David

seriously, though, is there a better expression for that? because i really didn't want to use it either.

I think (some) people are mistaking what I'm saying. I'm not cool with being a mediocre team. I want them to put together the best team they can. I want to watch a good entertaining team. I want them to construct a good roster, find value in free agency, find guys who might not be so much of a value but make you better. draft well. etc. I just don't want to say "well we're not gonna win a title with this bunch, so let's tank and hope we get a great player." and i don't think they need to (nor do i necessarily think it helps them) bottom out to become that type of very good team again. and i don't see how trading jimmy butler on a value contract for the 5th pick in a bad draft helps you do that - even if you're getting the great zach lavine too (which is how this conversation started - when UM said something like "i don't care anymore just blow it up"). the best team the bulls have put together since the dynasty was a really good and really entertaining team. it also had no shot, realistically speaking, at a title..especially with lebron on a superteam. i've come to terms with that. maybe some day in our lifetimes we'll be blessed enough to have another of that type of player fall in our laps, but i'm not willing to intentionally endure several terrible and unwatchable seasons on a very outside chance at that. like others have said, be as good as you can and try to maintain flexibility so that you at least have a puncher's chance when an opportunity at a move comes around. as far as blowing it up and tanking, the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

I had a lot of fun too, but it was always with the hope that they were going to take the next step, and it was always based on the hope that next year Derrick was going to turn into some semblance of his former self again and we could be a legitimate contender in the East. how much fun did you have watching this game? http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200504240CHI.html Because I had a lot of horsefeathering fun that day and I'm OK with admitting that.

[tweet] [/tweet] a new guy we can pretend to have an opinion on i guess draft xpress had him ranked in the mid 20s. i read some tweet somewhere that said the bulls convinced him to come over this year.

because it's not something you can really try to do in any realistic sense of the word. that's my point. and they've definitely tried. they've tried to throw their money at every superstar free agent that has come along. and it's been 13 years since the draft yielded that type of player in the traditional sense...if you want to include curry then, fine, but even then, that's not a guy you would've wound up with unless you failed at being bad enough. you could throw durant in there too, i guess, even though even he hasn't done it yet.

who said anything about wanting to be a 35-40 win team? i want to put a good roster around jimmy (kind of like they did with rose in 2010) over this offseason and next and win 50+ and then i'll deal with being heartbroken for 3-4 days when we lose to lebron again. jimmy is good enough to be the best player on that type of team. I don't see the roster construction, the cap room, or a remotely capable FO to accomplish that. In fact, with the escalating cap, I'd fully expect us to hymn ourselves firmly into a 35-40 win team. until this year and the nonsense with not trading gasol, i've never really looked at this as a bad front office. they did a great job making lemonade out of lemons in 2010 and put together a really solid roster. they've made solid draft picks late. they've also made some picks that haven't been good players, but what kind of success rate do you expect where they've drafted? do i think it's a great FO? no. do i think they're some sort of completely incompetent (as you put it, as bad as thoyer is good) management team that can't put a decent roster around a player as good as jimmy? hell no. the last 4 years are largely owed to the fact that derrick rose won an mvp out of nowhere, got paid massively (super max for the MVP), and then turned into a complete nothing. what front office is going to make something great out of that situation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_NBA_draft and while that's an extreme example of a bad draft, the point is that there aren't superstars in every draft (far from it) and when there is ONE, plenty of teams are trying to get him and you have to actually win the lotto to get him. those odds aren't worth it to me. not investing years of suckage for those odds. can't really agree on williams either. didn't see near enough from him his first year to think anything like that. Or you could be Golden State and strike gold in like 5 straight drafts yeah i mean the alternative is hope a #7 overall pick turns into the best shooter ever and an MVP i mean, you give me a lebron in next year's draft and i'll 100% be on board with trading jimmy butler for the worst return we can get and telling the coach he's fired if they win one damn game (and even then, we still have a really good chance of getting fucked out of the pick, but i'd do it).

This isn't baseball or football. You don't have a shot at a title as long as you are decent and get into the playoffs. I can't remember the last time I saw more than 2 teams as legit title contenders, maybe 3. If you luck into a great player and win titles, that's cool and all, but it's a damn near impossible thing to set out to do. Especially with a cap on player salaries. They don't come around in the draft all that often (that's an understatement) and the financial advantages a big market should have don't matter. You know what really sucks? Winning 15 games and then drafting Marcus Fizer or some [expletive]. And then winning 15 games again. And again. And again. Going years without being interested in the team after 2 or 3 games. Simple. Don't draft [expletive] stiffs. Use FA to accentuate. I'd rather be horrible and give being GREAT a shot, than sitting in the 6-10 range in the [expletive] ass East for the rest of Jimmy's deal......Then, getting worse once he laughs at the ineptitude and leaves. You're not going to stay in the 15 win range forever. Hell, trade off the kids and picks and reboot in 2 years. But give yourself a damn chance. I really don't even see how a 35-40 win team with no ceiling is watchable personally. who said anything about wanting to be a 35-40 win team? i want to put a good roster around jimmy (kind of like they did with rose in 2010) over this offseason and next and win 50+ and then i'll deal with being heartbroken for 3-4 days when we lose to lebron again. jimmy is good enough to be the best player on that type of team.

when the alternative is let's firebomb the roster and have a completely irrelevant team that we don't even watch for years and years with no end in sight in hopes of maybe being one of those charmed <10% of the league that ends up with the type of player who can win you championships? it's a shitty setup, but i'll take having a watchable and enjoyable team over tanking when the odds of actually getting what you want are that slim. i don't necessarily watch sports for championships as much as i do for entertainment and if the nba/basketball are set up in such a way that i have to choose between being in "NBA hell" or being completely terrible (you know, the whole "if you're not great then just suck terribly until you are great" mindset) i'll take my entertaining basketball team that i can look forward to watching, while knowing they're probably going to lose to lebron because that's how basketball works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_NBA_draft and while that's an extreme example of a bad draft, the point is that there aren't superstars in every draft (far from it) and when there is ONE, plenty of teams are trying to get him and you have to actually win the lotto to get him. those odds aren't worth it to me. not investing years of suckage for those odds. can't really agree on williams either. didn't see near enough from him his first year to think anything like that.

This isn't baseball or football. You don't have a shot at a title as long as you are decent and get into the playoffs. I can't remember the last time I saw more than 2 teams as legit title contenders, maybe 3. If you luck into a great player and win titles, that's cool and all, but it's a damn near impossible thing to set out to do. Especially with a cap on player salaries. They don't come around in the draft all that often (that's an understatement) and the financial advantages a big market should have don't matter. You know what really sucks? Winning 15 games and then drafting Marcus Fizer or some horsefeathers. And then winning 15 games again. And again. And again. Going years without being interested in the team after 2 or 3 games.

i have to laugh when even the trademark tree over the top fatalism thread can't be real fatalism

:( :( :(

for a 14th pick, i like valentine from what i've seen. but i really don't know much about college players. like his size and seems to be a good 3 point shooter.

also, as for this part, his value on the trade market is fairly absolute and not really determined by what he's worth to us (even if you think he's worth less to us). if we trade him, we need to get appropriate value in return. not a 5th pick in a weak draft. not if your aim is to bottom out. the bulls could probably get a player that will help them next year better than dunn but if you get someone with butler's approximate, current value you flirt with .500 and pick in the late lottery again. so your argument is intentionally avoid an adequate/appropriate return so you can be extra bad? like if two teams were making offers and one of them was clearly better (and made you better in the near term), you don't take that one so you don't flirt with .500 and pick late in the lottery?

come on KB willson...do this so stropy and hector can come in and finish it

[expletive]. I don't like not being fond of him, Paxson and, to a lesser degree, Cartwright. my hatred for cartwright runs deep

i mean if that's what they actually got at 14 in a bad draft, that wouldn't be terrible

I mostly do too but the first thing you need to win a title is a super duper star. The Bulls don't have one. If they believe Dunn has a chance to be one you have a lottery ticket and with the trade you probably suck enough to have a second one. That said you can get more value than this, likely at the deadline. But you have to get a superstar. Until then the Bulls are just treading water. None of them are going to sign here and you don't have the assets to trade for one so its gotta be in the draft. is winning a title really the only goal? winning a title is a pipe dream for 90% of the league every season. i want a team that i enjoy watching over the winter. if you luck into an MJ or LBJ, then that's gravy. what i don't want is to have a crap ass team for years with nothing to show for it, which is what really happens when most basketball teams tank. and if/when they do come out of it, they almost always end up in so-called "nba hell" all over again.

also, as for this part, his value on the trade market is fairly absolute and not really determined by what he's worth to us (even if you think he's worth less to us). if we trade him, we need to get appropriate value in return. not a 5th pick in a weak draft.

GRANDPA ROSSY!!!

getting a superduper star is a pipe dream. i'll take jimmy, put a squad around him, and watch entertaining basketball for the next few years instead of tanking for the generational player that never comes.

what? he's a great value especially with the new cap i'm very confused. your post could almost not have been more wrong.

[tweet] [/tweet]

yes absolutely. especially in the nba when like 2 specific teams who have 2 specific players are the only ones really competing for a title