SpongeWorthy

He actually coached in the Puerto Rican league after the CBA and before the Bulls. David Halberstam's book on MJ goes into pretty good detail on the history of Krause, Jackson, Pippen, and a bunch of others.

Jerry Vanisi is being overlooked here. The teams he built were so good for a number of years (in an extremely competitive NFC) that it's pretty much considered a disappointment that the Bears only won one Super Bowl. The 84-88 Bears had the best 5 year regular season record in NFL history and that was at a time when the Niners, Giants, and Redskins were at the height of their powers under Walsh, Parcells, and Gibbs.

Paul's been better. He's in a crappy situation and coming off a pretty serious injury though so we'll see moving forward.

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. If Jud Buechler and Dickey Simpkins were the only 90s Bulls to get 6 rings and Krause found two different sets of superstars to win 3 each then I'd give him his due for completely rebuilding the team. You've got Jordan, Pippen, and Jackson. It shouldn't be that hard to build a contender. On the other hand, it was Krause who brought in Pippen and Jackson in the first place. And they both came from way off the beaten path too.

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.

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.

That was the best performance of Floyd's career. Shane is old as [expletive] but that was just a beat down. He looked enormous too.

You can't win with sarcastic smirks and pithy comments alone. You need players too.

You don't need to send salary back to whatever team you S&T with?

I don't know why they would want Deng when they already have Turkeyglue on an even worse contract. I would rather try to sign Boozer or Amare outright than S&T for Bosh.

Yes, well you're about the only one peddling the theory that Lebron can't win in Cleveland. But yeah, it would pretty much be lights out for everyone if Lebron teamed up with Wade or Bosh.

Bosh is nice and would definitely be welcomed. I just think maybe the only thing that is going to derail Lebron stomping the rest of the league for the next half decade is getting as many top players as possible. Wade is an incredible talent while Bosh is "only" a very nice piece.

Cutler isn't good enough where you can put the entire season on his shoulders, lack of line/weapons or not.

I would worry about injuries and age more than fit with Wade. It's apparent the Bulls need any kind of scoring they can get. Plus the idea of Wade and Rose switching PG duties intrigues me. Rose is very good off the ball. A shooting big man would still be a necessity if you sign Wade because they would both need a pick and roll partner.

I'm starting to waver on this one. Wade is an amazing player while Bosh has never really played on a good team. He's definitely 2nd fiddle to Rose if he signs here--which is fine. You sign Wade and you've got two of the top 10 players in the game potentially...you figure everything else out from there.

I'll say that I wouldn't be surprised if the Bears had the best defense in the division next year but pretty stunned if they had the best offense, especially if Favre comes back. Even so, I would expect the Packers offense to blow ours out of the water even if we did get some decent linemen.

Who were the two good players we got rid of on defense? I'll give you Brown but am I missing someone else? Kevin Payne is not good enough to start. Harris is much better. I agree with the offensive line part but the safety play was so bad last year that I can see taking BPA between those positions in the draft with your high pick.

Yes, the Bulls would be one of the worst teams in the league with Rondo as PG instead of Rose. They would be historically bad on offense (instead of merely bad which they are) and while they might defend well they would stop putting in the effort with no scoring threat.

lmao

That's an interesting theory. http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=409 That sort of indicates that Lebron is a monster on D against over matched international players but sort of ordinary as an offensive playmaker. His ORtg is less than Bosh and Howards. I do think Lebron's value on defense has been understated. He was devastating against the Bulls with his help D.

You put Rondo on the Bulls and Rose on the Celtics and the Bulls are battling with the Nets and TPups while the Celtics are right there with Orlando and Cleveland. If Rose had a pick and roll player as good as Garnett and actual three point shooters he'd blow Rondo out of the water. It is an insult to say Rose is worse than Rondo because it is laughably false. Let's also throw in the fact the no coach, GM, or scout in the universe would take Rondo over him.

But right now he is. No. At best Rose .v. Rondo is a tossup. Give Rose, Johnson and Bosh to run with and we will see if Rose .v. Rondo is even a debate. Right now, if Rondo has an advantage it is slight. Just looking at the stat line between the two, I don't see how it would be clear at all that Rondo is better than Rose, even currently. Certainly potential is on Rose's side. Obviously Rose has potential on his side, but it'd be nice if he played any sort of defense before people start calling him superior to Rondo. Wouldn't it be nice if Rondo stopped murdering innocents in the stands by violently bricking open jumpers?

But right now he is. The idea that Rondo could've led this Bulls team to a .500 record with all the injuries, cap space jettisons, and coaching nonsense is utterly laughable. He's not a #1 option on any decent team. He's a complimentary piece and he always will be.

Can we keep SSR's clear mental illness out of this thread? That Rondo talk is exhausting. You're seriously mentally incapacitated in some regard if you think Rondo is better than Rose.

Get the [expletive] out of here with Varejao being on the same planet as Dwight. Dwight isn't a good offensive player but he's a legitimate top 5 MVP vote getter because of his defense. Varejao is a nice piece. Howard is a franchise player almost entirely because of his defense. Lebron is the monster on defense on the Cavs. Almost Pippen-like. Anyway, not the worst season all things considered. I think VDN is gone and we getting a shooter + Bosh SHOULD be realisitic.