Chisoxfn

Here is the thing. The Lakers have done worse in there few years of being at the top than the Bulls. Yes, we will be at a disadvantage to the Lakers in terms of marketing, but we are at an advantage to most all other franchises when it comes to making the pitch. The Lakers are all expecting Bron + George (or Leonard). So they are going to spend their cap space this year...next year you will have new teams but the Bulls will be one of the top major market teams. I think somewhere you have luck in the equation but the Bulls are going to beat out one of these teams at some point. I am a believer in maximizing your assets and building as good of a team as you can and than trying to one-up it every year (i.e., Darryl Morey). Paxson is good at acquiring assets...he didn't quite maximize all his assets the pass go-round, but he's going to get another chance at that and hopefully he'll do better this time.

I think everyone is assuming 2 max deals + Lavine in two years. They likely can make some maneuvering to do 2 max deals even next year (to extent it makes sense). My guess is next year's FA and the following year FA basically is their two year window (kind of like this is the start of "Magic's" two year window).

I'll never say such a thing. In NBA, money doesn't matter, the availability of money matters. While Bulls haven't landed big fish, they have been able to land bigger name free agents. Maybe no the name they wanted, but in the city of Chicago with no financial limitations, they should absolutely be competitive (especially with the right nucleus). Its too bad they weren't a year more into this rebuild because if we were, I think a lot more people would be linking Lebron to Chicago. Its just a year (at least a year, maybe two) too soon to begin that discussion. Pax and Gar's strategy is to draft well, get good (without bad contracts) and than see if you can land an extra star via free agency (hopefully you land a few really good players via draft and maybe one of those guys emerges into a star).

I think they view their best shot to the top and continuing to draft well and letting their young nucleus flash so they are a very attractive destination for potential free agents next year. With Dunn and Lavine, that is a solid back-court with upside. Lauri hopefully takes a big next step forward and we'll see what we get out of the two rookies. We have great cap space and are probably a much better team than people think. David Griffin, former Cavs GM, said a day or two ago that no one is talking about the Bulls, but they should be. The only thing that will irritate me this offseason is if we totally hamper ourselves with some awful contracts.

MLB is nothing like NBA relative to teams winning a championship. MLB is much closer to hockey and will likely always be. You just said you can think about 8 or 9 teams playing in October. In basketball, I can predict most playoff teams but I can count on basically two fingers the number of teams capable of winning a championship. In baseball, that is absolutely not the case. The whole nature of the sport means one player can't totally dominate the game. The best team wins the NBA title in basketball 90+% of the time. Not anywhere close to that in baseball, imo.

Brian - Do you think there is an issue with the pace / lack of action currently? From the tone of your posts, I think you do, but I'm curious. I say this because we are fans (maybe we are in the minority on this site) who obviously are invested in the sport and passionate about the sport (we've spent how much time commenting on it over a 15 year horizon) yet see this type of decline and recognize it. By no means am I saying I hate the game of baseball, I still absolutely enjoy the game...I just enjoy the game less than I did in the past.

It is a data point, but it is not relevant to baseballs argument. Everything is relative. If a football game spiraled to a 3hr and 30 minute game with 40 plays (vs. 100 plays), I think they'd have their own issue. They don't need to look at it relative to baseball to figure out they have an issue. There is a cost-benefit to all things. I won't even argue all of the differences that exist, but a major one is the fact that football is a once a week sport, not a daily sport. So amount of "action" might matter less in football because you are watching it on a per week basis for your team). You might argue that the "quality" of action is better in a football game vs. a baseball game (i.e., far more players involved in each individual play of football vs. a typical play in baseball). A football game might have just more subjective action in the eye of a fan. Either way, while baseball should consider other sports, it needs to isolate its time of game / lack of action issue in an isolated basis and if Rob Manfred doesn't find a way to adjust rules to address "pace of play" and "amount of action", than we will continue to see ratings and attendance declines, imo.

This argument to just bash those who don't appreciate it is just pure nonsense. Don't even get me started on this. Okay, so it is realistic to expect the majority of fans watching a game to be in awe because strikeouts are up because statistical analysis indicates that it is worth the risk of striking out more to increase a HR ratio by X%. Or that a pitcher has identified through statistical data that this is the exact perfect way to pitch the batter and thus his probability of striking out is up 5%. 10 years ago a lot went to each and every pitch as well. The actual action into the game has declined materially and the trend is negative. This is coming from someone who played the game for a long time and who at one point had an offer to be a major league scout and who deals with statistics and financial information on a daily basis as part of his career. Not someone who has on idea as to what goes into the game or no inclination to math/stats.

I don't disagree with teams deciding they should rebuild (and whether the Sox succeed at their rebuild or don't, I agree with their move). I just don't like the use of the word "tank". In basketball there is "rebuilding" and "tanking". I don't see baseball teams intentionally sitting their best players so they can "lose" for a higher draft pick. When they get to that point, than I'll start to call it "tanking". What happens in the NBA is pathetic (we all know my views here) and I'm very consistent in those views (I don't blame franchises for doing it, but basketball needs to fix it...literally you have teams intentionally losing (not just putting bad rosters out their...putting out bad lineups, etc...that is awful for sports). Technically the 2nd wild card makes more teams competitive (and in the race), but the fact that fewer teams can get a "bye" into the actual playoffs actually downplays the impact of being a "wildcard" team and investing in it. I think (and have long said) that baseball needs to expand the playoffs. Better quality / races. That said,the wild-card play-in games make for fantastic TV, so I have a hard time arguing against the impact it makes on those individual games (such drama, etc).

I recognize football has lots of downtime. I'm not arguing baseball vs. football. I'm looking at how baseball has evolved (as its own sport) over the years for the bad. Flat out the quality of a baseball game has declined over the past 10 years. I'm not at all even getting into a "stats" debate, but flat out the level of And if I were going to argue baseball vs. football, I'd lose, the ratings, etc back up everything about larger masses of people watching football vs. baseball. Footballs problem isn't the "lack of action" its the longer-term impacts of the injuries and how they are having to change the game to try and minimize injuries (and with it, minimizing the big hits, etc, that the sport was known for). I also don't believe that football (over the past 10 years) shifted from a sport that had 30 minutes of "actual" play to a sport with "10 minutes" of actual play. Baseball has seen a significant decline in the "action" as evidenced by the stark reduction in balls in play / hits.

I wouldn't be okay with that. I think the time length of a game is one thing...but the lack of action during the game is another. So much stuff ends with zero fielders having to do anything, no bat on ball contact, etc. Its just lousy. Baseball will need to implement rules to fix it. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if at some point the shift is banned (or limited) as a way to spur more balls in play.

I really don't think "tanking" exists in baseball. It is called rebuilding and it has existed in the sport forever. The only difference is right now we are in an era where there are a lot more teams rebuilding at the same time. However, tanking is literally purposefully stinking to acquire top draft picks...I really don't think that is what is happening in baseball. Teams are retooling and moving guys and loading up on as much prospects as possible, however, the value of a #1 pick vs. a #8 pick is not near the disparity that exists in basketball (for example). I think I should ban the word "tanking" on this site cause its just a crappy use. Tanking is losing on purpose and literally trying to "lose". I don't view the White Sox plan as doing that. Yes, they were going to be bad, but it was because they are in a talent accumulation phase and stripping the major league roster of more talent to get more "future" talent given our time horizon. That said, they aren't doing it for the purpose of losing or getting the #1 overall pick, they are doing it to fill their pipeline because they didn't have a forseeable plan to win in the near term. The Cubs/Astros made "tanking" a more cliche term but in the next few years, we will see some teams fail horribly at it (kind of like the Pirates and Royals did for like 30 years (i.e., their inability to rebuild).

I've said it many times on this site, but it is absolutely true. The lack of action in baseball will ultimately be the death of it (not really the death but will send it into a major downhill spiral). People can argue me all they want but it is 100% factual. I don't want to watch a game where everything is going to be a walk, strikeout, or homerun. Yes, I'm exaggerating but my enjoyment of baseball has declined over the past 5-7 years (and it isn't because the White Sox stink). The lack of action is a major problem. For those of you using football as an analogy...it would be as if football you either had a 3 and out or a long touchdown and like 85% of the time it was just a 3 and out with minimal action.

I didn't like the Butler trade but it is done. Of course I wouldn't have traded Butler and I'd be sitting here this year and would have had the franchise positioned to make major free agent offers (whether they worked or not who knows). Heck, I don't even know what the Bulls evaluations were on Lauri and whether they could have moved up to get him a year ago had they kept Jimmy Buckets, etc? All of those things are hard to say...I was a believer that we had a star signed to a fair deal and were in position to have a lot of cap flexibility and could have been players. I also am (and was) a huge believer in Buckets being the type of guy who can legitimately recruiter players. Heck, for all I know we could have ended up acquiring Kyrie Irving last year (not saying we had all those assets but maybe Kyrie forces a deal to Chicago vs. Boston (because of his tightness with Buckets). Nothing I can predict and I'm not going to waste anymore time discussing it. What is done is done and I hope the front office maximizes the opportunities they have from here-out.

I just am not that worried about his shot. He has a beautiful shot and I think it had a lot more to do with rhythm and in-game repetition. His jumper had only improved every year prior to injury and form, etc, looks very good. Shot selection was poor...stamina wasn't great (no surprise coming back from injury) and thus you aren't getting your legs underneath you...his timing finishing around the basket was off (again not unexpected). I guess I expected a lot of rust so wasn't that shocked. To me the big thing was he looked explosive and quick and he still played with an edge (was aggressive...even though he didn't finish...which gave me confidence of his "mental" edge). Defensively he isn't a good player so that is one where I think it is a matter of how much the coaching staff and how much he's willing to put in that work (he has all the tools to be a quality defender (if not a good defender) but he's got to put in the time, focus and energy.

Steve, you are bouncing from two different points of view. On one hand, I agree if they truly soured off of 24 games if their conclusions are based upon on the court performance (when you knew darn well last year would essentially be a lost year). On the flipside, if you have soured because you acquired him and now have major concerns due to work ethic or other unknowns, I suppose I could see that (I don' t think this is the case, but I could buy into it) or if for example he was reinjured or you had other injuries. However, if all they are doing is posturing to save cash, well, than I see that as par for the course of any front office and doing what Gar & Pax should be doing. In general when I read this report, it very much read to me very much as public posturing around his new contract. With so few teams having big money cap and him having a limited sample size post injury, I still believe he will get an offer much lower than posters on this forum are indicating. However, if he gets a full max offer, if you don't believe he is close to a full max player, than you are going to have to make a move away from Lavine.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/the-bulls-gar-forman-and-john-paxson-are-on-the-clock-and-hopefully-hype-free/ Thought this was a solid read from Cowley. And this is coming from someone who Cowley once called a nerd who lived in a basement...or something along those lines).

I loved the ref in the Brazil - Costa Rica game. Called a fantastic match and was so animated when players dove to ensure everyone knew to "play on".

Very interesting name; would be a great get.

What team "gave away" first round picks? I don't recall any deals where a team "bought" a first round pick?

They aren't "tanking" persay, but they aren't going to be that good. And lottery odds are much different anyway. Decent size shift (downward) related to the odds of the worst 5 or 6 teams. I think the price Dallas paid was steep. Obviously they got there guy and are happy but I still think we are in that asset accumulation phase. I also just need to make my point...welp back to NBA hell. Stupidest phrase on the planet. So sick of that crap. I will never endorse a franchise that wants to run a model like the Sixers (suck forever and forever until maybe you get lucky and have a few year run, no thanks). I'd rather employ a Rockets like strategy of be as damn good as you can each and every year and be creative in how you take big swings and retool over time. The reality is, unless you are lucky enough to have one of the top player in the world, you are probably not regularly playing and/or winning championships. Just look back over history. Either we get ridiculously lucky and get the next #1 player via the draft or we draft just really well and have a quality team and hope you can lure major free agents to push you over the topic. All strategies are unlikely but you try to be as good as you can be to enable the best free agent push possible. The reality is there is usually just one team in the league that truly "wins" the big FA signing/crop so everyone else loses.

What "star" was sitting there at 7? Maybe one was, maybe it wasn't. maybe there is a star sitting at 22 or 30 (who eventually emerge). Carter Jr. was the best available player (adjusting for potential medicals) on the board. We absolutely could have missed out on a star, but I don't see how they flat out ignored ceiling to go floor with this draft pick. Porter has talent and if people believed in his medicals he is going way above 7. The fact that he hasn't, means there are real reasons to be concerned about his medicals (and I can't flaw the Bulls for passing on that).

Cause he does a lot of things well, does not mean he has a low ceiling. He's just less "raw"...doesn't mean he isn't talented. Carter Jr is an athletic big who is extremely long. He doesn't jump out of the building but his wingspan is legit impressive and he will be an imposing defender. Not super quick but still solid speed that should play in pick n roll defense and a very efficient scorer, etc.

Carter Jr also is a nice fit, imo, next to Lauri. Only guy I'd rather have had (at this position) would have been Ayton or Bamba. I also would have ranked it Ayton, Doncic, Bamba, Carter (on my draft board). I think Jackson is overrated and I wouldn't have drafted Trae Young above the others.

I fully agree with you; So solid across the board from a skills perspective with the ability to be an excellent defender and a really strong / quality scorer. I think his upside is far greater than others think. He is the exact type of player that gets "undervalued" in the draft. He's also extremely intelligent!