SCCWS Posted June 23, 2019 Share Posted June 23, 2019 Maybe there is no connection but I was wondering. Living in New England and Florida, I don't see/hear a lot of Chicago sports talk except from this site. New England and New York sports talk have been rampant this week with NBA draft and free agency talk and basball talk has been limited. Obviously there are a good number of NBA free agents up for grabs starting next week and rumors are rampant. Both the White Sox and Bulls rank in lower 20's in their respective leagues salary-wise. Maybe that is a coincidence. I was wondering if the Bulls approach to free agency( i.e. big name signing or plug holes) next week will be any indication of the White Sox approach next winter? Does JR seem to have an active touch with each team or is he now strictly a boardroom presence with each organization? Are the Bulls expected to jump up in salary by signing 1 or 2 big names next week? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonofaRoache Posted June 23, 2019 Share Posted June 23, 2019 The Bulls free agency aucks and parallels the Sox in terms of disappointment for fans. I wonder what the real connection is here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baron Posted June 23, 2019 Share Posted June 23, 2019 (edited) They aren't going to sign any of the stars but I expect the Bulls to give someone quite a bit of money to help the bench. I expect them to offer the Bucks RFA Brogdon over 80 million Edited June 23, 2019 by Baron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananarchy Posted June 23, 2019 Share Posted June 23, 2019 It's difficult to draw any comparisons between two different sports which play in opposite seasons with completely different spending models. The Bulls face difficulties outside of their own organization - NBA FAs signing with Chicago have to live in Chicago during the winter and the team does not currently have any superstars yet. The White Sox play in a league where spending big is king but it's also a chance to really screw up your franchise. There isn't a "cap" per se but their is a limited amount of money most teams are willing to spend. I know this thread is a total fish for us to continue complaining about Reinsdorf, but it's not really a fair comparison. The NBA is a really tough business and the White Sox simply were called on their bluff for Manny Machado. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted June 23, 2019 Share Posted June 23, 2019 To the Bulls’ credit, a willingness to spend on stars has never been the issue. Unfortunately their front office is simply incapable of landing one, partly because they’re unlikable and party because Chicago isn’t a desirable winter location for a lot of those guys. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCCWS Posted June 24, 2019 Author Share Posted June 24, 2019 6 hours ago, Eloy Jiménez said: It's difficult to draw any comparisons between two different sports which play in opposite seasons with completely different spending models. The Bulls face difficulties outside of their own organization - NBA FAs signing with Chicago have to live in Chicago during the winter and the team does not currently have any superstars yet. The White Sox play in a league where spending big is king but it's also a chance to really screw up your franchise. There isn't a "cap" per se but their is a limited amount of money most teams are willing to spend. I know this thread is a total fish for us to continue complaining about Reinsdorf, but it's not really a fair comparison. The NBA is a really tough business and the White Sox simply were called on their bluff for Manny Machado. Not at all. I have no clue how actively involved JR is with either franchise. But from a distance, they both seem to have a similar blueprint. I do think it is interesting that both teams rank in the lower 3rd in salaries. Both have long-term employees in the front office. Both have what you would call "interim" managers. Both are in a rebuild. I only follow the Bulls because of Kris Dunn who I saw play many times at Providence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron883 Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 Players don't want to go to the Bulls. The bulls front office has a bad reputation. Plus, they don't have Max cap space. They may use all their space to get Brogdon, if the bucks let him go. Doubt they do though 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 Just now, SCCWS said: Not at all. I have no clue how actively involved JR is with either franchise. But from a distance, they both seem to have a similar blueprint. I do think it is interesting that both teams rank in the lower 3rd in salaries. Both have long-term employees in the front office. Both have what you would call "interim" managers. Both are in a rebuild. I only follow the Bulls because of Kris Dunn who I saw play many times at Providence. Outside of Reinsdorf and both having front offices with no accountability, the organizations are very different. The Bulls are the crown jewel of the NBA when it comes to fan support and the organization is overflowing with money. They may not recklessly spend into the luxury tax, but they aren’t cheap outside of dealing 2nd round picks for cash. The Bulls’ issues are liking their players too much, being afraid of taking risks, hiring bad coaches (outside of Thibs), and being completely unable to land a star despite wanting to land them. I guess the Sox hire bad coaches as wel, but the rest of those things are vastly different from the Bulls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCCWS Posted June 24, 2019 Author Share Posted June 24, 2019 40 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said: Outside of Reinsdorf and both having front offices with no accountability, the organizations are very different. The Bulls are the crown jewel of the NBA when it comes to fan support and the organization is overflowing with money. They may not recklessly spend into the luxury tax, but they aren’t cheap outside of dealing 2nd round picks for cash. The Bulls’ issues are liking their players too much, being afraid of taking risks, hiring bad coaches (outside of Thibs), and being completely unable to land a star despite wanting to land them. I guess the Sox hire bad coaches as wel, but the rest of those things are vastly different from the Bulls. Good point about attendance. Bulls did not experience much of a decline with Butler leaving and they are a top draw. I found it interesting that a few posters mentioned the Chicago winters as a negative to attracting FA. Are they worst than Milwaukee and Toronto who are enjoying NBA success these days? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 1 minute ago, SCCWS said: Good point about attendance. Bulls did not experience much of a decline with Butler leaving and they are a top draw. I found it interesting that a few posters mentioned the Chicago winters as a negative to attracting FA. Are they worst than Milwaukee and Toronto who are enjoying NBA success these days? Those teams didn’t rely on free agency to build their teams. They drafted for upside and made bold trades, which are things the Bulls don’t do. None of the three teams are going to be popular destinations for star free agents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCCWS Posted June 24, 2019 Author Share Posted June 24, 2019 10 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said: Those teams didn’t rely on free agency to build their teams. They drafted for upside and made bold trades, which are things the Bulls don’t do. None of the three teams are going to be popular destinations for star free agents. Thanks. You answered my original question. There will be no correlation between what the Bulls do next month in Free Agency and the White Sox next winter as far as spending money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananarchy Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 So basically the answer to this question is: they have nothing in common with each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCCWS Posted June 25, 2019 Author Share Posted June 25, 2019 On 6/24/2019 at 8:41 AM, Eloy Jiménez said: So basically the answer to this question is: they have nothing in common with each other. No. They have nothing in FA or attendance in common. Having payrolls in bottom 3rd, interim-managers, long-term front office staff despite lack of success seem to be a blueprint or just a coincidence. I didn't realize the Bulls have a major disadvantage in the FA( big name) market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananarchy Posted June 26, 2019 Share Posted June 26, 2019 5 hours ago, SCCWS said: No. They have nothing in FA or attendance in common. Having payrolls in bottom 3rd, interim-managers, long-term front office staff despite lack of success seem to be a blueprint or just a coincidence. I didn't realize the Bulls have a major disadvantage in the FA( big name) market. I can only assume you don't follow basketball at all based on this post. Chicago is not a sought after market in the NBA. Chicago is a crappy place to live during the NBA season. "the despite lack of success" bullshit doesn't fly either. The Bulls were very, very good for a long time before Paxson decided (rightly) to blow it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCCWS Posted June 26, 2019 Author Share Posted June 26, 2019 52 minutes ago, Eloy Jiménez said: I can only assume you don't follow basketball at all based on this post. Chicago is not a sought after market in the NBA. Chicago is a crappy place to live during the NBA season. "the despite lack of success" bullshit doesn't fly either. The Bulls were very, very good for a long time before Paxson decided (rightly) to blow it up. I had season tics for college basketball for over 20 years. That is why I said I follow Kris Dunn. But I only watch NBA and mostly just playoffs since it is after college season. Paxson became GM in 2003. In 16 years they have struggled postseason and never have advanced past the semifinals and only made the semis once. He has also turned over coaches pretty regularly w 6 in 16 years. Not sure he would have survived in most franchises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.