Sammy Sofa

So now you're going to predict my reaction to moves they could have made? I would have been fine with 48 year old Kurt Thomas getting minutes behind the gimpy Boozer in 2010. Annnnnd of course you would have.

This guy WAY overrates Rose. He's a fantastic player, but you're talking like you buy that MVP [expletive].

So they weren't actually a good team...only Rose was good and they tricked everyone to make it where they did? This is damn near gibberish. Wait...what? Don't get it twisted. Paxson did very little to make that team better in 2010. They still had the players in place before that season started and Rose covered up the huge hole of deficiencies on that team. *If this team was so great in 2011, the bulls should have gotten past the first round. With or without Rose they should have anyways. Yes, because the only issue was Rose going down. It's not like Noah and Deng were dealing with injuries, too.

And then you would have just been screaming about their lack of depth behind Deng and Noah and Boozer.

So they weren't actually a good team...only Rose was good and they tricked everyone to make it where they did? This is damn near gibberish. Wait...what?

I think that they're going to have to move Noah at some point, so why not sell high and get value in return? By the time this team is ready to compete for a title again, he'll need a new deal. If Deng didn't have the gimp wrist, he'd have some value as well but maybe if he doesn't need surgery the Bulls can again sell high and clear cap space. Do you really want to give Gibson a deal if Boozer isn't yet amnestied? Has Reinsdorf's history proven that he'd be willing to sink money into the amnesty provision? Or is Paxson gonna wait to get the shaft when some team offers him ridiculous money to match? Paxson hasn't grasped the concept of selling high, he'd rather wait for deals to expire and match offer sheets. All of his moves to date reek of him wanting to keep all of HIS guys that he's drafted instead of entertaining trade value and moving pieces around. That is my problem with him, he's too conservative. Wait, how would trading Deng or Noah now be selling high? They didn't and haven't "sold high" on guys like Asik and Gibson because you refuse to recognize the obvious: this has been a top shelf team the last two seasons and those two have been an integral part of it. Moving those guys over the last two seasons wouldn't have been selling high: it would have been inexplicably placating the random rage-filled online Bulls fan who views anything less than the Finals as failure.

Yeah, but it's Scott Skiles; who gives a [expletive]?

Wait, how did they "bungle" Skiles?

That's because "mediocre" doesn't mean what you think it means.

Because it's obvious what the Bulls need and they'll be in a better position to address it then based on who is available and the money they'll have to spend (I fully expect them to amnesty Boozer then). I have no problem with them trading, but only if there's a smart move that can be made. You want them to make moves simply to make moves.

That they need a true #2 guard threat. But yeah, let's blow up the team because Crazy McGoo thinks they're terrible instead of just waiting until the FA crop of 2014.

I find great delight in that this is your 4th or 5th comment about it. Wait, am I supposed to be embarrassed or insulted because of the quote?

His posts are a [expletive] clown. Hindsight is 20/20 and please stop saying IF they were healthy they had a chance. They weren't healthy and it was widely accepted that their chances were iffy on beating the Heat and purely based on LBJ 'choking.' So Rose's ACL tearing means this roster was poorly constructed? Expecting Rose to play at a MVP level year in and year out is a bit of a stretch, not to mention if he has a down year this team is done. There were and are obvious huge flaws in the construction of the roster. Nobody is saying it was a perfect team, but you don't accomplish what they have the last two seasons with "obvious huge flaws." They basically had one major flaw.

I mean, you understand that the quote in your sig isn't ironic, right?

What has Paxson done to warrant anything more then a D grade? He's tried or wanted to extend every single player he has every drafted. He's done poorly in free agency and he's drafted mediocre players. Oh and he lucked into the #1 pick. Wake up, this team is in NBA hell. Their depth is now gone and we're stuck with an injured Rose/Deng/Noah for the time being, and an overpaid bum in Boozer. They're not "stuck" with Deng, Noah and Rose; all three are very valuable players, and to talk about them like they're not likely to contribute again or are busts is just absurd. Boozer is the one bad signing they're carrying right now, so quit trying to spin that as the team being poorly constructed when it's so obviously not. "NBA hell" isn't winning like the Bulls have for the last two seasons. And no credit for hiring Thibs? And you give them credit for the depth, but then talk like it's impossible they can build another quality bench. Which is it?

Sports fans like this are the absolute worst; when you create this ridiculous high standard of championship or bust, what's even the point? The odds are stacked so high against winning it all you're just setting yourself up to be furious and miserable every single year.

So when JL3 lights up Lebron James and the deep Bench Mob plays outstanding basketball, I can gloat and parade that the Bulls are championship material? That would be pretty stupid given the health issues they're facing next season.

Really, if you went just by this guy's posts you'd assume the Bulls were a terrible team riddled with terrible contracts run by one of the most incompetent FO in the NBA. But then he'll turn around and say "they're not good enough to win the title," nevermind that he's gone out of his way to make them sound like a hapless organization that would be lucky to win 40 games.

Asik being a better defender doesn't make Noah's contract a bad one.

Yes, actually.

Yes they have bad contracts. How do you figure?

Deng and Noah have horrible contracts?

I don't want them to take pitching for the sake of pitching, but I would prefer them to get a good pitching return than positional return.

I think you forgot something. Ugh horrible. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16qhwX26vOA&feature=youtube_gdata_player Also, I recommend watching with speakers off. Thanks for the speaker warning! That someone in 2008 somehow thought it was acceptable in any way, shape or form to listen to that song is horrifying.

Aren't most trades for pitchers based around pitching prospects (or at least one top pitching prospect)? As I said, if that's a route the FO is going to pursue then the Cubs need pitching prospects, because the cupboard is pretty [expletive] bare right now. Yeah, pitching prospects can be more risky, but the benefit of having multiple highly regarded pitching prospects is that more often other teams are willing to take on that risk in a trade for an established starter than if you're offering position prospects.