Chisoxfn

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Dec 22, 2015 -> 01:42 PM) Upton's been on the DL a grand total of 1 time in his career, in 2008. Damn facts.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 22, 2015 -> 01:36 PM) Pretty sure that would be salary cap impossible. They could actually pretty easily pull a trade together with a varying degree of pieces (between two teams). Lakers have a ton of flexibility in terms of contracts that could be moved to make numbers work. For example, Bulls could trade Rose and picks for Hibbert & Russell. Trade easily fits under the current cap structure. In no way, shape or form am I necessarily saying that deal works for Lakers. But you could add other parts / components, such as Rose, Snell, Niko and picks for Hibbert, Russell and Swaggy P. Bulls save significant cap space going forward and get an asset in Russell (they also get stuck with Young...but in the right system he could be a solid enough fit off the bench). Of course for any truth to this deal to be possible, the Lakers need to be pretty desperate for a higher profile move (and be pretty sour on Russell) and the Bulls need to be ready to be done with Rose as well as still optimistic in Russel. Could even be that the Lakers view Mirotic and Snell as other solid pieces as they attempt to collect additional assets.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 22, 2015 -> 01:15 PM) LOL Chisoxfn, come on, Rose ain't getting you a recent #4 overall pick. Rose for nick young maybe. I'm not saying the Lakers would do it, but honestly, you haven't heard anything until you come out to LA land and listen to their hot takes on the Lakers and Russell for that matter. A lot of people, including educated analysts, are writing him off as a bust. Lakers fans are desperate and the org is a hot mess. I think any deal would have to involve additional pieces (clearly) and I think their is no reality to it, but I never thought you could deal Rose and his contract for an asset (as Lowe alludes is possible).

I was being kind of sarcastic but kind of not. Lakers are desperate. Get Russell and than make a crazy push for KD.

QUOTE (Boogua @ Dec 22, 2015 -> 12:57 PM) Pau seems like the likeliest guy to be traded. However, it doesn't make a ton of sense to trade one of your best offensive weapons on a team that is terrible on offense. The main issue for the offensive woes has to be Rose. I mean, the guy has an O-Rating of 87. Just insanely atrocious. Pair that with Snell (an O-Rating of 89) and you just get a terrible offense. I think the key concept here is whether Pau is a piece that fits with the offense we are trying to run (vs. the offense we are running). Pau plays his best basketball in lower tempo / half court sets. Hoiberg doesn't want to do it. Now ignoring the fact that Rose has played like hot garbage, Jimmy can play in transition, Noah can run, Taj can run, etc. The oddest man out in the overall system is Pau (similar to how Pau was an odd man out when the Lakers transitioned to D'Antoni).

Oh....to hog this thread, one other thing I found of note from Lowe's piece. I still say, trade Rose for Russell. Lakers need their "star" to market.

What is the status of Noah? Does he need surgery or is it a week to week thing? I got sad last night wondering whether I saw his last game with the Bulls (as I know sometimes dislocated shoulders can be season ending).

The other key point Lowe makes is the below. Nothing else to add. Rose plays like he has thus far and we are a pretender. Case closed.

Quote that stuck out to me was the below: What do you mean? If you didn't change to improve the offense, what reason for the change? The defense was elite so only one thing had to give. Just further proof that the change was non-basketball related and ignored Thibbs basketball brilliance. It just reiterates what we all know. The real struggle is Gar didn't actually do an exhaustive coaching search to confirm Fred was the right guy. Nor do I ever get the feeling that Gar and company (and Thibs plays an equal part in this for being a brick wall himself) ever tried to work out the differences or take a bigger picture look and say, wow, this is working, how can WE MAKE IT BETTER and TAKE THE NEXT STEP. Instead it was this constant battle and belittlement and thus you never had the "how do we make it better". The independent smarts / brightness of the front office and Thibbs was evident, imo (Bulls have been astoot at drafting / identifying talent...yes they missed the big fish, but their drafts have been outstanding). But you compare them to the Spurs and Pop and the big difference is EVERYONE is working towards one common goal and that has been consistently reinforced. I never got the feeling that Pax / Gar / Thibbs really gave it a fair shot.

By the way, I think the piece that will change in this puzzle will be Pau. That said, not sure how Noah's injury impacts those plans.

Quote that stuck out to me was the below: What do you mean? If you didn't change to improve the offense, what reason for the change? The defense was elite so only one thing had to give. Just further proof that the change was non-basketball related and ignored Thibbs basketball brilliance. It just reiterates what we all know. The real struggle is Gar didn't actually do an exhaustive coaching search to confirm Fred was the right guy. Nor do I ever get the feeling that Gar and company (and Thibs plays an equal part in this for being a brick wall himself) ever tried to work out the differences or take a bigger picture look and say, wow, this is working, how can WE MAKE IT BETTER and TAKE THE NEXT STEP. Instead it was this constant battle and belittlement and thus you never had the "how do we make it better". The independent smarts / brightness of the front office and Thibbs was evident, imo (Bulls have been astoot at drafting / identifying talent...yes they missed the big fish, but their drafts have been outstanding). But you compare them to the Spurs and Pop and the big difference is EVERYONE is working towards one common goal and that has been consistently reinforced. I never got the feeling that Pax / Gar / Thibbs really gave it a fair shot.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 03:00 PM) Yes. Personally, only way I move Pau is for something that is better for this team long term. It is an asset we might lose after this year (and the way things are going, we will lose him), so we need to not lose that value. I want a larger deal that nets the Bulls Boogie

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 02:58 PM) Yea we'll see how much teams are really valuing defense. For all the talk about the Cubs getting Heyward at a discount it could also just be teams aren't quite 100% committed to "full value" for guys that rely on defensive metrics for their productivity. Maybe a team option with a buyout. I think in Gordon's case it is the fact that he isn't a "sexy" player to go with his age.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 02:56 PM) But who has the team to bother with that? Carrying a player that requires a platoon that can play 1 OF position (poorly)? White Sox after we add an outfielder. I see no reason to move Avi (his value is probably shot but he can be a solid contributor against LHP and select RHP). It isn't like LaRoche should be going against LHP.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 02:57 PM) Because I think with Pau you're stuck with the only good lineup being him with Taj. He and Noah are terrible together and he and Niko are really bad defensively and offensively if Niko is worthless with his shot, which is been a frequent problem. Zbo, IMO, is more interchangeable, like Taj. Noah is your true 5, can play 30-35 minutes, and then you play Zbo/Niko at the 4, and Taj at the 5 or 4 where necessary. That gives you the point-center/defensive/energy big (Noah), the stretch 4 (theoretically, in Niko), and then 3 guys that can bang and get rebounds or hit 15 foot jumpshots. Though Portis is more the energy/clean-up guy at this point, but still, interchangeable. I mean it's not some amazing, problem-solving move. But the Bulls have too many bigs and the combos don't work IMO. Okay...so it isn't really "too many bigs" rather than a guy who fits better with our team needs / skillsets.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 02:48 PM) No way 4 years gets it done. If anything it will be 5 years with a buyout. I think 4 years and an option probably get it done for Gordon.

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 02:47 PM) Or you could you know, allow him to have another 300 PA before August and see what happens. I'm not all that confident Avi is anything other than replacement level but he's young enough where IMO you need to give him another shot before you sell at rock bottom. There's not some surefire 4 WAR upgrade easily available to replace him. There's nothing in house and bringing in more than one veteran OF via FA isn't in the cards, unless JR wants to go all Michael Ilitch on us (that would be great but yea, zero chance of that) the Sox' best bet is to role with Avi until they have to make a decision in late July about not only his future but the Sox' odds of making the playoffs in '16. Basically they should just hold him and see what happens. It's not worth it to try and bring in a Gillaspie type that at best is a 2 WAR starter and anything better than that is going to cost big time in prospects or cash. That is what I'm saying. We keep him and platoon him with Melky / LaRoche and in theory maximize the value in all of those players (most specifically LaRoche / Avi).

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 02:43 PM) And i'm not sure a wing is necessary if McDermott is the future. I'd rather get a better PG than a wing. Personally, I don't think Doug is a starter on a championship caliber team. He is too awful defensively. Plus you are swapping bigs so I'm not sure how it clears a log jam.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 02:10 PM) If Avisail garcia could not start on a bad team desperate for offense, what chance does he have on any other? You put him in a proper platoon situation and put him in a place where he can be a valid contributor.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 02:12 PM) I did just look at the scores from 2000 to 2004. What I found was that for the most part the offense wasn't the problem. In 2000 they led the league in runs, in 2002 and 2004 they were third in the AL in runs scored. The offense wasn't the problem. Yeah there were several instances of scoring a lot of runs and then seeing a drop-off the next day, but guess what? The same thing happens with every team. The 2005 White Sox included. Go look at the scores from 2005, in the second half of the season the offense went on several prolonged slumps where they did exactly what you're claiming the 2000-2004 offenses did wrong. And again, the 2005 White Sox were the 4th-most HR-dependent offense in baseball that year and one of the most HR-dependent offenses the White Sox have ever had, so your favorite example is actually disproving your point. The pitching was the reason we won the championship. If the '05 team had the same pitching as the '04 team you wouldn't be giving any praise to the '05 White Sox offense, and instead you'd probably be lumping them in with the '00-'04 "softball" offenses that you seem to hate so much. Biggest problem for those white sox teams was the fact that they had absurd stretches of atrocious pitching out of their #5 spot in the rotation (and often times the #4 spot). Didn't they go something like 2 years without a win from the 5 spot (or something absurd). Felix Diaz, Arnie Munoz, etc. Injuries also played a part (Thomas / Maggs going down that one year). If they even got a few wins from the 5 spot in the rotation, none of it would have mattered in a ton of those years.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 02:14 PM) Going to play in Memphis with his brother may hold some appeal. Yep. Plus, I just want to see your reaction to Zbo on the Bulls, haha. On a sidenote, what is the Bulls benefit for this swap? Are we getting another asset? I'd think straight up Pau is the better player (and both are old). Is it purely because Zbo is around for longer (thus extending the window)? I'd have thought if we move Pau it would be to get a younger wing player (or draft picks).

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 01:25 PM) Fair, but in this case i'm right. What's the big deal? Because he criticized the coach? So what? He's the star of the team. He's earned that right. All the stars do it. And it's not as if he said "Hoiberg sucks, management failed us." He's asking for some accountability on a team that loses to bad teams and looks lethargic 60% of the time. On a related note: I don't get this at all. Niko's too slow to play the 3. If anything McDermott should be starting in Snell's spot. I don't get what Hoiberg is going for here. My line-up would be Rose-Butler-McDermott-Niko-Noah. Let Pau/Taj/Portis feast on 2nd units. As the game progresses, swap Noah/Gasol depending on whether you need offense or defense. I think Gasol is going to get dealt.

I don't get it. All I know is, I want more Portis and less Niko. Snell has stunk, but at least he can play defense and has hit threes (he just dissapears for long stretches) but Niko has been brutal and can't defend the 3. Good lord...maybe the plan is just hope we get lucky and one of these switches works. I'd rather freaking see Portis at the 3, lol. I presume it would be Doug, but Doug is hurt (knee injury).

QUOTE (spiderman @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 01:21 PM) Would love to see spin-off movies about Bobba Fettt, Jabba, and Yoda. Rogue 1 sounds good as well and I'm sure we'll get a Jabba some in a Han movie (maybe Bobba Fett by default). Yoda has so much history that his spin-off may not even feel like a spin-off movie. Still would love to see a movie on Darth Vader in between 3 and 4 killing everything in sight. I think Rogue 1 is going to have Darth.

QUOTE (knightni @ Dec 21, 2015 -> 11:35 AM) SB Nation has an early mock draft with the Bears taking OT Ronnie Stanley. I really think that they'll go defensive in round one this year, though. I think oline is pretty realistic because I think we might target defensive playmaker with the cap space. I also wouldn't be shocked if we kicked the tires on Berry to shore up the safety position opposite Amos.