Soxbadger

QUOTE (2005thxfrthmmrs @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 12:46 PM) If I am to rebuild, I'm not sure if I want to rebuild around Wiggins. Dude is going to be a scorer, may in the caliber of Melo one day. He has a high perceived value due to being a #1 pick, but I'm not sure if he does enough of anything else to be the 3rd best player on a championship team. Rather build it around Wiggins than Dunn though? If I was the bulls and Butler isnt in their long term plans I could be convinced to do something like 7+ Wiggins + Future 1st (could be pretty far out). Then id try and use that #7 to jump and get Fox. Or I guess you can just try and get the Suns to deal #4 and future picks for Butler. But if I could get Fox + Wiggins for Butler Id at least feel like I have a chance at making the Bulls something competitive.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 11:58 AM) Is a guy shooting congressmen because he's personally really mad at their politics terrorism? I have literally no idea where I stand on this, and am actually having a tough time defining for myself what I consider to be terrorism and what I don't. Its just speculation because without something from the shooter himself we are forced to guess at their motivation. My speculation is that it was terrorism. That he was specifically targeting Republican's to try and scare them into changing their political stances.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 11:43 AM) Question - do we consider Presidential assassins or shooters "terrorists"? Honestly asking. Its actually impossible to say because "terrorism" is based on intent. If the President was killed because he ran over someone's dog, that wouldnt be terrorism.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 11:03 AM) From what I've read, I don't think there was really anything in his past that anyone one could have predicted this. The only significant thing are his extreme political views but I don't think that would indicate this level of violence. Ptatc, https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public...m=.0c9fd81bfe50 There was an incident where he was shooting his gun in his backyard that prompted the police to be called in Illinois. Now I am not sure at what point this type of behavior should restrict someone from owning a gun, but the fact that no one is even discussing that maybe this guy shouldnt have had a gun in the first place, to me is troubling. I mean how many times does someone have to do something "dangerous" before action is taken?

QUOTE (Brian @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 10:37 AM) Well this is false. ter·ror·ist ˈterərəst/Submit noun 1. a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. Terrorism doesn't have a race. I guess sarcasm still needs green Of course white people can be terrorists.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 10:28 AM) Yeah that's really odd. How do they not think these things are connected? Unless maybe the names weren't at the game? I also am puzzled that they said it was just a lone gunman and not terrorism. To me, this is the definition of terrorism. He sought to kill and maim in a spectacular fashion that would get huge attention and raise fears, against political entities. How is that not terrorism? White people arent terrorists and we dont want to start a discussion on whether or not the man should have been legally able to obtain these weapons. Well just chalk this one up to a lone gunman who we could have never stopped.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 21, 2017 -> 01:26 AM) The Democrats are going to have to get humble after losing four special elections. The media being in the Democrats' corner and the pollsters being in the Democrats' corner is not helping. They keep thinking they are leading races and when the votes are tabulated they lose. Trump may be a chump, but people certainly aren't buying what the Democrats are selling right now. Loss after loss at the polls. Need a little humble pie and not the pollsters saying all is well in Democrat-ville. Good good, this is actually the best case scenario. Everything is great for Republican's, no one is upset about how the country is being run. The Democrats absolutely should have won seats in districts that almost always vote Republican. I honestly dont even think Republican's should campaign, 2018 is going to be a victory lap. The best part is, the people who will lose the most, are going to be predominately Republican. Tears will be shed.

QUOTE (2005thxfrthmmrs @ Jun 21, 2017 -> 01:32 AM) Come on, Bull did not have a 7 year rebuild plan in the 80's, they were consistently in the ECF before they won the Finals. There's a difference between having their plan working out in the 7th year and having a plan that includes a return in 7th year, who may turn out to be a bust. There is no guarantee that Cavs will be a bottom 5 team by 2020; one would have expected Spurs to fade post Duncan, or the Lakers to fade after Kareem, Magic, or Shaq left or retired, it's not always a guarantee. A first round pick 5-7 years from now is worth A LOT less than a first round pick 1-2 years from now in the NBA. The Bulls were bad before MJ. Outside of 1980-81 the Bulls were sub .400 from 1978-79 through 1983-1984. The point of the MJ comment was that even after the Bulls selected arguably the greatest player in NBA history, it took them over 5 years to get to the NBA Finals. And I understand how valuations work. Which is why the Bulls would be getting a lot more future picks than present picks. There is a lot of risk involved, but the more picks you have the more you spread out the risk. At this point Butler is the best trade piece the Bulls have to somehow get themselves on a track to the NBA Finals. I do not believe that a mid/late round pick + expiring contracts will get them anywhere.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 20, 2017 -> 05:07 PM) What is Boston offering? Jaylen Brown plus one of the valuable picks they have next year? No idea, someone posted here that the Celtics said no to Butler for 3 straight up. From the Celtics boards Ive looked at they want to do things like Zeller + Boston's pick or other garbage. Seems they believe they can get Butler for a mid/ late round 1st +.

QUOTE (2005thxfrthmmrs @ Jun 20, 2017 -> 05:00 PM) Not saying these are the best packages Bulls will get, but if given a package of #3, and 2 mid first rounders vs. 3 Cavs first round picks from 2020 and beyond, you'd pick the first package. The latter offer is too far out and comes with a lot of unknowns. If any GM is planning for a 7 year rebuild, they should fired. The problem is supposedly Celtics said "no" to 3 straight up. Who knows if that is true, but I am trying to work in the framework of the rumors we are being told. And 5-7 years to win a NBA Championship is being realistic. Jordan was drafted in 1984, Bulls first Championship was 1991. Its hard to imagine scenarios given the current state of the NBA where the Bulls would be able to win a NBA Championship faster than 7 years from now.

QUOTE (2005thxfrthmmrs @ Jun 20, 2017 -> 04:22 PM) So you wouldn't take the 3rd pick this year, but would take some unknown slot picks from 3-5 years from now? It's rare to see GM willing to settle for that far in advance because they may not be around by that time. You also have to take into consideration you can't have two consecutive years without 1st round pick, so you might have to settle for Cavs 2020, 2022, and 2024 1st round picks, which means you won't get full return from the trade for 7 years. Im not running the Bulls, I wouldnt do any of that. But if the Bulls want to trade Butler this year, then I am going to discuss what I believe to be the best possible deals this year. So what the Bulls wont get full return until 2024? The reality of the NBA is that it is hard to believe the Bulls are going to be a Championship level team in the next 7 years? So why not do something to put themselves in the mix to be one of the teams who are Championship level in the next go around? Allegedly Boston said no to #3 for Butler. That isnt even a great deal for the Bulls. 1 top 3 pick isnt going to change their trajectory. They need multiple high level picks. If they cant get them in the next 2-3 years, may as well aim further out. And just because its rare for a GM to do it, doesnt mean its not the right move for the team. (edit) Illini, Well part of the reason you aim even further out with the Cavs is that James is 32. in 2022 hell be 37 so who knows if he is even an elite player at that point.

Celtics arent worth dealing with right now. If they wont even give up #3 there is just no point even discussing. If they are really going to move Butler, I think the best idea is something really outside of the box like trading for Cleveland's picks in 2020/beyond. The Bulls then will suck hardcore for the next 2-3 years and then by that time Cavs will likely suck too, so youd be looking pretty good in 5 years.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 20, 2017 -> 09:27 AM) Again I ask, what should I have to give up to pay for other people's healthcare? I dont think anyone can answer that question. I think the fundamental question for the United States is that as a country do we believe that all American's should be guaranteed a certain level of healthcare? If we do believe that, then the next step is to figure out how to pay it.

QUOTE (Tony @ Jun 20, 2017 -> 02:46 PM) Aside from an absolutely crazy situation where top FA's actually come to Chicago (There is NOTHING to believe that will happen), what realistic scenario is there where the Bulls get close to a championship with Jimmy Butler on the roster? For the life of me I just don't see it. It would require this years pick turning into a superstar. So maybe inventing new knee procedure to fix Harry Giles.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 20, 2017 -> 12:55 PM) Adrian WojnarowskiVerified account @WojVerticalNBA Sources: As teams become aware Phil Jackson isn't ruling out possibility of trading Kristaps Porzingis, frenzy of interest is growing today. Bet the Celtics will kick themselves if they miss out on Porzingis because they dealt the #1.

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Jun 19, 2017 -> 05:32 PM) They probably are right now. Their rebuild may be 2 years ahead of schedule. Next year they could be the 3rd best team in the league but they are much closer to 6 than 2. They could have 3--1st round picks next year or 2 and 2 the following. They need a legit 5 more than Butler or Hayward but all signs say Hayward and Jackson will be this summer's additions. Im just not that enthusiastic about the Celtics team. I like their picks, I just think that they are using them incorrectly. Basketball is about generational talents. Right now the Celtics (imo) are lacking that. Getting a generational talent in the draft is hard. Celtic's positioning is somewhat bad because GSW has 2 generational talents (I hate to say that about Curry, but unless he falls off a cliff he is one.) Teams that have Westbrook, Lebron etc, are closer than Celtics because they only need to figure out a way to add another super star. If I were the Celtics Id be using my picks to trade for superstars, instead of dicking around trading down for more picks etc.

Cavs trade Love for some first rounders? Then trade Bulls their first rounders in 2022 and beyond? Just have to pick the years after Lebron retires lol

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 19, 2017 -> 02:33 PM) They got an extra #1 pick out of the 1 for 3 deal. Which is why the only way it makes sense for the Bulls is if the Bulls are getting additional #1 picks from the Celtics. Fultz value to Celts wasnt as high as it would be to the Bulls, which is why if the Celts now want to trade with the Bulls theyd have to pay an extra premium. Which is why I do not believe the Celts-Bulls will make a trade. Id bet that Ainge thinks Jackson can do what they needed out of a guy like Butler defensively and that they will get a free agent for more scoring. Still wont be anywhere near NBA Championship level, but im not the Celtics GM or fan, so I really dont care how much they screw up all these amazing picks they got from the Nets. But one day people will look back and wonder how they f***ed it up so badly.

QUOTE (2005thxfrthmmrs @ Jun 19, 2017 -> 02:25 PM) If the Bulls couldn't lure FA to come here before, it's harder than ever now with player incentivized by staying with draft team. I think the actual way to win these days is to acquire as much asset as possible and build within, then to attract FA's when you have a strong young core. Bulls are soon to be overtaken by the teams (Sixers, Bucks) adopted to this philosophy, and already overtook by the Celtics who has done the same. Let's not forget the Rose/Thibs era started because of the draft, and the biggest FA we acquired was Boozer. I dont disagree. I just disagree with the value. Josh Jackson shot sub 60% from FT. He is not a very good shooter. There are some other guys who id take over him if I was completely restarting a franchise. Because they are more boom/bust, and with GSW being the team to beat, you need scorers. (edit) I think the part you keep missing is I dont really want #3 in this draft. Id rather get more future picks than the #3 in this draft. if I had the #3 and i was rebuilding, Id probably take Fox.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 19, 2017 -> 02:18 PM) Bulls are not even 1 superstar away. Which is why you cant turn your most valuable asset into a guy who right now cant shoot well. There just is a huge difference between Fultz and Jackson. I think this is all meaningless as I dont believe the Bulls will trade Butler for anything less than the type of deal I said above, and I believe the Celts are perfectly happy being the 5th best team in the NBA.

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Jun 19, 2017 -> 02:14 PM) So 0% then Well say 1%. Not to mention there is still the chance that some team offers a really great package for Butler. The chances of winning the title if you trade Butler for #3, Zeller and Bradley is 0%.

QUOTE (2005thxfrthmmrs @ Jun 19, 2017 -> 02:04 PM) Let's be real here, you aren't getting that offer for Butler from any team, especially with Jackson being a #1 pick candidate in a different draft. I highly doubt you'd find a better deal in this year's draft (meaning Lakers or Sixer don't need Butler now), and his value will only go down next year by being one year closer to free agency. So you want them to just stand pat? I think youd have to go back to 2013 for Jackson to be in the argument #1 overall. No way he goes before Simmons, KAT, Wiggins. If it isnt the right deal, you pass. That is the NBA. If you start talking .50 for top level players, you will never win a championship. The only way the Bulls have any chance of winning the foreseeable future is to lure a free agent to play with Butler.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 19, 2017 -> 01:58 PM) I think the counterargument is Celts did not want to give up two potential #1 overall picks for butler. This trade allowed them to trade back to 3 and gain additional high lottery picks. THey can then trade potential #1-3 overall pick next year, #3 this year and players, and still have high lottery picks to continue to supplement their team cheaply. Celtics can do whatever they want, if Im making the trade the swap from #1 to #3 cost them at least 2 future 1st round picks. Its really their call if they want to win a championship or not. Maybe they are fine winning regular season games with a finals appearance or 2. But as it stands they need a lot more talent to come close to GSW. They have no Lebron level player. Honestly Celtics are closer to being a team that loses in the 1st round than a team that wins the NBA title.

QUOTE (2005thxfrthmmrs @ Jun 19, 2017 -> 01:32 PM) We may have just 2 years of Jimmy Butler left before he walks for nothing. If we get that package from Bos, I'd bite. Bradley and Zeller you can turn around and flip for multiple draft picks as they're expiring contracts. If Boston wanted Butler they could have traded #1. There is no point in taking #3 from the team who had #1 and could have directly traded it to the Bulls. Who knows what will happen, but most people believe that Fultz is the best player in this draft. Now that may not happen, but the trade should have gone to the Bulls for #1 and then if the Bulls wanted to do something else, they could have moved the pick. Since the Celtics didnt trade the #1 to the Bulls, i cant imagine the Bulls take the #3. The only way that would make any sense is if the Bulls are getting multiple 1st rounders plus the #3 and the Celts wanted the extra pick from the 76ers. IE the Bulls are getting #3 this year, BKN 2018, LA 2018, 2019 LAC Now that is a deal for Butler and you can live with the swap down to #3 in this years draft.

If the Bulls arent getting #1, I dont really have interest in trading Butler. (edit) If the Bulls trade Butler for Bradley, #3 and Zeller the Bulls should be contracted.