Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 08:03 PM) Hood is just as good, and you could have potentially had hood plus a good pg to back up Rose. McDermott isnt that much better. No.

QUOTE (WHarris1 @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 08:01 PM) The difference between 11 + roster hold vs. 16 and 19s is under 500K. Chad Ford says they save 900k in cap space with the move.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 07:58 PM) Thats the point. The Bulls needed a guy who can play 2 or 3, not a 3 who can play against some of the weaker 4s. You need guys that can shoot the ball and spread the floor. They got the best guy for that.

QUOTE (WHarris1 @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 07:59 PM) Just for clarity sake that move does essentially nothing from a cap perspective 19th pick is a million i think

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 07:55 PM) The problem is McDermott just doesnt a make a ton of sense for a team getting Melo. Melo and McDermott is not really a great combination to be on the floor at the same time. A guy like Rodney Hood would make a ton more sense if they were actually getting Melo. Melo's backup, Taj/Butler replacement if they need scoring, Melo insurance policy in case he doesn't come.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 07:53 PM) That Charlotte picked we all overhyped for years turned out to be one half of Doug McDermott lololol Yep, they got good one season too early.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 07:49 PM) Not a fan at all. McDermott may be good, but Id never send 2 picks to only move up a few spots. Bulls didn't want that 2nd pick anyway. Hit against the cap.

Got the best scorer and don't have to waste a second draft pick. Dig it.

YES. If true, I love it.

Dang. Well maybe Gary Harris drops.

Adrian Wojnarowski ‏@WojYahooNBA 1m Elfrid Payton could be on the move, sources tell Yahoo Sports.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 07:37 PM) Trade coming? Good point, that's possible.

lol, chad ford and woj with a big WHIFF on that pick.

Vonleh is going to be a bust. No motor. No drive. Should have led Indiana much farther this last year.

if you can make shots and have the size, you'll have a place in the league. he'll do well IMO

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 04:34 PM) So you want the Bulls to tank but then talk about how Wiggins would be a bust, etc. Not sure I'm really following this. He's not the only player in the draft worth taking...

OK man, you're right. When government scandals involving a small subset of people randomly have their records lost, blaming an IT failure that occurs a fraction of the time is a totally logical explanation. End of inquiry.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 04:33 PM) Show your math. Also consider that if the people were using computers/drives of the same age and model, it's even more likely that they'd begin failing around the same time. My assumption is these people worked in the same office or the same department at the IRS. It's not as if you have a secretary in New York and an investigator in Florida and 5 other random people at the IRS whose hard drives crashed. If that were the case I would agree with you that it's unlikely there was some shenanigans going on. But again, from my understanding these are all people who are implicated in the probe. So it's not 7 random hard drives out of 90,000. It's seven out of a relatively small sub-set of IRS employees.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 04:27 PM) Yes, that was their policy, but it was poorly defined and left up to individual discretion. Lerner may not have been following it properly. Hard drive failure rates are anywhere from 3-25%. It depends on the brand, model, the manufacturing run, the conditions they're used in (e.g. constantly overheated), and where they're at in their lifecycle (high failure rates are right out of the box and after about 5 years with really low failure rates in between). It's not all that unlikely that, in an agency with 90,000 employees, seven of those employees would have hard drives that would fail within the span of several months to several years. I haven't seen an actual timeline of the drive failures other than an article that mentioned that at least two of them happened several months apart, again all going back about three years. Pssh, it absolutely is. It's not seven people out of the 90,000, it's seven people who happen to be at or near the center of this probe (so tens or maybe hundreds max).

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 04:06 PM) Hilarious that people lump together white players like that. I wanted McDermott because I think he could very much be Kyle Korver. Though Korver's shot block levels are better than anything McDermott could hope for. Well, it's white guys but also guys that play in a crappy conference for most of their careers to put up big offensive numbers. Bilas had a stat last night that 70% of McDermott's shots in college were contested. He has no problem finding his own shot, which is why I think he'll excel in the NBA and the pick and pop game.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 03:56 PM) Look at the East this year. For the bulls to have been Celts level, Noah would have had to be injured or terrible. DJ Augustin - Butler - MDJ - Boozer - Gibson That was the only way to 25 wins or less. You hold him out games here or there. He doesn't have to be injured. It could have been done, they choice to compete and play a ton of minutes with key guys. It was dumb.

Alright, who has some bold predictions for this years class? Here are a few I have: 1) Wiggins will be a bust. Not an out-of-the-league-in-three-years kinda bust, but not an all-star quality player either. I watched a fair amount of Kansas games and except for the clearly apparent athletic ability, he never really blew me away with his basketball skills. I also have no faith in any of the top three teams to develop him. 2) Randle ends up being one of the top 2-3 NBA players out of this draft. Not sure he'll be a perennial all-star, but up to that level and a steady contributor. 3) McDermott becomes a quality NBA player. Not all-star level, but not a bench warmer either. Definitely not Adam Morrison/Jimmer 2.0

I can only imagine SS' response would be the exact same if the parties in the situation were reversed.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 02:30 PM) Look at the Lakers. That's what we'd be. A team with an expensive oft-injured "star", an aging and broken Gasol (Noah if we had tanked), and a whole lotta garbage around em. But hey! The #7 pick! So excited are they they are trying to turn that into Klay Thompson. WTF are you talking about? Why would Noah suddenly be broken? It's tanking, not literally hurting yourselves on purpose. We'd be NOTHING like the Lakers. Here's what the Bulls would be: the exact-f***ing same as they are today but a pick 5-18 spots higher.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 12:56 PM) The bulls tanking would have meant that their team is not nearly as close as we think it is (i.e. one major player), and that our assets would have been much less attractive. I dunno that that's true. I guess you could say Gibson might not be as valuable as he is today because he had a great season, but I think he still had a lot of value. If anything Butler has dropped in value. Management tried to tank. They got rid of the best player after Rose. They signed guys off the scrap heap. I dunno that you get in the top 3 (although there's always the chance), but anywhere in the top 10 would have been great.