ChiCubsFan

We were obviously operating under the assumption that the Bulls would get the 2 or 3 seed in this hypothetical "make the ECF" scenario.

The Bulls played Miami well during the regular season when LeBron was there and they have played Cleveland well the last two years too. The playoffs are a whole different game and I would be a little surprised to see them even in the ECF. You'd be surprised to see them in the ECF? Who do you have favored over them? I wouldn't be surprised if they don't make it, but they are the favorite to be there. Despite the last 8 (?) games prior to last night.

Looks like we have a good chance to get that Sacramento pick too.

Can't wait for Derricks salary to clear. Get Jimmy some [expletive] help.

Watson was tremendous. Hell of an effort. Special teams was the difference in this one.

Agree. Just seemed like a weird time to bring it up. He's looked better and more aggressive lately. Hopefully that continues. He has been one of the worst players in basketball this year, but he's showing signs of improvement. If nothing else, I'm just happy to not have to watch him chuck 7 threes per game.

12/20 with 25 points not good enough for you?

The problem with the cap exploding is that many teams will have a ton of money and the Bulls have always lost out in those scenarios. Also I'm not sure exactly how this works but I believe that with the cap exploding the cost of a max contract explodes as well. We might have enough for a max guy but possibly not much else. And yes the 3 star method has been a successful model in the past but one of those stars has to be a top 10 guy. Curry, LeBron, Dirk, Kobe, Garnett, Wade. The exception was SA (Leonard wasn't at top 10 level at this point and might be now) but they have the best coach in the league. The Bulls don't have that and it will be difficult for them to find that guy in the draft or FA. True. Hopefully our luck turns around and we get one to come here to play with Jimmy.

NBA is all about getting a few stars and then patching in the guys around it. We have Jimmy. "Just" need 1-2 more. We will have a ton of money with the cap exploding and Noah and then Rose coming off the books. I just don't have much confidence in the FO's ability to get that star to come here. I'd really like to take a shot on Cousins, but I don't think we have enough to make a trade.

This. I don't get why NBA teams just decide to play the starters all of OT and not substitute. It's not just the Bulls. It's pretty much everyone. Maybe for 1 OT sure, but 2, 3, and 4 OTs?

I absolutely can't. Which is why I said I didn't have any problem with people liking this deal specifically or any other deal that happens to have an opt-out in it. I don't, but that's just an opinion and there's plenty of leeway here. But earlier someone said "If a team wants 7/$210, they should also be happy happy with 7/$210 with an opt-out after three years" implying they are equal, and that's just unequivocally, objectively wrong. Something like this comes up every time opt-outs are discussed. That was where I was coming into the "opt-outs are always bad in a vacuum" discussion. Gotcha. Well I don't really disagree. I just think with a player like Price at his age, an opt-out is almost negligible. I just can't see how his value would be any higher in 3 years than it is now.

We shouldn't give Samardzija a player opt-out for the same price as a non-opt-out contract. Agree. However you will almost definitely be gaining something by agreeing to the opt-out. Unless you're Jim Hendry throwing in NTC and such for free. And an opt-out on a buy-low SP like Samardzija is much more significant that a guy like Price who is pretty much at his peak value.

Results-oriented fallacy. You don't judge a decision after the fact, you judge it on the moment you make it. I'm not denying that it's theoretically possible the buyout could pay off, but that doesn't make it equal or better for the team. Again, if I bet $100k to win $75k on a coin flip, it's *always a bad bet*, even though I might win money off it. Similarly, certeris parabis (I never spell that right and won't look it up, even though looking it up would have taken less time than typing this caveat), player opt-outs are always worse for the team than identical deals without the player opt-out. Anyone who thinks that A is approximately equal to B because of the balance of possibilities is just a wrongy-wrong wrong head. Yes, no opt out clause is better than an opt out clause in 2 identical contracts. But how can you say the contract would be identical without the opt out? Maybe he would have taken an extra week or 2 to sign and some team would have drove up the price another $10M. The opt out is almost definitely going to be of no significance. Most likely he won't use it. But even if he does opt out in 3 years, they aren't losing "much" value. I would argue "much" is really "any", because I wouldn't want to sign a 33-34 year old David Price to a 4 year $124M contract no matter how good he is for the next 3 years.

And dammit I want Samardzija talk, not player opt-out talk.

I think everyone agrees that A is appoximately equal to B and there are some hypothetical scenarios in which A may be better than B and some in which B may be better than A. Except for Kyle who finds it impossible that Price may be awesome, but not necessarily worth 4/120 in 3 years, but still opts out in order to get more total dollars over a longer contract with a lower average yearly value.

Nice win

Probably because our dumbass fans were cheering their heads off and they couldn't hear Jay (I missed the game so didn't see/hear, just assuming).

I really want Samardzija at that price plus Heyward.

1st place in the East

??? They haven't played a back to back since the first 2 games of the season.

Loved Derricks mentality in that second half, and especially the 4thQ. I hope he continues to attack and use that midrange game. The real question that needs to be asked is why the [expletive] did the Thunder switch every Pau screen down the stretch??

I don't think that's a coincedence. Good and historic teams that sellout all their home games and have huge waiting lists for season tickets, don't typically agree to give up home game revenue to agree to play overseas. It doesn't benefit the NFL to make them do so either. While the game has featured the Patriots, Giants, Cowboys, Bears, Steelers, Jets and Giants....the home teams for these games have historically been bad franchises or ones who have historically had trouble drawing fans consistently. Tampa twice. Dolphins twice. Jacksonville in the midst of 5 straight home games in London. Bad Rams, Raiders, and Saints teams. Didn't the NFL say that every NFL team will eventually give up a home game for London? Have the home teams other than Jacksonvile repeated as the home team? Isn't it a requirement in order to be considered for hosting a Super Bowel?

Nets had zero 3 pointers made correct? That can't happen all too often, can it?

Beating the Cards was pretty cool Just have to believe that these things are crap shoots and we just need to make the playoffs every damn year to breakthrough Yeah that was cool, but I don't get the logic of being satisfied showing our asses in the LCS just because they had a nice regular season. Nobody's going to feel satisfied with the memory of beating Cincinatti in June. The [expletive] Pirates game and Cards series. Why are you talking about the Reds and June??