SpongeWorthy

I don't think it means much. And if it does, Lebron or anyone else has already made up their minds about it one way or another and that's not going to change between now and free agency. I was just disputing the point that Jordan is just a name in the rafters. Besides, the people making it rain at the UC and pumping cash into the Bulls surely remember Jordan. The people that only know MJ through his YouTube mixtapes are begging their moms to buy them Derrick Rose jerseys (and Air Jordans).

These are very comparable situations. They're not? Jordan's gone. To the younger generation of NBA fans around right now he's just a guy from old highlight clips. Why is it realistic that the Lakers and Celtics could get great players to come play for them despite arguably being defined by previous dynasties and some of the greatest players of all time, but it's not for the Bulls? Because by the time the NBA became "THE NBA", the Celtics and Lakers already had a host of iconic stars. The Bulls 2nd best player of all time is still just "Jordan's sidekick" And? Again, Jordan's gone. I suppose it would be one thing if he was anything even remotely close to a presence with the Bulls or at the UC, but he's not. To fans growing up now he's just a number in the rafters, a statue outside and someone they see in highlight clips. Anyone that is perceived as winning a championship for the Bulls from now on is going to be first in the minds of most young fans, not Jordan. The impact of playing "in the shadow of Jordan" is a load of crap, especially when it comes to player of LeBron's abilities. I mean, if you're going to argue that he'll be second to Jordan here if he doesn't win at least 6 rings, then where could he go where that wouldn't be the case? What, if he goes to the Knicks or stays with the Cavs and wins, say, 4 championships with them when all is said and done, in those cases people would argue he's as good as or better than Jordan, but not if he "only" 4 rings as a Bull? I agree with the general thrust but Jordan is more than just a guy in highlight clips to any generation of Bulls fan. This is Michael Jordan we're talking about. He's still moving more merchandise than all about maybe 2 or 3 active basketball players (Lebron, Kobe, Yao) and is one of the most famous human beings on the planet.

Why is Calipari considered such a bad in game coach? Or is it just part of the hysteric over reaction by the NCAA moralists here?

Really? If anyone that's what I'd think an outsider would expect an average Cub fan to act like if they brought him up, but would be shocked that the fan responded with a shoulder shrug. I've been to at least 100 Cubs games since 2003, and I cannot honestly recall one time that Bartman's name was brought up. And that's among a crowd of the drunkest, averagest Cubs fans you can find. Actually, the only time I do remember Bartman being mentioned at Wrigley since 03 was in 04. Miggy was so blotto at the time he doesn't even remember doing it.

From a comedic perspective, I would say excessive tasering in the age of YouTube has been, on balance, a good thing.

I thought it was very good quality. I can't believe that WGN HD was not on Direc TV until now. What was the holdup? it probably has to do with the fact that there's nothing on wgn worth watching in hd other than the cubs The girl that co-hosts their crappy movie of the week is nice. Of course she's on on maybe for 6 minutes over a two hour period.

I think the 30 for 30 doc will be interesting and I understand the angle. Whether Bartman was 100% or 0% responsible, in reality, for the Cubs losing is pretty much irrelevant to its merits as a human interest story.

The guy I want is Thibodeau but I doubt the Bulls go after anyone that doesn't have head coaching experience.

The coach matters a lot. The problem is that most of them are retreads and pretty interchangeable with the rest of the mediocre coaches in the league. If you've got one of the few difference makers on the bench then you've got a big advantage. Also it helps if you've got a consistent philosophy with the front office and a coach that understands personnel and match ups. That's where Popovich and Jackson are so good.

With LeBron having four years left on his five year deal. That's not a problem. Besides, LeBron, Rose, Noah and whoever's left after the sign and trade would be enough to win a title with Vinny still coaching. Cal would win a title with that core. Probably multiple. Yeah, seems to me that the NBA is about having the superstar talent. Being able to draw up the best plays and sets doesn't appear to me to have the same effect it does in college. Put Lebron & Rose on the same team -- that's a Conference favorite for years to come, regardless of coaching. If there's some possible way to land Lebron, the Bulls would be fools to not pursue it. Yeah, I think coaching in the NBA is all about managing egos, knowing how to get the most out of your players, and being likable. I mean does anyone regard Phil Jackson as a great X and O's coach? Everyone knows Tex was the mind behind the triangle offense, while Phil was handing out random books on road trips to reach his players. But Phil is the most successful coach in the game today because he was able to take 3 different superstar laden teams to championships (MJ/Pip, Shaq/Kobe, Kobe/Gasol). I mean I am trivializing it a bit because there are tons of coaches that implement styles and schemes that make a team better (D'Antoni, Skiles, Jeff Van Gundy, etc). But on a superstar laden team that's much less important. Phil Jackson is a great X's and O's coach. I agree with what you're saying about managing egos and maximizing potential but you look at a guy like Popovich or Jackson and the way they make adjustments and manage the flow of the game is very important. Vinny was overwhelmed in that regard. Plus his end of game TO/foul/clock management was just terrible.

Borderline awful for his ability level or borderline awful period? I would find it hard to believe it was the latter. Then again, I still don't get how the puck ends up over the glass so much. Fun sport to watch though :cool:

Isn't Keith one of the best defenseman in the league? This sport confuses me.

JVG and Byron Scott play slow. I wouldn't mind them if we had some assurance they weren't going to play at some crawling pace. You'd think Scott would be all about the up tempo game considering he played on the Showtime Lakers.

Chalk up another one in the astonishing no travel called against Lebron column

Yes, I read that part. Next time I'll footnote all my posts. I was mainly responding to the idea that no one in Chicago history comes close to to Krause.

Deron Williams was never considered better at any point between the 2005 NBA draft and up to a few months ago.

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.