jenksycat

QUOTE (2005thxfrthmmrs @ Jun 20, 2017 -> 03:10 PM) Can't tell if this is serious. After the Wade & Rondo "go for it" offseason last year, I won't guess anything those idiots will do next.

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. Pickup Dwight Howard & Jason Terry. Make a run at the Warriors

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jun 20, 2017 -> 11:27 AM) What has Pax earned at this point? Dude has had like 5 coaches, three rebuilds, he has fought with multiple coaches both physically and through the media. Just because he has rings on his finger doesn't mean he gets a pass. This is GarPax, not just Gar. Part and parcel Yeah I don't give Paxson credit for anything positive in his tenure. He built a middle of the road NBA-purgatory team with Kirk/Deng/Gordon that never had any chance at being a contender. Hired Vinny F'ing Del Negro as a head coach, traded Aldridge, etc. A favorable ping pong bounce made GarPax millions in salary.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jun 20, 2017 -> 10:25 AM) It remains incredibly distressing to me that the front office that f***ed everything up(repeatedly), just 5 months ago traded solid assets and PICKS for Cam f***ing Payne, is now in a position to make another trade with their only real asset and try and fix this mess that they made. Do not want. Do not want any of it Nobody I'd rather want at the helm of an off season that will decide the next 5-10 years of Bulls basketball than Gar Foreman. A 1.7% ping pong ball has kept these idiots employed for 5 years longer than they should have

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 19, 2017 -> 02:13 PM) 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. So 0% then

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 16, 2017 -> 04:47 PM) Yeah, they probably want to give him a physical to make sure he is already hurt. And Philly will give up a future 1st or swap so the Celts will have Brooklyn & Philly's #1 next year Then trade 1 pick for George and the other for Butler. Boomshakalaka

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 16, 2017 -> 01:53 PM) I think everything is to some extent talk and I still think Celtics trade the pick. For who though? It'd be an overpay for George and an underpay for Butler.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 15, 2017 -> 01:09 PM) They can go to the Finals every year, for starters. Not sure I follow... The Cavs cannot beat the Warriors (w/ Durant). The Cavs have 0 flexibility to do anything significant outside of something stupid like trading for Melo's corpse. Going out to LA they (Bron, PG, etc) have more options/draft picks/younger talent. Still have to make it through the Warriors, but they'd have a better shot than the Cavs do.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 15, 2017 -> 12:03 PM) Going to the West to pair with Paul and Wade isn't going to help him beat the Warriors either. It would be a better shot than the Cavs have now. There's nowhere in the East they can go

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 15, 2017 -> 11:58 AM) I really hope he isn't that stupid. The Cavs are cooked, they can't beat the Warriors and have 0 flexibility to do anything to bigly improve the team. GM Lebron screwed them with all the money dumped to Smith/Thompson/Shumpert. The only option they have is to trade Love somewhere.

What ring chasing veterans with some left in the tank will be joining the Warriors?

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jun 12, 2017 -> 01:37 PM) Money still seems to be a point of contention. Robertson is owed $12 million next season. That number is less crazy that it was a few years ago, but it's still not cheap. The Sox should be covering 100% of the salary to get better pieces back. Their payroll is 50 cents for the next 3 years, they should be taking that opportunity to do what 'rich' teams do and eat salary to get better prospects back.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jun 9, 2017 -> 01:06 AM) I really think the people that want the Sox to lose every game would be a fascinating study for a thesis on the brain of a sports fan. I think it would be discovered that deep down you are oh, so content during a so-called rebuild because you can puff your chests out and brag to Cub fans and others who would normally mock you or console you after a loss. You don't have to have your pride out there night after night during the season, your mood dependent on whether the White Sox win or lose. Now, thanks to the "rebuild" (lol on rebuild), you can (illogically but in your minds logically) smile at the antagonistic Cub fan or friend and say, 'What? I wanted to lose tonight. I got exactly what I wanted, a loss." The Cub fan or other person mocking you or consoling you for the Sox loss might add, "Oh you wanted them to lose cause you've finally come to your senses and stopped being a Sox fan?" You then would respond: "No. I want them to lose cause we are rebuilding and I want us to get the No. 1 pick in the baseball draft preferably but top three would be OK I guess." And that fan would say, "Oh," and leave the scene with the same look we all had today after John McCain's bizarre conversation with Comey. I had to unblock your posts to respond: wow

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jun 8, 2017 -> 04:01 PM) This is the part I would disagree with for a couple of reasons. 1. The better the team plays the better the individuals are playing thus more trade bait. I would trust a player who has shown progress in the minors more than the draft picks. 2. as the minors players come up, if they play well the team will win more. The other side is the team losing because Moncada et al. are playing poorly. See my post a couple above, it's possible to root for our future core/trade pieces to do well + also lose all games.

QUOTE (MEANS @ Jun 8, 2017 -> 03:00 PM) Whaaaaaaaaaaaaat? He's had some of the biggest hits in franchise history this year. If you don't believe he's a locked in All-Star for the next 10 years then you're crazy. If he goes into a month long slump and you don't say they should have cut him in the offseason you're also crazy.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 8, 2017 -> 10:52 AM) The problem is it isn't that simple. If you suck, that usually is because your players all suck. The Sox still have enough guys on this roster that could have trade value. Looking at what major leaguers bring back in trades versus was statistical expectations are from kids in the drafter at relative draft positions, the White Sox stand to gain MUCH more in the long term by winning 75 games because guys like Yolmer Sanchez and Avi Garcia had break out seasons and exploded their trade value than if we just outright sucked all around. Take the Sale deal. We essentially got 3 advanced and years matured first round pick talents, plus another flyer for Sale. We could do the same for Q if he pitches well. If Avi keeps hitting like an all-star we could pull another large package for him, versus his being a DFA if he has another poor season. Looking at the whole body of work, we could be talking like 10 additional top flight prospects in our system because our players are good enough to win games, versus just better draft position in each round if not. I said this earlier in the thread, but I'm also no rooting for all individual players to do poorly. I want Avi to be a real baseball player, Q/Gonzo/Shields to all pitch well enough to be traded, Frazier to remember how to hit, etc. etc.....But I also want them to lose as many games as possible. I know both of those may not be possible, but that's what I'm 'rooting' for. Hopefully we can unload at the deadline and have those losses pile up.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jun 7, 2017 -> 10:09 AM) And the White Sox still probably would have picked Fulmer. You guys keep mentioning this anecdote, but the Sox would have had to have picked Benintendi. This is why scouting is that much more important than where you actually pick. Still doesn't matter. Getting the #1 pick means you get your top guy guaranteed + more money to spend overall. You're still banking on your scouts, but if you don't trust them then the franchise was doomed regardless. I swear everyone arguing against this seems to think the only 2 options are: Lose 100 games and get the 1st pick or win 99 and get the 29th. We're talking about a garbage team that's already a lock to get a top 5 pick, lose a handful more games and now you're getting the #1 pick. Complete nonsense to not want that.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 6, 2017 -> 06:10 PM) Or just a win or two was the difference between Rodon and Schwarber...granted, the results of 2015-16 will make that an excellent pick from a Cubs' historical perspective, even if Schwarber is worse than Avi Garcia from here on out. Doesn't matter. Higher pick = better chance you get "your guy" + more pool money to spend on later picks. People seem to confuse tanking with wanting the team hit .150 with a 8 ERA. I want our potential future pieces to do well, I want our trade pieces to do well enough and turn into prospects, and I want them to lose 162 games so we can pick whoever we want in 2018. This franchise hasn't had a direction in a decade and seems to have finally accepted a rebuild and is off to a great start so lets keep it rolling. Higher picks = faster rebuild time.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jun 6, 2017 -> 02:19 PM) Have you looked at the 2012 Cubs team? There are some pretty good players on that team. Maybe suggesting that they didn't full tank is incorrect, but they didn't have a good team regardless. They didn't gut their roster like the 1997 Marlins did or didn't have a team so devoid of talent that they couldn't win games like the 2003 Tigers. Frankly, your position regarding the draft position strengthens my argument. Where you end up really doesn't matter because the MLB draft is a crapshoot any way you slice it up. It's incredibly important to bring in the necessary talent, but that talent doesn't always work out. The best thing to do is to acquire as many young assets as you can and weed them out from there. Finally, if the Sox had taken Ian Happ instead of Carson Fulmer, I don't think you'd be asking that question. Happ went 1 pick after Fulmer. And it's not like the books is closed on Carson Fulmer yet either. And Benintendi went 1 pick before Fulmer. 2 meaningless wins on a s*** team let them slide 1 spot and miss a guy higher on their board.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jun 3, 2017 -> 04:11 PM) I guess I'm one who doesn't understand the need to root for losses. To me, my mentality is more along the lines of being happy when they win and not caring when they lose. I will never be happy when the White Sox lose, even if it's for the greater good. I mean, seriously, if the White Sox ended up going 96-66 this year, winning the division, and storming through the playoffs, would the reaction here really be "well they should have lost, this is stupid"? Nobody is going to be upset at a 96 win team, which isn't in any way realistic and no sane person's argument. If they're going to miss the playoffs anyway, win 60 games and get the highest possible pick you can so you don't miss the top guy on your board by 2 meaningless wins.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 28, 2017 -> 11:52 AM) 469 career PA for Schwarzenegger and a .216 career hitter. .144 with a .519 OPS vs. Lefties in hi career. Yet he is going to be a star. How come White Sox players don't get to fail as much before being labeled? Schwarzenegger may be a great hitter some day, but right now he pretty much blows, but Theo drafted him so he is BAbe Ruth. A few playoff moonshots and hitting .400 in a Cubs World Series buys you some time.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 24, 2017 -> 01:33 PM) Bleacher Report‏Verified account @BleacherReport 1h1 hour ago T-Wolves and Spurs may target D-Rose in free agency, per @IanBegley http://ble.ac/2qccQ4m Max deal only

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ May 17, 2017 -> 09:26 AM) Is he top 5? No. Is he top 10-12, a franchise guy and a national brand? Yes. I still maintain that the Bulls would be stupid to trade Butler, a relatively cheap, All-Star/borderline super-star player, for a bunch of picks that odds say will not pan out and whose ceilings are right where Jimmy Butler is right now. And the FO knows this. They don't want to go through the 00's again with no headlining name. They have someone who will sell tickets and jerseys. They'll try to piece together a team around him. And no matter what they do, they're not beating Lebron in the next 3-4 seasons unless he suffers an injury. He's not a border-line super star. He's a solid All-star 2nd best player on a contender type with 2 years left and roughly 100,000,000 minutes played. There isn't a thing the Bulls can do to be contenders for the 2 years Jimmy has left. If you somehow convince Boston to give up the #1 + more, you do it in a heartbeat and hope you hit the jackpot, rinse, repeat. I doubt the franchise could give 2 s***s if they don't have a "headline" name. They print money no matter what and clearly don't give a s*** about the actual product.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ May 16, 2017 -> 03:05 PM) JB is in the same group as LBJ, Curry, Durant, etc?

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ May 5, 2017 -> 03:52 PM) God, the rotating DH. Thome's homer off Thornton (still may not have landed) really was the breaking point. Dammit I miss that 2006 lineup Thome - 42 PK - 35 Dye - 44 Crede - 30