2012-2013 NBA thread

[RockRaines]

That post is eye opening for sure.

[Jake]

1. The front office turned us from 8 seed to back to back 1 seed in one offseason, an offseason we "lost" by the way. We can debate the meaning of the 1 seed, but we were a title contender every second that Derrick Rose's ACL was intact.

 

2. JR remembers 1998-whenever the end of that run was and is not going to encourage the deconstruction of yet another winning team. He'd rather you pine for superstar number 2 while you have several star players on the roster than having to pretend that players like Marcus Fizer, Ron Artest, and an old Jalen Rose are franchise cornerstone players. I agree with that sentiment, too.

 

3. What good does spending into the luxury tax bring? More bench mob? I'm sorry but I agree with the FO that being unable to sign free agents and having inflated contracts with your bench players f***ing sucks. I believe the FO will spend into the tax when it comes to keeping key players around -- heck, what would you say if we paid the tax to keep Boozer on the roster? That's the type of s*** these other teams do and we'll do it too if necessary to stay competitive.

 

I'm sick of smart posters losing their mind over spending as if the cap doesn't keep us from signing big FAs. Jerry opening the wallet right now would only keep our overrated bench players around. The instant we have players worth spending into the tax for, we'll do it. All those players are under contract now. Just keep the Ben Gordon contract situation in mind...was that cheap or savvy? You tell me.

 

4. Speaking of the bench and young players, let's talk about the youth or supposed lack thereof on the bench. CJ Watson and JL3 turned into Hinrich, Teague, and maybe Beverley. That position got younger. The 2 guard position lost Brewer and Korver, gained Belinelli and Butler. Replaced two players at their peak with two young guys with room to grow. Butler is also Deng's reserve, which amounts to about 5 minutes. Taj remains Taj. Omer becomes Nazr Mohammed, final we get older. It just isn't that easy to find a good, cheap reserve 5 and I think Nazr makes sense in that role instead of some NDFA that may cost us when Noah inevitably gets hurt. Scalabrine becomes Vlad Rad, who isn't much younger but at least has a useful skill. The last big man is likely to be Malcolm Thomas who must be you guys' dream come true as an NDFA.

 

Let's just let it all play out and relax. This team isn't that bad, even minus Derrick Rose. We get in the habit of devaluing our players and staff. I'd love for us to make a splash but we didn't. I honestly can't blame a franchise for not going after Dwight Howard either, especially when he says he doesn't like you. Let that circus go elsewhere.

[WHarris1]

To be completely honest the Kirk Hinrich signing is a major dark cloud (for me) over an offseason that was otherwise relatively neutral. He's aging badly, he's not very good, and I don't like him.

[bmags]

What a lot of those teams have in common is getting their championship core and spending to preserve it. And then there's the Magic, who would seem to be the classic example of overspending on above average free agents to push them over the top, which ended up blowing up in their face. Until we get that true #2, I'm fine with these shorter, cheaper contracts. I just don't see the advantage to specifically tanking now for the 2014 offseason as opposed to just maintaining status quo until 2014, where you gain a lot of flexibility. While I'd prefer Mayo over Kirk, I don't really see Mayo as some missing piece in a championship team. He's been on really good playoff teams, did any of you ever say "Oh man, Mayo is really putting them over the top!". Of all the go-for-it options, i'd go for Dwight and see if the 5th year sways him, or take the cap space. BUT, I don't see any signs that the Magic want our actual equal value players instaead of just a bunch of expiring contracts so they can rebuild. If they took our players they'd just be an 8th seed in the east. Why woudl they want that?

[Jenksismyhero]

1. The front office turned us from 8 seed to back to back 1 seed in one offseason, an offseason we "lost" by the way. We can debate the meaning of the 1 seed, but we were a title contender every second that Derrick Rose's ACL was intact.

 

2. JR remembers 1998-whenever the end of that run was and is not going to encourage the deconstruction of yet another winning team. He'd rather you pine for superstar number 2 while you have several star players on the roster than having to pretend that players like Marcus Fizer, Ron Artest, and an old Jalen Rose are franchise cornerstone players. I agree with that sentiment, too.

 

3. What good does spending into the luxury tax bring? More bench mob? I'm sorry but I agree with the FO that being unable to sign free agents and having inflated contracts with your bench players f***ing sucks. I believe the FO will spend into the tax when it comes to keeping key players around -- heck, what would you say if we paid the tax to keep Boozer on the roster? That's the type of s*** these other teams do and we'll do it too if necessary to stay competitive.

 

I'm sick of smart posters losing their mind over spending as if the cap doesn't keep us from signing big FAs. Jerry opening the wallet right now would only keep our overrated bench players around. The instant we have players worth spending into the tax for, we'll do it. All those players are under contract now. Just keep the Ben Gordon contract situation in mind...was that cheap or savvy? You tell me.

 

4. Speaking of the bench and young players, let's talk about the youth or supposed lack thereof on the bench. CJ Watson and JL3 turned into Hinrich, Teague, and maybe Beverley. That position got younger. The 2 guard position lost Brewer and Korver, gained Belinelli and Butler. Replaced two players at their peak with two young guys with room to grow. Butler is also Deng's reserve, which amounts to about 5 minutes. Taj remains Taj. Omer becomes Nazr Mohammed, final we get older. It just isn't that easy to find a good, cheap reserve 5 and I think Nazr makes sense in that role instead of some NDFA that may cost us when Noah inevitably gets hurt. Scalabrine becomes Vlad Rad, who isn't much younger but at least has a useful skill. The last big man is likely to be Malcolm Thomas who must be you guys' dream come true as an NDFA.

 

Let's just let it all play out and relax. This team isn't that bad, even minus Derrick Rose. We get in the habit of devaluing our players and staff. I'd love for us to make a splash but we didn't. I honestly can't blame a franchise for not going after Dwight Howard either, especially when he says he doesn't like you. Let that circus go elsewhere.

 

I'd imagine most posters would agree this is still a 50 win team. But that means dick in the NBA when you're competing against teams like Miami, LA, OKC, etc. The last two years have shown that - we win lots of team games in a superstar sport. We have one, they have 2.5.

 

Basically the Bulls are in the worst possible position. They're good enough to win, not good enough to win a title. So crappy draft picks for a worthless division title.

[Steve9347]

Yup. Keep towing the company line. Nothing could be done! Poor Derrick Rose and his zero help - we were set! Teams go out and make things happen all the time, those teams just aren't the Chicago Bulls. It's a f***ing joke, but you continue to eat it up.

[bmags]

I'd imagine most posters would agree this is still a 50 win team. But that means dick in the NBA when you're competing against teams like Miami, LA, OKC, etc. The last two years have shown that - we win lots of team games in a superstar sport. We have one, they have 2.5.

 

Basically the Bulls are in the worst possible position. They're good enough to win, not good enough to win a title. So crappy draft picks for a worthless division title.

 

Okay, again I'll just bring up that the bulls lost 4-1 2 years ago with our team. Then last year we didn't have that option. The superstar heavy OKC thunder just lost 4-1 to heat, why aren't they getting dwight?!? The mav's won 2 years ago with only one true superstar. What we think we know about bball may not be true. That said, this teams another player that can really, REALLY create his own shot. We don't have that.

[RZZZA]

LOL @ Lakers spending 93 million on a team that's worse than ours.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yup. Keep towing the company line. Nothing could be done! Poor Derrick Rose and his zero help - we were set! Teams go out and make things happen all the time, those teams just aren't the Chicago Bulls. It's a f***ing joke, but you continue to eat it up.

 

Was that in response to my post? I'm agreeing with you. The Bulls have put themselves in a s***ty position going forward.

[Steve9347]

Was that in response to my post? I'm agreeing with you. The Bulls have put themselves in a s***ty position going forward.

In response to B-Mags and Jake.

Edited July 26, 2012 by Steve9347

[RZZZA]

Okay, again I'll just bring up that the bulls lost 4-1 2 years ago with our team. Then last year we didn't have that option. The superstar heavy OKC thunder just lost 4-1 to heat, why aren't they getting dwight?!? The mav's won 2 years ago with only one true superstar. What we think we know about bball may not be true. That said, this teams another player that can really, REALLY create his own shot. We don't have that.

 

But throwing money around solves every problem! Don't you know that? Just look at the Magic, they spent $73 million and now they're contenders!

 

 

[Steve9347]

LOL @ Lakers spending 93 million on a team that's worse than ours.

You are looking at everything in a vacuum. Their salary is bloated for their performance last year, but that's because they had the balls to make themselves contenders. Do you think I'd care so much if the Bulls went out in the 1st round if they'd just won titles in 2010 and 2009 (with a completely rebuilt supporting cast for Kobe after winning in 2000, 2001, and 2002)?

 

Of course not.

 

The Lakers have that payroll, because they built a team that could content and actually win titles. Yet they still aren't satisfied and upgraded their weakest position with Steve Nash.

 

If you think the following roster isn't going to make waves YET AGAIN, you are also mistaken.

 

PG Nash

SG Bryant

SF Artest

PF Gasol

C Bynum

 

But no, let's look at everything over the course of the last two seasons when the Bulls won the mystical "Regular Season Championship".

Edited July 26, 2012 by Steve9347

[RZZZA]

Lakers have done nothing yet, we can only judge them by what they've done in the past. And in the recent past, they sucked, they were out of the playoffs faster than we were.

 

Maybe *gasp* money doesn't solve every problem.

 

Again, Dwight and Lebron and Wade did not want to come here. It wasn't an issue of money.

[Steve9347]

Lakers have done nothing yet, we can only judge them by what they've done in the past. And in the recent past, they sucked, they were out of the playoffs faster than we were.

What? They made it to the 2nd round last year (Bulls 1st).

 

Also, they spend to win. Clearly, there's no convincing you, but I've made more than enough argument that the Bulls FO doesn't give a s*** if improvements involve spending over $70 million - which is perfectly legal.

[RZZZA]

Wow, they made it to the 2nd round? We made it to the 3rd round the year before last. But when we do it, its meaningless to you. When the Lakers do it, it's justification for spending like a drunken sailor.

[bmags]

You are looking at everything in a vacuum. Their salary is bloated for their performance last year, but that's because they had the balls to make themselves contenders. Do you think I'd care so much if the Bulls went out in the 1st round if they'd just won titles in 2010 and 2009 (with a completely rebuilt supporting cast for Kobe after winning in 2000, 2001, and 2002)?

 

Of course not.

 

The Lakers have that payroll, because they built a team that could content and actually win titles. Yet they still aren't satisfied and upgraded their weakest position with Steve Nash.

 

If you think the following roster isn't going to make waves YET AGAIN, you are also mistaken.

 

PG Nash

SG Bryant

SF Artest

PF Gasol

C Bynum

 

But no, let's look at everything over the course of the last two seasons when the Bulls won the mystical "Regular Season Championship".

 

 

There were indeed a lot of intriguing Point Guards this offseason.

[ZoomSlowik]

Wow, they made it to the 2nd round? We made it to the 3rd round the year before last. But when we do it, its meaningless to you. When the Lakers do it, it's justification for spending like a drunken sailor.

 

Big difference between getting OKC in round 2 and getting the Atlanta Hawks.

[RZZZA]

Here is the problem I have with Stevie's and Ky's argument, the heart of their argument goes like this: We didn't win in the past, so that means we can't win in the future.

 

Isn't that a logical fallacy?

 

imo, the fact that we win the regular season every year shows that we are a disciplined, stable and finely tuned machine. It shows that we ARE contenders. To them, it means nothing.

 

The fact that we made it to round 3 shows that we are very close to winning it all. To them, it means nothing. We didn't win the title so everything we accompli8shed is meaningless. I just don't agree with that all or nothing mentality.

 

Big difference between getting OKC in round 2 and getting the Atlanta Hawks.

 

90 million and out in 2 rounds vs 70 million and out in 3. I'll take the latter every time.

Edited July 26, 2012 by RZZZA

[Steve9347]

Wow, they made it to the 2nd round? We made it to the 3rd round the year before last. But when we do it, its meaningless to you. When the Lakers do it, it's justification for spending like a drunken sailor.

Wow. You don't even read. You said the Bulls got further than the Lakers did and I simply pointed out they didn't.

 

The Lakers are always willing to spend to compete. You clearly can't see that. Congrats.

[bmags]

Big difference between getting OKC in round 2 and getting the Atlanta Hawks.

 

The mighty okc thunder that lost in 5 to the Heat, but are still awesome, as opposed to the Bulls who are worthless and can never win.

[ZoomSlowik]

Here is the problem I have with Stevie's and Ky's argument, the heart of their argument goes like this: We didn't win in the past, so that means we can't win in the future.

 

Isn't that a logical fallacy?

 

imo, the fact that we win the regular season every year shows that we are a disciplined, stable and finely tuned machine. It shows that we ARE contenders. To them, it means nothing.

 

The fact that we made it to round 3 shows that we are very close to winning it all. To them, it means nothing. We didn't win the title so everything we accompli8shed is meaningless. I just don't agree with that all or nothing mentality.

 

So the regular season results and what they did in the playoffs two seasons ago somehow means more than the current state of the team and the league? How is that not a "logical fallacy?"

 

 

[Steve9347]

90 million and out in 2 rounds vs 70 million and out in 3. I'll take the latter every time.

The latter should be 66 million and out in 1. You are making things up now, while also ignoring my entire point that the Lakers' salary is currently bloated because they expanded it to compete during Kobe's real prime - when they won titles in 2009 and 2010.

 

You are simply ignoring everything in posts and typing the same thing about regular season titles over and over.

[ZoomSlowik]

The mighty okc thunder that lost in 5 to the Heat, but are still awesome, as opposed to the Bulls who are worthless and can never win.

 

The Heat were a lot better this year than they were last year, and they keep adding pieces.

[RZZZA]

The mighty okc thunder that lost in 5 to the Heat, but are still awesome, as opposed to the Bulls who are worthless and can never win.

 

Do people here just hold the Bulls to some impossible standard or what? We stayed under the tax and still managed to get to round 3. But somehow that shows how horrible we are and how we aren't committed to winning.

 

Meanwhile, the Lakers spend 90 million and go out in 2 rounds, and somehow that shows how dedicated they are to winning and how we should emulate them.

 

 

[Steve9347]

Do people here just hold the Bulls to some impossible standard or what? We stayed under the tax and still managed to get to round 3. But somehow that shows how horrible we are and how we aren't committed to winning.

 

Meanwhile, the Lakers spend 90 million and go out in 2 rounds, and somehow that shows how dedicated they are to winning and how we should emulate them.

Why do you continue to ignore last season? Why does the Eastern Conference Championship loss mean more than the debacle last year and the plans moving foward for this team that seems to be stuck in limbo.

 

You really aren't reading what people are typing. If you want to just select teams' best seasons, how is out in 5 in round 3 better than back to back titles in 2009 and 2010?