that at the time and shortly thereafter, i don't anymore.

In the most abstract sense I think it was true, but not actually. We lost Asik and someone else important was banged up I think. After that season they were able to round out the ancillary pieces they needed and even our upgrades couldn't have outpaced their improvement.

 

Yeah, the Heat were starting the corpse of Mike Bibby and Joel Anthony in that series. If there was a year the Bulls were equipped to take them it was that year, and they could have.

[David]

so if the wizards really are offering joakim $120M, how good do we feel about lopez right now?

[WrigleyField 22]

so if the wizards really are offering joakim $120M, how good do we feel about lopez right now?

Wait that has to be only 4 years right? So basically the max? I was expecting a lot of 10m backups and 20m starters, but if non superstars start making 30m... yea we can add one starter in FA, and that's it.

[David]

so if the wizards really are offering joakim $120M, how good do we feel about lopez right now?

Wait that has to be only 4 years right? So basically the max? I was expecting a lot of 10m backups and 20m starters, but if non superstars start making 30m... yea we can add one starter in FA, and that's it.

 

yeah..here's the report. it seems way too insane to believe, though.

 

http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/news/nba-free-agency-washington-wizards-joakim-noah-chicago-bulls-knicks-derrick-rose-bucks-timberwolves/1g5h2xcr8ello1ct5ne29gn4m5?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[WrigleyField 22]

The NBA should really do away with the max.