Chisoxfn

Realistically, they should can Gar now and bring in a new GM (now), who can then start to work with Paxson on whatever the long term plan is (I still support Paxson as a president...although I'm just fine if they dumped him too), start to retool the roster the way they want to, let the new GM evaluate the coach, and at the end of the year, make a decision on the coach. I don't see how you could let Gar dump Hoiberg, though.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jan 3, 2017 -> 12:22 PM) Fred Hoiberg might be a bad coach. Personnel is a much bigger issue though. They've drafted really poorly and added a bunch of guys that don't even fit what the HC wants to do. Hoiberg might be terrible but how could anyone tell? I wonder what it says that we have started solid to strong both years and then totally collapsed says? Remember last years Bulls team had a very promising start (not we are going to win it all promising, but we are going to be a top 3 seed in the east promising).

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 3, 2017 -> 12:37 PM) You're right. Expecting Hoiberg to win with last year's roster and this year's roster is a bit insane. But the 2 people who thought it wasn't unreasonable are Gar and Pax. Thibs was supposed to win, and when he couldn't he had to go, and they and JR couldn't kick him enough on the way out. Last year was a far bigger disappointment then this year, imo. Partly because last year lowered expectations a lot. Nate Silver's model (which also had the Warriors and Cavs as the top two teams) projected the Bulls to go 48-34, which would have put them as the 9th best team in the NBA (and 3rd best team in the east...one win behind the Celtics). 88% shot at winning the playoffs. Silver's model has generally been pretty solid at modeling out NBA teams (not to say it is perfect). This years team had just a 48% shot. If he weren't a rookie last year, that season would have gotten many coaches canned (expectations vs. reality were far off). This year, they are kind of in-line with where many expected them to be, but the lack of development should be concerning.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 3, 2017 -> 12:16 PM) It's too early to say one way or the other. Look at the roster he has to work with. I fully believe Niko, Dougie, and Valentine have NBA talent. I also thought Snell had some NBA talent as well. What I saw under Hoiberg is that players have not really developed / got better. From the player development side, I haven't seen guys step up. Now it might just be, they are not good players, etc and that it is all bad drafting. I haven't paid much attention to Snell with the Bucks, but he's getting almost 30 minutes a night on a playoff team, so he can't be flat out terrible. Derrick Rose's PER is also up from 13.5 to 16.5 (not saying this is cause of Hoiberg and could just as much just be being away from Butler, etc). On the flipside, Rondo's PER went from 16.9 to 11.2. Now part of that is Rondo looks bad, but is a component coaching?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 3, 2017 -> 10:35 AM) The odd thing about them is that they have beaten some really good teams, so there is SOMETHING there. To me it feels like the Coach isn't getting through to the team because they seem to play hard when they feel like it. I fully believe Hoiberg is one of the worst coaches in the association, if not the worst. He is awful. I think I'd rather have Del Negro and I long thought he was hot garbage too.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jan 3, 2017 -> 10:08 AM) That was after Rondo said the same thing. They aren't athletic and they can't shoot 3's. How can that win? They are about to enter a stretch where they play good teams. It will be interesting to see what happens. If they can stay around .500, I would think nothing changes. If they tank, it would force them to do something. Right now that something seems to be releasing Rondo, which would be lame if that was the only response. I do think Gar goes before Hoiberg goes. I think Hoiberg is here for the rest of the year (most likely, at least, unless of course he loses the team). Gar I could see going sooner.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 3, 2017 -> 09:54 AM) on his new years interview with David Schuster, he actually said that the roster was not athletic enough. Its one thing that we all know this, it is a completely different thing that Paxson said it. He is basically putting it on Gar I think Gar *might* get canned if this team keeps putting out these mediocre to bad efforts through january, but I dont think Hoiberg goes anywhere at least until next season. I don't see any way Hoiberg coaches this team next year.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Jan 2, 2017 -> 11:45 PM) Absolutely hate that they are wasting his prime like this. I just hope he can recruit like a madmen. That is the way this team can get really good...with Butler leading the charge and pulling some big time free agents. Guy is a star, but the rest of the team is so pathetic. Hoiberg is part of the problem, but the roster is too.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Dec 21, 2016 -> 09:19 PM) Get outa here with your trumped up trickle down talk. Nobody named me was proposing that. If i understand the brackets correctly, the top % of wage-earners currently pay 40%? That's a s*** ton if true. Curious what the Bernieites and Hillaryans think it should go up to to make it a "fair share". 50-60%? And these aren't even the rich people of America. These are the doctors, lawyers, athletes & entertainers...who all donate tons of money. But they aren't the rich. I mean rich enough but not the smart super rich running businesses (the charitable corporate bastards). I'm not saying lower it, just wondering how high becomes too high. I'm not saying privatize research either caulfield...because i didn't say that. I'm just saying if you go after the semi-rich mentioned above, which is a super popular talking point to rally the "revolution of the young people", you're not only removing the incentive for those young people to go to school for 10 years, but you're also going to remove 100s of millions, maybe billions, of yearly charitable donations. Uncle Sam will get it instead of child leukemia etc. You really think Uncle Sam can better direct the use of $10M than the rich guy who's kid died from leukemia, who wants to prevent other kids from the same fate. I don't buy it. I feel like $10M is a piece of dust to Uncle Sam, lost in the redtape of some wasteful govt program developing canine soldiers or something. One thing to remember is, that is the amount taxed on ordinary income. The wealthier you are, the less likely your income is "ordinary"...it is far more likely to be in the vein of capital gains, etc....which have a significantly lower tax rate, which is ultimately why the effective tax rates of the wealthy can be much lower then expected. The people who actually have an effective tax rate closer to that 40% rate, are going to be more the people who are making close to those income levels (say 500K / yr)...so maybe a doctor or a good lawyer or a finance executive, strong sales guy, higher up engineers / IT people, etc. Those people are less likely to have anything they can deduct and they'll pay the most (even though at that income level, while they are certainly well off...they aren't what you would consider the ultra wealthy or anything along those lines).

QUOTE (Deadpool @ Dec 22, 2016 -> 08:52 AM) The idea of Forman hiring ANOTHER coach is nauseating. If Hoiberg goes, Gar goes down with the ship. I agree. I can't see Hoiberg going by himself. If Hoiberg goes, I presume Gar goes too. I don't think Paxson goes. The real question is, does Paxson take over GM reigns and hire next coach or does he stay as president and hire a new GM and coach.

QUOTE (Deadpool @ Dec 22, 2016 -> 08:49 AM) The Bears lack so much talent at so many positions, to trade high picks for any one player is a mistake. The idea of having a draft like Dallas did last year is incredibly tantalizing. The only pick for Dallas that hasn't really panned out yet was never going to play this year. Give me draft picks any day of the week. Technically, if you look at the draft the Bears had, you have Whitehair, Howard, and Floyd...all of which if you did a redraft, probably are 1st round picks. PFF has Whitehair and Howard in their top 10 of all rookies (and I don't quite understand how Floyd is off the list, outside of maybe the slow start and time missed from injuries...but when you watch him, you see a guy who can be a totally dynamic pass rusher). No way of not saying the Bears 2016 draft (as of right now) is anything other then a big success. The other guys: Bullard - Inconsistent play. Coaches seem to be trying to get a little more push / want out of him. Jury still out Deon Bush - Injured / Inconsistent play; For a 4th round pick, hard to expect greatness everywhere...but he's back on the field so we'll get a couple more weeks to see if he can flash some quality instincts / playmaking abilities Kiatowski - Has looked solid, with some upside over the last 4 weeks of getting starts. Other guys...nothing to highlight yet, but I wouldn't say we have any definitive busts either. All in all, as of right now, I'd rank the Bears as having one of the best draft classes of 2016. That could change (for better or worse) but I like what I see right now.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 21, 2016 -> 07:30 PM) Agreed. There just aren't words to describe how idiotic the concept is. Edit: I could see it if there was a limit on how many they could let in per year. Some players are more deserving than others. Yep. Sometimes voters strategically don't vote for one of the "guarantees" so they can try and get up the vote for other players who they also think are a fit (or even just get enough votes for players to stay on). Bit more strategy to it in some cases (although clearly some of the voters were just straight up delusional).

I don't know what it is, but I'm finally starting to get the feel that something is imminent and we might actually see a Q move happen soon.

Hub Arkush reportedly made a comment that Jimmy G (of Patriots) would be the #1 overall pick in the draft (if he was eligible). Kind of a moot point all things considered and it doesn't mean his value is that (since whomever acquires him will also have to pay him a lot of money). We all know I'm very high on Jimmy G and would gladly give up our 2nd pick and a future 3rd round pick. I'd also be willing to dangle Jeffrey & picks as part of a package as well.

Everyone who said Rondo sucked when we signed him this off-season, was absolutely right. Good god he is awful.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 21, 2016 -> 07:44 AM) Reagan has a mixed legacy. What's so very odd to me though is, I can't think of a modern President who is so thoroughly caricatured by both sides of the aisle. It's absurd. Republicans (or at least many GOP politicians) prop him up as a paragon of conservatism, when in reality, he was far more liberal than any candidate the GOP has run out there for nomination in the last few cycles. Democrats make him out to be an evil, warmongering poor-people-hater, when in reality he did plenty of good things along with the bad. He's become folklore. By the way, I though Bush Sr was a better President than he's gotten credit for. Bush Sr was a good president, imo.

A potential pirates deal excites me.

Nice.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Dec 20, 2016 -> 10:09 AM) Take it for what it's worth, this was at the deadline. whitesoxdave ‏@barstoolWSD FWIW I was told the #WhiteSox turned down a Benintendi, Kopech, Johnson/Ball, and PTBNL package for Quintana from #RedSox I know I'm late to the party, but that is a deal that would have really excited me. Oh well...Red Sox move isn't happening now, but I think I'd have made that deal and flipped Sale elsewhere (mainly because I think in order of operation, I'd have rather moved Q before Sale...because I think it would be easier to move Sale vs. Q).

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/12/19/gab...s-from-success/ Thought this was a great write-up by Gabriel.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 09:25 AM) They need at least 10 more talented players up and down the roster. Thats still going to take more than one more year IMO. I agree, although depending on the QB situation, I would expect to see quite a few more wins next year (vs. this year).

QUOTE (raBBit @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 08:21 AM) Agreed. Sox best course of action is to let Robertson rebuild his value and trade Jones and his incredible contract now. I agree. I actually think putting Jones in the closer role would have had more downside then upside. We all know there are certain players who just can't close (for whatever reason) and if Jones had a few bad outings, it could have hindered his trade value a lot more then the potential upside from a solid couple months (imo). Jones value should be high, the only real question is how much of a negative in trade value is his injury history. Jones is very high on my list of guys we should move now.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 07:29 AM) Yeah, it is really easy to argue that the Bears are a few plays and their starting line up away from the playoffs. They have quite literally given away three games they should have won even with this s*** squad they have had for the last half of the season. The defense is a legitimate top 10 defense right now, even missing a couple of players. Give the offense a quarterback, even an OK offensiveline, plus receivers that don't absolutely suck, this is a team that could win 10 games. Fox has advanced this team a ton in just under two seasons. The team has made strides, but there are a lot of missing parts still. I suppose if healthy, they could be a 10 win team if everything went right (and playing a last place schedule), but I think they have major gaps in the secondary and obviously major questionmarks offensively (LT QB is a huge mark). Defense is trending upwards, but we still have very few playmakers (that said, Floyd looks like a beast, which is fantastic).

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 19, 2016 -> 07:51 AM) I thought our offensive line has been +. Give us a playcaller that knows to run the ball, legit tight ends, and revamped defensive backfield and we could be somewhere. Honestly, can we really knock Loggains for getting 27 points with Barkley at the helm. I think if we all looked at our expectations of Barkley when he was first announced and then look at what he's done and talk about how well he's played, we can give Matt a ton of credit, but is it fair to ignore Loggains? It is so hard to know what Loggains is, given all the injuries, etc.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 18, 2016 -> 03:34 PM) I don't get this...why the heck would we want to fire him now? Yeah...I don't quite grasp. The team clearly hasn't quit and with all the injuries and backups playing, they are playing pretty competitive football against quality teams. I hope this trend continues cause I like the idea of continuity (albeit I clearly want Fangio around).