Y2Jimmy0

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 11:25 AM) You have to look into the crystal ball and try to determine if there is a Lebron or Michael or someone of that ilk coming into the draft the next couple of years. That's when you tank and trade Jimmy. If it's just a bunch of meddling guys, you might as well hang on and try to score some FA. But Gar has to go. Pax has to go, and Fred is just not respected. He has to go as well. Gar isn't going to interest FAs since the money is about the same, and it's easier to attract players in Miami and LA in the winter. Chicago is not all that great of place to hang during basketball season. Dick, this upcoming draft is a monster one.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 11:23 AM) By the way, the Heat were a middling team (with a superstar) when they landed LBJ & Bosh and went on to play in a bunch of championship games (and win some rings). Prior to that, the Heat were a middling team with a young Dwade superstar, when they landed Shaq and won a title. I also gave the example of Kobe and the Lakers prior to getting Pau and how they went from a middling team back to a title contender like that. The Celtics were a middling to poor team (with a star in Paul Pierce) before getting an aging Allen / Garnett where they went on to win a title. Not many examples of teams who got to where they were by tanking / winning the lottery (and getting to the title). In fact, the Warriors are the only example of that (since the Cavs only got back after they "signed" LBJ). I suppose I should also count the Spurs, albeit, they were a great team, whose top player got hurt and they thus bombed and ended up winning the lotto and getting Duncan. The Thunder got damn close. Durant, Westbrook, Harden are pretty great top 5 picks.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 11:18 AM) The problem is...you look at the Cavs...they got Lebron...they didn't do anything else all that smart...they just got lucky enough to get Lebron. Warriors did a lot more and I'll give them credit cause they didn't have some generational talent fall into their laps at the #1 pick...they drafted well (near the top of the draft, but well). My point is, in the NBA, a star driven league, only a few teams are going to win...it is a dynasty league like no other sport (still). So few teams have won titles over the last 20 years in that sport and it is because of how superstar driven it is. It is hard to find 1 superstar, let alone 2 or three. The Lakers have had quite a few top picks and right now they don't have on player who looks like he could develop into a guy even remotely close to what Jimmy Butler is. The Sixers have made a ton of lottery picks and only Embiid looks like he has a shot at being in the echelon of Butler (and Embiid has serious injury issues). In fact, Okafor, the #2 pick (and a guy everyone was talking about the whole college season) is sitting on the freaking bench barely playing (while they hope to trade him...Lakers #1 overall pick, Russell is also getting ripped to shreds by LA media / fans). You got to draft well, but you don't necessarily need to be at the top. Look at all the championships Pat Riley won in Miami...yes they drafted Wade (and they didn't tank to get him) but almost everything else was done largely via free agency (and I agree that dynamic has changed, but I think it is will more morph into trades). I just do not support tanking. I am okay with rebuilding if that is what we see and the front office legitimately looks and says, we can't come up with any plausible scenario to build around Butler....that said, they haven't even freaking tried. They weren't sure what they were going to do this past off-season and this is the first year where we have seen Jimmy as the #1 option on our team (no more Rose) and he's emerged into a top 10 player. Shouldn't they at least "try" for a year or two while we have him under a bargain contract before dealing him (unless we get a blown away offer?). I agree here. Jimmy Butler is a top 15 player in the league. I don't see a path towards getting another one though is my point. Selling out right now to get Markelle Fulz of Washington or one of these other guys in the top 3 in addition to your own top 10 pick could do that. It could blow up and they could suck for a long time. The thing is though, they already suck now. If they made this deal with Boston (who knows if it's even been offered?) they'd basically have 4 lottery picks over the next 2 seasons, 2 of which probably top 5, gives you the chance at 1-2 of those dynasty type players. There is no other path towards acquiring a guy like that to place next to Jimmy Butler.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 11:12 AM) Lovie gets another commitment in Bennett Williams. A 3* CB from Cali. First recruit to get from Cali since 2003. Lovie and staff continue to do work on the recruiting trail in his first real recruiting class. Lovie will be fine. They'll never be Ohio State or Michigan but there's no reason they can't be Iowa.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 11:02 AM) I'm not speaking for Jenks, but I view sports as entertainment...so while championships are nice and obviously the ultimate goal, what I want is a team that is entertaining and can contend. I like being in the post-season and having a chance and at least being a piece away. Now I'm not saying this team is overly entertaining, cause they aren't, nor am I saying they are a piece away, cause they aren't (unless that piece would be King James or some other super elite player). But in general, I'd call what the Bulls did for the last ten years, largely successful and I can think back on many entertaining moments watching the Bulls recent runs (last year / this year...not so much, but even then I remember how bad it was post Jordan and even after all that bottoming out, the only time we were close to winning a title is when we got lucky with Rose coming). When I contrast that to the White Sox and Bears and I largely don't have many nice things to say or positive sports memories looking back over the last 5 years. In fact, last time I had any real entertainment was with the Bears during the Lovie era and in all honesty, the Sox was the Ozzie era (outside of last years hot start and year 1 of Ventura being a pleasant surprise). In the other sports, I agree with you. In the NBA, it's much different. The White Sox and Bears in a much better position to win a championship than the Bulls are because of the nature of their sports. If i'm holding them to my "make the best decisions to eventually win a championship" viewpoint, then I can't settle for being a consistent playoff team. In the NFL and MLB there are many factors and teams can make shrewd decisions and compete with rest of the league almost instantly. In the NBA, there are like 3-4 title contenders. The worst place to be is where the Bulls are. Everyone made fun of the 76ers but any smart Bulls fan would trade places with them in a second right now.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 10:40 AM) I'm not but i'm also realistic. How many lottery picks pan out? How many become all-stars? How many become starters in the all-star game? History has proven that the "hauls" you get for superstar players rarely pan out. Denver traded Carmelo for a king's ransom according to all the experts and what have they gotten out of it? Minnesota received a haul for Garnett, including two first round picks, and did what with it? Granted you have the Kahn effect, but drafting Flynn and Rubio at 5 and 6 just proves top 10 picks don't always become good players. Butler gives you a name. Butler gives you some credibility with FA's. He's on a cheap deal. If anything the best play is to give it a go next year without the likes of Rondo and maybe you get lucky and Wade can convince someone like Chris Paul to come and play. The Bulls would have to overpay him, but Wade/Butler/Paul gives you a good enough 3 to seriously compete for a Finals spot. If Paul/Wade prove to be too old/ineffective, trade everyone at that point. You've got 3 full seasons after this one with Butler. No pressure to trade him right away. So the plan for next year is to return Wade and Butler and pray that someone comes to play with Wade in Chicago on a 1 year deal? Is Hoiberg coaching? Is Forman the GM? I know I'm being difficult but I truly believe blowing this thing to smithereens is the only play here unless it truly is about selling bobble heads and concessions again and in that case, f*** it. Go get Carmelo, sell out the UC and bow out in the 2nd round of the playoffs while pushing back the future another 3-4 years.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 10:40 AM) I'm not but i'm also realistic. How many lottery picks pan out? How many become all-stars? How many become starters in the all-star game? History has proven that the "hauls" you get for superstar players rarely pan out. Denver traded Carmelo for a king's ransom according to all the experts and what have they gotten out of it? Minnesota received a haul for Garnett, including two first round picks, and did what with it? Granted you have the Kahn effect, but drafting Flynn and Rubio at 5 and 6 just proves top 10 picks don't always become good players. Butler gives you a name. Butler gives you some credibility with FA's. He's on a cheap deal. If anything the best play is to give it a go next year without the likes of Rondo and maybe you get lucky and Wade can convince someone like Chris Paul to come and play. The Bulls would have to overpay him, but Wade/Butler/Paul gives you a good enough 3 to seriously compete for a Finals spot. If Paul/Wade prove to be too old/ineffective, trade everyone at that point. You've got 3 full seasons after this one with Butler. No pressure to trade him right away. I think if you get 2 lottery picks in this upcoming draft, you have a much better chance of future success than building a team around Jimmy Butler. Nets pick should be top 3. Go look at that list. Some game-changing PGs at the top. I'll take my chances.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 10:30 AM) I think the Sox should get somewhere between what Sale and Eaton returned, and neither Martes or Tucker are anywhere near the prospect Moncada is Kopech is roughly equal to the prospect value of Martes, possibly slightly more valuable at this point Moncada + Kopech > Martes + Tucker considerably. That means a third piece would have to be a significant prospect along the lines of Reed or Perez A 4th piece could be a lower level flyer Martes + Tucker + Reed/Perez + lower level flyer starts to move towards a deal So after all that you agree with what I posted initially. Martes + Tucker + 3rd piece + 75th pick.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 09:47 AM) Even if we ignore the Bulls' history in landing FAs, this still doesn't deal with that huge change in the CBA from this year. Are you ok adding players in FA if anyone at Cousins's level and above never leaves their team again because they opened up the floodgates for those top players? This is the point I've been trying to make. Guys that we could target years out will not be hitting free agency anymore. When a guy like DeMarcus Cousins would rather take $207 million to stay in Sacramento, I think that's a solid indicator of things to come.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 09:48 AM) Pretty sure Celtics can't trade their pick because that would be three straight seasons of trading their 1st round pick Celtics had their own first last year and used it on Zizic. Bulls would need to acquire Celtics 2017 1st round pick. Then they flop that pick with Brooklyn for Brooklyn's 1st after the lottery is announced. Bulls would end up with their own pick and Brooklyn's pick. Brooklyn would get Boston's 1st. Then the Bulls would also acquire Brooklyn's 2018 1st that Boston currently owns.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 09:43 AM) Totally agree. I'd rather get pick 14 with Jimmy on the team than draft 6-7 without Jimmy. The better avenue for the Bulls is to add players in FA, not the draft. Jenks, you are the exact fan I was talking about man. You really are content being the 6th seed in the East, huh? That's your prerogative but as a sports fan, I want my team to do everything they can to win championships. This plan is not that.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 08:46 AM) I'm not happy to be a playoff team, but it's a lot harder to get the three All-Stars you need to compete for a title starting with 0 instead of with 1. That's fair and I understand your point. I disagree though. With the new CBA, young stars (Cousins) and potential guys (Davis, Jabari Parker, etc) will just stay with their teams because of the gobs of money that they can be offered. Jimmy keeps you competitive which never allows to cash in at the top of the lottery. If you don't have high draft picks, and can't sign really good free agents, I ask you again, How do they ever build a championship team around Jimmy Butler?

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 08:33 AM) Well I hope you're right and honestly thought Luhnow would be high on Quintana given his focus on analytics. Having said that, I really thought a Quintana trade to the Astros would ultimately happen if no one else jumped in with substantial offers and I'm pretty surprised it's January 31st and Q is still on our roster. You would think if Luhnow was willing to give up Martes & Tucker he would have offered them by now and a deal would already be done. That's why I fear that Hahn is asking for more than that which is kind of nuts if actually wants to move Q.

Would you guys do Martes, Tucker, Reed or Laureano, and the 75th pick in the draft?

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 08:31 AM) From a surplus value standpoint, Quintana is worth roughly $133 million over the next 4 seasons Using fangraphs prospect surplus value as one way (not the only for sure) to evaluate prospect values Martes comes in at $39.00 million and Tucker comes in at $38.2 million for a total of $77 million. We are short easily 62 million in surplus value to make a deal happen I'd propose Martes + Tucker + Reed + Perez. Astros probably wouldn't do it, but it allows them to keep Paulino/Musgrove/Whitley/Fisher in their system That's 3 top 100 guys and Reed who was like a consensus top 30 last year. No chance they trade that much.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 08:25 AM) Why on Earth would we consider trading Jimmy Butler, a consensus top 15 player at 27 years old, simply to go into mega rebuild mode in the hopes of landing a Jimmy Butler? Because there's no feasible plan to win championships building around Jimmy Butler. I'm all ears though. There are 6 banners in that building and 1998 was a long ass time ago. Surprised Bulls fans are as happy as they are to be a "playoff team".

Keith Law's White Sox Prospect overview: http://www.espn.com/blog/keith-law/insider/post?id=6460 Pretty glowing about Alec Hansen and Basabe. Thinks Fulmer, Lopez,and Burdi are all probably relievers but really good ones. He likes Amado Nunez.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 08:18 AM) Could the Astros theoretically trade the 56th pick they just got as well if they wanted to? No. That's the Cardinals actual 2nd rounder.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 08:16 AM) Agreed. There is absolutely no way the Sox can count on that pick as being a big part of the return. There's no guarantee they would get who they'd want in that spot. If the pick is a throw-in or deal sweetener? Then sure. But it can't be such a crucial part of the deal. It absolutely can be the 4th piece. I'd rather give Hostetler the extra pick and the $800k to play with in the draft than a 4th piece equivalent to a Victor Diaz or something.

QUOTE (steveno89 @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 08:09 AM) The 75th overall pick is a complete crapshoot and nowhere near as valuable as a competitive balance pick right after the first round I would decline a Martes, Tucker + 75th overall pick in a heartbeat on a surplus argument alone How do the Sox go from reportedly asking for Musgrove + Martes + Tucker to accepting the 75th overall pick instead of Musgrove?? Massive value difference there I never said the Sox should trade Q for Martes, Tucker, and the 75th pick. Reading is hard though.

I'm a big proponent of the trade Butler idea. It should be Boston though and I want both of Brooklyn's picks. Not sure what else Bulls would need and how to match salary. I just know this: If they did this, it's likely they'd have a top 3 pick in this year's draft and another top 10 (their own pick). Getting one of these PG's would be essential in a really deep draft. This would also set the Bulls up for 2 more lottery picks next year (Brooklyn's and their own). They could totally f*** it up and draft bad players. But if they draft 2 cornerstone type stars, they could keep them forever in the current NBA. It's not a "great" plan and nobody likes watching 20 win seasons but it's better than patching it around Jimmy and being the 6th seed annually in my opinion.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 08:05 AM) That sounds like a Gar tactic 100 percent. I have read and heard a few stories of his college coaching years, and ethics are not really something he is fond of Yep. There's an old Paul Shirley piece talking about the snake that Gar Forman really is.

QUOTE (ChiSoxFanMike @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 07:59 AM) Unless the 3rd piece is good, I'm not too fond of this offer. I think the Sox could do better. Yeah that's fair. It probably requires waiting until the trade deadline though. It also depends what the Sox actually think of Tucker and Martes. They may think Tucker never develops the power others think he can. They may not love Martes for some reason. We really have no idea. Those are clearly the Astros top 2 chips though.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 07:36 AM) I agree that would be fair, but the newest rumor suggests Martes is off the table. Just not sure what to believe anymore with Luhnow, because he seems like the type of GM who would likely overvalue his prospects. But to your point, I would hope Hahn would have taken that deal already as long as the 3rd piece was pretty solid. There's no way Martes is off the table. That's a load of crap. He was offered for Archer. I talked to some Astros fans and they think that Archer thing was a leak and Astros prefer Quintana.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 07:26 AM) Is 75th pick a pick in the second round? I don't think that would be tradeable. It is. It's the Cardinals "Competitive Balance Pick".