Mike McGraw says keep dreaming for Summer of 10.

Essentially, the Daily Herald writer does not think the Bulls are gunning for that summer, nor should they be...

about 1 year ago Dionysus2.0 18 comments 2 recs |

Comments

He only says what I've been saying all along.

The best way to sign a free agent in 2010 while staying competitive in the interim and having a good team if everything else falls through and they don’t get Wade, Bosh, James or Stoudamire, is to re-sign Gordon. Make your young assets into actual contracts that are worth trading.

by tyger1147 on Oct 6, 2008 9:53 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs

I like this part

There’s no telling how much it will take to re-sign Thomas and Sefolosha. Neither has shown much more than potential during two NBA seasons, but several Bulls have talked about how well Thomas is playing so far in camp.

When I watch NBA games I often call the fouls before the referees do. Sometimes it’s a gift. Most of the time it's troublesome. - NBA Observer

by Illini15 on Oct 6, 2008 10:12 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, it's great,

but wouldn’t it have been nice to read stories this week about how well he is playing (or at least how well other guys say he is) rather than the crap we’ve been getting? I’d rather read a whole story on that than how BG’s signing the QO effects anything.

Man-slave, bring me my PB&J!

by wjb1492 on Oct 6, 2008 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fully agree.

When I watch NBA games I often call the fouls before the referees do. Sometimes it’s a gift. Most of the time it's troublesome. - NBA Observer

by Illini15 on Oct 6, 2008 2:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Then why is Hughes still around

if not for the 2010 plan?

Everything I post is speculation. I have no insider information nor ideas deemed concrete enough by those who are self-elected to regulate post content.

by cranscape on Oct 6, 2008 12:11 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

because who the hell wants him?

he’ll be way more attractive next season.

by Jaina on Oct 6, 2008 12:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought

he was part of our 2010 plan with him coming off the books sometime near there. I’d want him off the books now if we are not shooting for 2010. (shrug)

Everything I post is speculation. I have no insider information nor ideas deemed concrete enough by those who are self-elected to regulate post content.

by cranscape on Oct 6, 2008 4:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

we don't want him

but no one else does either!

people forget that we need to find a taker. knicks fans complain about some of the members of the team, but who the hell would take them from the knicks? no one, that’s who! they can ask “why isn’t so and so traded” all they want but it’s harder than it looks to get rid of people. after all, in order to get rid of hughes, the cavs had to take on ben wallace!

by Jaina on Oct 6, 2008 5:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The trouble with

the Knicks is that people think they should be able to trade bad for good. It isn’t possible unless you are really lucky. I know that. We traded bad for bad with Wallace and Hughes, knowing full well it was bad for bad, but now with our rookie we have too many guards and a bad contract who is vocal about getting playing time. I was hoping that Hughes was around just because of 2010 and could maybe tolerate him as that kind of “asset”, but if that isn’t the case why not get rid of him now? Find a 4 or a 5 who has comparable contract length and size and let him sit on the bench or cart him out for when a warm body is needed. Hughes already has a history of running his mouth and complaining about playing time. Remove the temptation. It would be bad for bad, but it is easier to sit a 4 or a 5 than a guard who will likely try to take advantage of a new coach and a soft back court.

Everything I post is speculation. I have no insider information nor ideas deemed concrete enough by those who are self-elected to regulate post content.

by cranscape on Oct 6, 2008 8:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hughes wasn't brought in

specifically for 2010…it’s just going to happen to work out that way. He’s only going to be around because it’s practially impossible to trade him before then. Even with his salary off the books, other players will have to be re-signed.

by NormVanBeer on Oct 6, 2008 12:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know he wasn't brought in for that reason

but I thought it might be a perk though. He sucks in every way but the fact he comes off the books at a good time. If we are not going to use him for that I’d rather get rid of him sooner then. Less temptation for the new coach to play a “vet” that needs to stay on the bench or for him to be a cancer if he doesn’t get the playing them he wants.

Everything I post is speculation. I have no insider information nor ideas deemed concrete enough by those who are self-elected to regulate post content.

by cranscape on Oct 6, 2008 5:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i agree 100%

it’s just the fact that nobody wants him or his contract

by NormVanBeer on Oct 6, 2008 5:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not even with

a bad for bad trade? I am just thinking it would be easier to bench a bad contract who isn’t a guard considering our situation in the back court. Wallace was someone we paid which was why we were tempted to play him, but thrice removed and a big guy…I just see that as an easier way of living with a problem than with Hughes. Especially if we have no interest in 2010. That means we are banking entirely on Rose and he doesn’t need Hughes around even for another second if that is the case.

Everything I post is speculation. I have no insider information nor ideas deemed concrete enough by those who are self-elected to regulate post content.

by cranscape on Oct 6, 2008 8:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i see what you're saying...i just think

if we’re gonna give his contract to another team which lets them have 2010 cap relief, why should we have to take their crap back? We already did the “our crap for your crap” thing which got us Hughes in the first place. If Chicago is going to help another team out, we might as well get something decent (we won’t get anything great) in return.

by NormVanBeer on Oct 6, 2008 9:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

nah, I'd take crap

as long as it also expires in 2010. Or maybe one crap and one non-crap. Maybe a team thinks that Hughes can still play…whereas everyone knows Jerome James or Kenny Thomas or someone of that ilk can’t.

management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Oct 6, 2008 10:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was thinking of

finding crap with similar money/time as Hughes would be. Just at a position more convenient to bench. Wishful thinking. Hughes just makes me nervous. Especially thinking of him playing with Rose. Perhaps he will surprise me and gladly sit on the bench and bank his paycheck.

Everything I post is speculation. I have no insider information nor ideas deemed concrete enough by those who are self-elected to regulate post content.

by cranscape on Oct 6, 2008 11:26 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

What sucks the most is

he’s a vet who plays like a rookie. His shot selection is just horrible.

by CJ Bulls on Oct 6, 2008 5:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

maybe it's a 2009 plan

keep Hughes until the trade deadline before summer 2010, trade him to a team that wants to get rid of good players for the cap rush. ::shrug::

management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Oct 6, 2008 1:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs