Bulls 2016-2017 Season

[UMFan83]

Is this really more fun than blowing it up?

 

This sucks of course but the argument against blowing it all up would be involve building around Jimmy and throwing together a 50 win team which would be fun and could win a playoff series or two. I still think this would be easier to attain than trading Jimmy, tanking and being flat out bad for years. In my eyes though, constant .500 ball in which they compete for the 8th seed is almost as unfun as flat out sucking. This team is so unfun that it has a 2010 Cubs. At least there was that 2 weeks to star the year where they were good but no one cared because of the Cubs.

 

This.

 

I never said anything about putting together a .500 team to eek out an 8 seed. This season has not been fun (that said, it's better than a 10 win team that completely obliterates any interest I have in even flipping on a game...but those aren't the only choices)

 

Well you didn't want to blow up the team because of the risk of failing on lottery picks and sucking for awhile. Well this is the potential downside of attempting to build a competitive team and failing.

 

Regardless I think there was a way that the Bulls could have kept butler and retooled for 1-2 years and we would have been in a better position to win a title they just decided to sign 2 players that were horrible fits for the roster and for Fred's system.

[David]

No.

[David]

The problem isn't not tanking. The problem is they need to construct a better roster. I didn't say they shouldn't build a better roster.

 

Oh, and by the way, since you mention this season being an example of downside (which, well duh...), what's the downside (and overwhelmingly most likely outcome) of sucking out loud?

[UMFan83]

The problem isn't not tanking. The problem is they need to construct a better roster. I didn't say they shouldn't build a better roster.

 

Oh, and by the way, since you mention this season being an example of downside (which, well duh...), what's the downside (and overwhelmingly most likely outcome) of sucking out loud?

 

I just said that in my post

[davell]

Pick your poison. This FO is sticking around. They can't execute a rebuild OR a retool.

[WrigleyField 22]

Pick your poison. This FO is sticking around. They can't execute a rebuild OR a retool.

I'll... take the retool. No, the rebuild, the draft history is not bad... but the retool fix seems more straight forward

 

:dontknow: :dontknow: :dontknow:

[davell]

I've seen a few different analysts and writers bring up Jimmy can net 2 solid young, controllable players, and 2 lottery picks.

 

The problem though, is how many teams even have it to give?

 

The Celtics are EASILY set up the best to make a move like that. But I seriously doubt they'd consider dealing the Nets pick this year, unless/until its definitely not a top 2 pick.

 

SSR, do you think the Celts are a true contender, if they add Jimmy? And if so, how crazy is 2 of Crowder, Bradley, or Smart and one of those NJ picks, plus another one of the Celts acquired future picks?

[Cubswin11]

I've seen a few different analysts and writers bring up Jimmy can net 2 solid young, controllable players, and 2 lottery picks.

 

The problem though, is how many teams even have it to give?

 

The Celtics are EASILY set up the best to make a move like that. But I seriously doubt they'd consider dealing the Nets pick this year, unless/until its definitely not a top 2 pick.

 

SSR, do you think the Celts are a true contender, if they add Jimmy? And if so, how crazy is 2 of Crowder, Bradley, or Smart and one of those NJ picks, plus another one of the Celts acquired future picks?

I don't think that's an unfair trade and like you said it probably comes down to if the Celtics think Jimmy puts them over the top. Personally I don't think he would this year over a healthy Cleveland but I think he does soon when LBJ hits the downside there.

 

Before the year the Lavine and Rubio and picks for Jimmy made some sense and seemed fairish. Even though I'm not a big Lavine fan and now he's hurt.

 

If the Lakers get a top 3 pick I could see them using that or Russell to try and get Butler depending on who they like the most of Russell, Fultz, and Ball for long-term PG

[bukie]

The Bulls are a terrible organization, top to bottom, they aren't fun to watch, they are wasting Butler, have no future, and have no present.

[Splendid Splinter]

The Bulls are a terrible organization, top to bottom, they aren't fun to watch, they are wasting Butler, have no future, and have no present.

 

Honestly, this reminds me of the late 90s/2000s Twolves when they had prime Garnett.

[UMFan83]

Jahill Oakfor just changed his twitter location to "Chicago" according to twitter.

[imb]

Jahill Oakfor just changed his twitter location to "Chicago" according to twitter.

 

confirmed

[David]

the goofy tnt streak lives

[davell]

Please trade Jimmy to the Celtics now.

[bcl412]

That was a pretty bad call at the end and it's annoying that the Bulls can beat good teams but lost so many times to not so good teams also I kinda want Boston to pass Cleveland just because it'd be different.

[Banedon]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[David]

why the horsefeathers couldn't we have gotten cousins

[Flames24Rulz]

why the horsefeathers couldn't we have gotten cousins

 

I would've loved it but with this conservative management? No way would they want a guy like Cousins, no matter how talented he is.

[davell]

The bigger problem in acquiring Cousins is that the Bulls literally have one p!ayer on the roster with true value.

[David]

The bigger problem in acquiring Cousins is that the Bulls literally have one p!ayer on the roster with true value.

 

that didn't seem to be a problem as far as acquiring cousins

[Bobson Dugnutt]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

this seems very pointless

[davell]

The bigger problem in acquiring Cousins is that the Bulls literally have one p!ayer on the roster with true value.

 

that didn't seem to be a problem as far as acquiring cousins

 

Sure it did. The Kings think Hield is the next Curry. Doesn't matter if they're wrong. Bulls barely even have anyone you can squint hard at and see a future starting player.

[UMFan83]

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

this seems very pointless

 

it's good for marketing.

 

Eddy Curry, Nazr Mohammad, Derrick Rose, Dwyane Wade, Jahlil Okafor.....Chicago guys come home, right Anthony Davis??!!!

 

There is also rumors of them going after Patrick Beverly

Edited February 23, 2017 by UMFan83

[David]

The bigger problem in acquiring Cousins is that the Bulls literally have one p!ayer on the roster with true value.

 

that didn't seem to be a problem as far as acquiring cousins

 

Sure it did. The Kings think Hield is the next Curry. Doesn't matter if they're wrong. Bulls barely even have anyone you can squint hard at and see a future starting player.

 

oh come on

 

"the kings liked bad player x on the pelicans. doesn't matter if they're wrong, no way they like bad player y on the bulls"

 

the package was terrible. acquisition cost was not the barrier.

[davell]

 

that didn't seem to be a problem as far as acquiring cousins

 

Sure it did. The Kings think Hield is the next Curry. Doesn't matter if they're wrong. Bulls barely even have anyone you can squint hard at and see a future starting player.

 

oh come on

 

"the kings liked bad player x on the pelicans. doesn't matter if they're wrong, no way they like bad player y on the bulls"

 

the package was terrible. acquisition cost was not the barrier.

 

I'm not arguing the package was terrible. But Hield was the 6th pick last year. Some thought he was a top 3 value in that draft. For that matter, Tyreke Evans would probably be the 3rd best player on the Bulls.

 

As bad as the package was.....The Bulls couldn't match it.