AK will praise how the these other players stepped up due to injury absences and they played much better after the injuries, yet also lament the injuries as harmful
Question for you, yfbb. It's sort of off topic, but you mentioning DeRozan's clutch-ness sort of led me down a rabbit hole. Anyway, I know you've been very vocal in your support of DeMar and all he's done in Chicago (can't blame you). What would your thoughts be if he chose to stay in Chicago this summer?
I think I'd lose a little respect for him. In my mind, the greatest players care about winning over everything else. It's not like DeMar hasn't had a great career where he's put up impressive numbers and made a ton of money. Him choosing more money and being the "alpha" of a mediocre team over the chance to compete for a championship or at least a serious playoff run, especially when those things have eluded him so far in his career, would really bring me to question his commitment to winning, and to a greater extent, his commitment to being great.
Can't argue too much with that. I should clarify that I'm not going to suddenly hate DeMar if he chooses to re-sign with the Bulls. I think I'll just be a little disappointed.
Him choosing more money and being the "alpha" of a mediocre team over the chance to compete for a championship or at least a serious playoff run, especially when those things have eluded him so far in his career, would really bring me to question his commitment to winning, and to a greater extent, his commitment to being great.
<
This seems completely arbitrary to me. Why don't we excoriate Kevin Durant for not taking a little less than the max? How about Kyrie Irving? He actually did... are we gonna hold him up as some kind of paragon of "commitment to being great"?
I guess I'm not following this argument. Are we supposed to compare DeMar's salary to the salary of every other player in the league?
Also, both of those guys have not only won rings, but they've been chasing them for years now. Exactly what I'm questioning with DeMar.
To be clear, I was not a fan of KD leaving his team for the team that beat him. Especially since he was considered a top two or three player in the league at the time.
But DeMar is not that good and he's not as young as KD was. If he wants to chase a ring, time is running out for him to be able to do it while being an integral part of that team.
My argument is that saying you'd "lose respect" for a player for not taking a discount to go to a contender is a really bad take, and that you shouldn't use such a thing as your basis for respecting players at all. Not one bit.
Why? Well, probably for a lot of reasons besides these, but:
1. We have little certainty on what guys are offered, and you're not drawing any kind of clear line to make a judgement. It's ok with you if he stays in Chicago for $25M if his only other option is the Lakers for $5M? But not if the Lakers offer $20M? Then he should sign with the Lakers or you'll lose respect for him? What's the minimum amount of money he has to leave on the table before it's "OK" by you? Is that same standard applied to other guys? You pushed back because I mentioned KD, but you were silent on Kyrie. There are probably dozens of comparable guys.
I don't need to compare DeMar's salary to everyone else in the league. But you do, because you are the one who is proposing that salary and contract choice are meaningful factors in how you determine how respectable a guy is. If you're saying you don't actually know those things, then maybe it's not the right basis for making that kind of comparison.
2. The truth is, what you're asking for is probably a literal impossibility. What does it mean to be a "legitimate" contributor on a "serious" team? Just like there's no clear line of "how much money is too much to leave on the table" there are no right answer. It's all just reduces to somebody's opinion. Which means it's something we probably shouldn't consider as a basis for assigning "respect".
3. I just don't buy in to the whole ring-chasing, championship as the only goal for a player or anyone to show a commitment to greatness. Like, most players never with a championship, and even if DeMar is like, the 6th man on a Lakers championship with 40 year old Lebron next year, I don't see how that changes his standing much. Not compared to the rest of his career and the fact that the guys is beloved around the league and a genuine advocate for stuff outside of sports.
People should think of NBA players more like they'd think of actors. There's lots of great actors that are never going to win an Oscar or a Tony. But it makes no sense for an actor to say, something like "I need to cement my commitment to being the best actor" by taking a lesser role in this prestigious Indie flick that may win best picture". If the chance comes along, that's great, but if you're, like, the leading actor in a decent off-broadway show and some TV, and you've made a great career out of it, that's ok.
Maybe that's my problem then. I was looking for opinions on how people would feel if DeMar chose to stay in Chicago instead of moving to a better team with greater aspirations. Based on your comment, and please correct me if I'm wrong, it sounds like you're not a fan of having such opinions. There's nothing wrong with that, but I also don't see anything wrong with having those opinions.
Should DeMar care if I'm a little disappointed if he chooses to stay in Chicago? Nope, he definitely shouldn't. Does that mean I can't still be disappointed? Also no.
Maybe I shouldn't have used the words "lose respect". More accurately, I would be disappointed if DeMar stayed in Chicago. I've become a fan of his during his time here and I want him to have more success than what he'll have in Chicago. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Just like there's not technically anything wrong with him deciding to stay here.
I clarified this with Granvillator below but I'll add it to this too. It's not that I don't think DeMar cares about winning. It's more that I think most players get to a point in their careers where they decide they want to pursue winning above all else, including money. There obviously isn't a one-size-fits-all answer for every player. I was just curious what people think that is for DeMar. When do people think he should decide it's time to focus on winning more than anything else?
Or maybe he never does. Maybe he's okay with where he's at. If that's the case, good for him. It'll just be a little disappointing to me and ultimately that's okay. It's the same thing with AC. I love the guy and love the way he plays. I would have loved to have him on the team during the Thibs years. But he deserves more than what this organization is willing to give, so I'd rather see him find success somewhere else.
No, I'm not a fan of those kinds of opinions, because they seem kind of disrespectful to people IMO.
My $0.02 is that we should respect people to enough to let them define success for themselves. Me deciding I know better what's best for them seems pretty arrogant.
"Me deciding I know what's best for them seems pretty arrogant."
I would completely agree. But does that mean we can't have opinions about peoples' choices?
To go back to your actors example from earlier, can I not be a little bummed that my favorite actor decided to do a movie I'm not interested in rather than the movie they were rumored to be in that I was interested in?
In my opinion, there's a difference between being disappointed in someone's choice and claiming their choice was wrong simply because I don't necessarily like it.
So going back to DeMar, I'd be disappointed if we found out this summer that the Lakers were seriously pursuing him but he decided to take a bigger, longer contract to stay in Chicago. Why would I be disappointed? Well, because one presents an opportunity to go after a championship or at least make a serious run, as well as the opportunity to live in LA (which we know DeMar would prefer). The other would be to play for an unserious franchise and likely make the play-in at best.
Would I think DeMar is a worse person if those events unfolded this summer? Of course not. Maybe his family really loves Chicago and his kids love their friends and school. Maybe DeMar just really loves pouring into young guys more than he cares about winning. Good on him if that's the case.
But my assumption is that he loves winning more than anything else, because I think that's what most great basketball players love. I'm not saying he has to love winning more than anything else. I'm saying I'm guessing he does. Those are two very different things.
Not addressed to me but I have yet to see an owner say that they intend to win and therefore will be passing up any opportunity for profits for the rest of their careers.
Owners and players are very different. Owners go into the luxury tax to try to win knowing that it could hurt their profits, especially if they don't win.
DeMar wouldn't be signing a vet minimum deal with a contender. It would just be less than he'd sign in Chicago. He'd still be making millions.
Going into the luxury tax could hurt their profits but will usually increase them later or the value of the franchise.
This is always a one-way argument, is my point: players should take less money to win to prove something. Yes, owners are treated very differently, and that's wrong. They have more to do with winning.
I mean we're making this argument watching a player gassed and leading the league in minutes because his owner doesn't think it's profitable to use the disabled player exception they applied for. They have options that will increase the odds of winning and are deliberately not using them. Between Jerry and DeMar, one of those two people seem more interested in winning than the other, and it's odd that the onus of proving it next year will be on the 35 year old sweating it out for very small playoff odds right now.
Sure, I completely agree with you there. And putting the spotlight on Jerry might be the better bet, but my question was about a player and if his choices show where his loyalties lie.
Yes, DeMar clearly cares more about winning than Jerry. That's obvious. But does he care more about winning than Zach? That's a better comparison since they're both basketball players. For all of Zach's faults, he was the first to say he wanted out because he was tired of playing for an organization that doesn't care about winning.
I'm not trying to say Zach cares more about winning than DeMar does. I certainly don't think that. My point is just that I may find it a tough pill to swallow if DeMar chooses to stay on a mediocre team that doesn't care about winning because it affords him more money and a higher status on the team.
The man has made more than a quarter of a billion dollars. He's going to be fine financially. His great grandchildren will likely be fine financially. If he cares more about winning and chasing championships than money or place on a team, at what point does he cross the line of "I've made enough money in my career; now I want to chase success"?
He'll be 35 by the start of next season. Yes, he has a game that should age well and he's proven to be a very healthy player so I could certainly see him playing five more seasons. But I'd imagine there's a difference between being on a contending team as a legitimate contributor and being on a contending team as a vet minimum guy playing 10 minutes a night because you're 39 years old.
Edit: Maybe I should have clarified my original comment better. I don't doubt that DeMar cares about winning. I'm more curious what peoples' thoughts are on when someone reaches the point of "Okay, now I need to start chasing championships if I want to be known as a winning player."
Workers in an unnaturally short career should wring every single penny they can out of owners, period.
Goober fans here were "mad" because apparently Carmelo Anthony didn't take less money in Chicago and re-signed with New York. Not one single player should ever feel obligated to pick between the two. They should all get as much money in their careers as they can. It may make goobers mad but that is the entire point.
DeMar DeRozan made a quarter billion in career earnings, true!. The people he played for made even more. If he wants to sacrifice money for happiness or some personal reason? Have fun. That's totally his right. But there should never be the presumption that labor should take less money or they're somehow less pure.
When owners are challenged on this, we get capitalsplaining about "bro its a business" and "duh profits it's the whole point." Supposedly players, the most vulnerable of the entities we're discussing, are supposed to factor that into all of their career decisions, though. I don't agree. DeMar should try to make 3/10ths of a billion dollars if he can get it. If he values something more than that, that's his decision and doesn't reflect on his character at all, he'll be making the kind of completely rational decision that front offices are praised for every single day.
Hmm I think we're on different pages. I have zero problem with DeMar making as much money as he can. I never once said he should go somewhere else that pays him less because it would prove he's a better player.
My point being the Bulls can likely offer him more than just about any contender, so if it comes down to it, he'd likely have to choose less money if he wants to win.
That doesn't mean I want him to make less money. If he can go to the Warriors and get three years and $150 million, by all means! Obviously he can't without them cutting salary, but you get the point.
35 year old star playing 40 minutes a night and 6’0 guard leading the league in clutch points: “i run red lights all the time and nothing bad has happened to me”
Absolutely not. Drummond is one of his few good signings, so he must hold onto him to prove how good of a signing it was. Dalen was one of his draft picks and trading him would indicate it was a bad pick. Also something AK is not willing to do.
A 1st round pick just gets us a younger worser Terry. At least we should see another incremental improvement from him next year, not sure I want to go back to square 1 with the lanky athletic defender who doesn't know how to play.
It's the cycling through players vs. the stick with em philosophical trade off. I'm down for cycling through players I guess to find the good ones, but the Bulls draft projects and then flip em for nothing. The one player they let grow for 5 years is pretty good now, I'm ok with hanging on to the young'uns and using the Carusos of the world to go asset hunting.
Skinny-ass John Collins bullying Vooch last night was great. Grabbing an assistant coach's throat wasn't so great. I guess I don't know if rules are any different regarding confrontations between players and opposing teams' coaches, but that seemed like an immediate rejection to me. And how did Fleming get a technical for trying to keep Collins from attack both himself and his players?
AK is breaking the league 'order'. Caruso should be on the Warriors who would've won this game and a more secure playoff position as a franchise actually trying to be a contender.
AK already has this four game win streak written down for his post season press conference as proof that not making any moves at the deadline was the correct decision.
That was inevitable, he was always going to find something. The only failure he can't spin (to his boss, not us) is if there is no postseason home game.
While Atlanta does seem to be playing better without Trae (what a surprise!), I think this Bulls team is going to play their asses off to finish the season and will likely still take home the 9th seed. One post season home game is probably enough for AK to claim the entire season was a success.
Listening, so I am working with the presumption that the answer to the headline is "No."
Compare the Bulls to actual contenders. You can have really nice players who are very likable and whose parents and devoted fans would call "above average" and be a dogshit team. I don't get joy out of running down some guys working really hard. But you could not trade this entire roster for the best player on a contender. I mean that literally. The entire roster would not net Tatum, Kawhi, KD, Curry, Embiid, Ant, etc etc. I'm including many teams that will not get a whiff of the Finals in that estimation.
it is kinda crazy how the lonzo news turned around though. first it was like "well actually he's not even running yet" to "he's cleared for advanced basketball activities"
Well that "cooperation" between the Bears and White Sox in lobbying the legislature for new stadiums lasted all of (checks watch) a week.
The chances of Jerry getting state, county or city funding beyond infrastructure must be diminished even further now that the Bears announced they're building a new stadium and funding it themselves and with the NFL.
Edit: seems they still want public money but it's not clear how much and doesn't seem like it'll be near what the Sox are asking for.
Don't forget, we did a lot of it without Zach, Pat, and Lonzo. When those three guys definitely come back we'll be in the playoffs for real!
AK will praise how the these other players stepped up due to injury absences and they played much better after the injuries, yet also lament the injuries as harmful
Question for you, yfbb. It's sort of off topic, but you mentioning DeRozan's clutch-ness sort of led me down a rabbit hole. Anyway, I know you've been very vocal in your support of DeMar and all he's done in Chicago (can't blame you). What would your thoughts be if he chose to stay in Chicago this summer?
I think I'd lose a little respect for him. In my mind, the greatest players care about winning over everything else. It's not like DeMar hasn't had a great career where he's put up impressive numbers and made a ton of money. Him choosing more money and being the "alpha" of a mediocre team over the chance to compete for a championship or at least a serious playoff run, especially when those things have eluded him so far in his career, would really bring me to question his commitment to winning, and to a greater extent, his commitment to being great.
he's had serious playoff runs early in his career. I'd bet he has the pride (and may be accurate) to think he doesn't need to ring-chase yet.
And honestly it's better business for him to get the money from the dumb/bad team and then later get traded to the contender
Can't argue too much with that. I should clarify that I'm not going to suddenly hate DeMar if he chooses to re-sign with the Bulls. I think I'll just be a little disappointed.
So a bad burp that tastes like vomit vs actually puking?
He's got a wife and kids too. Ask Dame what late career title chasing can do to quality of life.
Not sure one example is a great argument. What about all the vets who have gone to California or Miami to chase titles?
>
Him choosing more money and being the "alpha" of a mediocre team over the chance to compete for a championship or at least a serious playoff run, especially when those things have eluded him so far in his career, would really bring me to question his commitment to winning, and to a greater extent, his commitment to being great.
<
This seems completely arbitrary to me. Why don't we excoriate Kevin Durant for not taking a little less than the max? How about Kyrie Irving? He actually did... are we gonna hold him up as some kind of paragon of "commitment to being great"?
I guess I'm not following this argument. Are we supposed to compare DeMar's salary to the salary of every other player in the league?
Also, both of those guys have not only won rings, but they've been chasing them for years now. Exactly what I'm questioning with DeMar.
To be clear, I was not a fan of KD leaving his team for the team that beat him. Especially since he was considered a top two or three player in the league at the time.
But DeMar is not that good and he's not as young as KD was. If he wants to chase a ring, time is running out for him to be able to do it while being an integral part of that team.
My argument is that saying you'd "lose respect" for a player for not taking a discount to go to a contender is a really bad take, and that you shouldn't use such a thing as your basis for respecting players at all. Not one bit.
Why? Well, probably for a lot of reasons besides these, but:
1. We have little certainty on what guys are offered, and you're not drawing any kind of clear line to make a judgement. It's ok with you if he stays in Chicago for $25M if his only other option is the Lakers for $5M? But not if the Lakers offer $20M? Then he should sign with the Lakers or you'll lose respect for him? What's the minimum amount of money he has to leave on the table before it's "OK" by you? Is that same standard applied to other guys? You pushed back because I mentioned KD, but you were silent on Kyrie. There are probably dozens of comparable guys.
I don't need to compare DeMar's salary to everyone else in the league. But you do, because you are the one who is proposing that salary and contract choice are meaningful factors in how you determine how respectable a guy is. If you're saying you don't actually know those things, then maybe it's not the right basis for making that kind of comparison.
2. The truth is, what you're asking for is probably a literal impossibility. What does it mean to be a "legitimate" contributor on a "serious" team? Just like there's no clear line of "how much money is too much to leave on the table" there are no right answer. It's all just reduces to somebody's opinion. Which means it's something we probably shouldn't consider as a basis for assigning "respect".
3. I just don't buy in to the whole ring-chasing, championship as the only goal for a player or anyone to show a commitment to greatness. Like, most players never with a championship, and even if DeMar is like, the 6th man on a Lakers championship with 40 year old Lebron next year, I don't see how that changes his standing much. Not compared to the rest of his career and the fact that the guys is beloved around the league and a genuine advocate for stuff outside of sports.
People should think of NBA players more like they'd think of actors. There's lots of great actors that are never going to win an Oscar or a Tony. But it makes no sense for an actor to say, something like "I need to cement my commitment to being the best actor" by taking a lesser role in this prestigious Indie flick that may win best picture". If the chance comes along, that's great, but if you're, like, the leading actor in a decent off-broadway show and some TV, and you've made a great career out of it, that's ok.
Maybe that's my problem then. I was looking for opinions on how people would feel if DeMar chose to stay in Chicago instead of moving to a better team with greater aspirations. Based on your comment, and please correct me if I'm wrong, it sounds like you're not a fan of having such opinions. There's nothing wrong with that, but I also don't see anything wrong with having those opinions.
Should DeMar care if I'm a little disappointed if he chooses to stay in Chicago? Nope, he definitely shouldn't. Does that mean I can't still be disappointed? Also no.
Maybe I shouldn't have used the words "lose respect". More accurately, I would be disappointed if DeMar stayed in Chicago. I've become a fan of his during his time here and I want him to have more success than what he'll have in Chicago. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Just like there's not technically anything wrong with him deciding to stay here.
I clarified this with Granvillator below but I'll add it to this too. It's not that I don't think DeMar cares about winning. It's more that I think most players get to a point in their careers where they decide they want to pursue winning above all else, including money. There obviously isn't a one-size-fits-all answer for every player. I was just curious what people think that is for DeMar. When do people think he should decide it's time to focus on winning more than anything else?
Or maybe he never does. Maybe he's okay with where he's at. If that's the case, good for him. It'll just be a little disappointing to me and ultimately that's okay. It's the same thing with AC. I love the guy and love the way he plays. I would have loved to have him on the team during the Thibs years. But he deserves more than what this organization is willing to give, so I'd rather see him find success somewhere else.
No, I'm not a fan of those kinds of opinions, because they seem kind of disrespectful to people IMO.
My $0.02 is that we should respect people to enough to let them define success for themselves. Me deciding I know better what's best for them seems pretty arrogant.
"Me deciding I know what's best for them seems pretty arrogant."
I would completely agree. But does that mean we can't have opinions about peoples' choices?
To go back to your actors example from earlier, can I not be a little bummed that my favorite actor decided to do a movie I'm not interested in rather than the movie they were rumored to be in that I was interested in?
In my opinion, there's a difference between being disappointed in someone's choice and claiming their choice was wrong simply because I don't necessarily like it.
So going back to DeMar, I'd be disappointed if we found out this summer that the Lakers were seriously pursuing him but he decided to take a bigger, longer contract to stay in Chicago. Why would I be disappointed? Well, because one presents an opportunity to go after a championship or at least make a serious run, as well as the opportunity to live in LA (which we know DeMar would prefer). The other would be to play for an unserious franchise and likely make the play-in at best.
Would I think DeMar is a worse person if those events unfolded this summer? Of course not. Maybe his family really loves Chicago and his kids love their friends and school. Maybe DeMar just really loves pouring into young guys more than he cares about winning. Good on him if that's the case.
But my assumption is that he loves winning more than anything else, because I think that's what most great basketball players love. I'm not saying he has to love winning more than anything else. I'm saying I'm guessing he does. Those are two very different things.
Not addressed to me but I have yet to see an owner say that they intend to win and therefore will be passing up any opportunity for profits for the rest of their careers.
Owners and players are very different. Owners go into the luxury tax to try to win knowing that it could hurt their profits, especially if they don't win.
DeMar wouldn't be signing a vet minimum deal with a contender. It would just be less than he'd sign in Chicago. He'd still be making millions.
Going into the luxury tax could hurt their profits but will usually increase them later or the value of the franchise.
This is always a one-way argument, is my point: players should take less money to win to prove something. Yes, owners are treated very differently, and that's wrong. They have more to do with winning.
I mean we're making this argument watching a player gassed and leading the league in minutes because his owner doesn't think it's profitable to use the disabled player exception they applied for. They have options that will increase the odds of winning and are deliberately not using them. Between Jerry and DeMar, one of those two people seem more interested in winning than the other, and it's odd that the onus of proving it next year will be on the 35 year old sweating it out for very small playoff odds right now.
Sure, I completely agree with you there. And putting the spotlight on Jerry might be the better bet, but my question was about a player and if his choices show where his loyalties lie.
Yes, DeMar clearly cares more about winning than Jerry. That's obvious. But does he care more about winning than Zach? That's a better comparison since they're both basketball players. For all of Zach's faults, he was the first to say he wanted out because he was tired of playing for an organization that doesn't care about winning.
I'm not trying to say Zach cares more about winning than DeMar does. I certainly don't think that. My point is just that I may find it a tough pill to swallow if DeMar chooses to stay on a mediocre team that doesn't care about winning because it affords him more money and a higher status on the team.
The man has made more than a quarter of a billion dollars. He's going to be fine financially. His great grandchildren will likely be fine financially. If he cares more about winning and chasing championships than money or place on a team, at what point does he cross the line of "I've made enough money in my career; now I want to chase success"?
He'll be 35 by the start of next season. Yes, he has a game that should age well and he's proven to be a very healthy player so I could certainly see him playing five more seasons. But I'd imagine there's a difference between being on a contending team as a legitimate contributor and being on a contending team as a vet minimum guy playing 10 minutes a night because you're 39 years old.
Edit: Maybe I should have clarified my original comment better. I don't doubt that DeMar cares about winning. I'm more curious what peoples' thoughts are on when someone reaches the point of "Okay, now I need to start chasing championships if I want to be known as a winning player."
Workers in an unnaturally short career should wring every single penny they can out of owners, period.
Goober fans here were "mad" because apparently Carmelo Anthony didn't take less money in Chicago and re-signed with New York. Not one single player should ever feel obligated to pick between the two. They should all get as much money in their careers as they can. It may make goobers mad but that is the entire point.
DeMar DeRozan made a quarter billion in career earnings, true!. The people he played for made even more. If he wants to sacrifice money for happiness or some personal reason? Have fun. That's totally his right. But there should never be the presumption that labor should take less money or they're somehow less pure.
When owners are challenged on this, we get capitalsplaining about "bro its a business" and "duh profits it's the whole point." Supposedly players, the most vulnerable of the entities we're discussing, are supposed to factor that into all of their career decisions, though. I don't agree. DeMar should try to make 3/10ths of a billion dollars if he can get it. If he values something more than that, that's his decision and doesn't reflect on his character at all, he'll be making the kind of completely rational decision that front offices are praised for every single day.
Hmm I think we're on different pages. I have zero problem with DeMar making as much money as he can. I never once said he should go somewhere else that pays him less because it would prove he's a better player.
My point being the Bulls can likely offer him more than just about any contender, so if it comes down to it, he'd likely have to choose less money if he wants to win.
That doesn't mean I want him to make less money. If he can go to the Warriors and get three years and $150 million, by all means! Obviously he can't without them cutting salary, but you get the point.
35 year old star playing 40 minutes a night and 6’0 guard leading the league in clutch points: “i run red lights all the time and nothing bad has happened to me”
Don't you put that evil on me, Ricky Bobby!
Jazz roster snapshot. They're Ainge-ing
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIB11NwagAAYu54.png
And it's Sensabaugh that's gonna be the random player of the night to light up the Bulls.
younger than Dalen Terry, who is not even with the team (personal reasons) after being removed from the rotation again
eh, last year it was ... Ochai Agbaji going 7 fer 7. Jazz always have some youngster ready to get their career high vs the Bulls.
that's an interesting case too because the Jazz cut bait on Agbaji at the deadline, packaged with Olynyk and got a 1st round pick
would AK have ever even considered trading Drummond+Terry?
Absolutely not. Drummond is one of his few good signings, so he must hold onto him to prove how good of a signing it was. Dalen was one of his draft picks and trading him would indicate it was a bad pick. Also something AK is not willing to do.
A 1st round pick just gets us a younger worser Terry. At least we should see another incremental improvement from him next year, not sure I want to go back to square 1 with the lanky athletic defender who doesn't know how to play.
It's the cycling through players vs. the stick with em philosophical trade off. I'm down for cycling through players I guess to find the good ones, but the Bulls draft projects and then flip em for nothing. The one player they let grow for 5 years is pretty good now, I'm ok with hanging on to the young'uns and using the Carusos of the world to go asset hunting.
Cheaper to be clutch than good indeed.
Cruel to be kind
Skinny-ass John Collins bullying Vooch last night was great. Grabbing an assistant coach's throat wasn't so great. I guess I don't know if rules are any different regarding confrontations between players and opposing teams' coaches, but that seemed like an immediate rejection to me. And how did Fleming get a technical for trying to keep Collins from attack both himself and his players?
I only turned on the game at the time that happened and I had the same thought. Couldn't believe he didn't get ejected for that move.
Bulls so klutch!!! We’re definitely signing team Bron the summer…
Hawks actually took advantage of their own schedule luck, beat the Cavs who were on a back to back and Mitchell+Mobley out #GoHawks #DriveFor9
roster snapshot for Warriors, they have...literally no injury report?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIGuC2qaQAAWZgF.png
Cheaper to be clutch than good indeed.
AK is breaking the league 'order'. Caruso should be on the Warriors who would've won this game and a more secure playoff position as a franchise actually trying to be a contender.
Per usual I blame conferences
AK already has this four game win streak written down for his post season press conference as proof that not making any moves at the deadline was the correct decision.
That was inevitable, he was always going to find something. The only failure he can't spin (to his boss, not us) is if there is no postseason home game.
While Atlanta does seem to be playing better without Trae (what a surprise!), I think this Bulls team is going to play their asses off to finish the season and will likely still take home the 9th seed. One post season home game is probably enough for AK to claim the entire season was a success.
3 game win streak for #MyHawks
https://allchgo.com/chgo-bulls-podcast-were-we-wrong-about-arturas-karnisovas-plan-for-chicago-bulls/
Noooo, what? Nonono
Listening, so I am working with the presumption that the answer to the headline is "No."
Compare the Bulls to actual contenders. You can have really nice players who are very likable and whose parents and devoted fans would call "above average" and be a dogshit team. I don't get joy out of running down some guys working really hard. But you could not trade this entire roster for the best player on a contender. I mean that literally. The entire roster would not net Tatum, Kawhi, KD, Curry, Embiid, Ant, etc etc. I'm including many teams that will not get a whiff of the Finals in that estimation.
Why can't we have Ant?
Serious question? He's 22 years old and one of the 15 best players in the league.
Classic rage bait, got me
Like why can’t we talk about the bulls being dire coming out of half time? But we get a lonzo update a week.
it is kinda crazy how the lonzo news turned around though. first it was like "well actually he's not even running yet" to "he's cleared for advanced basketball activities"
Well that "cooperation" between the Bears and White Sox in lobbying the legislature for new stadiums lasted all of (checks watch) a week.
The chances of Jerry getting state, county or city funding beyond infrastructure must be diminished even further now that the Bears announced they're building a new stadium and funding it themselves and with the NFL.
Edit: seems they still want public money but it's not clear how much and doesn't seem like it'll be near what the Sox are asking for.