The last 20 games could lead to uneventful summer.

They have a horse shit bench as well. One guy does not volt them into Dallas’ thermosphere.

I want a true throw the ball down low 4, Lee’s post up game isn’t good at all, lets get the big fish (Bosh), and leave the other teams to fight for the small fish (Lee)

First, Rose is slowly becoming a star which helps a ton. Second, if the Bulls were to sign Lee and then get Gay or Joe Johnson in a sign and trade, that would be a great summer.

i understand the risk the Bulls took and though I haven’t supported all the personnel decisions undertaken in pursuit of 2010, I don’t have a problem with the basic plan. I think most people’s ire is raised because they feel the Bulls could have pursued 2010 while maintaining a more competitive, young team if different personnel decisions had been pursued. My main problem is that the Bulls, after getting the #1 pick and drafting Rose, were in a great position but with almost every personnel decision since, have maneuvered themselves into what I feel is a weaker position.

Under those circumstances I think what people define as success will vary. Obviously if the Bulls end up with one of the big 3 – win. But what if they only get A’mare? I would interpret that as a win. Only get Joe Johnson? Loss. David Lee? Loss. Boozer? Loss. Because the potential to do more, to be better positioned, existed.

I still think the Bulls are in position to put a team together that is at the very least a 2nd round team in the East and a challenger for the Eastern Conference Finals. If they completely strike out or if the team is not significantly improved I think its fair to criticize them harshly. Not because the idea was bad, but because the execution has been horrid. Its not enough to clear space to get a free agent. That was the easy part. A bunch of other teams managed to do that as well. Now they have to put together a team that can win.

Because the Bulls have financial capabilities that most other teams do not
they wouldn’t be “stuck” with anything.

Like I said, the Bulls could have used their financial muscle to take advantage of other teams financial distress and make unbalanced trade(s) in THEIR favor. Along the lines of the Lakers-Memphis Gasol trade. The opportunities for such deals would certainly have existed over the next couple seasons. For example, they probably could have gotten say Boozer this last offseason for a bargain if they’d really tried. That’s just an example, more and better opportunities likely would have awaited them down the line, I guess we’ll never know what really could have happened.

I don’t believe that Rose would have not developed if BG had stayed. Would he have scored as much…no, but he wouldn’t have needed to. I don’t really see where BG would have stunted the continued development of Roses’ SKILLS, which is a seperate issue. It almost goes without saying that I would not have hired VDN, the Bulls could have afforded to get the best available, but preferred the cheapest.

Cap relief would still be on the way though.

Remember, Brad is if not god, definately expiring after this season. Even if they choose to re-sign him the reduction in his pay alone would have made up for Noah’s extention. James is a $6mil contract coming off the books who doesn’t even play. By the time Derrick would be getting extended, Kirk’s contract would end and if they did decide to re-sign him at that time it would certainly be at a reduced rate thus mitigating at least part of Rose’s extention. So if they did nothing else, their payroll would probably be in the upper $70mil-lower $80mil AFTER Derricks extention kicked in. Changes in the NBA’s economic system may change this, but if it did it would be to LOWER it if anything.

Now there is also the fact that Salmons would have been an expiring contract next year that the Bulls would have had the option of trading for a better player in exchange for cap relief to some poor team that needed it. Same with Kirk the following year. Had they signed BG to a 5/$50mil extention before last year which is what part of this is predicated on, the same would have been true of him the year after that.

So they certainly would have had some payroll flexibility and that’s just of the top of my head. I know it doesn’t matter which is why I wrote the other response to you. It’s the 2010 plan or bust, how I feel about it is kind of irrelevant. I just hope it works out.

It’s a lot more fun to root for a contender than it is to root for a team with no shot, even if you don’t win it all. Just knowing that there’s a realistic chance of winning it big makes the experience a lot more fun than a situation like this year, where we know that there’s no real point to the season.

That said, I rec your post for its literary style.

Tell me, what did the Lakers trade for Gasol?

As I laid it out, Salmons would be an expiring contract next year. Hinrich the year after, and had they signed Gordon when they could have he would be expiring the next year. Players with expiring contracts are far more valueable to cash strapped teams than just the value of their ability on the court. We would have had flexibility down the line..WE WOULD NOT BE PERMENENTLY STUCK WITH THAT LINEUP!

Re-signing Tyrus wouldn’t have been as expensive as these other players (maybe Salmons). Also, I think you are discounting any future growth from Rose, Noah, and Thomas.

Seriously, how can you possibly derive ANY joy from following any sports team? Nobody wins all the time. Being a fan must be a great burden when only winning a championship is of any value at all.
 

be Amare personally.