DivineBovine

I don't think you're tested if you win in 5. Like I said, maybe its because you are good. But maybe its because the Celtics just aren't.

Considering we were the only chance to beat the Heat, I wouldn't be taking pleasure in this if I was you. The Celtics were the only team in the playoffs that could beat Miami?????? Given that the Heat are playing their best basketball right now, yes, the Celtics probably had the best shot (if healthy) of the east teams of taking down a Heat team firing on all cylinders. Look, I love the Bulls, and I hope to God that they pull this off and my prediction of them losing in 5-6 games is wrong, but I'm worried that the Bulls peaked too early and now they're facing a team peaking at the right time. I'm worried about the Heat as well. They have looked good, but they also have yet to be tested in the playoffs. Maybe that's because they are good, but it helps to be tested on the way. One thing I like is the Bulls will be the underdogs for the first time. If things start going bad for the Heat as the clear favorites, I'd like to see how they react. I'll be a homer and call a Bulls victory. Provided they get by the Hawks.

The Celtics were basically playing with 4 men on the court most of the time. The Heat weren't even guarding Rondo because he couldn't lift his arm above his head to shoot the ball. Man listening to what those guys said. Using words like "vindication". "This is what we wanted to do". They were the #2 seed and they beat the #3 seed. After the #3 is way past their prime, their PG has 1 arm, and their big men are injured. They really aren't acting like they expected to beat the Celtics. They aren't acting like they've been there before. Which is really surprising, considering Wade has a ring and LeBron has been to the finals.

So glad I don't have to see that loser's columns on the web, or hear his ridiculous takes on TV. Now can we do something about Rosenbloom?

Yeah, the Heat look pretty good. But I really hope the Heat actually think this series was their biggest hurdle. The team and everyone else seems to think this was their big challenge. An aging Celtics team hit by injuries which is a shadow of what it was in prior years.

Back from the game. Taj is awesome. He plays great d and frankly we don't lose much on offense from a gimpy Boozer although Booze was pretty good tonight. I was waiting for the opportunity to start an OVERPAID chant if Joe Johnson ever got to the line in the second half but he didn't. The JOSH SMITH SUCKS chant is so lame. We had to do better than that. The UC is so great to watch a game in. And that Benny the Bull is sweet. Very talented.

Well a lot of teams wanted Lebron James, Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh too. Why does Riley get credit for them, but GarPax doesn't get credit for Thibs and the bench? Riley cleared cap space and actually got the big three to sign for less than max. Then he got some decent role players to sign for league minimum. You could argue that not many other execs could've pulled that off. Or wouldve even tried.

Not too hard to build a bench with tons of cap room and a great foundation in a big market. And Thibs was a no brainer as well. A lot of teams wanted him. He chose the Bulls because of the team in place. Anyways, nobody cares about this award.

I'm quite shocked about this. I 100% agree with rose for MVP and Thibs for coach. But I can't see how you can't give it to Riley for signing the big 3 and getting FAs to sign for he league minimum. Perhaps Garpax deserves a lot of credit for signing Thibs. But they dont deserve credit based on their FA signings.

Interesting that the heat got Chalmers, House, Jones, and Ilgauskas to play for them for nothing. And they are all unrestricted FAs. Some of those guys have been really valuable. I wonder how many FAs are willing to jump on the Heat bandwagon out of charity. Let's see if James jones will resign again for league minimum after he was waived to pay Bosh 18 million.

I'm not sure about Crawford. He will be expensive and is one dimensional. Sure he has a little more to offer than korver in terms of being able to score off the dribble but he's not a better shooter or defender. And he's prone to jacking shots. It depends what he will take in terms of money and what his role will be.

I don't have strong feelings on Hendry. He's made some good moves and some bad ones. But I'm certainly not going to praise him for freeing up payroll recently. Any idiot can free up payroll. Just don't sign anyone. But let's see how the Cubs decide to spend the money they've freed up. Or even if they decide to do it.

I hate that korver fadeaway.

I'd roll the dice with Chipper. He's an injury risk, but he is on the bench after all. Maybe if McGehee was allowed to play 2B and you needed a backup there as well, then I'd keep him.

Depends on your team needs. This is really Heyward for Cahill. Cahill is for real, but gets very few K's and can you really rely on the Oakland A's to get you wins. I expect Heyward to improve. I said pretty even, although if I had to choose, I'd pick B.

Hahaha... just give him what Tulo's first extension which was something like 6/31 or close to it? Add a couple option years on top of that deal. Also I would wait til after this year to see what his final numbers were and give him a deal then... Braun: 8/45 Tulo: 6/31 Longoria: 6/17 Wright: 6/55 Reyes: 4/23.25 Not sure who else had deals like those... Just something to compare. I like Castro as much as the next guy. I know he's young and talented. But come on guys. He is not even in the same league as any of the guys above (except Reyes) through 1+ seasons. Just look at the numbers. Not even close. Look at their numbers when they were Castro's age, not his experience level. You're going to need the minors tab on BR for each one except for Reyes (who was comparable, and then sucked for 2 years) and Braun(who you'll need to dig up college stats on.) True. Castro is younger and he may get a lot better. When he's 22-23, he may even be able to be mentioned with those guys. But not now. All those guys had power and plate discipline early in their careers. Two traits that Castro may never develop. When you lock up a guy long term, you want a little more assurance.

Oh, my bad. Right above my post. Oh well, yeah. We missed on Berkman. If I had to say, it was probably defense and injury concerns with age that tipped the balance to Pena. Not being lefty or not, obviously. And it was obviously the wrong move, in hindsight.

Hahaha... just give him what Tulo's first extension which was something like 6/31 or close to it? Add a couple option years on top of that deal. Also I would wait til after this year to see what his final numbers were and give him a deal then... Braun: 8/45 Tulo: 6/31 Longoria: 6/17 Wright: 6/55 Reyes: 4/23.25 Not sure who else had deals like those... Just something to compare. I like Castro as much as the next guy. I know he's young and talented. But come on guys. He is not even in the same league as any of the guys above (except Reyes) through 1+ seasons. Just look at the numbers. Not even close.

Any reasoning behind you're assumption or is it just making an assumption for the sake of making an assumption? I haven't heard Hendry say a word about "getting more lefthanded" for at least a couple years now and probably more than that. Basically, you're saying that if Pujols and Pena were both available, the Cubs would only have pursued Pena? Do you have anything at all to back this up? I don't really feel like digging through old articles looking for it, but I could swear they were focused on getting a lefty power bat in the middle of the line up. If it was never, ever said this offseason, then I am wrong and will admit so. Can't say it would have even been the wrong thing to do considering that most of the best free agent 1b bats were left handed, and the Cubs line up was already dominated with righty bats in Castro, Ramirez, Soriano, Soto and Byrd. They couldn't afford Pujols, so it's not even worth discussing that. I was glad they signed Carlos Pena, so I don't even wish to continue this discussion, but unless he turns things around, we all end up with egg on our faces for thinking he still had something left. It would've been tough to sign Pujols last offseason. Don't know if this has been brought up, but speaking of the Cardinals. Lance Berkman signed a 1 year/8 million dollar deal for 2011. Ouch. I think the Cubs might be in first place if we switched the 2.

It depends what "creating their own shot" means. If it means that you can get the ball when you're not open, dribble around someone, and then make a shot, then Deng can create his own shot. If it means that you can give someone the ball in isolation and ask them to score a critical basket at the end of a game, then no. But there are just a handful of guys in the entire league that can reliably do the latter. Some might even argue that LeBron isn't one of them.

I'm not so sure. Really tough to compare the two since they are polar opposites. But Iverson was a career 41% shooter averaging 6 assists. I'm not a huge fan of Rondo either, but he has a ring. He's a good creator and a good defender. Does Boston win a championship with Iverson instead of Rondo? I'm not so sure. it's hard to say what iverson would have been like in his prime on a good team. he always forced up bad shots because there were no other options. he had complete dregs on his team and always had to do everything (offensively) himself. it would have been nice to see him on a real team. (that has been one of the really annoying things about the sixers the last 20 years, having two terrific players - iverson and barkley - and surrounding them with absolute trash.) I don't think its right to call his teams total trash. A guy who shoots 40% doesn't take a crappy team to the NBA finals. Jamal Crawford and Jalen Rose put up respectable point totals on crappy Bulls teams shooting 40%. Give me an example of a guy who shot 40% on a bad team who significantly improved on a better team. And give me an example of a guy who improved his assist total by a lot once he moved to a better team.

OK. You guys are right. 08 Rondo was mediocre. 09 Rondo nearly averaged a triple double in the playoffs. Still, I'm no Iverson fan. Classic scorer who didn't do much else. Exciting to watch, yes. But I'm not impressed at averaging 30 points shooting 40%. I'd still take Rondo in his prime over Iverson in his prime. Iverson was one of those guys who didn't make anyone on his team better and could score by putting up a ton of shots. I'd compare this debate to Hinrich vs. Ben Gordon. A lot of people said Gordon. I always said Hinrich.

I'm not so sure. Really tough to compare the two since they are polar opposites. But Iverson was a career 41% shooter averaging 6 assists. I'm not a huge fan of Rondo either, but he has a ring. He's a good creator and a good defender. Does Boston win a championship with Iverson instead of Rondo? I'm not so sure.

Rondo and Iverson couldn't be more opposite. Rondo does everything well except score. Iverson did few things well except score.

Deng has had a hell of a game.