Chisoxfn

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Mar 13, 2012 -> 09:09 AM) That has UCONN 54th All-Time, so I'll take that ranking with a grain of salt as far as level of prestige. UCONN is rated so low because for a long time they weren't a meaningful program. The problem is, to a large extent, what matters is what you have done in the past 10 years. The overall ratings factor the lifetime of a program but recruits care about what has happened now (or pretty recently) in most instances. Very few programs can get away without that (e.g., a Notre Dame in football, who despite falling, still gets ton of air time, etc). The reality is Iowa has stunk the past 10 years as a program and as such, no one remembers when they were consistently playing in the tourney and playing into the sweet 16. Illinois at least has had more recent success but clearly Uconn is far more relevant of a program now. All time, I'd still argue Uconn is better because they've won what counts a couple times (National Championships). Note: If you look at top programs by decade, you will see Uconn ranked 6th in the 1990's and 9th in the 2000-2009 range. Which is pretty accurate given that is when the program became most relevant.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 13, 2012 -> 08:28 AM) I feel like there's a lot of "we have to do something" moves they've made. Keeping Gortat and Reddick despite big cap numbers on both of them, dealing for Turkoglu back after letting him walk, the Arenas deal, trading for Vince Carter, signing Brandon Bass, signing Quentin Richardson etc. They've been scraping and clawing to "avoid falling back" and then trying to hit a home run by going for guys like Carter and Arenas who have had down times. Let me ask you this. What does losing Gortat/Reddick do for the Magic? It isn't like if they didn't, they'd have had all kinds of cap room. None of those deals really put them in a financial mess. They were already in a financial mess.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 13, 2012 -> 08:10 AM) Part of the problem in all these spots is why they wind up not having good parts around him...and it seems to me, the answer invariably is that they keep trading for guys that Howard wants. The Cavs did the same thing...they didn't make moves (i.e. trading Szczerbiak's expiring deal for a better player) because Lebron didn't want them to, then they made other deals (Shaq) because Lebron wanted them to, and it kept them from really growing the team they needed. No one has made more aggressive and borderline insane trades the last few years than the Magic, and I'll bet those trades haven't happened over Howard's objections. Otis Smith is supposedly a pretty well thought of gm. They haven't made any horrendous trades (that I remember). Rashard Lewis didn't dominate when he left. They did acquire Arenas in an odd move, but the reality is, they just haven't had a ton of talent. I think Dwight has lobbied to add players and how much he's made decisions, I don't know, but they haven't gotten the right guy yet.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 13, 2012 -> 08:08 AM) He has that opportunity right now. He doesnt want it I don't disagree. However, the reality is, money counts, and he clearly is more concerned with other things. That is his right. He has a chance to get paid the most in Orlando. And they can still put a good team around him to help him win. I think Chicago makes a ton of sense and I keep hoping he comes to his senses, but if he wants to be the star and best player on his team, I won't bust his balls for that. Afterall, that is what I wanted LBJ to do. Now if he goes to a team like the Heat, than that is blasphemy.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 13, 2012 -> 08:04 AM) We've already proven that Howard does not mean a championship. He's had plenty of time and plenty of support. He's going to pair up with another superstar in another location, and there's no stopping that. Sadly, that star won't be Rose, for whatever zany reasoning he has, but it will be someone. Either way, the Magic making it known he can decide the fate of their coach and General Manager makes the organization look unprofessional. Jesus, a guy with barely a high school education hiring and firing your GM is the dumbest thing I've ever heard proposed. That team is pretty bad. Jameer Nelson, etc. They really haven't had very good parts around Dwight. Dwight is a beast and can win titles in this league if you put him around a good wing player. That hasn't really happened yet in his career. I will admit when they had Rasheed and Turk playing well they were decent but that team was never full of elite talent and he's never had another top 20 player on his team.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 13, 2012 -> 08:00 AM) Yahoo Sports' Jason Cole reports it's down to the Bears and Bucs for Jackson. If the Bears signed Jackson and Mario somehow, and then drafted really well for the O-Line, some secondary help, and some lineback help, they'd be looking great. The one concern I have in all of these reports is that there are always these hidden teams that jump in. Plus, Emery is supposedly keeping a sealed lid on Halas Hall which makes me wonder how real these leaks are. I'm assuming they are coming from reps of Williams/Jackson vs. Bears insiders.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 13, 2012 -> 07:51 AM) Sorry, I'd say keeping some integrity within your organization is better than having a player s*** all over it. The players are going to crap on it all they want. The reality is the NBA is a star driven league and without stars you won't win. If they keep Howard and 2 years from now win a championship who cares.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Mar 12, 2012 -> 08:36 PM) Alright, I've had enough with the Illinois isn't a top/elite/very good/whatever the hell you want to call it program. BTW Jason don't ever put Iowa basketball and Illinois basketball, historically, in the same sentence again. You're better than that. From http://alioneye.com/ - #13 all time in the NCAA in wins (#12 in winning percentage). - #11 (tied) all time in NCAA Tourney appearances (2nd in the Big Ten). - #18 in NCAA Tournament wins (famously most wins for a team without a title) - #14 (tied) all time in Final Four appearances (tied for the 8th highest total number of appearances) - #9 all time in collective AP poll appearances (including: #13 in weeks in the top 5, #9 in weeks in the top 10, #8 in seasons in the top 5, #9 in seasons in the top 10, #8 in seasons in the top 25) - 1st all-time in Big Ten conference wins (3rd in winning percentage) - 4th highest number of Big Ten titles in the conference - 6 more Big Ten Tournament wins than any other school, highest number (tied) of championship game appearances, 2nd in Tourney titles - We own winning records against every Big Ten program except two. Indiana has us beat by 1 game. Purdue is up by 11 games. - Tied for #18 all-time in number of McDonald’s All-Americans (I only mention this as a point that it’s also folly to suggest it’s unreasonable to expect consistent high-level recruiting, either). - Sagarin/ESPN has us at #6 all time. - NBC Sports puts us at #14. - Basketball Reference has us as the 5th best program in the last 30 years. - Forbes has us as the 5th most valuable program. Just take the first five. 13th in all-time wins, 11th in all-time tournament appearances, 18th in all-time tournament wins (with the top-17 all owning at least one NCAA title), 14th in all-time Final Four appearances, and 9th in all-time AP Poll appearances. Add that all together, and you get “at worst 14th, and possibly 12th best college basketball program.” As an FYI, Sagarin has Iowa 4 slots below Illinois in his all time collegiate rankings. These rankings are a little old (e.g., from 2009), however, Iowa is ranked 10th vs. Illionis being 6th. Either way, neither program is currently even close to being a top 10 program in this country. Iowa has a very very strong history in college basketball and have had quite a few very good teams and multiple final 4 appearances. They are not in the class of some of the elite schools in the country though and while there program had clout, they have digressed significantly since Dr. Tom and until someone restores the program they will remain a lesser tier school in basketball (hopefully Fran is that guy). http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2009/1004/cbe1.pdf

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 13, 2012 -> 07:40 AM) Allowing your player to hire/fire his GM and coach is never a good idea. They need to trade Howard as he's requested or let him walk in FA; sadly, they don't have a choice beyond that. Don't disagree, but if it is your final last ditched effort to keep Howard, than you have to do it. No matter what, having Howard is better than not.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 13, 2012 -> 07:19 AM) Christ, that is a horrible idea. Not really. Howard is more important than your front office/coach. I hate to say it but he is.

I'll take it. A win is a win. Jimmy Butler made some pretty big plays down the stretch for the Bulls. He's getting some valuable minutes right now.

I'll believe it when I see it. That said, I'd crap my pants if that happened.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 12, 2012 -> 03:44 PM) The Bulls GAIN defense when you swap out Boozer for Garnett(as well as keeping the offense), and Pierce is a better scorer than Deng, the defense can be mitigated by adding Garnett. Im not living in the past, im living in the moment. This deal gives the Bulls flexibility going forward with Garnett expiring, and if i read right Pierce not guaranteed 13-14. This gives the Bulls an opportunity to have a better defensive team going into the playoffs and they keep the offense right where it is. Having Noah and Garnett next to each other would be pretty awesome I don't quite see how the Bulls interior defense is the problem. To me you need a guy that can guard James or at least hold him on his own. While no one can stop James, Deng is the superior defender and the guy you stick on him. To me that is the important area. This deal does not make the Bulls a title contender and I'd argue it doesn't make them better now. When the Bulls need strong defense, they can always replace Boozer with Taj/Asik. We have that. Also, you talk about the flexibility going forward. What do you propose the Bulls do with that flexibility? Who would they be signing with that money that are better than Deng/Boozer? The Bulls have a young superstar and a very good core around him that is financially solid. They have the ability to amnesty Boozer if they ever want to and have some enticing draft picks/assets. I don't think I'm about to shorten my window unless I really think it guarantees me a championship (or damn near does). This deal doesn't do that but it certainly puts you in a far worse position 2, 3, and 4 years down the road.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 12, 2012 -> 03:30 PM) Lol, your post thread note is killing your argument. I would argue a lot of the problems with the Celtics being mediocre is that they have traded away their muscle(perkins) and they lost green due to his heart condition I don't really think so. You guys are living in the past on KG. I'd probably do this deal if it were Allen and KG and the only reason I do it is because the Bulls can outright sign another max player. Again, I only do it if I think they actually can get that. Otherwise, I have zero interest. On a sidenote, there is a good chance Asik is gone at the end of the year due to another team offering him more money than the Bulls will be able to match (since they don't want to pay luxury tax for him or at least I assume they won't). Why is my note killing the argument on a sidenote? Bulls lose defense in Boozer going, however, Deng is the better defender when compared to Pierce. Boozer > offensively than KG. Pierce > offensively than Deng. Neither are significant differences although I will say that Pierce can create his own shot significantly better than Pierce. And the Celtics are mediocre for a lot of reasons but the Bulls big 4 > Celtics big 4. Part of that is cause Rose > all, however, I'd argue there are other guys in the equation better as well.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 12, 2012 -> 03:13 PM) You are replacing Deng with Pierce, and a oft injured Boozer for an oft injured Garnett. Really, it seems like a wash. Plus, Garnett expires. I know Boozer has been healthy all season, but come on, this is the exception not the rule I realize Booze had some troubles but he isn't nearly as broken down as Garnett. KG has came on strong as of late (now that he's playing more center) but for most of the year he hasn't been that good. Have you guys watched many of Boston's games. There is a reason they are pretty mediocre. I don't think adding there 2nd and 4th best players in place of our 2nd and 3rd best players makes us a better team. I have Rondo as there best player and Allen as the 3rd best player. For the Bulls, I could see someone making the argument that Noah is better than Boozer (and I'm probably 50/50 on that depending on which Joakim shows up). Either way, I personally believe Rondo to be the best player on the Celtics. If there was a guy I'd want on Boston, it would be Ray Allen. Tremendous fit, but I certainly wouldn't give up Deng to get him. Add Allen without subtracting much of the main core and the Bulls might just be the best team in the NBA. Note: From a PPG standpoint (KG vs. Boozer), Bulls lose a little in points, lose a little in rebounds, gain in defense. The difference between Deng/Pierce in PPG is a slight difference in favor of Pierce as well (very minimal). Pierce at 18PPG or so over the past 3 years; Deng around 17PPG (a little lower this year, but that is primarily a result of his injury). Deng also shoots a higher FG percentage, although Deng's current year FG% is terrible as a result of his injury (down around 41%).

You guys are pretty crazy when you think it is easy to replace Deng. Sure, it is easy to replace a guy like that when you have cap room or lots of draft picks. The Bulls don't have either. This would be a ridiculously short sited trade and it is the exact reason it won't happen. Heck, I could make an argument that the Bulls are better pre-deal this year than pots-deal (well if Deng was 100%). That is because Garnett is a walking liability (dude could go down with another injury at any point).

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 12, 2012 -> 02:20 PM) I think Deng went from being abhored for his contract to being appreciated a little swiftly. I love the guy, but he's still no Paul Pierce even at this advanced age. That being said, who knows what will happen come Thursday. Pierce is better. But how much...very little and he won't be better that much longer. I also don't think the difference between Pierce/Garnett & Deng/Boozer makes the Bulls a championship team. And long term it makes us worse.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 12, 2012 -> 02:16 PM) The underlying point of the deal would be to get out of Boozer/Deng's contract at the price of Pierce's. I think the Bulls FO have realized that they dont need to pay that type of money to Boozer/Deng to be competitive. Also Boozer's value should be very little, so if you can get anything for him, always good idea. Only Deng really is a concern, and SF is one of the deepest positions and you can get a guy at the fraction of the price. Deng is a pretty darn good player. His contract is not an albatross. Seems to me that the Bulls get older and are banking on hope of getting other guys in the future. I really really don't like the idea of this trade.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 12, 2012 -> 01:54 PM) Pretty well-respected poster at RealGM spraying to all fields re: Bulls. Like I said, spraying to all fields. At least the Bulls don't seem content. I'd imagine these injuries might force their hands into something. To add more fuel to this fire, Jim Paxson (not a typo, he's a Bulls' consultant) was at the Lakers/Celtics game yesterday. http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=6rh7zrc Rose, Watson Hamilton, Brewer Pierce, Brewer Garnett, Gibson Noah, Gibson Scalabrine Butler Lucas That's a really interesting 8 man rotation. Paul Pierce's 13/14 is not guaranteed. Obviously, that monster KG deal coming off the books is rather attractive. So are the Bulls doing this because they than have enough cap room in the off-season to make another move? Would they have that kind of cap room? As is, seems like a deal I wouldn't want to make. Deng long term is better than Pierce and Boozer/Garnett are pretty equal given Garnett's age. I see no reason why I make this deal if I'm Chicago (is there something I'm missing)? Defensively Bulls are better in the paint with KG vs. Boozer.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Mar 12, 2012 -> 12:07 PM) By any chance did you ever look into the comic books for season 3? I found a site I can get all of them for like $7. I havent been able to locate a cheaper option as of yet. I didn't know Jericho was based on comic books.

QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Mar 12, 2012 -> 06:59 AM) The one K is very encouraging. But, it's a very small sample size... I think the biggest thing for Dunn is getting his confidence back. A solid spring would go a long way to helping that. As would a good start to the season.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Mar 12, 2012 -> 09:38 AM) Anybody ever watch the show Jericho that was on a few years ago? I saw both seasons on Netflix and gave it a shot and was pleasantly surprised, I really enjoyed it. I guess it got cancelled before the story finished so the writers made season 3 with comic books. Its about a small fictional town in Kansas that survives after the US is under attack and 23 cities get nuked, for anyone interested. It was phenomenal. Easily one of my favorite shows ever done. I was so pissed when it was cancelled.

Bears have slightly more than 30M after Adams/Omilaye were cut.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Mar 9, 2012 -> 07:26 PM) There are a lot of analogies with Weber and Tom Davis, although Davis had a track record with Stanford and BC previously. Davis did very well with George Raveling's recruits (almost made the Final 4 and had a #1 ranking in the mid-80's) and then from that point on, the best he could do was usually getting to the NCAA's and losing in the 2nd round to an ACC superpower. Ultimately, it always comes down to recruiting, and when you have Chicago at your doorstep, you have to lock down those recruits. Ultimately, Tom Davis lost his job at Iowa because he couldn't keep Raef LaFrentz, Kirk Hinrich and Nick Collison in-state. In retrospect, be careful what you wish for...after Davis led them to the Sweet 16 his final year, there's been a grand total of one NCAA tourney win in the past 10+ years, over Creighton. Then following year, when some were picking them #1 in the country preseason, they totally collapsed with a 5-11 BIG 10 record. In their other two appearances, first round losses to Cincinnati and the devastating loss to Northwestern (LA) State in 2006 when they were up by 17 in the second half as the #3 seed. They hired too "glamour" choices in Steve Alford and Todd Lickliter had the former NCAA Coach of the Year record on his resume, but winning at Iowa is always going to be about recruiting, plain and simple. And they can't hire JUST a recruiter or they'll end up with another version of Ron Zook. Please don't ever compare Tom Davis and Bruce Weber. Dr. Tom was the man at Iowa and did an excellent job there. Yes, he lost some key players to other schools but he was always a very good coach, including his last year with Iowa. People had delusions of grandeur at Iowa than just like a lot of Illinois fans seem to have now.

Gooooooo Titans!!!