# This team is better off rebuilding/Re-shuffling.



## thebizkit69u

This isn't a reaction to last nights blowout loss, its just an accumulation of things that I have noticed since the end of last season. Most of it comes down to the fact that Derrick Rose has basically turned into Deron Williams and has shown 0 signs of ever returning to his MVP form... Or even close to it. That alone seals the Bulls fate when it comes to the playoffs. They will not even come close to winning a title, they might not even come close to beating a healthy Cavs either. 

Here are a few observations.

1. The Bulls as a team got worse the minute Tom Thibodeau left the team. Not saying that a change wasn't needed for a better environment, its just a fact. 

2. Hoiberg does not have a roster that maximizes his style of coaching. Hoiberg needs athletic shooters and slashers. The Bulls just don't have a young team that fits what Hoiberg wants to do perfectly.

3. There is 0 leadership on the court. Butler talks a big game about being a leader, but has shown 0 vocal leadership on the court. Noah was your vocal leader on the court and now that hes on the bench (a good move IMO) the Bulls lack on court leadership.

4. Defensively they are just a mess. 

5. Offensively they are good, but they aren't dynamic and while they will score more than last year, they are still not capable of matching the elite offensive teams in the NBA.


----------



## yodurk

100% agreed on Derrick Rose. He has been awful -- I can't even find the right words to describe how terrible he has been. It is so disappointing after he played decently well in the playoffs and talked about how hard he worked this summer. Maybe the rumors about Butler not liking Rose's work ethic were true. At this point it just seems like he is regressing. 19-year old rookie Derrick Rose was significantly better than the current Derrick Rose. And it's not like physically he looks incapable, it's all in his approach to the game. He doesn't push the ball or control the tempo of the game AT ALL. Hoiberg wants him to push the tempo and he just doesn't do it. He drives to the basket when he shouldn't, and misses opportunities when they present themselves. He makes those idiotic jump passes that lead to turnovers. He misses the open man frequently. He can't hit a jumpshot to save his life. Defensively, he is getting torched by middling opposing point guards. It really just looks like he doesn't care about basketball anymore. All these quotes about him thinking about his family are fine, but they might actually reflect what priority basketball falls in his life these days. If he feels that way, he needs to either retire or at least take a much lesser role and smaller contract. What a waste of talent he is right now. Hopefully he is just in a slump and snaps out of it, but this has become a trend at this point.

To be honest, I think Hoiberg's system has had some really good moments and I can see the potential. The spacing opportunities are WAY better than what Thibodeau achieved. I put alot of blame on Rose's (and Brooks too for that matter) inability to run the system properly. Butler, Mirotic, McDermott, Portis all look great in this offense. Gasol looks like he is getting it too. Snell fits well enough for he is, a role player. Noah, Taj, Rose look terrible -- not too surprised since they are all sub-par shooters. So all I'm saying is I don't see a reason to blow it all up, since a trade or 2 could make a huge different. If we could get a point guard with half a brain, this team would look 10x better. Even an average point guard like Darren Collison or George Hill would massively upgrade the overall team performance, just someone who can competently run the offense, push the ball, defend a little, and hit a damn jumpshot. Doesn't even need to be at all-star levels.


----------



## yodurk

Also -- as I stated several months ago, I think GarPax are preparing to trade for an upgrade at backup PG. This became evident the moment we drafted Bobby Portis and even moreso seeing he is ready to contribute in the rotation. We have a glut of big men and deficient PG play, so it only makes sense. Mirotic & Portis are untouchable save for a can't refuse offer. We take the best offer involving any of Gasol, Noah, Gibson. (I was hoping the upgrade would occur in Free Agency, but the PG market was very shallow -- Jeremy Lin is the only one I think we missed out on)

The unfortunate reality is we can't trade Derrick Rose. We got bamboozled by the basketball gods the minute we signed him to a max contract only months before his ACL injury. Ever since then we've had to build a team with 2/3 of a salary cap compared to our rivals, and he's been virtual dead weight on this team, save for some productive playoff games last year and a handful of regular season games where we saw glimpses of the old Derrick Rose. In hindsight I can confidently say that Rose's ACL injury was the most colossal setback for the Bulls franchise in their entire history, and that is not just rhetoric.


----------



## thebizkit69u

It's a bit too early to say that Portis has played great under Hoiberg, it's a small sample size. But, it's one reason why I want a reshuffling done. Id rather see Portis develop instead of watching Gasol and Noah flat out not fit in this offense. 

McDermott has been fine offensively, but holy crap he's atrocious defensively. Mirotic has been bad defensively too, but hes trying to get better. 

The team as a whole has really let go defensively, add the fact that they aren't super talented offensively and it could be the recipe for a short postseason run. 

They need a completely different type of payer at the 1 and 5. Damn near impossible with Rose on the team.


----------



## Da Grinch

truthfully I think the answer is easy but the mayor is probably avoiding doing it and will continue to do so.

bench rose or take him off the ball and let either jimmy or snell bring it up and get them in their offense .

he's more of a people pleaser and taking such a hard line is unlike him.

in truth rose is still suffering from vision issues and conditioning issues as well .

you can always get players to do more when playing time and responsibility are part of the bargain if rose wont do it to fred's liking I bet out of the group of snell, hinrich, brooks and moore you'll find someone who will get the team running at the pace you want . they may not be especially productive but rose isn't right now anyway so there is little to lose there.


as for rebuilding I've said for a while now they need to deal gasol for perimeter help, a big pg like Vasquez or multi positional player like snell is supposed to be but guys like tyreke evans and lance Stevenson are would fit in nicely...but more help on the wing and less of a glut in the post


----------



## thebizkit69u

I'm not in favor of bringing in more veteran guys, I'm not sold on the idea that Fred has this team in control yet. 

He needs to be surrounded by guys who will buy into his system. The guys he is currently coaching aren't fit for the scheme and have given up on playing defense. There is a clear power struggle going on between rose and butler, Noah is no longer relevant on the court, Gasol looks lost and there is no identity to this team as is. 

It's too bad that Rose has 0 trade value, if someone offered me Michael Carter Williams for Rose straight up, I'd jump on it. 

It's a mess.


----------



## yodurk

"Messy", yes I agree. "Mess" as in a total mess, no I disagree, because I think it is fixable.

Fred Hoiberg brought in a pretty big paradigm shift to this team. I'm all in on what Fred is advertised to bring to this team, and can only hope time will prove that advertisement can be reality. 

I've seen almost every game thus far, most of our guys have old Thibodeau habits. It will take time to unlearn those habits and go with what Fred is selling. Realistically I don't think everyone will get it, ever, and those guys will need to get let go. Some of the guys are doing just fine though. 

Also I don't get the hate on Gasol -- his shot was way off in game #1 , but other than that he's been good offensively: 15 ppg, 9 reb, 2.5 ast, 1.5 blks, in 28 min/game over his last 4 games. Defensively, he is what he is, but also realize that our defense has been 'good enough' in 4 out of 5 games. Only the Charlotte game got out of hand, and while the defense was poor, Charlotte also shot lights out all game long.

I'm convinced this team becomes REALLY good if we get any kind of meaningful production from the PG position. Easily a 4-1 team thus far if Rose plays even average basketball. Our PG play is so bad right now, though. 

P.S. I have a BAD feeling about tonight's game against Oklahoma City. Like real bad. 2 superstar scorers isn't what I had in mind for getting this team back on the rails. Hopefully Rose decides to wake up against an elite guard.


----------



## thebizkit69u

When I said mess, I'm mostly referring to the rose situation.... It's a total mess imo. 

As for Gasol, I understand he is what he is on defense, but offensively he doesn't fit a push the pace kind of offense. I just don't see him being able to run up and down the court for a full season. 

I don't see any of those "Thibs" habits you mentioned, the team flat out quits on defense which is not something that Thibs allowed, and on offense it's basically still a predominately jump shooting offense. 

I think we both agree that Fred has a shot to succeed here, but it's not going to happen with this current roster. They need a lot of changes at too many former critical positions to even get close to contention.


----------



## yodurk

I totally agree on Rose being a mess. As I alluded he is pretty much the root of the entire team's problems. The PG is the guy facilitating the offense, it all starts with him, and when he doesn't do his job well it trickles to the other 4 guys.

Gasol is a plodder nowadays but he also plays the 5 spot, and you don't necessarily need 5 guys running to have a fast tempo offense. The old early 2000's Kings teams were awesome at fast paced ball and they have 35-year old Vlade Divac playing center. What those Kings had were guys who could move the ball. Rose, Jimmy, Snell, and Mirotic should have no problem whatsoever running the floor; they are all above average speed at their respective positions. They aren't doing a good job moving the ball, though.

The Thibodeau habits I am referencing are offensive in nature, and to me are clear as day. Rose walks the ball up the floor, the ball becomes stagnant, then they force themselves into isolation. Thibodeau always insisted on slowing the game down and that is what comes naturally to our guys now. Whereas Fred is preaching the opposite, play with "tempo", etc., which our guys clearly aren't adhering to.

And yes, I like Fred Hoiberg, and definitely agree our roster isn't perfectly constructed to what he intends to do. However I do also believe the front office want to feel out who does/doesn't fit with Hoiberg's system before jumping the gun on big roster moves. I'd actually be shocked at this point if we didn't make a trade before the deadline.


----------



## yodurk

LOL -- I figured if I bashed Rose enough, and then refused to watch the game tonight (and I didn't of course), Rose would get his butt in gear and actually play well. Lo and behold. Still it just kind of proves my point that it's all mental with Rose. He is fully capable physically, and he feels motivated against the best opposing point guards; tonight that was Russell Westbrook. But then he can't seem to wake up for Reggie Jackson or Kemba Walker/Jeremy Lin. Glad the Bulls took this one, though...pretty big win actually to take down a talented OKC team after the egg they laid in Charlotte the other night, and moving to 4-2 on the season. I feel very fortunate they are 4-2 after clearly seeing so much room for improvement. Really feels like we should be 2-4 instead.


----------



## jnrjr79

Let's hold off on sentiments like these until the All-Star break. We shouldn't overreact to the Hornets loss, nor get too excited about the OKC win. Hoiberg is an unknown, rotations aren't set, MDJ is out, etc.

The team does need a backup PG, though, despite Moore's occasional flashes.


----------



## K4E

The team seems to lack an identity at this point. How to these Bulls consistently win basketball games? The Thibs Bulls did it with a defense and rebounding focus. Guys like Noah and Taj would get heavy burn. Snell would play more than McDermott. 

"Hoiball" seems to be a higher tempo - focus on the offense approach. But, the guy is a rookie coach, he still needs to get a feel for what he's trying to do out there and the roster still has logjams all over the place. Snell or McDermott? Gasol/Noah/Mirotic/Gibson? Given the recent starting lineup has been Rose / Butler / McDermott / Mirotic / Gasol you can see what Hoiberg tends to value more. 

Rookie coach with a crappy Rose and grumbly Noahs and Gibsons off the bench watching Niko and Gasol give up the paint on a nightly basis and watching McDermott (who is shooting great) trying to guard people isn't going to work long term.

The team needs to establish its identity and then the front office needs to make moves to build the roster accordingly. Noah and Gibson fit in very well with how Thibs liked to win games, and the Bulls won lots and lots of games playing that way. Its going to be tough to see the team struggle trying a different approach, especially given that we don't really know if Hoiberg will be a good NBA coach or if Mirotic and McDermott are good enough to warrant building a team around. 

Its a bit of a mess right now, but that's to be expected. Check back around the 1/2 way point of this season and hopefully Hoiberg will have figured a firmer foundation and identity for this team.

As of right now, the Bulls are 23rd in the league in offensive efficiency and 15th in defensive efficiency, so they are not really doing great at anything. Certainly not offense. Of course its early and we should reserve judgement until the mid season point at the earliest. Its hard not to comment on what is going on though if you are watching the games. Rose certainly doesn't look like an all-star caliber player at this point and any title contention talk pretty relies on that.


----------



## thebizkit69u

Yeah they aren't even good enough offensively to be considered an offensive first team. They lack athleticism, they lack an identity and lack a clear cut leader on the court. I don't want to see Snell get meaningful minutes, I'm certain Garpax would rather see McDermott get a bigger role, but the guy can't guard a corpse. 

I'm sensing a trend that Hoiberg is going to start leaning on his veterans over his younger players. Noah, Taj and Snell over the past 2 games are getting more time than Mirotic and McDermott. Once/if Dunleavy comes back, don't be surprised if he replaces McDermott, basically landing Doug on the same spot he was last year, playing behind Snell.


----------



## jnrjr79

thebizkit69u said:


> Yeah they aren't even good enough offensively to be considered an offensive first team. They lack athleticism, they lack an identity and lack a clear cut leader on the court. I don't want to see Snell get meaningful minutes, I'm certain Garpax would rather see McDermott get a bigger role, but the guy can't guard a corpse.
> 
> I'm sensing a trend that Hoiberg is going to start leaning on his veterans over his younger players. Noah, Taj and Snell over the past 2 games are getting more time than Mirotic and McDermott. Once/if Dunleavy comes back, don't be surprised if he replaces McDermott, basically landing Doug on the same spot he was last year, playing behind Snell.



Fred has moved McDermott into the starting lineup, so I'm not sure that's a trend that indicates MDJ's return puts him into DNP-CD position. He's shooting 55% overall, and a ridiculous 59% from 3. He's going to play. You are right, though, that he is absolutely atrocious on defense. I'm not sure he's going to get any better riding the pine, though.

I do agree MDJ ends up starting once he returns.

The Bulls' issue right now seems to be a pretty serious lack of 2-way players. Lots of important guys only play one side of the floor particularly well.


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> The team seems to lack an identity at this point. How to these Bulls consistently win basketball games? The Thibs Bulls did it with a defense and rebounding focus. Guys like Noah and Taj would get heavy burn. Snell would play more than McDermott.
> 
> "Hoiball" seems to be a higher tempo - focus on the offense approach. But, the guy is a rookie coach, he still needs to get a feel for what he's trying to do out there and the roster still has logjams all over the place. Snell or McDermott? Gasol/Noah/Mirotic/Gibson? Given the recent starting lineup has been Rose / Butler / McDermott / Mirotic / Gasol you can see what Hoiberg tends to value more.
> 
> Rookie coach with a crappy Rose and grumbly Noahs and Gibsons off the bench watching Niko and Gasol give up the paint on a nightly basis and watching McDermott (who is shooting great) trying to guard people isn't going to work long term.
> 
> The team needs to establish its identity and then the front office needs to make moves to build the roster accordingly. Noah and Gibson fit in very well with how Thibs liked to win games, and the Bulls won lots and lots of games playing that way. Its going to be tough to see the team struggle trying a different approach, especially given that we don't really know if Hoiberg will be a good NBA coach or if Mirotic and McDermott are good enough to warrant building a team around.
> 
> Its a bit of a mess right now, but that's to be expected. Check back around the 1/2 way point of this season and hopefully Hoiberg will have figured a firmer foundation and identity for this team.
> 
> As of right now, the Bulls are 23rd in the league in offensive efficiency and 15th in defensive efficiency, so they are not really doing great at anything. Certainly not offense. Of course its early and we should reserve judgement until the mid season point at the earliest. Its hard not to comment on what is going on though if you are watching the games. Rose certainly doesn't look like an all-star caliber player at this point and any title contention talk pretty relies on that.



Yeah, I agree with all of this. You get the sense that this is the last year with this group (purportedly) making a run for a title. It's pretty easy to see that the Bulls think the future is:

???
Butler
McD
Mirotic
Portis

That's actually a pretty balanced roster. You have one wing and one big to stick on the better offensive threats. 

The problem the Bulls run into now is the competition for minutes. Obviously, Hoiberg talked a lot about limiting minutes and using depth as an advantage, which I found to be a relief and was on board with. However, when you have a bunch of people struggling and not guarding, it's pretty tempting to start leaning on the reliable players more, which I think may continue to happen here more and more.

I know he's a rookie, I know there's too many frontcourt players already, and maybe there are things going on behind the scenes I don't know about, but I can't believe Bobby Portis can't find some minutes here and there when the team needs a spark. There have been enough sluggish Pau nights and enough foul trouble to create an opportunity here and there to play him.

My hope is the Bulls are playing Taj to prove he's healthy and will move him this year.


----------



## yodurk

The big thing I hope people realize is that the Bulls aren't actually running "Hoiball" accurately. Hoiberg wants to run it and they just aren't. Bulls are only 16th in pace and 23rd in offensive efficiency according to Hollinger's page here: http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats. Hoiberg wants us playing way faster than that which in theory opens up space and creates opportunities. I can't even count how many times the ball gets stagnant in someone's hands this year. This is not supposed to be an iso-heavy offense, yet it is happening anyways, and this is turning the game into a sludge-fest. 

That is where I put so much blame on Rose, even more than his poor shooting. As I said before Rose is failing to push the tempo and looks indecisive. They did a better job running it during pre-season than the regular season thus far; and perhaps not coincidentally, Rose didn't play at all in the pre-season. I actually think E'Twaun Moore has run the offense the best by a mile, and that is pretty bad b/c he isn't anything special. 

I do think Dunleavy's return could help, as his absence hurt us alot last year too. But I really see us needing a competent point guard to usurp Brooks/Moore/Hinrich in the rotation. Someone who can really push the ball and make the right pass on the move. Hoping for a trade but I am not really sure who to target. Here is a list of all PGs tracked by ESPN (BTW, Rose is ranked 56th of 67 in PER...so there you have it): http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics/_/position/pg


----------



## thebizkit69u

Well if the team isn't running the offense that the coach wants, then a lot of the blame should be on the coach. It's one thing to say we want to play a certain way and just don't have the horses to do it, it's another to have at the very least guys who are capable of running who flat out refuse to push the pace (I'm looking at you Rose and butler). Hoiberg needs to assert himself and either get his guys inline, or risk losing the teams respect in his very first year coaching here. 

There have also been reports that Noah might get inserted back into the starting lineup if the bulls continue to struggle on defense.... Its a quick fix, but I have a feeling it could damage the team in the long run. The whole point of getting rid of Thibs was to play younger guys and have a more open way of doing business at the cost of great coaching and ultimately on court results. 

For Hoiberg to start reverting back to win now at all costs mode, seems desperate and pointless.


----------



## yodurk

In some cases you can make that claim about a coach, but context is key. You have a guy in Rose who is starting to make a track record for himself of only getting up to play when he feels like it, and routinely gets burned on both sides of the court by far less talented players. This was happening long before Hoiberg was here; basically most of last season too. You can theoretically have 4 of our starters running the offense fine, but when the 5th guy is your point guard, that can severely ripple into the entire offense.

If we're pointing fingers at people other than Rose or the players, I'd put alot more blame on GarPax rather than Hoiberg for not going out to get a quality backup PG. However again, context is key -- the free agency PG market was quite terrible this past summer, and with Noah & Taj being damaged goods at the time, they weren't exactly tradeable assets. I still do think a trade will be coming, though, just wish it could've been sooner.


----------



## K4E

At some point, you have to win with the players you have. This is a talented roster and I'm sure many, many NBA coaches would gladly swap out the guys they have with this group.

Its unclear if "Hoiball" is even a thing that is worth caring about on the NBA level. This guy could be another Tim Floyd. Its not like he has a great track record of NBA head coaching success. 

McDermott is playing. Mirotic is starting. Hinrich isn't sniffing the court anymore. Thibs is gone. I'm waiting to see what so many were so excited about unleashing much of last season. 

Still very early of course and for me at least mid-season is the time where I'll really start thinking about where the team is actually at.


----------



## thebizkit69u

K4E said:


> At some point, you have to win with the players you have. This is a talented roster and I'm sure many, many NBA coaches would gladly swap out the guys they have with this group.
> 
> Its unclear if "Hoiball" is even a thing that is worth caring about on the NBA level. This guy could be another Tim Floyd. Its not like he has a great track record of NBA head coaching success.
> 
> McDermott is playing. Mirotic is starting. Hinrich isn't sniffing the court anymore. Thibs is gone. I'm waiting to see what so many were so excited about unleashing much of last season.
> 
> Still very early of course and for me at least mid-season is the time where I'll really start thinking about where the team is actually at.


Pretty spot on. Its not like Hoiberg was this great offensive mind in college either. If the Bulls really wanted to be this run and gun type of team, there probably isn't a better guy to hire for the job than Mike D'Antoni. 

At some point this team has to resemble what the coach wants it to be. The Bulls did not have these epic defensive players under Thibs, but he was able to instill a philosophy and game plan day in and day out that resembled exactly what kind of team he wanted. 

To be fair, Garpax has so far failed to make the transition easier for Hoiberg, but maybe there will be trade deadline deals to be made.


----------



## yodurk

No offense bizkit, but you lost me at D'Antoni....a guy who finally has outlived a false reputation built on the peak primes of Nash, Amare, and Marion.

Not that I followed Iowa State or college basketball much the past few years, but I did study up on Hoiberg when the rumors started about him being the Bulls coach. His reputation generally surrounded his strong player communication skills and offensive system. I didn't delve into the hard #'s but would assume that didn't come out of nowhere? His teams generally performed well in the NCAA tourney too, save for losing in the 1st round this past March. 

Hoiberg deserves a fair shot. You'd think this were a 2-6 team with the criticism the team has gotten so far. He's coached them to a 5-3 record with a few real quality wins in there. In spite of some pretty terrible play from Derrick Rose. They are ranked #7 in defensive efficiency oddly enough, but only 24th in offensive efficiency. 28th in offensive rebounding rate. Up to #12 in pace though, and #11 in both turnovers and effective FG%. We've been elite in 3-point shooting as well, #2 overall only behind Golden State: http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/team/_/stat/offense-per-game/sort/threePointFieldGoalPct

Basically it's been a real mixed bag so far. Which speaks to the inability to establish a clear identity for now. But you can guarantee Hoiberg wants to establish that identity as a team that pushes the pace and keeps defenses off balance. 

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats/_/sort/defensiveEff


----------



## thebizkit69u

I wouldn't belittle Mikes contributions to the modern NBA game. What D'Antoni lacked was an importance on team defense, but offensively he really left quite a mark on the league. 

"I would say that this is vindication for Mike D'Antoni, if nothing else. We played like he's been trying to get this league to play forever. And you can win a championship like that. So for all the people that said you can't win a championship being a three-point shooting team, and not really a low-post presence or anything like that, we just did it. So I think it's great for Mike D'Antoni."

Alvin Gentry on Mike D'Antoni. 

GS basically ran a classic push the pace D'Antoni offense.


----------



## jayk009

Mike D'antoni didn't invent that kind of offense though..why would he get credit?

If anything he showed how bad of a coach he is when he relegated Pau Gasol to a Mareese Speights role.

He would be an excellent WNBA coach though.


----------



## yodurk

D'Antoni proved that a bad coach is capable of winning alot of games with a ridiculously talented roster. The myth of D'Antoni is what was popularized more than D'Antoni himself -- and granted, I agree it helped nudge the league in that direction, but no more than what Don Nelson did with the Mavericks or Adelman with the Kings, who played the same type of high-octane, move the ball offenses a few years before D'Antoni did. If anything I'd say D'Antoni just took what those teams did and took it to a further extreme; in particular from the Mavs/Nelson since they both had Steve Nash running the show. If he were a better coach it's entirely possible they'd be hanging a banner one of those years.


----------



## yodurk

Legit question here:

Is now the time to make a play for Demarcus Cousins? Are the Kings getting ready to play ball and field offers?

A few years ago I hated the idea of Cousins, but I also predicted due to his talent, he would eventually "get it". I just didn't want the Bulls to be the ones to suffer through his growing pains. 

I think at this point, Cousins would be a real gem of an acquisition. He is getting very frustrated in Sacramento and may force his way out of there. Hard to blame him with how poorly they've been run (though I do think Divac has done a good job trying to turn it around -- just needs more time). 

Further helping Cousins out the door could be that George Karl nearly (maybe did) sever the Cousins relationship over the summer. They also drafted a center in Cauley-Stein who is really playing out of position. So it's not like they are lacking talent at the position.

What would Sacramento take for Cousins?
-- Derrick Rose + other assets? 
-- Mirotic + McDermott + give them their draft pick back?
-- McDermott + Taj + Gasol?

I'd give them just about anything except for Jimmy Butler, and I'd really like to avoid giving them Bobby Portis since I think he's gonna be a stud. 

Maybe try to steal Darren Collison away in the process, or (less desirable) Rondo for someone who can pass the ball at an elite level.


----------



## K4E

Any of those trades would work for me. Sure, McDermott or Mirotic might blossom into a top 20 player in the league but Cousins is pretty much there now.

The risk is his attitude of course. I'm not sure if Hoiberg (or anyone?) can handle him. That would be a tough guy to hoist on a rookie NBA coach. Who knows though, maybe the Mayor is the man to get through to him.


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> Any of those trades would work for me. Sure, McDermott or Mirotic might blossom into a top 20 player in the league but Cousins is pretty much there now.
> 
> The risk is his attitude of course. I'm not sure if Hoiberg (or anyone?) can handle him. That would be a tough guy to hoist on a rookie NBA coach. Who knows though, maybe the Mayor is the man to get through to him.



Agreed. I'd be up for almost any conceivable package for Boogie. The team certainly needs to balance out the roster a bit from where it is now, so some of our frontcourt would need to go out, and I'd love to see a wing or PG come back with him. 

Given that Boogie apparently can shoot threes now, he'd be pretty ideal for Hoiberg's system, in that he can move inside/outside with ease.

I know he's been a turd at times attitude-wise, but the Bulls have a pretty mature group and he'd be playing on a winning team, which would probably be a good influence on him.


----------



## thebizkit69u

Ive been calling for a Cousins trade for several years now. Its not going to happen. Its not a Garpax move, and I know the Kings can get much more for Cousins than Mirotic and McDermott.


----------



## yodurk

Going for Cousins 2-3 years ago is not the same as going for Cousins now. Even though he can have a bad attitude, he actually has matured and improved some major flaws in his game from earlier in his career. Cousins' alleged bad attitude right now has ALOT to do with George Karl basically alienating him the moment he stepped foot in the door, plus the fact they started 1-7 (albeit with the toughest schedule in the league, arguably). 

Is it likely the Bulls get him? No. Is it likely the Kings even want to field offers? Probably not. Would I still give up a lot for him? Yes. BTW, I wouldn't necessarily stop at just Mirotic and McDermott...


----------



## jnrjr79

yodurk said:


> Going for Cousins 2-3 years ago is not the same as going for Cousins now. Even though he can have a bad attitude, he actually has matured and improved some major flaws in his game from earlier in his career. Cousins' alleged bad attitude right now has ALOT to do with George Karl basically alienating him the moment he stepped foot in the door, plus the fact they started 1-7 (albeit with the toughest schedule in the league, arguably).
> 
> Is it likely the Bulls get him? No. Is it likely the Kings even want to field offers? Probably not. Would I still give up a lot for him? Yes. BTW, I wouldn't necessarily stop at just Mirotic and McDermott...


The only way the Bulls get him is if the Kings feel they want to be competitive right now. If they want high quality draft picks, there will be a lot of better suitors than the Bulls.


----------



## thebizkit69u

yodurk said:


> Going for Cousins 2-3 years ago is not the same as going for Cousins now. Even though he can have a bad attitude, he actually has matured and improved some major flaws in his game from earlier in his career. Cousins' alleged bad attitude right now has ALOT to do with George Karl basically alienating him the moment he stepped foot in the door, plus the fact they started 1-7 (albeit with the toughest schedule in the league, arguably).
> 
> Is it likely the Bulls get him? No. Is it likely the Kings even want to field offers? Probably not. Would I still give up a lot for him? Yes. BTW, I wouldn't necessarily stop at just Mirotic and McDermott...



I just don't see a scenario in which the bulls get Cousins. You can add Noah to that deal as an expiring piece, but the kings are in need of young players and high draft picks in return. What's the point of having cap space if nobody wants to play for you, or if you are so far away from competing. 

Also, I don't think Cousins fits well with a Bulls team without 2 good perimeter shooters. If you trade way your 2 best 3 point shooters and you are stuck with a PG who doesn't attack the basket and can't shoot a 3, I see opposing teams easily adjusting to Cousins. 

The truth is, the bulls are just in a weird situation right now. They are talented enough to make a conference title run, but also capable of getting wiped out in the first round.


----------



## yodurk

Bulls oddly enough are up to #6 in defensive efficiency after a solid defensive game against Charlotte. http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats/_/sort/defensiveEff

Honestly it would've been even better but Batum was hitting 3's with his eyes closed all game to keep them in it. And better yet if Charlotte's entire team wasn't doing the same in our first meeting en route to 130 points.

They are also top 5-7 I think in defensive FG%, defensive 3-pt %, and total rebounding. So they are defending both the interior and perimeter pretty well overall. From the eye test I wouldn't have guessed it, but then again, if you look around the league the NBA is scoring ALOT of points so that is just the trend these days. Relative to the rest of the league we are defending well. Maybe this turns out to be the team's identify afterall, not the top 5-7 offense we all thought.

It's encouraging to see our defense remaining intact for the most part. Alot has to do with Noah looking alot better physically compared to last year, but also alot of credit to the coaching staff for finding schemes that are working. Jim Boylen was a terrific hire as lead assistant, I suspect he has alot to do with the defense performing how they are. 

Good to be 6-3 in spite of some really noticeable flaws in any case. It means we have room for improvement yet are still sneaking by with enough wins to be upper half of EC playoff contention.


----------



## transplant

thebizkit69u said:


> This isn't a reaction to last nights blowout loss, its just an accumulation of things that I have noticed since the end of last season. Most of it comes down to the fact that Derrick Rose has basically turned into Deron Williams and has shown 0 signs of ever returning to his MVP form... Or even close to it. That alone seals the Bulls fate when it comes to the playoffs. They will not even come close to winning a title, they might not even come close to beating a healthy Cavs either.
> 
> Here are a few observations.
> 
> 1. The Bulls as a team got worse the minute Tom Thibodeau left the team. Not saying that a change wasn't needed for a better environment, its just a fact.
> 
> 2. Hoiberg does not have a roster that maximizes his style of coaching. Hoiberg needs athletic shooters and slashers. The Bulls just don't have a young team that fits what Hoiberg wants to do perfectly.
> 
> 3. There is 0 leadership on the court. Butler talks a big game about being a leader, but has shown 0 vocal leadership on the court. Noah was your vocal leader on the court and now that hes on the bench (a good move IMO) the Bulls lack on court leadership.
> 
> 4. Defensively they are just a mess.
> 
> 5. Offensively they are good, but they aren't dynamic and while they will score more than last year, they are still not capable of matching the elite offensive teams in the NBA.


I realize that the discussion has migrated some, but I thought I'd take the OP and see how the last couple weeks have treated it.

1) The statement that "it's a fact" the Bulls are worse because Thibodeau's gone was and is an opinion, not a fact. I disagree with the opinion. The Bulls are about the same as last season and oddly enough, statistically better on defense and worse on offense...go figure.

2) Spot on. The Bulls are not a very athletic team and that doesn't fit the up-tempo "Hoiball" offense. Fred's just gonna have to show some flexibility and creativity.

3) Leadership? This is mostly a veteran team. Not sure they need much in the way of overt leadership. I see this as a media-friendly narrative rather than a substantive issue.

4) As mentioned, defensively, the Bulls are anything but a mess. They're doing just fine on that end.

5) Agree that the Bulls have shown no ability so far to hang with the top-scoring teams. Heck, they're having a tough time keeping up with the average-scoring teams.

Plainly, this season has not gone according to script, but it's gone OK. If you say that you've been unimpressed, I can't blame you. Then again, other than GSW, Cleveland and San Antonio, which team(s) have taken your breath away?


----------



## yodurk

I am seeing some really encouraging signs. As I suspected from the get-go, this team's performance just rides a ton with Rose. Rose played a solid game against Indiana last night; he pushed the pace, made good passes, and hit some jumpshots. It had an amazingly positive effect on the whole team. The rest of the team just continued doing what they are doing; Rose's performance seems to swing the pendulum in whatever direction he is playing, for better or worse.

I'm not so sure we have a poor fitting roster with Hoiball. More like we have a few poor fitting pieces and a few really nice fitting pieces. A trade or two can make all the difference. I'm still holding my breath over a backup PG upgrade...really hope it comes eventually. Maybe steal Jrue Holiday from New Orleans who is struggling, something like that. 

The whole season so far has been a mixed bag, but they do seem to building an identity and we are seeing progress along with some really positive glimpses on occasion. We'd be looking damn impressive if Rose & Mirotic hadn't started the season in such a shooting slump.


----------



## K4E

I'm not quite sure what the identity is at this point. 

Hoiball was supposed to juice the offense but we've fallen from 11th (pretty good last year under Thibs) to 26th! The whole "improve the offense" thing isn't there to this point.

Mirotic's PER has fallen from 17.9 last season to 12.6. The narrative by many last season was that Thibs was holding Mirotic back. That seems very silly to this point, given his poor play and that he was made a starter. Of course its only been 10 games and he's a 2nd year NBA player, but still.

McDermott on the other had is turning into at least a serviceable NBA player. Great shooter. Bad at rebounding, creating for others and defense. At least he's not totally inept anymore.

To this point, the Bulls are a way above average defensive team and a poor offensive one. I'm not sure that is the "Hoiball" many were trumpeting. I do think that Hoiberg gave management pet projects Mirotic and McDermott plenty of playing time and is probably much more "yes sir, thanks sir" than the previous coach.

It was supposedly a disappointment to management last season that the Bulls were ousted by the Cavs in the playoffs. I'm not seeing anything to this point to see how it ends any differently this time around. 

There is still plenty of ball left of course. And to many only the playoffs matter and regular season wins don't (even at an all-time great pace) so we'll just have to wait and see.

There are far poorer spots to be 10 games in than 7-3. I've been told many times though that regular season wins don't matter much, so take the record for what its worth.


----------



## R-Star

K4E said:


> Any of those trades would work for me. Sure, McDermott or Mirotic might blossom into a top 20 player in the league but Cousins is pretty much there now.
> 
> The risk is his attitude of course. I'm not sure if Hoiberg (or anyone?) can handle him. That would be a tough guy to hoist on a rookie NBA coach. Who knows though, maybe the Mayor is the man to get through to him.


There's a -8000% chance Doug McDermott blossoms into a top 20 player. I literally just had a computer run the numbers and it exploded out of absolute hate for your post. 

Doug McDermott a top 20 player.... are you ****ing kidding me? Even Niko stands no chance but at least he's a nice young prospect who will be a solid NBA player. Doug McDermott? Sweet Jesus Shutlesworth there's no chance of that ever happening.


----------



## K4E

R-Star said:


> There's a -8000% chance Doug McDermott blossoms into a top 20 player. I literally just had a computer run the numbers and it exploded out of absolute hate for your post.


Ha. I would also say there is a very low chance of that happening. 

I think management is off their rocker for thinking he's a guy to build around or with. But, I've been surprised before. I imagine you and I feel pretty much the same about Doug McDermott. I was really surprised about how the narrative and focus last season for many, during a legit title contending season for the Bulls, was about getting him more playing time and creating an environment where Doug McDermott could thrive. Once again, this was during a season where the Bulls had a legit chance to at least make the NBA Finals with a veteran laden group.

Sorry about the computer.


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> It was supposedly a disappointment to management last season that the Bulls were ousted by the Cavs in the playoffs. I'm not seeing anything to this point to see how it ends any differently this time around.



To be fair, the reason it was a disappointment is that the Cavs had terrible injury issues and were a depleted shell of themselves (albeit still a depleted shell with LeBron James). It was seen as a missed opportunity to capitalize on the Cavs being at less than full strength. I doubt that a fully healthy Cavs roster would have been considered a major disappointment to lose to (though Thibs may still well have been out on his ass at the end of the season regardless, I would think).


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> To be fair, the reason it was a disappointment is that the Cavs had terrible injury issues and were a depleted shell of themselves (albeit still a depleted shell with LeBron James).


That Cavs team was a team capable of defeating the top team in the east last season and the darlings of many, the Atlanta Hawks, in 5 games.

If the Hawks smoked the Cavs or if it was even a close series, I think it would be fair to say that the Cavs were some kind of shell. If the Cavs were a shell, what were the Hawks?


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> That Cavs team was a team capable of defeating the top team in the east last season and the darlings of many, the Atlanta Hawks, in 5 games.
> 
> If the Hawks smoked the Cavs or if it was even a close series, I think it would be fair to say that the Cavs were some kind of shell. If the Cavs were a shell, what were the Hawks?


Well, it seems a little curious to me to say that the losses of Love and Kyrie weren't massively significant.

You may not be remembering what was going on with the Hawks in the ECF. They were far from full strength.

First, you had the NYC nightclub incident that resulted in Thabo's broken leg. He was a key reserve for them. Demare Carroll got injured and knocked out of game 1. Kyle Korver got knocked out for the remainder of the playoffs with an injury in game 2. Horford got ejected in game 3.

So, you had 2 guys who missed big stretches, and 2 more important players who were knocked out of games. Maybe Lebron + Dellavadova & co. truly would have been enough to knock out Atlanta, but Atlanta was significantly diminished and we'll never know.


----------



## RollWithEm

yodurk said:


> I'm not so sure we have a poor fitting roster with Hoiball. More like we have a few poor fitting pieces and a few really nice fitting pieces. A trade or two can make all the difference.


This is pretty much what I have seen from this bunch as well. They've got so much frontcourt depth it's ridiculous. I think teams with weak frontcourts should be calling the Bulls daily to try and pry one (or more) of these guys away.


----------



## yodurk

Regarding having a team identity -- it might not be the identity we all thought it would be thus far, but you can't deny they've been damn solid overall defensively. We're keeping almost everyone to below 100 points each game. We are among the league's best in defensive FG%, defensive 3-pt %, and total rebounding. #5 in defensive efficiency while being 8-3. That 1 game in Charlotte was atrocious, though I watched that entire game and I assure you, that while our D wasn't great, a big part of it was Charlotte's hot outside shooting. It's pretty amazing our defensive stats are as good as they are in spite of that 130 point game we yielded. Outside of that game, we're been among the league's best defensively. I don't understand how you can deny this team's success is defining itself based on defense. If anything that should be encouraging since Hoiberg came in with more of an offensive reputation. 

The offense has only been bad b/c Rose & Mirotic have had such terrible shooting. We've done better this year in terms of pace and reducing turnovers. Mirotic & Rose are clearly the 2 guys struggling to fit into the offense right now; often both looking lost and becoming 1-dimensional. Can only hope over time this will get remedied. In theory, both should be good fits for Hoiberg. Especially Mirotic with his ability to shoot, dribble, drive, and run the floor. From what I see, Mirotic is getting pigeon holed into being a standalone spot-up PF, which doesn't fully maximize his talents. He also isn't a pure enough shooter to do only catch and shoot, or spot up shooting. He needs to get the ball on the move, make some drives, etc. Last year his best work was always done more with his feet, more than his jumpshot. If Hoiberg doesn't try to fix this, that's a strike on Hoiberg. Hoiberg's impressed me thus far with his ability to make good adjustments, so we'll see if he can adjust Mirotic's fit so he's more comfortable out there. I already saw the corner being turned with Rose until he hurt his ankle the other night.


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> Maybe Lebron + Dellavadova & co. truly would have been enough to knock out Atlanta, but Atlanta was significantly diminished and we'll never know.


Yes, the Cavs were not operating at full strength by any stretch. They still destroyed a slightly weakened Hawks team and took the Warriors to 6. They were a very strong team, based on the results. The Bulls gave the Cavs a tougher time than the Hawks.

Its also fair to say (IMO) that the Bulls were fairly diminished by the season long public smear campaign management decided to implement against the head coach during the very rare season where the Bulls actually had a chance to make the NBA Finals.

Sure, Thibs was being Thibs, but management decided to give Thibs an extension, so they knew what they were getting (or should of, if competent). 

This all feels like beating a dead horse at this point and I can't really muster up the energy to care much about it anymore so that's about all I have to say.

As for the current team, its going to take a while for Fred to figure out what kind of NBA coach he's going to be. The "youth movement" for this team looks less than promising based on early results. Of course, players can improve over time.

If the Bulls are going to continue to be a strong defensive team and a weak offensive one and win regular season games then that's better than losing regular season games, but the getting to the NBA Finals to start is all that matters. Winning regular season games with strong defense first but not getting to the Finals was supposedly unacceptable in previous seasons.


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> Yes, the Cavs were not operating at full strength by any stretch. They still destroyed a slightly weakened Hawks team and took the Warriors to 6. They were a very strong team, based on the results. The Bulls gave the Cavs a tougher time than the Hawks.
> 
> Its also fair to say (IMO) that the Bulls were fairly diminished by the season long public smear campaign management decided to implement against the head coach during the very rare season where the Bulls actually had a chance to make the NBA Finals.
> 
> Sure, Thibs was being Thibs, but management decided to give Thibs an extension, so they knew what they were getting (or should of, if competent).
> 
> This all feels like beating a dead horse at this point and I can't really muster up the energy to care much about it anymore so that's about all I have to say.
> 
> As for the current team, its going to take a while for Fred to figure out what kind of NBA coach he's going to be. The "youth movement" for this team looks less than promising based on early results. Of course, players can improve over time.
> 
> If the Bulls are going to continue to be a strong defensive team and a weak offensive one and win regular season games then that's better than losing regular season games, but the getting to the NBA Finals to start is all that matters. Winning regular season games with strong defense first but not getting to the Finals was supposedly unacceptable in previous seasons.



My guess is we're seeing the last year of this current group if there isn't a very deep playoff run. Pau may well decide he wants to ring-chase elsewhere (or make more money, as the case may be). Noah's future is totally up in the air. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Taj moved somewhere depending on other roster moves in order to free up some time for Portis.

What really is the "youth movement?" It seems like it's just Snell and McDermott. That "movement" is succeeding regarding the latter, but seemingly failing with the former. Given Snell's draft position, it's not entirely shocking that he's not panning out. The Bulls have had some good success late in the draft, but you're not going to hit on every pick.

What'll be interesting is to what extent Dunleavy supplants McDermott when he returns and is back in basketball shape. I think you're probably right that the vets will continue to be relied upon, at least for this season.


----------



## transplant

K4E said:


> Its also fair to say (IMO) that the Bulls were fairly diminished by the season long public smear campaign management decided to implement against the head coach during the very rare season where the Bulls actually had a chance to make the NBA Finals.


Thank God it was management's fault and avoidable.



> This all feels like beating a dead horse at this point and I can't really muster up the energy to care much about it anymore so that's about all I have to say.


Good to hear that you're moving past it.


----------



## K4E

transplant said:


> Good to hear that you're moving past it.


Hopefully management is correct and the coaching change will lead to better outcomes in the next few seasons than the previous "disappointments."

So far the regular season is going well. But, those are just regular season wins.


As for the overall question of the thread, just like last season, the Bulls are better off in "win now" mode IMO. The window might have closed but the roster is built around vets and we are not just going to purge them all in one season. Making the development of Mirotic and McDermott the focal point of the season is a mistake if we're in "win now" mode and they just might not be good enough to warrant building around, especially at the expense of veterans that are actually good, although fading. If management wants to go "win later" than just bite the bullet and do it. This screwing around trying to do both at the same time is too hard for the Bulls to pull off. They have a hard enough time doing one right.

Its hard for me to complete the following sentence. The Bulls will win the NBA Title because...... If the identity of the team turns out to be tough D as the calling card, well, we kind of already tried that when the key contributers were younger / more productive. Guys like McDermott and Mirotic (stretch 4!) were supposed to unleash offensive fire and brimstone on the NBA, especially when juiced with the Hoiball. 

Its been an odd start to the season. Some terrible blowout losses but overall a great record, although by small margins. Better than losing though. 

Jimmy Butler is a stud with a cool aquarium so that's been fun.


----------



## transplant

K4E said:


> Its hard for me to complete the following sentence. The Bulls will win the NBA Title because......


It should be hard because it's HIGHLY UNLIKELY that the Bulls will win the NBA title this season.


----------



## yodurk

transplant said:


> It should be hard because it's HIGHLY UNLIKELY that the Bulls will win the NBA title this season.


I think it's best for fans to just accept this and save themselves the gray hairs. And I say that more because there are 3-4 teams out there who are just ridiculously good, and we'd need a bordlerline legendary (once in quarter century type of) team built to match what Golden State, Cleveland, and San Antonio have put together. These teams are just loaded up on talent, experience, and chemistry. Golden State has also had health on their side which is why they are pushing all-time great team levels right now. 

Is it fair to judge our team's success based on whether they are/aren't reaching this level of play? It's a tough climate to win a championship in. It's too bad b/c we had a slight window there in 2010-2012 when health was ultimately our undoing. Even just to get out of the East, you've got Lebron James blocking you. There can only be 1 Lebron James and he isn't on our team.

We do however seem to be nestled into that large number of 2nd tier teams after the elites. FWIW.

I do maintain that we'd be up there in the uber-elites IF timing had worked out better; because we've had all the guys we need in the past 4-5 years, just never at the same time. MVP Rose, All-Star Butler, DPOY/1stTeam Noah, etc...these versions of these guys was just way too staggered. If they aligned at the same time we might be onto something big.


----------



## K4E

transplant said:


> It should be hard because it's HIGHLY UNLIKELY that the Bulls will win the NBA title this season.


Management must feel differently. Last season they were disappointed that the head coach could not win the title (or get to the Finals at the very least). The team isn't much different from last season.

If management agrees with you, its time for them to move on to "win later." 1st guy out of town should be Gasol, for a decent return. Its time to tank.

The Bulls should be contending for a title or building towards one. Its hard to see how they are doing either right now.


----------



## Da Grinch

or maybe this is all some smoke and mirrors , fake hustle attempt at a title .

maybe they have known all along this team in the thibs era was essentially some talented grinders with 1 dynamic scoring star in rose and was never really title material.

and when people started to catch on thibs became the fall guy 

so they bring in a completely different coach in both style and temperament but leave but leave the same roster that had been slowly but surely tweaked for thibs.


you'll find very few teams that will let a 24 year old asset(omer asik) get away for nothing 

or trade their all star small forward for what increasingly looks like 2 2nd round draft picks and not only not quickly replace but essentially leave the spot a liability for what is almost 2 years and counting.

teams chasing titles don't do that , teams chasing titles will either fortify their weaknesses or enhance their strengths ...they don't create holes for pennies on the dollar in trade value and let starter quality players get away for nothing to save money which is what both those moves were about.

they built what essentially is an old fashioned power team and now have a pace and space more modern coach at the head of it and didn't change the personnel at all

who is management gonna blame this time ?

my guess is derrick rose, the stories are already coming out, they certainly wont take the blame themselves, they will get a new pg next season and a new scapegoat the season after that.


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> Management must feel differently. Last season they were disappointed that the head coach could not win the title (or get to the Finals at the very least). The team isn't much different from last season.


I think we've pretty adequately covered why the Bulls front office thought the team should get by Cleveland last year. That doesn't necessarily mean they think it can be done this year against an intact Cavs squad.



> If management agrees with you, its time for them to move on to "win later." 1st guy out of town should be Gasol, for a decent return. Its time to tank.


Is it your position that every team in the NBA that is not Golden State, San Antonio, and Cleveland should tank? It sure seems to be.

Trading Gasol is a problem is Gasol doesn't want it. He took a lot less money to come here and ring chase. You hurt your recruitment efforts with future vet free agents (an area where the Bulls traditionally have not had a ton of success already) if you jettison him after he took a discount to come.

Also, I am sure you realize that there is a 0% chance that the Bulls front office would ever pursue a tanking strategy. Aside from just generally not being people who would intentionally become non-competitive, the young pieces on the Bulls that would be the centerpiece of a rebuild are too good for the team to truly be able to tank.



> The Bulls should be contending for a title or building towards one. Its hard to see how they are doing either right now.


I guess this is true, conceptually, but what does it actually mean? Golden State is prohibitively good so the Bulls should just try to be bad?


----------



## K4E

Da Grinch said:


> who is management gonna blame this time ?
> 
> my guess is derrick rose, the stories are already coming out, they certainly wont take the blame themselves, they will get a new pg next season and a new scapegoat the season after that.


Certainly Rose. That's been going on for the last 2-3 years anyway. He's the next man up. Note Rose is only a problem because management decided to pay him so much money for so long. Bad decision in hindsight. Par for the course, really. Its a rarity when the Bulls' highest paid player is their best one.

After that? Jury is still out if Forman gets another coach. It will either be Fred or Gar.


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> Is it your position that every team in the NBA that is not Golden State, San Antonio, and Cleveland should tank? It sure seems to be.
> 
> I guess this is true, conceptually, but what does it actually mean? Golden State is prohibitively good so the Bulls should just try to be bad?



I'm not really taking a position. If management truly thinks that the Bulls don't have a chance to win the NBA Title this season, then what are they doing? 

What do you think the goal is this season?

And yes, I do think an organization needs to have a goal/focus and be laser focused on achieving it. At least successful ones should be.

If the goal is to win the NBA Championship, I'm having a hard time seeing what the plan is. If you are seeing one I'd love to read your thoughts.

It looks like management has successfully moved the goalposts already for this season and going forward. Good for Freddy and Gar.

The goal though may be to be good enough to make the playoffs, pay as little luxury tax as possible, and maybe win a playoff series. If that is the goal, management is doing a very good job and has been for quite some time.

Its funny, people say that the Bulls are stricken by bad luck. They had the pieces, just had them at different times. If they just had Rose in his prime, Noah from two years ago, Jimmy today and perhaps Dougie McBuckets and Niko (Stretch 4!) from two years from now then they would have a legit shot. The thing is this situation is kind of by design. When you try to draft and grow rookies on a veteran laden team, of course that's what usually happens. The Cavs on the other hand didn't think twice about trading Wiggins for Love. They are full-on "win now." What are the Bulls? Some guys on the downswing (Noah, Gasol), some guys in their prime (Butler, Gibson) and some guys that are leaning the NBA ropes (Niko, McBuckets). That isn't bad luck. That's how they decided to build the team.

One thing for certain. This current management hasn't been able to win a championship in about 12 years on the job now. Not even a Finals appearance. One eastern conference finals appearance. 12 years. And there doesn't seem to be a championship shot on the horizon either. And its sad that many feel its OK / whatcanya do? / shrug. This used to be a championship franchise. A long time ago now though.


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> I'm not really taking a position. If management truly thinks that the Bulls don't have a chance to win the NBA Title this season, then what are they doing?
> 
> What do you think the goal is this season?
> 
> And yes, I do think an organization needs to have a goal/focus and be laser focused on achieving it. At least successful ones should be.
> 
> If the goal is to win the NBA Championship, I'm having a hard time seeing what the plan is. If you are seeing one I'd love to read your thoughts.
> 
> It looks like management has successfully moved the goalposts already for this season and going forward. Good for Freddy and Gar.
> 
> The goal though may be to be good enough to make the playoffs, pay as little luxury tax as possible, and maybe win a playoff series. If that is the goal, management is doing a very good job and has been for quite some time.
> 
> Its funny, people say that the Bulls are stricken by bad luck. They had the pieces, just had them at different times. If they just had Rose in his prime, Noah from two years ago, Jimmy today and perhaps Dougie McBuckets and Niko (Stretch 4!) from two years from now then they would have a legit shot. The thing is this situation is kind of by design. When you try to draft and grow rookies on a veteran laden team, of course that's what usually happens. The Cavs on the other hand didn't think twice about trading Wiggins for Love. They are full-on "win now." What are the Bulls? Some guys on the downswing (Noah, Gasol), some guys in their prime (Butler, Gibson) and some guys that are leaning the NBA ropes (Niko, McBuckets). That isn't bad luck. That's how they decided to build the team.
> 
> One thing for certain. This current management hasn't been able to win a championship in about 12 years on the job now. Not even a Finals appearance. One eastern conference finals appearance. 12 years. And there doesn't seem to be a championship shot on the horizon either. And its sad that many feel its OK / whatcanya do? / shrug. This used to be a championship franchise. A long time ago now though.


To address the last part first, I don't really think the Bulls recent history qualifies as "sad." That to me smacks of a sort of entitled mentality where one thinks it's reasonable to believe your team should be winning a championship every few years.

The truth is, there are 30 NBA basketball teams. That means each team is "due" a championship every 30 years. Now, quite obviously, championships have not been evenly spread out. But it's important to realize those 90's Bulls won, in one way of thinking, 180 years worth of championships. To think another run like that is reasonably expected in the near-term just isn't realistic.

You say that the Bulls "used to be a championship franchise" and that it was "a long time ago now though" as though you believe the organization previously valued winning to a greater degree than it does now. I don't think that's accurate, nor do I think there's any evidence for it.

The Bulls used to be a championship team because they used to have the best player ever to pick up a basketball. The Bulls have not won a championship since then because they have not had that same sort of player that MJ was. The closest the team got was the MVP season for Rose (and even then, relative to the rest of the league, that Rose was no MJ). We all know what happened to Derrick. He got hurt. The Bulls would have had a pretty decent shot to win a championship had he not gotten hurt, but he did. They haven't really had a great shot at it since that point in time.

The "bad luck" you seem to be critical of the Bulls fanbase for recognizing is obviously real. It's not as complicated as you made it out to be. It's not about timing. It's about their one superstar getting repeatedly hurt and, at this point, having become a diminished player. That's not the franchise's fault. It's not Derrick's fault. Shit happens, sometimes. It's odd to me that you would somehow want to condemn the team for Derrick's sad injury history. Had Derrick been healthy, the Bulls may well have reached the Finals or won a title. He didn't. That could not be foreseen, and the same folks who now think that it was somehow a bad idea to max Derrick out would have been out with pitchforks and torches (quite rightly) had the Bulls somehow insanely done anything other than pay him the max.

Getting to the first bit, the goal for this season is to win the NBA championship. This is not likely to occur. It's clear, though, the Bulls are in win-now mode, though perhaps for the last time with this veteran group. The team recognizes (correctly) that this is the right course of action, even if it is unlikely. They have too many good players under contract to try to do anything other than win it all. Winning it all will require Hoiball to somehow make a material difference on the team. It will require Derrick to return to at least All-Star form. It'll require health and contributions from the younger guys. It probably won't all come together. But that's a better path to contention than simply trying to tear down and trade away every piece. The cap is going to rise significantly in the near future. The Bulls have some good young pieces once the older guys move on. If the team has blown itself up and is a bottom-feeder, good luck competing in the free agent market. It seems pretty clear the best option is to keep these assets around either as enticing teammates to free agents (once Derrick and Jo are gone, if they're gone) or to be used in a consolidation trade.

I've always found it insane that people think that blowing up a team the second they conclude that the team isn't likely to win a title is a good idea. The notion that tanking is the best path to contention has little basis in fact. Does it seem like Philly has a clear path to contention? Not really. That's not to say that rebuilding is never the right option, but it seems like there are people that think that only the top 5 or so teams in the league that have substantial chances of winning a title should ever be in "win now" mode, while the other 25 should all be fighting each other for the most losses. That just doesn't work.


----------



## Da Grinch

K4E said:


> Certainly Rose. That's been going on for the last 2-3 years anyway. He's the next man up. Note Rose is only a problem because management decided to pay him so much money for so long. Bad decision in hindsight. Par for the course, really. Its a rarity when the Bulls' highest paid player is their best one.
> 
> After that? Jury is still out if Forman gets another coach. It will either be Fred or Gar.


in truth paying rose isn't a problem ....but you make him the sole dynamic scorer so even though he was banged up they were still playing him .

he tears his acl and hasn't been right since .

but they need scapegoats so the injured star is as good as any


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> To address the last part first, I don't really think the Bulls recent history qualifies as "sad." That to me smacks of a sort of entitled mentality where one thinks it's reasonable to believe your team should be winning a championship every few years.


12 years
0 championships
0 finals appearances
1 eastern conference finals appearance


Your expectations are in the gutter if you find that acceptable.

In a results oriented business, if the desired result was to win the NBA Championship, that would not be acceptable.

But, then again, the desired results very well may not be winning the championship. By financial metrics, the Bulls are doing great. This team is certainly winning on the balance sheet. Just not winning much of note on the court over the last 12 years. 


It doesn't seem like anyone here thinks the Bulls are legit contenders to win the title this year. (quite a turnaround from the championship expectations from last season, i guess the head coach does make a difference)

So it seems like most would agree that "win later" is the right course of action. If that's the case, its time to collect young difference making assets and draft picks, the higher the better. I would not hold your breath waiting for this current regime to get the job done via trade. Dusty phone and all. 12 years.

All we can do is hope and pray that the next 12 years go better than the previous 12. 

Unless you find 12 years, 0 championships, 0 finals appearances, 1 eastern conference finals appearance OK. 

If that's the case, well, I think we have the right people in charge.


----------



## Da Grinch

jnrjr79 said:


> I've always found it insane that people think that blowing up a team the second they conclude that the team isn't likely to win a title is a good idea. The notion that tanking is the best path to contention has little basis in fact. Does it seem like Philly has a clear path to contention? Not really. That's not to say that rebuilding is never the right option, but it seems like there are people that think that only the top 5 or so teams in the league that have substantial chances of winning a title should ever be in "win now" mode, while the other 25 should all be fighting each other for the most losses. That just doesn't work.


I say they should simply reload around what the do have .

actually give hoiball a chance by giving him the type of players that will succeed in it, not acting like all players are swiss army knives 

the team is supposed to be an offense 1st team and its currently 24th in offensive efficiency (6th on defense) 

in reality hoiberg has coaxed more energy out of a veteran group his strength as a people person is showing there and they play a more exiting style of ball but thib's offense was actually 11th last season and in the 3 seasons he has had rose out there they have finished 11th twice and 5th once , the rap on thibs and offense has been quite overblown .

sometimes teams get to be true title contenders by building on what they have without needing to tear everything down but the notion of having a bunch of entrenched guys suddenly playing uptempo but with all the same guys when they were brought in to play a defense 1st philosophy is simply stupid

successful teams do occasionally change up their styles of play but never so extremely with so little done with player movement...its a recipe for disaster.


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> 12 years
> 0 championships
> 0 finals appearances
> 1 eastern conference finals appearance
> 
> 
> Your expectations are in the gutter if you find that acceptable.


I guess I just don't feel about sports the way you do. I would never use terms like "unacceptable" to describe a team's performance, really. This is not the military. It's not my occupation. It's my entertainment product. 

Viewing it this way is incredibly myopic. The Bulls have failed to make deeper runs because Derrick Rose tore his ACL, sustained a litany of other injuries, and has never been the same. Making that the front office's issue is nutty. But it's much easier to just say "unacceptable!" rather than actually have a considered viewpoint of it.



> In a results oriented business, if the desired result was to win the NBA Championship, that would not be acceptable.


This is getting a little @pftcommenter-ish, no? There are thirty teams that have the goal of winning the NBA championship. So 29 out of thirty have an "unacceptable" result every year. 

None of this is to say that I don't want the Bulls to win, but you seemingly take the position (though you were clear to point out you weren't taking a position :smilewink ) that the Bulls front office has a goal other than winning a title.

What, specifically, at least in the Derrick Rose era, do you believe the Bulls front office should have done to compete for a title that it did not do?



> But, then again, the desired results very well may not be winning the championship. By financial metrics, the Bulls are doing great. This team is certainly winning on the balance sheet. Just not winning much of note on the court over the last 12 years.
> 
> 
> It doesn't seem like anyone here thinks the Bulls are legit contenders to win the title this year. (quite a turnaround from the championship expectations from last season, i guess the head coach does make a difference)


Not sure if serious. First, I am not sure that "championship expectations" is a fair way to characterize last year's expectations. Most seemed to believe the Cavs were the prohibitive favorite in the East, just as they do this year. And I don't think Holberg has anything to do with any perceived reduced expectations this year.

The expectation that the Bulls won't win the championship is based on this:

Cleveland has the best player in a generation and a supporting cast of All-Stars.

Golden State has the current best player in the league, supporting star players, and a great system. We are witnessing likely the best team since the 72-win Bulls.

San Antonio is perennially great and has loaded up on new star talent as its vets have aged and taken a step back (the exact model you seem to think is folly for the Bulls).



> So it seems like most would agree that "win later" is the right course of action. If that's the case, its time to collect young difference making assets and draft picks, the higher the better. I would not hold your breath waiting for this current regime to get the job done via trade. Dusty phone and all. 12 years.


The "win now" vs. "win later" binary set of options is a false one. Tanking has not been shown to work. I would agree that trades have not been a strength of this front office at all, though. At least, not in-season trades. While perhaps that could change this year if they think they need one more move to make this aging squad compete this year, you are probably right in citing the dusty phone.

Who would you trade for this year? Melo seems to be the obvious candidate.



> All we can do is hope and pray that the next 12 years go better than the previous 12.
> 
> Unless you find 12 years, 0 championships, 0 finals appearances, 1 eastern conference finals appearance OK.
> 
> If that's the case, well, I think we have the right people in charge.


Rather than snark, I'd again ask that you identify what the front office should have done in the Derrick Rose era that would have led to a championship.

Again, Derrick Rose fell apart physically. If that had happened to MJ in 1989, the Bulls wouldn't have won any championships in the 90s. The only things that could have made a difference with Derrick Rose hurt would be something like "acquire Steph Curry" or "acquire LeBron James." Is there anything else you can think of that you believe would have netted a ring?

Your post makes me think about what it must have been like to be a Knicks fan in the 90s. You could shout "unacceptable!" all day long, but the truth is that unless you had MJ, you were screwed. The cold, hard truth may be that no team in the NBA without Curry or LeBron is going to win anything in the next few seasons. That doesn't mean you stop trying, but you might as well be a realist.


----------



## jnrjr79

Da Grinch said:


> I say they should simply reload around what the do have .
> 
> actually give hoiball a chance by giving him the type of players that will succeed in it, not acting like all players are swiss army knives
> 
> the team is supposed to be an offense 1st team and its currently 24th in offensive efficiency (6th on defense)
> 
> in reality hoiberg has coaxed more energy out of a veteran group his strength as a people person is showing there and they play a more exiting style of ball but thib's offense was actually 11th last season and in the 3 seasons he has had rose out there they have finished 11th twice and 5th once , the rap on thibs and offense has been quite overblown .
> 
> sometimes teams get to be true title contenders by building on what they have without needing to tear everything down but the notion of having a bunch of entrenched guys suddenly playing uptempo but with all the same guys when they were brought in to play a defense 1st philosophy is simply stupid
> 
> successful teams do occasionally change up their styles of play but never so extremely with so little done with player movement...its a recipe for disaster.



I do agree they should retool around some of the existing pieces and try to make something that is more Hoiball-appropriate rather than blow it up.

I'd hold off until the trading deadline to decide how Hoiball is working. These guys have been in the same system for a long time, the ball-dominant PG missed all of camp, the presumptive starting SF is out, etc. I do think that Pau and/or Noah probably need to go in order to make things effective moving forward, but I'm willing to let Holberg have half of a season to figure things out.

It's funny, because most of the angry fans have dismissed regular season wins as meaningless. Now, 12 regular season games into the season, everyone wants to make grand judgments about the Bulls' chances. It only seems reasonable to give the new coach 30-40 games to figure things out, if we're really only experimenting for what will work in the playoffs rather than trying to eke out every regular season win that is possible.


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> The cold, hard truth may be that no team in the NBA without Curry or LeBron is going to win anything in the next few seasons.


That isn't what was said during the Thibs' firing press conference.

The excuses have been made for years now. 12 of them. And counting. Different excuses every year. Year after year after year. "No excuses" though, right? I remember hearing that at one point.

12 years.
0 championships
0 finals appearances
1 eastern conference finals appearance.

"No Excuses"

-----

Everyone seems to agree that the Bulls are not going to win the title this year, or at least say its not likely. 

If management is thinking "win now" they should make a move to consolidate assets and try and "win now." If they are thinking "win later" its time to make moves to turn the aging assets into assets that will be helpful 2-3 years down the road.

What will likely happen? If history is any indication it will be "wait and see," dusty phone and the blame game and more excuses when 12 years gets bumped to 13.

I hope to be pleasantly surprised. I would imagine that's something we can agree on.

I imagine this is something we also can agree on. We don't want to see the following.

24 years.
0 NBA Championships.
0 NBA Finals appearances.
2 Eastern Conference Finals Appearances.

I can't imagine you would find that acceptable. Then again, maybe you would. if 12 is OK, why not 24?

---

Also, if the Bulls are going "win later" they probably need high draft picks. That's how Cleveland originally got Lebron. That's how Golden State got Curry. That's how the Spurs got Duncan. That's how the Mavs got Dirk. 

That's how the Bulls got Rose. A stroke of luck, getting that pick, but they were still in the lotto. The only reason the Bulls have that one eastern conference finals appearance. A stroke of luck after being bad. Now, the luck certainly turned on the Bulls after that re: Rose, so call it a wash.

This front office probably isn't going to wheel n' deal their way to the franchise altering superstar and superstar free agents don't choose to come here, so how are the Bulls going to get that high draft pick without being bad again?

Or perhaps its just acceptable to be one of the 16 teams that make the playoffs and perhaps win a 1st round matchup and shuffle the deck every 4-5 years. Like you said, we don't know what the decision making is. You can't hide the results though.


----------



## transplant

jnrjr79 said:


> It's funny, because most of the angry fans have dismissed regular season wins as meaningless. Now, 12 regular season games into the season, everyone wants to make grand judgments about the Bulls' chances. It only seems reasonable to give the new coach 30-40 games to figure things out, if we're really only experimenting for what will work in the playoffs rather than trying to eke out every regular season win that is possible.


Spot on.

I wonder how much of the anger is spurred by the media. It seems that when the team is losing, I hear how there are "profound problems," but when they're winning, "it's only the regular season."

As for "blaming Rose," Rose has been the key to the team's success for 7 years now. They're just beginning the process of shaking off their "Rose-centricity." The fact that the Bulls have managed to make the playoffs every season of the Rose Era is a credit to the players, coaches and management.

Oh, and anyone second-guessing Bulls management for signing Rose to his current contract is either disingenuous, a brand new fan or suffering from amnesia.


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> That isn't what was said during the Thibs' firing press conference.
> 
> The excuses have been made for years now. 12 of them. And counting. Different excuses every year. Year after year after year. "No excuses" though, right? I remember hearing that at one point.
> 
> 12 years.
> 0 championships
> 0 finals appearances
> 1 eastern conference finals appearance.


At this point, we're just rehashing the same stuff, but again, but last year's expectations were a bit different given the Cavs' injury situation.

I'm glad to see you believe everything you hear in press conferences, though.



Anyway, I'm glad to see you have no concrete ideas as to what the franchise should have done differently to be more competitive.


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> Anyway, I'm glad to see you have no concrete ideas as to what the franchise should have done differently to be more competitive.


Like you said, unless you are actually working alongside the front office, you don't have any evidence as to why exactly certain decisions were made and which alternatives were turned down.

Sure, you can dig around for news stories, but that just gets "attack the sourced" so that's a waste of time. There is no way I know of to get the evidence you request.

What can't be disputed are the results.

12 years (and counting)
0 Championships.
0 NBA Finals appearances.
1 Eastern Conference finals appearance.

And that's with the absurd stroke of luck in landing Rose.


Looks to me like you will be actively making excuses for the "no excuses" regime if 12 turns into 24.  Hey, to each their own. Like you said, we probably follow professional sports for different reasons.


----------



## K4E

And, to be fair, the Rose situation, after getting lucky in landing him, has been a tough blow. 

I'll say this....

As for what could have been done differently during the "Rose era" its hard to say, just like you say, when you are not in the board room so you don't have actual evidence as to why certain moves are made and which ones are turned down.

For me, the #1 thing that could have been done differently was to not focus on a public smear campaign against the head coach of the team last season when the door was open to at least make the NBA Finals. That and to not put pressure on the coach and team to develop rookies like McDermott and Mirotic during a "win now" season with veteran players.

The Bulls were a whisper away from making the Finals last season. Causing drama when there was no need to try and curry public opinion against the head coach didn't help. Expecting "win now" while developing rookies like McDermott and Mirotic who are not really fits for how your "win now" coach likes to play to begin with also didn't help.

Would that have mattered against the Warriors? Perhaps not, but you have to get there to know. And the Bulls almost defeated the Cavs despite all of that nonsense and the Cavs did take the Warriors to six. The Bulls tend to give these Warriors a good fight in their regular season matchups the last couple years.

They could have just fired Thibs at the end of last season without the pissing match and smear campaign and just wait a year to start focusing on the McDermott / Mirotic rebuild. Its not like anything positive came out of the approach they decided to take.

----

At some point though, it does just boil down to the results speaking for themselves.

This 12 year track record shouldn't be allowed to extend to 18 years.... 24 years.... 30 years..... At some point "no excuses" needs to mean something.


----------



## K4E

At some point though, don't you have to have accomplished something to get the "job for life" status? 

Its like Kenny Williams with the White Sox. Except Kenny Williams actually brought a World Series to town, albeit many years ago.

The financial record for the Bulls is top notch though. Quite impressive on that front.


----------



## K4E

transplant said:


> It seems that when the team is losing, I hear how there are "profound problems," but when they're winning, "it's only the regular season."


"its only the regular season"

Isn't that exactly what you said to say that Thibs' record setting regular season coaching performance over the last 5 years wasn't much of a big deal?


----------



## Da Grinch

jnrjr79 said:


> I do agree they should retool around some of the existing pieces and try to make something that is more Hoiball-appropriate rather than blow it up.
> 
> I'd hold off until the trading deadline to decide how Hoiball is working. These guys have been in the same system for a long time, the ball-dominant PG missed all of camp, the presumptive starting SF is out, etc. I do think that Pau and/or Noah probably need to go in order to make things effective moving forward, but I'm willing to let Holberg have half of a season to figure things out.
> 
> It's funny, because most of the angry fans have dismissed regular season wins as meaningless. Now, 12 regular season games into the season, everyone wants to make grand judgments about the Bulls' chances. It only seems reasonable to give the new coach 30-40 games to figure things out, if we're really only experimenting for what will work in the playoffs rather than trying to eke out every regular season win that is possible.



I think the direction is the problem, its not just an overload of bigs but a dearth of guards , jimmy is transitioning well but noah avg more assist in 16 minutes less a game, he is still a small forward playing the 2 , MDjr is a placeholder he is not the guy a team should look to as an advantage its sad that he is so much better than snell and doug ...if you aren't going to go out and get an uptempo guard the least they could have done is get a ballhandling 2 like mayo or someone flexible enough to call a play and bring the ball up to lessen the burden on rose , someone like kirk 10 years ago would have been perfect...but really any ballhandler big enough to defend either guard spot is fine

the whole offseason had the feel of complacency that it was the previous head coach's fault and nothing needed to be done when the whole league tries to get better in the offseason so by doing nothing you fall behind especially with a veteran squad so its not like there was a lot to count on as far as internal improvement.

its not about giving hoiberg a chance to get it I actually think he's been great considering the circumstances he was thrown into, its that the FO seems to run their jobs to spite the previous coach which is a bad way to do business.


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> "its only the regular season"
> 
> Isn't that exactly what you said to say that Thibs' record setting regular season coaching performance over the last 5 years wasn't much of a big deal?



Wait, so regular season wins are now a metric for success that you like? That's weird. I seem to repeatedly remember reading:



K4E said:


> 12 years (and counting)
> 0 Championships.
> 0 NBA Finals appearances.
> 1 Eastern Conference finals appearance.


I don't see a mention of regular season wins in there.

So, regular season wins are important when talking about coaching performance, but irrelevant to front office performance? It seems like you just want to have it both ways in order to support your particular viewpoint.

In any event, now that we've determined that regular season wins are an important metric of success, you must be pretty happy that Hoiberg has the Bulls on a 54-win pace! That's a 4-game improvement over last year and better than all but one of the Thibs seasons.


----------



## yodurk

Look, the offense this year has been downright putrid at times - we are #27 in the league in offensive efficiency per Hollinger's team stats -- but there are some promising signs I'm seeing:

- #5 in defensive efficiency. Linchpin of the team thus far.

- #8 in pace. This has been rising too. We started out around #16 IIRC, then got to 12, then 10, now 8. Not that pace dictates offensive success, but it's a step toward what Hoiberg is trying to do. It tells me the players are trying to run the system. I think it works brilliantly in spurts, then it falls apart and we revert to old habits. Thibodeau was usually bottom 10 in pace so I think the paradigm shift is taking alot of adjustment. I'm encouraged just that we're trying to get out and push the tempo. I think it's helped our D in an odd way, perhaps fatiguing our opponents in those critical 4th quarters that we've been crunching out.

- #12 in assist percentage. This has been going up too, similar to pace. Unlike pace though, nearly all the best NBA teams rank high in this figure. Bad teams don't know how to share the ball, good teams do. 

- #5 in turnover ratio. Another very good sign. Pretty sure we were bottom half in the league last year in turnovers.

- #4 in three-point percentage as a team. 

It's for these reasons why the Bulls are 10-5....in summary they've played fast, limited turnovers, shared the ball, made long-range shots, and defended opponents great overall. 

So where are we faltering? It's really just 2 things:

- Terrible shooting from inside the 3-pt stripe. The 2 main culprits are Derrick Rose & Pau Gasol. Mirotic not doing great here either. 

- Lack of offensive rebounding to compensate for the poor 2-pt FG shooting.

If the Bulls were doing these 2 things even at an average level, the Bulls as a team would be statistically at an elite level overall. So I sincerely hope Hoiberg is doing everything in his power to remedy these problems. Though personally I think we are running into a personnel problem: (a) Rose isn't who he used to be, and (b) Gasol is just falling victim to father time. Not sure what can realistically be done there. I've said many times, will say again, we sorta got stuck with Derrick Rose as you see him today. That is a really big handicap unless he finds a way to become useful consistently.

FWIW, Sagarin's SOS ratings say the Bulls have had the #6 most difficult schedule thus far....so opponents are going to be easier on average than what we've played to date.


----------



## Fergus

Instead of a massive rebuilding project, maybe the Bulls should consider a major trade. I think the biggest weakness on the current team is the lack of depth behind Rose and Butler. 

There are rumors floating around that Gasol may opt out if the Bulls do not make a serious run at the championship. This really closes the "window" for winning. The Bulls should consider going "all in" and making a big move now, to try to win the championship.

While anybody they might get in a trade will have some negatives, someone like Ty Lawson might make a nice addition. I realize he has negatives, like a big salary, but it might be worth the gamble. I am not sure who else might be available in trade and there is really not much available in the free agent market.


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> So, regular season wins are important when talking about coaching performance, but irrelevant to front office performance? It seems like you just want to have it both ways in order to support your particular viewpoint.


The team is playing pretty well. I'm not saying "Fire Hoiberg" by any stretch, he deserves a good long stretch to learn how to be a NBA coach. "Hoiball" has the Bulls at 27th in offensive efficiency, which I'm pretty sure isn't what many would have predicted to start the season. 

Its interesting to see how many people are trumpeting the early regular season success of Hoiberg that were discounting the nearly all-time great regular season success of the coach that was fired. 

The front office was disappointed that this same roster didn't defeat the squad that swept the Hawks in the Eastern Conference Finals and took the Warriors to six in the Finals. 

The offense is much worse so far under "Hoiball." It will be interesting to see if the playoff success is any better. 

It doesn't seem like anyone considers the Bulls title contenders anymore, despite having basically the same roster as last year. The arrow seems pointed down for many.

It will be interesting to see if Pau has faith in Bulls management this off-season.

Also interesting to see Mirotic taking such a step back under the new coach. Lots of players have actually. Rose. Gasol. Noah. Gibson. Snell. All have lower production so far. Only McDermott has taken a step forward but he's hardly an impact player and doesn't seem to be worth caring about much to this point. The front office seemed to think he'd be really good. 

"Hoiball" wasn't supposed to lead to the 27th rated offense in the NBA. Fred was supposed to juice the offense. These same guys were the 11th most efficient offense last year.

That being said, the Bulls have some real quality wins. Many state that the point differential states that it might be a bit of a fluke, but its better to win the games than lose the games.


----------



## K4E

Fergus said:


> There are rumors floating around that Gasol may opt out if the Bulls do not make a serious run at the championship. This really closes the "window" for winning. The Bulls should consider going "all in" and making a big move now, to try to win the championship.


Bulls management likely won't do this. They won't go "win now" or "win later." They are seemingly content to be good enough to make the playoffs but won't commit to a "win now" strategy, as they are focused on developing rookies like McDermott and Mirotic. Are these guys good enough to care that much about? Well, the front office seems to think so. The early returns are not there so far.

A team like the Cavs on the other hand sent Wiggins out of town right away to get a "win now" guy like Love. 

Everyone has different approaches.

Paxson in 12 seasons has
0 Championships
0 Finals Appearances
1 Eastern Conference Finals appearances.

"Win now" isn't Paxson's thing. 12 seasons. And many feel the arrow is pointed down for the next few seasons. The years keep piling up.


----------



## K4E

yodurk said:


> I've said many times, will say again, we sorta got stuck with Derrick Rose as you see him today. That is a really big handicap unless he finds a way to become useful consistently.


While this is true, Rose's MVP play under Thibs was the only time the Bulls have even advanced to the NBA Eastern Conference Finals over this last 12 seasons.

Its sad to see what he's become but under Thibs' tutelage he thrived and the Bulls were legit title contenders. That's been basically the lone bright spot of real success in this 12 year slog. And the years keep piling up and many feel the arrow is pointed down. Also troubling that getting the draft pick to acquire Rose was an absurd stroke of luck. Its hard to see that happening again. The Bulls were extremely lucky to get that pick. It paid off early and now the luck has turned on them.

I wonder where Gasol will want to be next season. That will say a lot about how he thinks management and Freddy has the team headed.


----------



## transplant

K4E said:


> "its only the regular season"
> 
> Isn't that exactly what you said to say that Thibs' record setting regular season coaching performance over the last 5 years wasn't much of a big deal?


I'm tempted to say that you have me mixed up with someone else, but that's probably not it.

I'm the one who has consistently said that I think the importance of an NBA head coach is often overrated. I've also consistently said that, if you're going to claim that a NBA head coach is "elite," postseason success must back up the claim.

Nothing that has happened so far this season supports the notion that either Thibodeau or Hoiberg is "great." It appears to me that both can coach as long as the team's key players are willing to go along with the program.


----------



## K4E

transplant said:


> Nothing that has happened so far this season supports the notion that either Thibodeau or Hoiberg is "great." It appears to me that both can coach as long as the team's key players are willing to go along with the program.


One put up an all-time great 4-5 year run as head coach in terms of winning games.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-bulls-just-fired-one-of-the-best-coaches-in-nba-history/

Freddy is off to a decent start guiding an already winning team with veteran all-star level talent but there are some alarming signs. He's supposed to be a great offensive coach but the Bulls are one of the worst offensive teams in the league. Many players are taking steps back this season. Rose. Gibson. Snell. Mirotic. Noah. Gasol. And he's still basically learning on the job. The team deserves time to gel of course and Freddy deserves some time to learn how to be a NBA coach but Thibs and Freddy are not comparable. 

A Thibs team was never one of the worst defensive teams in the league. Strange that Fred's 1st NBA team so far is one of the worst offensive teams in the league. Fred has never done this job before so it does start to beg the question "does he know what he's doing?" He still deserves time to learn since the front office hired a guy who has never coached in the NBA before. Vinny Del ***** deserved the same.


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> I wonder where Gasol will want to be next season. That will say a lot about how he thinks management and Freddy has the team headed.


I'm not so sure the Bulls want Gasol back next season.


----------



## Da Grinch

jnrjr79 said:


> I'm not so sure the Bulls want Gasol back next season.


i agree with you 

I believe they should trade him for help on the perimeter ...while freeing up time for portis


----------



## jnrjr79

Da Grinch said:


> i agree with you
> 
> I believe they should trade him for help on the perimeter ...while freeing up time for portis


100% agree. I used to think that the Bulls couldn't/shouldn't trade Pau because he came here to take less money and it would be bad PR for future free agents. But at this point, he's saying he'll opt out at the end of the year, he doesn't really fit a high-pace system, and the roster is pretty badly imbalanced, so I'd move him.


----------



## yodurk

I'm leaning toward trading Pau, too. Package him for the best backup PG we can get our hands on. I do value him more than most Bulls fans seem to, but of our expendable big men he likely gets us the best value (high production on good contract), and it's a virtual no brainer when he is opting out this summer. I worry about how our bad offense gets even worse, but maybe it could have a weird effect of opening things up for Rose and Mirotic (i.e., the 2 scoring options that we really need to get going).


----------



## K4E

If the Bulls are choosing "win later" then Pau is the first guy out the door.

He's very productive and has a good contract. 

Starter on the all-star team last year. His PER is up to 21.1 this season. (highest on team right now of guys that play)

Its interesting to see how he's getting thrown under the bus by so many. 

If the Bulls are trying to win this season though they will be hard pressed to replace that production though.

Strange that a coach was fired last season due to the front office being "disappointing" that it could not beat the team that went to the finals and now 20 games into "Hoiball" the talk is of blowing up the team. Nice slight of hand, that.


----------



## yodurk

K4E said:


> Strange that a coach was fired last season due to the front office being "disappointing" that it could not beat the team that went to the finals and now 20 games into "Hoiball" the talk is of blowing up the team. Nice slight of hand, that.


This is a fallacy -- losing to Cleveland was just the tip of the iceberg; though for some reason people like to spin it as the sole reason. We all knew Thibs was on thin ice long before the playoffs even started. There were indicators of poor communication between him and the front office for at least 2 years. Then you add on their (and many fans') displeasure with heavy minutes load to injured players, unwillingness to play certain guys, etc. We heard about several players (3 starters IIRC) advocating for Thibs' departure in post-season interviews.

Notice these things have nothing to do with his ability to rack up wins or even his basketball intelligence. By all indications he is a brilliant hard-working basketball mind who is also stubborn as a mule, and perhaps too old school for his own good. People need to stop comparing Thibs to Hoiberg based on reasons that had no connection to why Thibs was fired. Hoiberg was brought in to change the culture to one that is more conducive to long-term success. You should always expect causalities with that big of a change. I would also focus on things beyond just W/L record after 18 games; e.g., are we playing with more pace, reducing turnovers, sharing the ball better, etc. 

Also as an aside -- I don't see any (rational) fans saying to blow up the team. Trading Pau Gasol for an upgrade at PG is not blowing up the team. Though I do agree he is undervalued by many fans, and we'll be hurting for some inside scoring the minute he's out the door.


----------



## K4E

yodurk said:


> This is a fallacy -- losing to Cleveland was just the tip of the iceberg; though for some reason people like to spin it as the sole reason.


It was one of the the main reasons given by the front office. They seemed to think that this roster was championship caliber. Same roster this season as last season pretty much.



> We all knew Thibs was on thin ice long before the playoffs even started. There were indicators of poor communication between him and the front office for at least 2 years.


Same front office that physically attacked the coach prior to Thibs. They don't get along with coaches very well.



> Then you add on their (and many fans') displeasure with heavy minutes load to injured players, unwillingness to play certain guys, etc. We heard about several players (3 starters IIRC) advocating for Thibs' departure in post-season interviews.


And now you have a seemingly unhappy Gasol and Rose complaining about play calls at the end of horrible home losses to bad teams.

Dougie is getting lots more minutes though. He's not very good at NBA basketball, but he's getting the minutes. Mirotic has taken a step back under the "Hoiball" treatment. Wasn't Thibs' holding him back?




> Hoiberg was brought in to change the culture to one that is more conducive to long-term success.


According to the front office. 

12 seasons under Paxson.
0 Championships
0 Finals Appearances
1 Eastern Conference Appearance (Rose / Thibs)

As for long-term success, Paxson hasn't been able to deliver that in 12 years. What evidence is there that he knows what to do other than make sure the team is one of the 16 that makes the playoffs and make sure tickets are sold? The only glimmer of contention the Bulls have enjoyed has been when Thibs was getting everything that was there out of the roster. Paxson smeared and fired Thibs for his hard work and success, although the smear was pretty much laughed at nationally.

So far Hoiberg has transformed what was the 11th most efficient offense in the NBA last season into one of the worst in the league, with the same roster.

Does Hoiberg know what to do in the NBA? No evidence of that so far. Its of course early and he deserves more time before any final judgments are made. Was he a great college coach? A couple Big 12 tournament wins in 5 seasons I believe. No serious advancement in the big dance. His team wet the bed in the first round last year. 

Last year the boogeyman was Thibs. A true NBA defensive innovator and one of the most successful modern assistant coaches and head coaches going. 

This year the boogeyman is turning into Pau Gasol for some reason, the starter on the all-star team last season and the guy with the best PER on the team, on a very friendly contract. Rose and Noah (the last two players in Bulls history to make all-NBA 1st teams) are also guys to "blame." Why are they playing so much more poorly under Hoiball than last season under THibs? Why can't Freddy get the most out of his players so far?

Always entertaining following the Bulls, that much is for certain.


----------



## thebizkit69u

At some point the front office has to make a decision on what to do with this season. Record aside, this team has looked worse than last years team and a lot of what the fanbase was sold on in regards to Hoiberg is just starting to deteriorate. 

The Kids will Start! Reality - Well that lasted only about 10 games. 
No more Heavy minutes! Reality - Somewhat true. Jimmy is only averaging about a minute less than last year. 
The offense will look improved! - If by improved you mean worse... Then sure!
Now that Thibs is gone, the team will have better harmony! Reality - The chemistry on this team is absolutely horrible, no leadership, no accountability and I think its fair to say that most of these guys don't even like eachother. 

Now that Thibs is gone, there is no more scapegoat to put all the blame on. I'm not saying this is Hoibergs fault, heck I don't think hes a bad coach at all.. Hes just not even close to being as good of a coach as Thibs. But thats besides the point. The Bulls front office can no longer hide behind the Babadook that they sold to the media. The front office is exposed and only they can fix this mess. 

Ive seen this picture more than enough times in the past decade. Its time to rebuild.


----------



## yodurk

K4E said:


> It was one of the the main reasons given by the front office. They seemed to think that this roster was championship caliber. Same roster this season as last season pretty much.


When and by whom? And why does it matter -- it was obvious long before that he was likely to be fired. 




> Same front office that physically attacked the coach prior to Thibs. They don't get along with coaches very well.


Has nothing to do with what we're talking about. You are making generalizations about Hoiberg and comparing him to Thibodeau. I only commented on why Thibodeau was fired, not on whether it was well executed or not. I've commented on that in the past and would rather not rehash that, as it is irrelevant to what Hoiberg is doing and will do as Bulls coach. Hoiberg seems to get along just fine with the Bulls front office, and probably will since he was their handpicked and long rumored successor.



> And now you have a seemingly unhappy Gasol and Rose complaining about play calls at the end of horrible home losses to bad teams.


They, especially Rose, need to get over it. Rose is playing statistically like the worst PG in the NBA this season. His production is a joke, and has been for the most part since long before Hoiberg walked in the door. I'm getting tired of his excuses.



> Dougie is getting lots more minutes though. He's not very good at NBA basketball, but he's getting the minutes. Mirotic has taken a step back under the "Hoiball" treatment. Wasn't Thibs' holding him back?


What? McDermott is playing just fine. Top 5 in the NBA in 3-pt percentage, leading our team in FG%. His defense is even getting better. I'd say he is pretty decent at NBA basketball. Thibodeau didn't give him a fair shot and by all indications was not a good coach for Doug.




> According to the front office.
> 
> 12 seasons under Paxson.
> 0 Championships
> 0 Finals Appearances
> 1 Eastern Conference Appearance (Rose / Thibs)
> 
> As for long-term success, Paxson hasn't been able to deliver that in 12 years. What evidence is there that he knows what to do other than make sure the team is one of the 16 that makes the playoffs and make sure tickets are sold? The only glimmer of contention the Bulls have enjoyed has been when Thibs was getting everything that was there out of the roster. Paxson smeared and fired Thibs for his hard work and success, although the smear was pretty much laughed at nationally.


Not what I was commenting on remotely, but OK.



> So far Hoiberg has transformed what was the 11th most efficient offense in the NBA last season into one of the worst in the league, with the same roster.


By the same argument, he has "transformed" what was a mediocre defense last year into one the league's best. In the end we have a similar win percentage to last year. What was "wrong" with Thibodeau last year? I thought he was an elite defensive coach. Why were we only average when that's his thing?



> Does Hoiberg know what to do in the NBA? No evidence of that so far. Its of course early and he deserves more time before any final judgments are made. Was he a great college coach? A couple Big 12 tournament wins in 5 seasons I believe. No serious advancement in the big dance. His team wet the bed in the first round last year.


Is there evidence he DOESN'T know what he is doing? Basketball is basketball -- Hoiberg played a long NBA career BTW. By all measures he was a very successful college coach, it is silly to nitpick in an effort to prove otherwise. You could do the same to all the great college coaches, right up to the Izzos and Coach K's getting upset, etc.



> Last year the boogeyman was Thibs. A true NBA defensive innovator and one of the most successful modern assistant coaches and head coaches going.


Thibs was indisputably a problem. He was not the only problem, not by a mile, but alot of his criticism was deserved IMO. And even if he was unfairly criticized at times (perhaps he was), the bottom line is he lost his chemistry with the majority of the Bulls organization, from the front office down to many of the players. When that happens, a coach gets let go. That is just the way it works. Doesn't mean Thibodeau is a bad/dumb coach, far from it.



> This year the boogeyman is turning into Pau Gasol for some reason, the starter on the all-star team last season and the guy with the best PER on the team, on a very friendly contract. Rose and Noah (the last two players in Bulls history to make all-NBA 1st teams) are also guys to "blame." Why are they playing so much more poorly under Hoiball than last season under THibs? Why can't Freddy get the most out of his players so far?


I've always disagreed with the Gasol hate -- I'm with you there. Rose is absolutely a legit source of blame though. A guy that still likes to call himself a superstar playing significantly worse than the Jeremy Lins and George Hills of the league. This problem goes back to last year. You are splitting hairs to say he is playing worse this year than last year (esp. considering the alleged blurred vision this year). He was terrible in both cases. Same with Noah, who by the way is IMO playing FAR better overall this year with alot more energy. He was a joke offensively last year and still is this year. You are splitting hairs.


----------



## K4E

yodurk said:


> When and by whom? And why does it matter -- it was obvious long before that he was likely to be fired.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/ct-tom-thibodeau-fired-20150528-story.html



> Seconds later, Paxson added: “We probably wouldn’t be sitting here if we won a championship” – a nod to the realities of pro sports: No matter how difficult a player or coach is to work with, winning cures all.
> 
> But the Bulls didn’t win in the postseason under Thibodeau, who was removed Thursday after five seasons. The team’s performance in the second-round loss to the Cavaliers was particularly galling, given that Cleveland played without Kevin Love and with a hobbled Kyrie Irving.
> 
> "We were all really disappointed in the way the season ended," Paxson said. "Cleveland is a great team and they're in the Finals. But we felt like, given their injuries, the path was there for us if we could have seized it."


Paxson was disappointed that this roster under Thibs didn't defeat the team that swept the Hawks in the Eastern Conference Finals and took the Warriors to 6 in the NBA Finals.

He stated it during the press conference where he fired one of the best coaches around. 

Same roster this season. It will be interesting to see how Freddy does and if Paxson is equally disappointed again.





> Has nothing to do with what we're talking about. You are making generalizations about Hoiberg and comparing him to Thibodeau. I only commented on why Thibodeau was fired, not on whether it was well executed or not. I've commented on that in the past and would rather not rehash that, as it is irrelevant to what Hoiberg is doing and will do as Bulls coach. Hoiberg seems to get along just fine with the Bulls front office, and probably will since he was their handpicked and long rumored successor.


It certainly does! This front office had poor communication with the previous coach, Del *****. Paxson actually physically attacked him. With Thibs he Jen Swansoned him and smeared him. Del ***** didn't have these same "communication problems" during his time with the Clippers. Thibs didn't have big issues with the Celtics. Team USA keeps wanting to work with Thibs as well so there don't seem to be problems there. The issue is the front office.




> They, especially Rose, need to get over it. Rose is playing statistically like the worst PG in the NBA this season. His production is a joke, and has been for the most part since long before Hoiberg walked in the door. I'm getting tired of his excuses.


Rose has regressed quite a lot under GarPax's favorite son Hoiberg (ok, maybe mcdermott is the favorite). Rose had a PER last season of 15.9. This season its down to 9.9. Rose doesn't seem hurt. It seems like Hoiberg isn't getting the most out of his players. This is the case for many players on the roster.

Noah: 15.3 -> 12.1
Gibson: 16.1 -> 13.9
Snell: 10.2 -> 6.5
Niko: 17.9 -> 14.4

That's a lot of guys off to a poorer start under "Hoiball." And he was supposed to make the offense better! Yeesh!




> What? McDermott is playing just fine. Top 5 in the NBA in 3-pt percentage, leading our team in FG%. His defense is even getting better. I'd say he is pretty decent at NBA basketball. Thibodeau didn't give him a fair shot and by all indications was not a good coach for Doug.


McDermott currently has a PER of 11.7, up from the awful 6.1 of last year. He can shoot very well. He does basically nothing else though. No rebounding, no creation for others, no stealing, no blocking, no nothing! That's why his production is so low.

Tell you what, how about you make a list of guys that currently have a PER of 12 or less this year and 10 or less last year and explain to me which players on that list are good at NBA basketball. That will be a very entertaining list! He of course can continue to improve, but as a 24 year old man at this point he doesn't seem like a guy that is going to be a real impact player in the league. We'll see though, it’s still early this year.

Doug very well may not be good enough to even really care if the coach is "right." 



> Not what I was commenting on remotely, but OK.


My point is that Paxson has little clue about achieving long term success. Otherwise, why hasn't there been meaningful success in 12 seasons on the job? 

12 seasons
0 Championships
0 Finals Appearances
1 Eastern Conference Appearance

He's not going to be giving a lecture on achieving long term NBA success anytime soon.




> By the same argument, he has "transformed" what was a mediocre defense last year into one the league's best. In the end we have a similar win percentage to last year. What was "wrong" with Thibodeau last year? I thought he was an elite defensive coach. Why were we only average when that's his thing?


Right, but Hoiberg was supposed to unleash "Hoiball" on the NBA and modernize the Bulls offense. That's his thing. So far the offense sucks. It is surprising that the defense is so good and that's great, but we have the personnel that can play great defense, based on the past five seasons. Thibs likely ingrained it in their DNA, at least the veteran core of the team. 11th in Def EFF was pretty low last year, no doubt. Previous seasons the Bulls ranked in the top 5 usually and #1 a couple times. Thibs had the Bulls at top 5 in off EFF as well when Rose was at the height of his powers.



> Is there evidence he DOESN'T know what he is doing? Basketball is basketball -- Hoiberg played a long NBA career BTW. By all measures he was a very successful college coach, it is silly to nitpick in an effort to prove otherwise. You could do the same to all the great college coaches, right up to the Izzos and Coach K's getting upset, etc.


The great college coaches have done more in 5 seasons than 0 meaningful march madnesses. That's how Coach K and Izzo became Coach K and Izzo. They won things of note. Hoiberg didn't. Coach K BTW loves Thibs, that's why he wants him on the Team USA coaching roster. Coach K is pretty good at winning. 



> I've always disagreed with the Gasol hate -- I'm with you there. Rose is absolutely a legit source of blame though. A guy that still likes to call himself a superstar playing significantly worse than the Jeremy Lins and George Hills of the league. This problem goes back to last year. You are splitting hairs to say he is playing worse this year than last year (esp. considering the alleged blurred vision this year). He was terrible in both cases. Same with Noah, who by the way is IMO playing FAR better overall this year with alot more energy. He was a joke offensively last year and still is this year. You are splitting hairs.




Rose has regressed under Hoiball so far, along with many other players on the team. It is sad to see. Especially when Hoiberg was brought in to improve things. Right now the Bulls are the 8 seed in the east. Ick! Almost out of the playoffs!

Let's hope for a great bounce back against the Clippers 2nite! Maybe Dougie and Niko will embrace their new freedom and dominate a good team.


----------



## yodurk

K4E said:


> http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/ct-tom-thibodeau-fired-20150528-story.html
> 
> Paxson was disappointed that this roster under Thibs didn't defeat the team that swept the Hawks in the Eastern Conference Finals and took the Warriors to 6 in the NBA Finals.
> 
> He stated it during the press conference where he fired one of the best coaches around.
> 
> Same roster this season. It will be interesting to see how Freddy does and if Paxson is equally disappointed again.


Of course he was disappointed. It doesn't mean it was "one of the main reasons" Thibodeau was fired. Given the context everyone knew for the entire year leading up to that (Thibs on thin ice), I read that more as, Thibodeau could've saved his job by capitalizing on a great opportunity to advance in the playoffs. That is not even remotely the same as firing a guy for losing a single playoff series. As I said before, that was just the tip of the iceberg...the straw that broke the camel's back. You outright said: "Strange that a coach was fired last season due to the front office being "disappointing" that it could not beat the team that went to the finals." I won't even deny that losing to Cleveland provided some convenient top cover but there were many many other reasons. Jerry Reinsdorf alluded heavily to these other reasons in his letter to the fans, which BTW I wasn't a fan of but did reiterate things we'd be hearing in the press for over a year.

You continue to cherry pick details that fit your agenda while ignoring/overlooking details that do not. I'm not about to change that, so I'll let you go on venting. I only wanted to clarify the fallacy of why Thibs was let go, and that it wasn't b/c of losing a single playoff series, or even his regular season W/L record. So by that basis, turning this entire season into a "Hoiberg won X games, Thibs won Y games" is a bit silly. It's one valid measure but there is so much more to measure. Hoiberg is trying to change the entire team culture, the entire paradigm, his goal is far more big-picture. I put some evidence of these measures earlier in this thread. It's going to take a long time, probably beyond this season realistically to take full effect. The Bulls front office recognized the need for a paradigm shift and are going to give him time to see it through. What I would like to see, however, is aggressive moves by the front office at the trade deadline and season's end to fit what Hoiberg is trying to do. I think some of the offensive woes are being caused by some of the mismatches with personnel, and the right trade or two could make all the difference.


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> 12 seasons
> 0 Championships
> 0 Finals Appearances
> 1 Eastern Conference Appearance



Other than the fact that deploying this list 15 times in the same thread is just plain old obnoxious, you do realize those numbers, other than reducing the seasons from 12 to 5, serve to damn Thibodeau equally with Paxson, right? That's why it is beyond bizarre to me you keep quoting this list while simultaneously defending Thibs' track record.

Pick a lane.


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> The great college coaches have done more in 5 seasons than 0 meaningful march madnesses. That's how Coach K and Izzo became Coach K and Izzo. They won things of note. Hoiberg didn't.



What meaningful results to great NBA coaches achieve in 5 seasons?



> Rose has regressed under Hoiball so far, along with many other players on the team. It is sad to see. Especially when Hoiberg was brought in to improve things. Right now the Bulls are the 8 seed in the east. Ick! Almost out of the playoffs!



And now they're 5th, just a day later! Hey, it's almost like it's silly to make points like these when all the teams are bunched together within a couple of games of each other! Whaddya know!


----------



## jnrjr79

yodurk said:


> Of course he was disappointed. It doesn't mean it was "one of the main reasons" Thibodeau was fired. Given the context everyone knew for the entire year leading up to that (Thibs on thin ice), I read that more as, Thibodeau could've saved his job by capitalizing on a great opportunity to advance in the playoffs. That is not even remotely the same as firing a guy for losing a single playoff series. As I said before, that was just the tip of the iceberg...the straw that broke the camel's back. You outright said: "Strange that a coach was fired last season due to the front office being "disappointing" that it could not beat the team that went to the finals." I won't even deny that losing to Cleveland provided some convenient top cover but there were many many other reasons. Jerry Reinsdorf alluded heavily to these other reasons in his letter to the fans, which BTW I wasn't a fan of but did reiterate things we'd be hearing in the press for over a year.



The other important thing to note here is that we shouldn't be taking press conference fodder at face value. The disappointment of losing to Cleveland is one of the few things the Bulls could reasonably express in public about Thibs' firing. The fact that he was a prick to management (and they were likely right back to him - so it's not about who's the better person here), that he continually violated minutes' limits, and that some players had quit on him aren't grievances that are going to get aired publicly.


----------



## K4E

yodurk said:


> Given the context everyone knew for the entire year leading up to that (Thibs on thin ice), I read that more as, Thibodeau could've saved his job by capitalizing on a great opportunity to advance in the playoffs. That is not even remotely the same as firing a guy for losing a single playoff series. As I said before, that was just the tip of the iceberg...the straw that broke the camel's back. You outright said: "Strange that a coach was fired last season due to the front office being "disappointing" that it could not beat the team that went to the finals." I won't even deny that losing to Cleveland provided some convenient top cover but there were many many other reasons. Jerry Reinsdorf alluded heavily to these other reasons in his letter to the fans, which BTW I wasn't a fan of but did reiterate things we'd be hearing in the press for over a year.


Right, and the reason that it was "seen in the press" is because that is what was being leaked to the press during the smear.

If Paxson is a man of his word, if you have to take him at his word, and this is what he said. 

Paxson thought a reasonable expectation for this roster was to beat the team that swept the Atlanta Hawks and took the Warriors to 6 in the Finals. That's what he said. A coach was fired in part because that didn't happen. Paxson's words.

Maybe he is just full of ****, but if that's the case, why would we want him running the team?

(and yes, there were of course other reasons he was fired, that's not what i'm saying, i'm stating what Paxson's stated reasonable expectations for this roster are) 



> Hoiberg is trying to change the entire team culture, the entire paradigm, his goal is far more big-picture.


Well, he's trying to "improve" on one of the more successful five year Bulls runs in team history and the lone time since MJ the Bulls were title contenders.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-bulls-just-fired-one-of-the-best-coaches-in-nba-history/

He's not exactly off to a great start. He's supposed to be a great offensive coach and the Bulls are currently the 2nd worst team in the NBA in offense and many of the players have taken serious steps back in production from last year.

Many of the "Hoiball" fans are starting to say that most of the team needs to be overhauled in order to fit his "system" that accomplished little in the NCCA and is off to a rotten start in the NBA. Funny, the previous coach was called too "rigid" by many but most of the roster has to be overhauled in order for "Hoiball" to emerge from the worst offense in the league list. Seems pretty rigid. Thibs always just played the hand he was dealt and made the most of it.

And yes, the Uncle Jerry letter was classless. Not surprising.



> The Bulls front office recognized the need for a paradigm shift and are going to give him time to see it through. What I would like to see, however, is aggressive moves by the front office at the trade deadline and season's end to fit what Hoiberg is trying to do.


The Bulls front office has very little track record of success without Thibs milking every ounce out of the players. 

They are known for the dusty phone and standing pat for the most part. You are going to be waiting a long time for aggressive moves, other than for cost saving. They have been known to make some cagey moves in order to avoid paying luxury tax.


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> Other than the fact that deploying this list 15 times in the same thread is just plain old obnoxious, you do realize those numbers, other than reducing the seasons from 12 to 5, serve to damn Thibodeau equally with Paxson, right? That's why it is beyond bizarre to me you keep quoting this list while simultaneously defending Thibs' track record.
> 
> Pick a lane.


I'm sure you know this already.... but...

12 >>>>>>> 5

right?


We can agree on that I imagine.

The five year run under Thibs is the lone bright spot this franchise has had since MJ. Actual title contenders two years and last year a whisper away from making the Finals. Tough injuries to deal with in Rose, but Thibs always maximized the hand he was dealt.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-bulls-just-fired-one-of-the-best-coaches-in-nba-history/

Of course, it came out that the Thibs hire was more Uncle Jerry and that GarPax had other guys in mind. Not really surprising.

The other 7 years were bad to average. And now the Bulls have the 2nd worst offense in the NBA after the front office hired a guy to improve the offense that was 11th in the league last season.

My lane is picked i fear. (i hope my fears are wrong and this Hoiberg thing works out swimmingly)

What's yours?

Are you really going to be defending this if it happens?

24 years
0 NBA Championships
0 NBA Finals Appearances
2 Eastern Conference Finals Appearances

Thibs also was doing stuff while Paxson was fumbling around "building with" Kirk Hinrich. 12 > 5. 

Things like reinventing the way the NBA plays defense and winning a ring with the Celtics as assistant coach / assistant head coach. 

Our front office was announcing Kirk Hinrich last at home games during this era.

So, yah, lane picked. Thibs = good. Bulls front office without Thibs = average to bad.

Let's hope the Hoiberg hire turns out to be much better than the first 20 games have gone. So far many established players have taken a nose dive the Bulls are the 2nd worst offensive team in the league.


----------



## yodurk

jnrjr79 said:


> What meaningful results to great NBA coaches achieve in 5 seasons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now they're 5th, just a day later! Hey, it's almost like it's silly to make points like these when all the teams are bunched together within a couple of games of each other! Whaddya know!


Also I learned today that winning a Big 12 tourney championship & a Sweet Sixteen appearance is a meaningless result by an NCAA men's basketball team. What would I ever do without this message board.


----------



## yodurk

jnrjr79 said:


> The other important thing to note here is that we shouldn't be taking press conference fodder at face value. The disappointment of losing to Cleveland is one of the few things the Bulls could reasonably express in public about Thibs' firing. The fact that he was a prick to management (and they were likely right back to him - so it's not about who's the better person here), that he continually violated minutes' limits, and that some players had quit on him aren't grievances that are going to get aired publicly.


It was also quite simply the most recent thing to have happened. In psychology literature there is this phenomenon known as the recency effect. Human beings have a tendency to attribute cause/effect to the most recent things that happened. So it's not surprising people think this way, but it is also wrong a very large percent of the time.


----------



## Da Grinch

yodurk said:


> Also I learned today that winning a Big 12 tourney championship & a Sweet Sixteen appearance is a meaningless result by an NCAA men's basketball team. What would I ever do without this message board.



sarcasm noted but it is really meaningless .

jerry tarkanian was far more successful and it went badly 

pittino , calipari pj carlisimo, our very own tim Floyd from iowa state. all basically flopped

some people can make the transition and some cant and it actually appears prior collegiate success is not a good indicator, almost all if not all head coaches plucked from the college ranks are successful there 1st.


----------



## K4E

yodurk said:


> Also I learned today that winning a Big 12 tourney championship & a Sweet Sixteen appearance is a meaningless result by an NCAA men's basketball team. What would I ever do without this message board.


Its actually a lot like being one of the 16 teams that makes the NBA playoffs several times but not doing much more than that.

No wonder Paxson likes the guy so much!  

Hoiberg seemed like a decent college coach. Not great.

You run an analysis of guys that accomplished what he accomplished as a NCAA coach you are not Coach K and Tom Izzo back as comps, that's for sure. 

Certainly not worth smearing and undermining a head coach during a season when the Bulls were a whisper away from making the NBA Finals.

20 games in it doesn't seem like a guy / system worth really coveting. He has no meaningful track record.

Of course, its only 20 games. Maybe several years from now and a couple roster overhauls down the road there we can have a roster where "Hoiball" can thrive. Plenty of cashed checks by many between now and then. Or maybe he'll get his act together this season. Could happen. I hope it does. 

I spent a lot of time last season reading about what "Hoiball" would bring once we got rid of stinky 'ol Thibs and modernize the offense and unleash Mirotic and McDermott. So far, not so good. Nobody thinks the Bulls are title contenders anymore and the arrow seems pointed down. I was hoping to see what I was learning on message boards was true. 

Hopefully the next 20 games go better!


----------



## Da Grinch

K4E said:


> I'm sure you know this already.... but...
> 
> 12 >>>>>>> 5
> 
> right?
> 
> 
> We can agree on that I imagine.
> 
> The five year run under Thibs is the lone bright spot this franchise has had since MJ. Actual title contenders two years and last year a whisper away from making the Finals. Tough injuries to deal with in Rose, but Thibs always maximized the hand he was dealt.
> 
> http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-bulls-just-fired-one-of-the-best-coaches-in-nba-history/
> 
> Of course, it came out that the Thibs hire was more Uncle Jerry and that GarPax had other guys in mind. Not really surprising.
> 
> The other 7 years were bad to average. And now the Bulls have the 2nd worst offense in the NBA after the front office hired a guy to improve the offense that was 11th in the league last season.
> 
> My lane is picked i fear. (i hope my fears are wrong and this Hoiberg thing works out swimmingly)
> 
> What's yours?
> 
> Are you really going to be defending this if it happens?
> 
> 24 years
> 0 NBA Championships
> 0 NBA Finals Appearances
> 2 Eastern Conference Finals Appearances
> 
> Thibs also was doing stuff while Paxson was fumbling around "building with" Kirk Hinrich. 12 > 5.
> 
> Things like reinventing the way the NBA plays defense and winning a ring with the Celtics as assistant coach / assistant head coach.
> 
> Our front office was announcing Kirk Hinrich last at home games during this era.
> 
> So, yah, lane picked. Thibs = good. Bulls front office without Thibs = average to bad.
> 
> Let's hope the Hoiberg hire turns out to be much better than the first 20 games have gone. So far many established players have taken a nose dive the Bulls are the 2nd worst offensive team in the league.


I am pretty sure the paxson front office record w/o thibs is still under .500

early returns on hoiberg look promising but probably not the level of thibs who according to an espn poll last spring of front offices was ranked 5th out of head coaches.

I don't see how hoiberg works out unless the expectations are lowered and/or significant player movement is involved.

thibs avg. over 50 wins a season despite a lockout and some significant injury issues...all things considered a very tough act to follow.


----------



## K4E

Da Grinch said:


> unless the expectations are lowered


Ding ding ding!

Although the guy running the team felt it reasonable to publicly state that this roster could have beaten the team that swept the Hawks in the ECFs and took the Warriors to 6 in the Finals.

Roster is "no good" ... rebuild... 3 more years! cha-ching!


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> The five year run under Thibs is the lone bright spot this franchise has had since MJ. Actual title contenders two years and last year a whisper away from making the Finals. Tough injuries to deal with in Rose, but Thibs always maximized the hand he was dealt.



Bullhockey.

5 years.
0 NBA championships.
0 Finals appearances.
1 Eastern Conference Finals appearance.

Either it works that way, or it doesn't. If not, feel free to pick a different trope.


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> Ding ding ding!
> 
> Although the guy running the team felt it reasonable to publicly state that this roster could have beaten the team that swept the Hawks in the ECFs and took the Warriors to 6 in the Finals.
> 
> Roster is "no good" ... rebuild... 3 more years! cha-ching!



You keep saying the Bulls were a "whisper away." Were they or weren't they?

Also, please describe for me how Derrick Rose, in his current state, is good.


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> Bullhockey.
> 
> 5 years.
> 0 NBA championships.
> 0 Finals appearances.
> 1 Eastern Conference Finals appearance.
> 
> Either it works that way, or it doesn't. If not, feel free to pick a different trope.


OK.

No Thibs

7 Years
0 NBA Championships 
0 Finals appearances
0 Eastern Conference Finals Appearances.

It certainly works that way when looking at Paxson without Thibs.

BRUTAL

With Thibs the Bulls were a whisper away from at least getting to the Finals a couple of times.

And his ability to get the most out of the teams he's given is well documented.











Super bleak for 7 years without Thibs.

Glimmers of hope with Thibs still without getting the ultimate prize.

Thibs has a great track record with the Celtics though while the Bulls were doing nothing. 

Thibs has a ring with the Celtics and a Gold medal with Team USA. They loved him. One of the greats.

The front office that attacked Del ***** also didn't care for Thibs. They don't get along with coaches very well. They decided to smear him during a year where the Bulls were quite close to getting to the NBA Finals.


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> You keep saying the Bulls were a "whisper away." Were they or weren't they?


A couple of season under Thibs, yes, they certainly were.




> Also, please describe for me how Derrick Rose, in his current state, is good.


He isn't. Many players on the Bulls have taken steps back this season under Hoiball.

Let's hope Fred can figure it out and get the most out of the players he's been given.


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> A couple of season under Thibs, yes, they certainly were.


So then the FO gets credit for getting the team a "whisper away" from the Finals in those seasons, too, for whatever that is worth.




> Let's hope Fred can figure it out and get the most out of the players he's been given.



Well, he's on a 51 win pace at this point, which is essentially what Thibs was able to pull out of this same group, though Fred is doing it without Dunleavy.


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> So then the FO gets credit for getting the team a "whisper away" from the Finals in those seasons, too, for whatever that is worth.


Yes, Paxson gets credit for the years he's been on the job.

12 seasons.
0 championships.
0 nba finals appearances.
1 eastern conference finals appearance.

That's his career as a NBA front office guy.

A couple of those seasons under Thibs the Bulls were a whisper away from the Finals at least and the best 5 year run was of course under Thibs.

We all saw how Paxson treated Thibs as a reward.




> Well, he's on a 51 win pace at this point, which is essentially what Thibs was able to pull out of this same group, though Fred is doing it without Dunleavy.


No doubt. Of course, nobody considers the Bulls a title contender anymore. And the fact that Hoiberg was supposed to improve the offense from the 11th most efficient offence in the NBA last season under Thibs and has made it one of the worst in basketball is troubling.

The team is seemingly playing hard enough for him to have a top defense though is a bright spot. 

But we already knew most of these guys could play good defense.

Fred was supposed to improve the offense. Still plenty of time to improve.


----------



## jnrjr79

Thibs is a good coach. I love Thibs. (See my avatar.)

The Bulls are the only team that gave him a head coaching job in his 20 years in the league. Since his firing, despite multiple openings, he hasn't even scored an interview. That is telling.

Thibs had a good run. He got 5 years here, which is longer than your typical coaching stint. Had Derrick not blown his knees, perhaps Thibs would have won a ring and survived a little longer, despite his well-publicized personality issues. But, he didn't, and players were literally moving away during the offseason specifically to avoid him. I don't think anyone could legitimately believe that his time here had not run its course.


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> I don't think anyone could legitimately believe that his time here had not run its course.


Thibs is a great coach. Not just good.

Reinvented the way defense is played in the NBA. Ring with the Celtics. Gold medal with Team USA. In the 12 years since MJ his Bulls teams were the only ones that were legit title contenders.










And he got the most out of his teams at an all-time NBA great level.

But yes, working with GarPax wasn't going to be an option anymore. 

GarPax decided to smear Thibs in the season where the Bulls were one Lebron three and a Gasol ankle sprain away from having a legit road to the Finals. Classless and pointless for one, and as a fan waiting for the team to actually do something of note for many years now unforgivable.

But, whatever, that's in the past.

Going forward, the guy they were coveting while they were smearing Thibs was supposed to be some kind of offensive guru. 

The Bulls are now one of the worst offenses in the NBA.

It would be like when Uncle Jerry hired Thibs from the Celtics despite Paxson wanting someone else and the Bulls were suddenly one of the worst defensive teams in basketball. That would make Thibs look pretty inept and make the hire look pretty stupid.

Of course that's not what happened. The Bulls ended the season as the best team in the league defensively. Thibs was good at his job and Uncle Jerry made a good call going to bat for a coach even though Paxson and Gar both wanted someone else.

Anyway, I don't think its a stretch to say that the hire so far looks pretty stupid, based on the premise on which he was hired.

Only 20+ games in and the guy deserves time to learn how to be a NBA coach (I’m not advocating firing Freddy, I’m saying give him time) but for those who felt that firing Thibs and bringing in Freddy was going to ignite the Bulls into a great offensive team, which improving much from 11th in the league under Thibs would mean, well, that's just looking pretty stupid so far.

Perhaps given time he can get it done and deserves the time to do so. The early returns based on why he was hired have been pretty awful. The offensive is terrible.


----------



## yodurk

Da Grinch said:


> sarcasm noted but it is really meaningless .
> 
> jerry tarkanian was far more successful and it went badly
> 
> pittino , calipari pj carlisimo, our very own tim Floyd from iowa state. all basically flopped
> 
> some people can make the transition and some cant and it actually appears prior collegiate success is not a good indicator, almost all if not all head coaches plucked from the college ranks are successful there 1st.


That's fine. I know full well plenty of NCAA coaches flop at the NBA level. I watched plenty of Bulls games during the Tim Floyd era, trust me. But there are some that don't flop and in fact have done quite well. TBH, it's probably a zero correlation either way. 

I wasn't trying to debate the degree to which college success is an indicator of NBA success. I am merely refuting the notion that Hoiberg was some do-nothing coach at the NCAA level.


----------



## jnrjr79

yodurk said:


> That's fine. I know full well plenty of NCAA coaches flop at the NBA level. I watched plenty of Bulls games during the Tim Floyd era, trust me. But there are some that don't flop and in fact have done quite well. TBH, it's probably a zero correlation either way.
> 
> I wasn't trying to debate the degree to which college success is an indicator of NBA success. I am merely refuting the notion that Hoiberg was some do-nothing coach at the NCAA level.



Maybe there are examples that aren't coming to mind, but to some degree, wouldn't _any_ college coach that made the transition to the NBA have achieved a degree of success in college? Basically, college success can't translate to NBA success, because all NBA coaches hired from the college ranks were successful college coaches. If a college coach is not successful, he won't get "promoted" to the NBA.

So really, it would seem the correct point is not all college coaches who become NBA coaches succeed. Sure, but neither do NBA coaches who were NBA assistants, etc. Most NBA coaches fail and get fired after a few years. I don't know if college coaches fail at any different rate than anyone else in that regard.


----------



## yodurk

Nice game to build from against Memphis. Maybe one of their better games of the year in terms of playing well both sides of the court. Also a 4-game win streak. 

Up to 2nd in defense, 5th in three-point shooting, 6th in turnover mitigation, 7th in pace, 10th in assist %...if only those pesky layups and midrange shots would fall, we'd really be onto something great. Still can't complain about a 15-8 record and #2 seed int he deep EC given how many things haven't seemingly gone our way thus far (then again, do they ever?). Even if they keep this up, I still would advocate a trade deadline move, swapping one of our bigs for a PG upgrade.


----------



## jnrjr79

yodurk said:


> Nice game to build from against Memphis. Maybe one of their better games of the year in terms of playing well both sides of the court. Also a 4-game win streak.
> 
> Up to 2nd in defense, 5th in three-point shooting, 6th in turnover mitigation, 7th in pace, 10th in assist %...if only those pesky layups and midrange shots would fall, we'd really be onto something great. Still can't complain about a 15-8 record and #2 seed int he deep EC given how many things haven't seemingly gone our way thus far (then again, do they ever?). Even if they keep this up, I still would advocate a trade deadline move, swapping one of our bigs for a PG upgrade.



I am up for a trade as well, even as the team is looking a bit better. I think a backup PG is the #1 target only if Dunleavy makes it back. Otherwise, I'd be looking for a wing.


----------



## yodurk

jnrjr79 said:


> I am up for a trade as well, even as the team is looking a bit better. I think a backup PG is the #1 target only if Dunleavy makes it back. Otherwise, I'd be looking for a wing.


Jrue Holiday? He's about the only guy I can think of who is a young productive veteran, can play both guard spots, shoot the 3-ball, man the point, and has enough size so as not to get abused defensively (ala Brooks). More importantly he is on a struggling team that may seek some changes with Anthony Davis as the centerpiece. It would probably take giving up Bobby Portis, though, along with a draft pick or two. More of an all-in move. But certainly the type of move I'd vouch for if the timing felt right, as it could put us over the top.


----------



## K4E

Isn't the problem more starting point guard?

Derrick is getting 30+ a game. Brooks has been decent this season (one of the only guys scoring efficiently) and Hinrich is OK for 5 minutes here and there.

The Bulls have pretty good depth. The issue is that noone is a superstar and a couple guys (Rose and Noah) are playing well below their past levels of production. Both of these guys are the last two Bulls to make a all-NBA 1st team BTW, which makes it quite the sad situation at age 27 and 30.

Even so, its not that much of a problem, as the w-l record is good. But, the offense is sour and we all know what happens come playoff time when these guys are pitted against a superstar player. The thought was a higher-octane offense is what the team needed. Well, we don't have that. We have a strong defense (as usual) and a weaker than usual offense.


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> Isn't the problem more starting point guard?



If you are in win-now mode, the problem isn't starting PG, from a roster construction standpoint. To contend now, Derrick must return to an All-Star level player.

If you believe that will never happen, and there is certainly reason to, then you're in win-later mode and would need to move on from Rose.


----------



## jnrjr79

yodurk said:


> Jrue Holiday? He's about the only guy I can think of who is a young productive veteran, can play both guard spots, shoot the 3-ball, man the point, and has enough size so as not to get abused defensively (ala Brooks). More importantly he is on a struggling team that may seek some changes with Anthony Davis as the centerpiece. It would probably take giving up Bobby Portis, though, along with a draft pick or two. More of an all-in move. But certainly the type of move I'd vouch for if the timing felt right, as it could put us over the top.


Holiday would be a great fit. I think you're right that it might take Portis to get him.


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> If you are in win-now mode, the problem isn't starting PG, from a roster construction standpoint. To contend now, Derrick must return to an All-Star level player.
> 
> If you believe that will never happen, and there is certainly reason to, then you're in win-later mode and would need to move on from Rose.


Either way, the team has much bigger issues than backup point guard. Brooks is solid enough.

Totally agree that the front office needs to "pick a lane." Its unclear what exactly they believe. 

One the one hand, they are running out Rose, Gasol, Gibson, Butler, Noah, (dunleavy soon) etc on a nightly basis, which is having your team based on veterans and going for "win now." 

On the other hand, so much of the focus of last season, where the Bulls a whisper away from making the NBA Finals, was on developing young players. McDermott and Mirotic especially. That's a "win later" move. 

And now in 4OT games those two rookies are not playing key roles and both are back to coming off the bench, despite a coaching change that in part was supposedly designed to unshackle those two players. Both are showing to be fairly average NBA players so far this season.

Doing both "win now" and "win later" at the same time is super difficult. Especially for a front office that has little experience in well over a decade of work of building a team that can advance far in the playoffs. 

There is no evidence they can pull off "win now" much less "win now" and "win later" at the same time.


----------



## e-monk

Larry Brown is the only one I can think of off the top of my head (I'm like that guy who bursts into a conversation to make a point about something you were talking about 10 minutes ago, I'm not _like_ that guy, I am that guy)


----------



## yodurk

Bulls lose in 4OT...ouch. It was actually a pretty fun game to watch. Very competitive, back and forth, both teams played pretty well overall. But man, that is a punch in the gut to lose. We had our chances to win (e.g., Rose missed potential game winner in regulation), but so did the Pistons. I thought we had it won in 3OT until Caldwell-Pope hit that ridiculous fadeaway 3-pointer with under a minute left. Real shame we couldn't get their guys to foul out earlier, they had about 4 guys playing with 5 fouls for the majority of OT.

TBH, I was questioning Hoiberg on why he wasn't substituting more in the OT's. You had Noah playing an awesome game for example and barely sniffed the court in OT. Noah's help D might've made all the difference with Reggie Jackson destroying us on floater after floater. But then it hit me, call this a hypothesis, maybe Hoiberg knows how bad our starting unit chemistry has been all year - and here they were tactually playing pretty well in a competitive situation. Maybe Fred just said screw it, if we lose we lose, let these guys gel together for once. You can't look me in the eye and think Tony Snell with the way he was playing yesterday should've been in there. Or Taj Gibson over Noah. Noah was terrific. Maybe I'm way off base. Unfortunately a loss is a loss...the Pistons played really well, way above their norm offensively. Andre Drummond is an absolute beast too, BTW, a freak of nature.


----------



## K4E

So, what should the Bulls do?

They seemingly have turned a bit of a corner once Jimmy Butler called out the coaching staff and the offense is finally clicking and the wins are piling up.

Butler is looking like a potential all-NBA teamer. Gasol is once again defying father time and beasting. Taj is playing some solid ball and Rose is looking competent at least the last few games he's suited up.

That's a veteran "win now" core. 

Should the Bulls be looking to trade the vets (Gasol, Gibson, Noah) and rebuild, add a veteran piece in a consolidation trade to increase the chances of "win now" or just stand pat.

Gasol might walk at the end of this season leaving the Bulls with a massive hole to fill. Can Butler be the 1A guy on a championship team? Are Mirotic and McDermott on a career track to be all-stars at some point? What should the Bulls do?


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> So, what should the Bulls do?
> 
> They seemingly have turned a bit of a corner once Jimmy Butler called out the coaching staff and the offense is finally clicking and the wins are piling up.
> 
> Butler is looking like a potential all-NBA teamer. Gasol is once again defying father time and beasting. Taj is playing some solid ball and Rose is looking competent at least the last few games he's suited up.
> 
> That's a veteran "win now" core.
> 
> Should the Bulls be looking to trade the vets (Gasol, Gibson, Noah) and rebuild, add a veteran piece in a consolidation trade to increase the chances of "win now" or just stand pat.
> 
> Gasol might walk at the end of this season leaving the Bulls with a massive hole to fill. Can Butler be the 1A guy on a championship team? Are Mirotic and McDermott on a career track to be all-stars at some point? What should the Bulls do?



In my view, the Bulls are still a wing defender away from matching up well against the Cavs, and I'd support moving a piece or two (presumably a big) to address that issue. Asking Jimmy Buckets to guard LBJ all game and also be the #1 option on offense is asking quite a bit.

I don't think Butler is ever going to be an LBJ/Curry/Durant type of superstar, but he doesn't need to be. The Bulls are much more in the Spurs mode at this point, where you have a lot of different guys who can score, the ball moves around, etc. Butler certainly can assume that alpha dog role when needed, but you will also have nights like last night where the scoring is very balanced between Butler, Gasol, and Rose. That's what the team is really constructed to be at this point.

Mirotic and McDermott both look like they belong, but neither looks like an All-Star to me, and either could be moved if necessary. As you saw from McDermott last night, hit ability to knock down threes with his extremely fast release really opens things up for his teammates. He has progressed on the defensive end, but is still a minus defender. Niko is defending pretty well, but his offense is streaky and his decision-making a little wince-inducing. He is working out much, much better at the 3 than I expected, which is a pleasant surprise.


----------



## transplant

Right now the Bulls have the 5th-best record in the NBA and the 2nd best in the Eastern Conference. The standings are closely packed so that can change on a daily basis. The team's best player is 26. Their other top minutes guys are 27, 35, 30, 24, 30, 24, 24 and 20.

If this team needs to rebuild, then probably 25 or so of the NBA's 30 teams need to rebuild. The idea is ridiculous.


----------



## K4E

transplant said:


> If this team needs to rebuild, then probably 25 or so of the NBA's 30 teams need to rebuild. The idea is ridiculous.


One would think, but just two weeks ago some were advocating trading Jimmy Butler after he called out the head coach. And the idea of trading Gasol has been bandied about through much of this season. Crazy if you are trying to "win now" I agree.

"Stand Pat" though, even with this roster, doesn't likely get you by Lebron and the Cavs or the Warriors or Spurs.

No banner gets raised to the rafters for finishing 2nd in your conference.


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> One would think, but just two weeks ago some were advocating trading Jimmy Butler after he called out the head coach. And the idea of trading Gasol has been bandied about through much of this season. Crazy if you are trying to "win now" I agree.
> 
> "Stand Pat" though, even with this roster, doesn't likely get you by Lebron and the Cavs or the Warriors or Spurs.
> 
> No banner gets raised to the rafters for finishing 2nd in your conference.



What move do you believe wins the Bulls a championship this season?

If the answer to the foregoing is that you believe no such plausible move exists, is it your position that the Bulls should move into a win-later posture and rebuild?


----------



## transplant

K4E said:


> One would think, but just two weeks ago some were advocating trading Jimmy Butler after he called out the head coach. And the idea of trading Gasol has been bandied about through much of this season. Crazy if you are trying to "win now" I agree.
> 
> "Stand Pat" though, even with this roster, doesn't likely get you by Lebron and the Cavs or the Warriors or Spurs.
> 
> No banner gets raised to the rafters for finishing 2nd in your conference.


Aw c'mon, Nick Friedell and maybe a couple posters wanted to trade Butler. Friedell's excuse is that he just lost his mind. As for those posters, none of those them are likely to win "best in breed."

The Bulls are playing some pretty good basketball lately. I'm getting to like their roster and IF Rose can continue on the path he's been on the last couple games AND Dunleavy can come back healthy, I do believe I could get to LOVE this roster.

It's shaping up to be a fun season.


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> What move do you believe wins the Bulls a championship this season?
> 
> If the answer to the foregoing is that you believe no such plausible move exists, is it your position that the Bulls should move into a win-later posture and rebuild?


It isn't my job to know all the possible moves that exist and which ones would win a championship.

I learned long ago that anything dug up just gets "attack the sourced" and its a fruitless endeavor since I am not in the room.

Its GarPax's job to know and do that.

12 + seasons, 1 ECF loss for Paxson.

Its a tough call about this season, given the Gasol situation and the young players on the roster. Of course, that is the way they decided to build the team. 

I do think they should decide upon "win later" which would mean exploring trades that maximize chances 2-3 years from now or "win now" which would maximize chances this season. Trying to do both, if the goal is to win the title, isn't the way to go IMO. 

The teams they are going up against this season for the title are in "win now" mode. 

My money is on "stand pat."


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> It isn't my job to know all the possible moves that exist and which ones would win a championship.
> 
> I learned long ago that anything dug up just gets "attack the sourced" and its a fruitless endeavor since I am not in the room.
> 
> Its GarPax's job to know and do that.
> 
> 12 + seasons, 1 ECF loss for Paxson.
> 
> Its a tough call about this season, given the Gasol situation and the young players on the roster. Of course, that is the way they decided to build the team.
> 
> I do think they should decide upon "win later" which would mean exploring trades that maximize chances 2-3 years from now or "win now" which would maximize chances this season. Trying to do both, if the goal is to win the title, isn't the way to go IMO.
> 
> The teams they are going up against this season for the title are in "win now" mode.
> 
> My money is on "stand pat."


Pretty much the response I expected. Actually taking a position would inhibit you from being able to criticize the course of action no matter what it is.


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> Pretty much the response I expected. Actually taking a position would inhibit you from being able to criticize the course of action no matter what it is.


My position is I think they will "stand pat."

What is yours? What do you think they should do and what do you think they will do? Any thoughts?

12 years. 1 ECF loss for Paxson.

I think we can both agree that if the goal is to "win now" a move needs to be made, yes? Or do you like this rosters chances against the Cavs, Warriors and Spurs? If you like their chances, why do you like them? 

What move? Neither you or I know what is available and we don't know for certain if the goal is even to "go for it" this season. I can't see this front office parting with McDermott or Mirotic this year and any kind of "win now" trade would likely involve some of them. Those guys are precious to the front office. And Mirotic (and Portis perhaps) will help be the long term Gasol and Noah replacements.

12 years. 1 ECF loss for Paxson. Can you be critical of that? Or is that a good job in your books?

I think that's a bad job. What do you think? Any thoughts?

---

I think they should pick "win now" or "win later" as trying to do both at the same time likely won't work, assuming the goal is to win a championship. It should be clear to see what type of move is what. And, yes, there is no way to know what trades are really available, unless something basically incontrovertible comes out in the news. Gasol doesn't help much with "win later." The right 18+ PER ish wing player likely would be quite useful for a "win now" run.

Long term, the results do matter. 12 years and 1 ECF loss is pretty poor performance. I'd be disappointed if the 12 turns into 18 with no real results. I'd imagine most Bulls fans would be as well.

What do you think they should do? What do you think they will do?


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> My position is I think they will "stand pat."
> 
> What is yours? What do you think they should do and what do you think they will do? Any thoughts?


I asked you what you think the team should do (i.e. what should the course of action be, not what do you think it will be). You tend to criticize the FO for whatever it does or does not do. Not saying what you would do differently conveniently allows you to criticize everything, because you don't plant your flag on what the correct course of action would be.

And yes, I have actually taken a position and expressed it, if you've read the board. I believe the team needs another wing with plus defensive ability if there is going to be any shot at getting past Cleveland. I would favor moving a big + a draft pick (including the Sacto pick) if necessary to acquire that type of player (e.g. Ariza). Even if Dunleavy comes back, he's not going to be of particular use against LeBron, and I think it's a problem if Jimmy is the only guy on the roster capable of that assignment.



> 12 years. 1 ECF loss for Paxson.


Yes, I believe I've read you post this somewhere before...



> I think we can both agree that if the goal is to "win now" a move needs to be made, yes? Or do you like this rosters chances against the Cavs, Warriors and Spurs? If you like their chances, why do you like them?


Yes, I agree. I would also say that there may not be any move of any kind that could get any team in the NBA past the Warriors, but I don't think that means that everyone should just tank/rebuild and wait for Steph to retire.



> What move? Neither you or I know what is available and we don't know for certain if the goal is even to "go for it" this season. I can't see this front office parting with McDermott or Mirotic this year and any kind of "win now" trade would likely involve some of them. Those guys are precious to the front office. And Mirotic (and Portis perhaps) will help be the long term Gasol and Noah replacements.


See above. I wasn't asking you to identify the exact parts of the trade, but rather just the concept of what you think should happen. You dodged, presumably because then you're locked in to a position that may make it harder for you to do what you like to do - criticize whatever actually happens.




> 12 years. 1 ECF loss for Paxson. Can you be critical of that? Or is that a good job in your books?
> 
> I think that's a bad job. What do you think? Any thoughts?


I think on the whole the Bulls have an above average FO. They draft better than most. They manage salary flexibility effectively. They have no particular track record, though, in being able to consummate a big in-season trade. It's a mixed bag.

The truth that you consistently fail to acknowledge is that the Bulls had an inarguably fantastic roster in 2012 that had a significant chance of winning an NBA title. Then Derrick Rose's series of injuries happened. At that point, any chance of winning a title was basically out the door until after his contract ran its course. I believe the FO has done basically the best possible job possible in building this year's roster around the diminished Derrick, which is all you can ask it to do.

But you don't actually look at context, or at least, haven't made any posts that indicates you do.



> I think they should pick "win now" or "win later" as trying to do both at the same time likely won't work, assuming the goal is to win a championship. It should be clear to see what type of move is what. And, yes, there is no way to know what trades are really available, unless something basically incontrovertible comes out in the news. Gasol doesn't help much with "win later." The right 18+ PER ish wing player likely would be quite useful for a "win now" run.


The Spurs consistently pick both and it works for them. It's specious to suggest that both goals cannot be pursued simultaneously. I do agree, though, that it may be possible to swing a deal this year that gives up some future assets in exchange for an increased chance at the title, but looking at this as just a binary situation is an oversimplification.

WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY SHOULD DO? It's incredible to me that you won't say. Crazy, really.



> Long term, the results do matter. 12 years and 1 ECF loss is pretty poor performance. I'd be disappointed if the 12 turns into 18 with no real results. I'd imagine most Bulls fans would be as well.
> 
> What do you think they should do? What do you think they will do?


What is your definition of poor? By your metric, I'd imagine 3/4 of the league is doing a poor job. 

Do you believe that Derrick Rose's injuries were the fault of the FO? Do you believe that those injuries have anything to do with the team's chances to contend over the past 5 years? It's incredibly myopic to keep acting like those injuries are not the most significant thing that's happened to the team by many orders of magnitude.


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> Do you believe that Derrick Rose's injuries were the fault of the FO? Do you believe that those injuries have anything to do with the team's chances to contend over the past 5 years? It's incredibly myopic to keep acting like those injuries are not the most significant thing that's happened to the team by many orders of magnitude.


At some point, **** happens. Over the course of 12 years there will be good luck (landing the pick to draft Rose to begin with) and bad luck (Rose injury). 

Without the good luck / miracle of landing the Rose pick, there would have been no MVP to lead the Bulls to their lone ECF appearance.


Then it very well could have been 12 years, 0 championships, 0 trips to the finals, 0 ECF appearances. I think that's bad, although I think I could think of some people that may defend it.  


If we were talking about this FOs first 5 years on the job, I think you could point to this.

The thing is though, Paxson has been GM / VP long before they drafted Derrick Rose.

12 years. 1 ECF loss. That's bad if the goal is to win championships.


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> At some point, **** happens. Over the course of 12 years there will be good luck (landing the pick to draft Rose to begin with) and bad luck (Rose injury).
> 
> Without the good luck / miracle of landing the Rose pick, there would have been no MVP to lead the Bulls to their lone ECF appearance.
> 
> 
> Then it very well could have been 12 years, 0 championships, 0 trips to the finals, 0 ECF appearances. I think that's bad, although I think I could think of some people that may defend it.
> 
> 
> If we were talking about this FOs first 5 years on the job, I think you could point to this.
> 
> The thing is though, Paxson has been GM / VP long before they drafted Derrick Rose.
> 
> 12 years. 1 ECF loss. That's bad if the goal is to win championships.



Good job continuing not to say what you would do. Impressive.


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY SHOULD DO? It's incredible to me that you won't say. Crazy, really.


Maybe you missed this.



K4E said:


> I think they should pick "win now" or "win later" as trying to do both at the same time likely won't work, assuming the goal is to win a championship. It should be clear to see what type of move is what. And, yes, there is no way to know what trades are really available, unless something basically incontrovertible comes out in the news. Gasol doesn't help much with "win later." The right 18+ PER ish wing player likely would be quite useful for a "win now" run.





Looks like we actually agree.

The Bulls roster needs a move in order to make a "win now" run.

The target is a wing (2/3).

I would also add that if a potential superstar does become available (ex: Cousins) the Bulls should go whole hog in order to land that type of player.

Ariza would be an OK fit. Will Barton? Much depends on if Dunleavy can go. (something neither one of us really knows) Neither of these guys really put the Bulls over the top but it would perhaps help. 

Someone making 100s of thousands of dollars a year should know better than me though. The right move may be to scrap it and realize that you can't beat the Cavs / Warriors / Spurs with this roster and maximize your opportunities 2-3 years from now. 

Then you are looking at an entirely different set of moves. You have to have a goal first, though.

Or, the goal might be to just make the playoffs for another year and have a stockpile of young players to replace guys like Gasol / Noah as they age out / opt out and continue making the playoffs and little else for years on end. That has proven to be a good business model for the Bulls.

-----

And yah, we'll disagree on if getting to the eastern conference finals 1 time in 12 years is a good track record. To each their own I guess.

Most very good to great NBA organizations do better than that. 

But, we've disagreed on a lot over the years, right? 

12 years. 0 Championships. 0 NBA Finals Appearances. 1 Eastern Conference Finals loss.

That can't be disagreed upon, right?


----------



## K4E

Just curious, what big would you be in favor of moving for Ariza in the big plus pick swap?

Not Gasol, right? Need him.

Mirotic? (would the front office part with him?)
Gibson? (very instrumental in the Bulls success over the last 2 weeks)
Noah? (most likely candidate, but a sad way for him to go out)

How many of those three?

Concerned at all about all the SFs that are still on the roster? Dunleavy. Snell. McDermott. I'd imagine one of those would be out the door as well, yes?

If you lose Gibson, are you rolling with Mirotic / Gasol at the 4 / 5?


----------



## transplant

jnrjr79 said:


> What is your definition of poor? By your metric, I'd imagine 3/4 of the league is doing a poor job.


On a results-only basis, the past 12 seasons for the Bulls have been good, not great. Seven NBA teams have clearly had a better run during this period than the Bulls because they've won a NBA title(s). While I'm not a "championship or bust" fan, winning a title justifiably buys a FO a whole lot of cred.

Of the 23 NBA teams that haven't won a title in the past 12 seasons, only the Cavs have played in more playoff series (17) than the Bulls (15) and they've certainly come closer to a title than the Bulls. However, they've also had 4 sub-.500 seasons during this period (to the Bulls 2) and finished dead last in the division 3 times (the Bulls only finished last in Paxson's first season).

Indy and OKC/SEA also have played in 15 playoff series over the past 12 seasons. Both of these teams have a lot more sub-.500 seasons (6 and 5, respectively), but have also either gone farther (OKC made the Finals once) or in the case of Indy gone to the conference finals more often (3 times).

I guess this is a case of one man's poor/bad being another person's pretty good.


----------



## K4E

transplant said:


> I guess this is a case of one man's poor/bad being another person's pretty good.


If the goal is to win championships, its poor.
If the goal is to at least make the NBA Finals, its poor.
If the goal is to make the Conference Finals more than once a decade, its poor.

If the goal is to be above .500, make the playoffs and make a lot of money, its very good.


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> Maybe you missed this.


I didn't miss it. Saying the Bulls should win now or win later isn't saying much of anything. Which course would you take?



> Looks like we actually agree.
> 
> The Bulls roster needs a move in order to make a "win now" run.
> 
> The target is a wing (2/3).
> 
> I would also add that if a potential superstar does become available (ex: Cousins) the Bulls should go whole hog in order to land that type of player.
> 
> Ariza would be an OK fit. Will Barton? Much depends on if Dunleavy can go. (something neither one of us really knows) Neither of these guys really put the Bulls over the top but it would perhaps help.
> 
> Someone making 100s of thousands of dollars a year should know better than me though. The right move may be to scrap it and realize that you can't beat the Cavs / Warriors / Spurs with this roster and maximize your opportunities 2-3 years from now.


I don't see any scenario where the right move is to scrap it, though I suppose it depends what you mean by that.



> Then you are looking at an entirely different set of moves. You have to have a goal first, though.
> 
> Or, the goal might be to just make the playoffs for another year and have a stockpile of young players to replace guys like Gasol / Noah as they age out / opt out and continue making the playoffs and little else for years on end. That has proven to be a good business model for the Bulls.
> 
> -----
> 
> And yah, we'll disagree on if getting to the eastern conference finals 1 time in 12 years is a good track record. To each their own I guess.
> 
> Most very good to great NBA organizations do better than that.
> 
> But, we've disagreed on a lot over the years, right?
> 
> 12 years. 0 Championships. 0 NBA Finals Appearances. 1 Eastern Conference Finals loss.
> 
> That can't be disagreed upon, right?


So you agree Thibs was a failure?

(I don't actually believe that, but you do.)


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> If the goal is to win championships, its poor.
> If the goal is to at least make the NBA Finals, its poor.
> If the goal is to make the Conference Finals more than once a decade, its poor.
> 
> If the goal is to be above .500, make the playoffs and make a lot of money, its very good.


You understand this is not actually true, right? At least if you are evaluating performance correctly within the context of the league as a whole.


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> You understand this is not actually true, right? At least if you are evaluating performance correctly within the context of the league as a whole.


What isn't true?

A reasonable goal would be to make the NBA Finals at least once over a 12 year span for a large market team, right?

You realize 0 trips to the Finals is pretty poor performance, don't you?


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> So you agree Thibs was a failure?
> 
> (I don't actually believe that, but you do.)


1 trip to the ECFs over 5 years is better than 1 trip over 12 years.

Its, like, over 2 times better, wouldn't you say?

So, no, I would not say Thibs was a failure. I would also say he's not in the Pop / Riley / Jackson echelon since he has not won the big one.

He had a number of successes (not as a head coach) before joining the Bulls though that I could point to. Ring with the Celtics. Reinventing the way defense is played in the NBA. Also Gold Medals with team USA while with the Bulls. Also a track record of getting along with front offices (Celtics) and other organizations (Team USA, still employed there) while coach-choker Paxson has a different track record. 

And, a coach is only as good as the roster he's given. Thibs almost always got the most out of the roster he was given to coach.


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> I don't see any scenario where the right move is to scrap it, though I suppose it depends what you mean by that.


It would depend on what would be available if Gibson, Gasol, Noah, Rose were put up on the block.

What assets could be acquired for a 2-3 year down the road "win later" run.

Teams do this all the time. Its not that complicated a scenario. Just off the top of my head, the Celtics started down this road a few years ago. The Cavs and the Warriors were in the business of getting lottery picks a few seasons back.


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> I didn't miss it. Saying the Bulls should win now or win later isn't saying much of anything. Which course would you take?



Maybe you missed it, but didn't I say a 18+ PERish SG/SF?



K4E said:


> I think they should pick "win now" or "win later" as trying to do both at the same time likely won't work, assuming the goal is to win a championship. It should be clear to see what type of move is what. And, yes, there is no way to know what trades are really available, unless something basically incontrovertible comes out in the news. Gasol doesn't help much with "win later." *The right 18+ PER ish wing player likely would be quite useful for a "win now" run.*


Ariza doesn't really fit that criteria, but he's an OK wing if Dunleavy can't go. Who to give up though and would the Rockets want that player? Many like the job Mirotic is doing at the 3 as well.

Will Barton might fit. The issue there is the Bulls already have 3 high usage main guys in Rose, Gasol and Jimmy, with Mirotic also needing to put up a lot of shots. And the Nuggets probably like having a younger highly productive player on a good contract.

As far as the course to take, it would depend entirely on the moves that were available, which I don't know. Is Boogie Cousins available for the right price and what would that price be? I don't know. Is there a team that would give the Bulls a good chance at an impact draft pick for Gasol? I don't know.

I don't think "stand pat" will result in a championship this season though. But, guys could get hurt on other teams and perhaps a guy like Mirotic will take a serious step forward. Or Rose miracle of miracles returns to past greatness.


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> Maybe you missed it, but didn't I say a 18+ PERish SG/SF?


No. You said they should either win now or win later. Of course, you have to make that decision before you can get to who they should acquire once they choose a course.

It's funny to me that you are so critical and yet you cannot even address your own fundamental position (an incorrect one, but your position nonetheless) that the team must choose between current competitiveness and future competitiveness.



> Ariza doesn't really fit that criteria, but he's an OK wing if Dunleavy can't go. Who to give up though and would the Rockets want that player? Many like the job Mirotic is doing at the 3 as well.


Mitotic is doing better at the 3 then I would have guessed, but a lot of his production still comes when he slides down to the 4 during games. And obviously he can't keep up with LBJ. I like the guy going forward, but you have to give something to get something.



> Will Barton might fit. The issue there is the Bulls already have 3 high usage main guys in Rose, Gasol and Jimmy, with Mirotic also needing to put up a lot of shots. And the Nuggets probably like having a younger highly productive player on a good contract.


I think the Bulls have plenty of scoring firepower between Butler, Pau, and Rose. what they really need is that 3-and-D type of player.



> As far as the course to take, it would depend entirely on the moves that were available, which I don't know. Is Boogie Cousins available for the right price and what would that price be? I don't know. Is there a team that would give the Bulls a good chance at an impact draft pick for Gasol? I don't know.


The latter can be answered easily. There is no team that is going to give an impact draft pick for Gasol. If you want that, you're giving up Portis, Mitotic, or obviously Butler.



> I don't think "stand pat" will result in a championship this season though. But, guys could get hurt on other teams and perhaps a guy like Mirotic will take a serious step forward. Or Rose miracle of miracles returns to past greatness.


So what would you do? Are you willing to deal a current rotation player and future draft picks to try to improve the team this season?


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> What isn't true?
> 
> A reasonable goal would be to make the NBA Finals at least once over a 12 year span for a large market team, right?
> 
> You realize 0 trips to the Finals is pretty poor performance, don't you?


Are you speaking statistically? Once every 15 years would be the statistical norm. And I don't believe market size has any real correlation to performance, no. Do you? Ask the Knicks how much that helps. Best market in the country!

In terms of the conference finals, in the last 12 seasons 10 teams have made the conference finals more than once. 7 more have made it just once. So, more or less, the Bulls have done better than 13 teams, the same as 7 teams, and worse than 12 teams. 

So, no, if we're being honest, it hasn't been "pretty poor," which necessarily would be below average. It also has been far from great.


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> No. You said they should either win now or win later. Of course, you have to make that decision before you can get to who they should acquire once they choose a course.
> 
> It's funny to me that you are so critical and yet you cannot even address your own fundamental position (an incorrect one, but your position nonetheless) that the team must choose between current competitiveness and future competitiveness.


My position is that the organization doesn't seem interested really in maximizing chances for a championship. They are interested in making the playoffs and ensuring a backlog of young players when the older ones age out. 

I don't think "stand pat" will result in a championship this season. Do you think that? It doesn't seem you do.

I can't say what moves are available for them to make. I don't think a guy like Ariza will be enough to win the title this season, barring major injuries from the true contenders

That's funny, what you think is funny.

I think its funny to defend the following track record.

12 seasons. 0 Championships. 0 NBA Finals appearances. 1 ECF loss.

Defending that as a good job is really funny.

Not so funny if you are Bulls fan interested in winning championships though.  Not funny at all. 

You might not agree with me thinking that great organizations have clear goals and maximize their chances to achieve those goals. I'll stand by that, despite your disagreement. 

But, you are also a guy that thinks this is a good job.

12 seasons. 0 Championships. 0 NBA Finals appearances. 1 ECF loss.

So, you might have poor judgement, sadly. 




> So what would you do? Are you willing to deal a current rotation player and future draft picks to try to improve the team this season?


Sure, depending on the rotation player and what player the team would be acquiring. Each of those moves would be evaluated on a move by move basis.

I didn't read what big(s) you would be willing to part with in order to get Ariza.


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> Ask the Knicks how much that helps. Best market in the country!


Market/revenue matters. The Bulls have plenty of money to work with. That's an advantage, albeit smaller than other sports due to salary cap. The Bulls also have a self imposed reluctance to spend past the luxury tax threshold for the mostpart. That's sadly a disadvantage. 

If you were the GM of a NBA team, you would prefer to have more money to work with vs less money to work with.

The money does need to be spent wisely though, you are correct. The Knicks often have these issues.  The Bulls sadly do as well, as their highest paid players oftentimes are not their best contributors. Not as bad as the Knicks though.

Even the lowly Knicks have managed to make the Finals more recently since MJ retired than the poor Bulls.

The Knicks have been a fairly poorly run organization according to many in the last 20 years. 

They managed to win the Eastern Conference at least once.

Maybe Paxson will get there someday.


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> My position is that the organization doesn't seem interested really in maximizing chances for a championship. They are interested in making the playoffs and ensuring a backlog of young players when the older ones age out.
> 
> I don't think "stand pat" will result in a championship this season. Do you think that? It doesn't seem you do.
> 
> I can't say what moves are available for them to make. I don't think a guy like Ariza will be enough to win the title this season, barring major injuries from the true contenders


I do agree that the organization seems to want to have a Spurs-style team-building approach where you transition from older productive players to younger productive players without ever bottoming out/tanking. Obviously, unlike the Spurs, the Bulls have not won championships while taking this approach. But I don't think, as it appears you do, that staying competitive necessarily means you are preventing yourself from contending.

What I think is pretty silly is taking the position that the team isn't interested in winning championships. What can you cite in favor of that position?

I'm with you that a move is necessary to join the top tier of contenders. But you can't seem to decide whether you want the team to try to contend, yet you're lobbing bombs nonetheless.

I also think there is no move any NBA franchise can make this season that would make any team more likely to win the championship than the Warriors. I'm tempted to say the same with respect to the Spurs. But I don't think, as you appear to (but I'm not actually sure - so correct me if I'm wrong) that if you are not one of the 3 most likely teams in the NBA to win the title that it automatically means you must rebuild. In your world, every year there would be 27 76ers and 3 teams trying to win.



> That's funny, what you think is funny.
> 
> I think its funny to defend the following track record.
> 
> 12 seasons. 0 Championships. 0 NBA Finals appearances. 1 ECF loss.
> 
> Defending that as a good job is really funny.


What's funny is you believe that track record is good for a coach, but bad for a FO. It's almost like you might have an agenda.

In any event, I haven't defended those particular outcomes that you obnoxiously repeat over and over as having been good. I've just corrected your characterization of the team's performance relative to the rest of the league. There are 30 teams. A reasonable expectation is a championship every 30 years. If it drives you nuts not winning one in 12 years, then that means you are irrational. And hey, I'd like to have a team that outperforms statistical expectations, but I'm a realist who recognizes that there are only a handful of put-them-on-your-back superstars in the league at any given time, they change teams only rarely, and if you don't have one of those, championships will be seldom won. The Bulls were lucky enough to have one, and he blew out his knee in his best season and has never been the same. And we all know that was GarPax's fault.



> Not so funny if you are Bulls fan interested in winning championships though.  Not funny at all.


Despite the fact I waste a lot of mental energy following the team, whether the Bulls win a championship is pretty low down on my life's priorities, so I'll survive.

I do want the team to win, obviously, but as I've detailed at length, I believe the Bulls assembled a championship-level roster and then their MVP got hurt, which is not the franchise's fault any more than Jay Williams going over his handlebars. The real test is going to be how the Bulls retool in the post-Rose era. The remaining pieces are likely to make the team competitive enough the it won't have a top draft pick, so 2017 free agency is going to be vital.



> You might not agree with me thinking that great organizations have clear goals and maximize their chances to achieve those goals.


Excellent passive aggressive bullshit.



> But, you are also a guy that thinks this is a good job.
> 
> 12 seasons. 0 Championships. 0 NBA Finals appearances. 1 ECF loss.
> 
> So, you might have poor judgement, sadly.


Bad for a FO. Good for a coach, right?

The thing is, I'm capable of thinking about the facts behind those outcomes. You focus on the outcomes alone, while never looking at the why behind them. 

Outcomes are actually a pretty awful way to think about sports performance. That's like someone who watches a football team go for it on 4th down or go for a 2 point conversion and not get it, and then saying it was a bad decision. Or that taking a half court shot with 15 seconds left on the shot clock is a good idea because it went in. Or evaluating whether a pitcher is good based on W/L rather than more accurate metrics. Etc.



> Sure, depending on the rotation player and what player the team would be acquiring. Each of those moves would be evaluated on a move by move basis.
> 
> I didn't read what big(s) you would be willing to part with in order to get Ariza.


I would be willing to part with Gibson. Niko probably makes the most sense, because Ariza slides in at the 3 and you still have Bobby who can be a stretch 4 off the bench. I doubt Houston has interest in Noah, other than he is expiring and Morey likes offseason flexibility. Alternatively, Snell + next year's first works for me.


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> Market/revenue matters. The Bulls have plenty of money to work with. That's an advantage, albeit smaller than other sports due to salary cap. The Bulls also have a self imposed reluctance to spend past the luxury tax threshold for the mostpart. That's sadly a disadvantage.


If by market you mean revenue, then I agree. But it's also a dangerous advantage. Cleveland spent a bunch on what was essentially a proven contender. Brooklyn spent a bunch speculatively and tanked the franchise.

And obviously, you are ignoring the competitive reasons to stay out of the tax in terms of the league penalties if you stay above it. So I don't see anything inherently virtuous about going above the tax, but I do want a franchise that is willing to do it in appropriate circumstances.

Aside from revenue, though, I don't think Chicago is a huge advantage market-wise. It does not have weather or tax advantages, which seem to be the primary driver of market desirability. It also has the shadow of Jordan, if you buy into that thing. That narrative does get perpetuated, but I'm not sure how true it holds today with a bunch of guys who would have no real memory of him playing.



> If you were the GM of a NBA team, you would prefer to have more money to work with vs less money to work with.


True, though as you noted, with the NBA salary cap, budget is not often the hugest issue in the world.



> The money does need to be spent wisely though, you are correct. The Knicks often have these issues.  The Bulls sadly do as well, as their highest paid players oftentimes are not their best contributors. Not as bad as the Knicks though.


I actually think it's pretty meaningless when you analyze whether the highest paid guys are also the best producing. I am more interested in the overall performance of the team. If you overspend somewhere but also have guys on below-market deals, it can even out.

For instance, Pau is the #2 contributor on the team, at least offensively, but is making less than Rose, Butler, Noah, and Gibson. That's a good thing! 

None of Rose, Butler, Noah, and Gibson are unfairly compensated, but for Rose's injury history, which obviously didn't exist when the contract was executed. If you look at the Bulls' salary numbers, everything looks pretty good! The biggest issues have really been paying Hinrich/Dunleavy, and if that's your biggest problem, that's a pretty good thing.



> Even the lowly Knicks have managed to make the Finals more recently since MJ retired than the poor Bulls.
> 
> The Knicks have been a fairly poorly run organization according to many in the last 20 years.
> 
> They managed to win the Eastern Conference at least once.
> 
> Maybe Paxson will get there someday.


Nice subtle shifting of the goalposts to the pre-GarPax era.


----------



## transplant

K4E said:


> If the goal is to win championships, its poor.
> If the goal is to at least make the NBA Finals, its poor.
> If the goal is to make the Conference Finals more than once a decade, its poor.
> 
> If the goal is to be above .500, make the playoffs and make a lot of money, its very good.


You remember all those teams that lost in the conference finals and exulted about having achieved their goal while guzzling champagne? How about the losers in the Finals? Yeah, me neither.

Those are only goals if your real goal is to support your inherent discontent.

K4E, we've been here before. You'll only be happy when the Bulls win the title. I wish you happiness.


----------



## K4E

transplant said:


> K4E, we've been here before. You'll only be happy when the Bulls win the title. I wish you happiness.


Ha, thanks. I wish you happiness as well! Remember 2005 as a White Sox fan? Didn't get much better than that. I'd like the team to be striving towards that goal.

I want the same for the Bulls. At some point, being a fan of professional sports is an irrational act, but if I'm going to invest any energy at all towards it I would like the team to be striving and focused towards winning a championship.

Winning some regular season games and getting knocked out of the playoffs early year after year isn't much fun, IMO. 

The NBA is fun and just watching basketball is fun, but, yah, investing much energy into wanting this organization to win a title again, IMO, isn't energy well spent. 

I think they are content doing what they are doing. I hope to be pleasantly surprised otherwise.

And, as one of the more valuable sports teams around, what they are doing is working well from a business standpoint, so there isn't much incentive to change.

And if you don't have the draft picks to get a superstar, don't make trades and can't attract free agents, well, you just have to hope for luck.


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> I do agree that the organization seems to want to have a Spurs-style team-building approach where you transition from older productive players to younger productive players without ever bottoming out/tanking. Obviously, unlike the Spurs, the Bulls have not won championships while taking this approach. But I don't think, as it appears you do, that staying competitive necessarily means you are preventing yourself from contending.


Spurs-model. Ha. The Bulls are a far cry from the Spurs. The Spurs are one of the most successful modern sports franchises. The Bulls have been to the Eastern Conference Finals one time in the last 17-18 years.

Its like when misguided people were comparing a team centered around Hinrich-Gordon-Deng-Nocioni as a championship "Core 4" of some type to a "Pistons Model." Seems so foolish in hindsight, doesn't it? Hinrich-Gordon-Deng-Nocioni as a title contender? Ha.... Funny.

The Spurs have won championships with their model. The Pistons too.

Paxson has really done nothing of note in his 12 years of collecting paychecks in terms of meaningful playoff success.




> What I think is pretty silly is taking the position that the team isn't interested in winning championships. What can you cite in favor of that position?


Well, last season is a good example. The front office was interested in executing a smear campaign against the head coach. Is that helpful to winning championships?

Also, a mixed focus on "win now" and "win later" isn't a good idea, especially for a team like the Bulls who hasn't shown they can do either very well. You disagree with this. Fine. 

Caring so much about the short term development of Doug McDermott and Nikola Mirotic, who you have admitted do not appear to be an an all-star track, while at the same time supposedly trying to win a title, or at least get to the Finals if you believe Paxson's Thibs firing press conference isn't something that is easy to do. I prefer "win now" if you are going to go for it.

For example, the Cavs didn't keep Andrew Wiggins around to nurture him while Lebron and Kyrie went after a ring. The dealt him for Kevin Love. That's going for it. 

The Bulls FO were busy smearing the head coach and fretting about Doug McDermott during a season when there was a legit path to the NBA Finals.




> What's funny is you believe that track record is good for a coach, but bad for a FO. It's almost like you might have an agenda.


Thibs has a track record. Ring with the Celtics along with getting along well with the front office. Considered a true NBA defensive innovator. In his years with the Bulls if you believe 538's analysis few coaches in history were better at getting the most out of their team. Gold medal winner with Team USA along with getting along well with management there too.

But, yah, he won't be considered in the upper echelon of NBA Head Coaches without the ring, despite all he has accomplished.



> In any event, I haven't defended those particular outcomes that you obnoxiously repeat over and over as having been good.


Good. We both agree that the outcomes that Paxson has generated are not good. That is at least something we can agree on. You might use "average" and I use "poor" but we can both agree on "not good." 

I like that.




> Despite the fact I waste a lot of mental energy following the team, whether the Bulls win a championship is pretty low down on my life's priorities, so I'll survive.


Your balance in life is commendable. You should write a book. Well done.





> I do want the team to win, obviously, but as I've detailed at length, I believe the Bulls assembled a championship-level roster and then their MVP got hurt, which is not the franchise's fault any more than Jay Williams going over his handlebars. The real test is going to be how the Bulls retool in the post-Rose era. The remaining pieces are likely to make the team competitive enough the it won't have a top draft pick, so 2017 free agency is going to be vital.


Paxson can't seal the deal on MVP level in-their-prime free agents (Lebron, Wade, Melo) so don't hold your breath on that. He's failed that test many times.

Paxson also doesn't make trades other than salary dumps for the most part.

The organization does draft pretty well, but to get a MVP level player you need lottery picks for the mostpart. 

How are the Bulls going to get those lottery picks?







> Outcomes are actually a pretty awful way to think about sports performance.


Wow, this one takes the cake.

Sports is an outcomes based business.

Rings are essential to greatness, like it or not. 

Statistical metrics are just abstractions of outcomes. 

Its all outcomes based.

12 seasons. 0 championships. 0 trips to the Finals. 1 ECF loss. Bad outcomes. If winning championships is your thing.




> I would be willing to part with Gibson. Niko probably makes the most sense, because Ariza slides in at the 3 and you still have Bobby who can be a stretch 4 off the bench. I doubt Houston has interest in Noah, other than he is expiring and Morey likes offseason flexibility. Alternatively, Snell + next year's first works for me.



I think the Bulls get worse this season swapping Gibson for Ariza. Gasol and Noah play terribly together and I don't like the softness of Mirotic and Gasol at the 4-5. Portis isn't ready for prime time yet and its still unclear exactly what kind of player he is. 

I like the Gibson-Gasol pairing and we need a lower usage guy to do the dirty work, which Gibson has been doing well in his current role.

Niko or Portis would make the most sense, I agree.


----------



## K4E

When you are talking about rebuilding and perhaps going the route of accumulating lotto picks, some folks kneejerk and say "Sixers!"

The best team in the league was built by missing the playoffs several years in a row and hitting on key lotto picks.

The Warriors missed the playoffs 2007-2008 through 2011-2012. With those lotto picks they landed league MVP Curry, Thompson and Barnes.

And now the Golden State fans are enjoying the fruits of the harvest.

The Cavs also got bad to be good. They turned bad seasons into Lebron James, Kyrie Irving and Wiggins, who became Love. 

The fruits of the harvest.

Even the sainted Spurs got bad to be good. Its quite amazing but they have had only two losing seasons since 1988-1989!! They turned those two lotto picks into David Robinson and Tim Duncan. The two younger studs on the Spurs currently are Kawhi who was acquired via cagey trade (not our current FOs strong suit) and Aldridge, who was a big time free agent pickup (not our current FOs strong suit). Spurs model?

Still though, the lotto route doesn't always end up in being the Sixers. Sometimes you end up like the best team in the Western Conference, the Warriors and the best team in the East, the Cavs.


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> Spurs-model. Ha. The Bulls are a far cry from the Spurs. The Spurs are one of the most successful modern sports franchises. The Bulls have been to the Eastern Conference Finals one time in the last 17-18 years.
> 
> Its like when misguided people were comparing a team centered around Hinrich-Gordon-Deng-Nocioni as a championship "Core 4" of some type to a "Pistons Model." Seems so foolish in hindsight, doesn't it? Hinrich-Gordon-Deng-Nocioni as a title contender? Ha.... Funny.
> 
> The Spurs have won championships with their model. The Pistons too.
> 
> Paxson has really done nothing of note in his 12 years of collecting paychecks in terms of meaningful playoff success.


I quite clearly said the Bulls had not won championships and therefore had not achieved with this model like the Spurs had, so that moots your enjoyable derision.




> Well, last season is a good example. The front office was interested in executing a smear campaign against the head coach. Is that helpful to winning championships?


Both sides engaged in smear campaigns on each other. I don't think it had anything to do with the Bulls not getting by the Cavs. I have, though, indicated I believed the FO handled that situation in a very unbecoming manner.



> Also, a mixed focus on "win now" and "win later" isn't a good idea, especially for a team like the Bulls who hasn't shown they can do either very well. You disagree with this. Fine.


Right, we disagree on this.



> Caring so much about the short term development of Doug McDermott and Nikola Mirotic, who you have admitted do not appear to be an an all-star track, while at the same time supposedly trying to win a title, or at least get to the Finals if you believe Paxson's Thibs firing press conference isn't something that is easy to do. I prefer "win now" if you are going to go for it.


The thing here is you have to connect it up with the fact that the FO seemed to believe that Butler, Gasol, and particularly Noah had been playing too much. Getting these other guys some burn wasn't just about developing them, but also about trying to improve the Bulls' extremely poor track record of being healthy for the postseason. The graphic you've posted about Thibs getting extra wins compared to expectations was kind of the point. The belief was Thibs was focused on getting a few extra, somewhat meaningless regular season wins grinder out rather than focusing on the playoffs. This clearly believes that going balls-out all year is the best preparation for the playoffs. Maybe he's right. Pop would disagree.



> For example, the Cavs didn't keep Andrew Wiggins around to nurture him while Lebron and Kyrie went after a ring. The dealt him for Kevin Love. That's going for it.


Yep, that was definitely an all-in move. And I'm good with that for this team, but obviously not for Ariza-types. For the right available star, sure I'd part with Niko, Portis, et al.



> The Bulls FO were busy smearing the head coach and fretting about Doug McDermott during a season when there was a legit path to the NBA Finals.


Do you believe the mutual FO-Thibs sniping last season is what caused the Bulls to lose to Cleveland?



> Thibs has a track record. Ring with the Celtics along with getting along well with the front office. Considered a true NBA defensive innovator. In his years with the Bulls if you believe 538's analysis few coaches in history were better at getting the most out of their team. Gold medal winner with Team USA along with getting along well with management there too.


It's a pretty big stretch when you're citing to accomplishments Thibs had as an assistant on other staffs as the evidence of his greatness. You're right that Thibs was absolutely a true defensive innovator. And now the league has started to adapt via Golden State-style offenses to overcome his aggressive approach. Maybe he'll have another round of innovation left in him. I'd certainly never argue that Thibs is not one of the most talented defensive schemers in recent memory.



> But, yah, he won't be considered in the upper echelon of NBA Head Coaches without the ring, despite all he has accomplished.


By the metrics you continually post, he has not accomplished anything.



> Good. We both agree that the outcomes that Paxson has generated are not good. That is at least something we can agree on. You might use "average" and I use "poor" but we can both agree on "not good."
> 
> I like that.


The Bulls regular season performance has likely been above average (I'm not going to check he math on this one) and the playoff performances have been average to slightly above average. 

The plain meaning of poor is not average, so it's hyperbolic when you characterize it that way, but sure, we definitely both agree that the results have not been excellent.



> Your balance in life is commendable. You should write a book. Well done.


Ha. I'll get my signed first edition ready for you one day. I probably came off douchey with that comment, but all I was trying to do was note that your bombastic language makes it seem like this is life and death stuff we're talking about here, when obviously it's far from it.



> Paxson can't seal the deal on MVP level in-their-prime free agents (Lebron, Wade, Melo) so don't hold your breath on that. He's failed that test many times.


Twice, you mean? So did almost all the other teams in the league. And honestly, the Gasol signing is a major, major coup. 



> Paxson also doesn't make trades other than salary dumps for the most part.


You may characterize them as salary dumps, but turning Eddy Curry into Joakim Noah and Luol Deng into Pau Gasol (and very possibly Sacto's relatively high draft pick this year) is more than that, which you're well aware of.



> The organization does draft pretty well, but to get a MVP level player you need lottery picks for the mostpart.
> 
> How are the Bulls going to get those lottery picks?


It is not my opinion that the Bulls' big need at the moment is high lottery picks, because the team is trying to contend now.



> Wow, this one takes the cake.
> 
> Sports is an outcomes based business.
> 
> Rings are essential to greatness, like it or not.
> 
> Statistical metrics are just abstractions of outcomes.
> 
> Its all outcomes based.


Failing to appreciate that the more thoughtful way to evaluate a franchise is through its decisions rather than outcomes is the difference between being thoughtful about sports and being Stephen A. Smith.

A front office can't win rings themselves. All they can do is try to create the best conditions for so doing. After that, it's in the hands of the people on the floor. 

Interestingly, you cited the White Sox earlier as being the thing you would want the Bulls to become. The White Sox are about the worst possible example of team-building you could cite in town, frankly. They are a team that constantly mortgages the future in short-sighted attempts to contend immediately. While I loved the 2005 season, it's not like that roster was packed with Hall of Famers. Instead, baseball has much more randomness of outcome than basketball, so the White Sox were able to get hot and sneak one. Does the outcome of the 2005 season make you think that Kenny Williams was a great GM? I know the Cubs haven't won a World Series yet (outcomes!) and they have a miserable record if you combined all the years since Theo arrived, but I'd much, much rather have Theo than a guy like Kenny.
[/quote]


12 seasons. 0 championships. 0 trips to the Finals. 1 ECF loss. Bad outcomes. If winning championships is your thing.



> I think the Bulls get worse this season swapping Gibson for Ariza. Gasol and Noah play terribly together and I don't like the softness of Mirotic and Gasol at the 4-5. Portis isn't ready for prime time yet and its still unclear exactly what kind of player he is.


We know Noah was bad with Gasol last year when Noah was playing on one leg. They were looking pretty decent together before Noah dislocated his shoulder. 

I also agree Mitotic-Gasol at 4-5 is a recipe for defensive disaster.

I'd be fine with Mitotic on the block generally, but I'd want more than Ariza for him. 



> I like the Gibson-Gasol pairing and we need a lower usage guy to do the dirty work, which Gibson has been doing well in his current role.
> 
> Niko or Portis would make the most sense, I agree.


Yeah, that pairing has worked pretty well, and with Gasol, Butler, and Rose, it is pretty important to have guys that aren't demanding the ball. 

I agree Niko and Portis make the most sense to trade for purposes of this season. Obviously with two bigs as free agents next year, I get that the team could be gun-shy to move them. But I'd be open to moving one for the right piece coming back. Again, though, we need to be talking about more than just Ariza, most likely.


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> When you are talking about rebuilding and perhaps going the route of accumulating lotto picks, some folks kneejerk and say "Sixers!"
> 
> The best team in the league was built by missing the playoffs several years in a row and hitting on key lotto picks.
> 
> The Warriors missed the playoffs 2007-2008 through 2011-2012. With those lotto picks they landed league MVP Curry, Thompson and Barnes.
> 
> And now the Golden State fans are enjoying the fruits of the harvest.
> 
> The Cavs also got bad to be good. They turned bad seasons into Lebron James, Kyrie Irving and Wiggins, who became Love.
> 
> The fruits of the harvest.
> 
> Even the sainted Spurs got bad to be good. Its quite amazing but they have had only two losing seasons since 1988-1989!! They turned those two lotto picks into David Robinson and Tim Duncan. The two younger studs on the Spurs currently are Kawhi who was acquired via cagey trade (not our current FOs strong suit) and Aldridge, who was a big time free agent pickup (not our current FOs strong suit). Spurs model?
> 
> Still though, the lotto route doesn't always end up in being the Sixers. Sometimes you end up like the best team in the Western Conference, the Warriors and the best team in the East, the Cavs.


To be fair, the Cavs and Spurs both _unintentionally_ got bad to be good. Let's not act like i was some masterstroke of team-building. When LBJ left Cleveland, Dan Gilbert was running ads in the paper saying the Cavs would win a chip before he would. He was very much trying to win.

The Spurs got bad because The Admiral got hurt for one season. It was a happy accident. Team building has an element of dumb luck to a discomforting extent, unfortunately.

Golden State - I honestly can't remember whether they got bad willingly or unwillingly, for whatever reason.


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> r campaigns on each other. I don't think it had anything to do with the Bulls not getting by the Cavs. I have, though, indicated I believed the FO handled that situation in a very unbecoming manner.


No, they certainly didn't behave well. And the toxic team culture does not help.

Good organizations are focused on the same overarching goals and work towards achieving them.

The front office last season was interested in and focused on engaging in a public opinion smear campaign against the head coach. 

They were also seemingly very interested in the development of guys like Doug McDermott in their rookie seasons. "Win later." 

Teams like the Cavs on the other had thought nothing about trading away a much better rookie in Andrew Wiggins to get a "win now" player like Kevin Love. Clearly "win now."

The Bulls were a whisper away from the Finals last season. There was little less relevant on a "win now" team than Doug McDermott, IMO.





> The thing here is you have to connect it up with the fact that the FO seemed to believe that Butler, Gasol, and particularly Noah had been playing too much.


Butler and Gasol had no minutes restrictions put on them. They were put on Rose and Noah.

If the front office felt that way about Butler and Gasol, they could have put minutes restrictions on them. They chose not to. So there really is no indication that the front office felt that Butler and Gasol were playing too much.

Butler is currently playing .8 fewer minutes per game this season under the front offices hand picked coach in Hoiberg so they seem comfortable with Butler playing heavy minutes.




> Getting these other guys some burn wasn't just about developing them, but also about trying to improve the Bulls' extremely poor track record of being healthy for the postseason. The graphic you've posted about Thibs getting extra wins compared to expectations was kind of the point. The belief was Thibs was focused on getting a few extra, somewhat meaningless regular season wins grinder out rather than focusing on the playoffs. This clearly believes that going balls-out all year is the best preparation for the playoffs. Maybe he's right. Pop would disagree.


That's the narrative. Butler is playing the same number of heavy minutes this season. Pop would disagree with that.

If you look at the top 3 MPG guys on the Bulls its Butler at 37.9 which is towards the top of the league, Rose at 33 with many knee surgeries under his belt and Gasol at 31 as a 35 year old man who we certainly need fresh for the playoffs.

The Spurs top three are Leonard at 33, Aldridge at 29.7 and Parker at 27.

Another example of the Bulls not being anything like the Spurs. Pop would disagree with what GarPax and Freddy are doing this season. 

Especially with Gasol. Saint Popovich would likely treat Gasol like Duncan at this point.

Where is the outcry this season? Why isn't this being floated to the local media anymore? Why are we not hearing about Jen Swanson anymore? Because the smear campaign is over, that's why.






> Do you believe the mutual FO-Thibs sniping last season is what caused the Bulls to lose to Cleveland?


Obviously you can't prove direct causality. I'll say that the smear campaign being orchestrated by the front office didn't help and great organizations don't do that to their head coach during contending seasons, or really at any time. It was on multiple fronts. Media guidance, Jen Swanson / front office overreach into locker room matter, trying to undermine the authority of the coach with the players. It wasn't just "sniping." It was a thuggish power play by the front office.

Its no surprise at all that things are so calm this season on these fronts, despite guys like Butler playing heavy, heavy minutes. The front office doesn't want to sour public opinion against Hoiberg.




> It's a pretty big stretch when you're citing to accomplishments Thibs had as an assistant on other staffs as the evidence of his greatness. You're right that Thibs was absolutely a true defensive innovator.I'd certainly never argue that Thibs is not one of the most talented defensive schemers in recent memory.


Its not a stretch at all. Talk to a Celtics fan or guys like KG about what Thibs meant to that team. Why does Coach K seek Thibs out for Team USA. Thibs even managed to get an organziation like the Bulls, who have been basically inept in the playoffs since MJ to the ECFs. He also just got the most out of the team he was given at an all-league pace, which is what the 538 analysis shows.

He's not a Jackson / Pop level coach. But given the entirety of his career, he's a really, really good one. And getting to the ECFs 1 out of 5 years is way better than only getting there 1 out of 12.





> The Bulls regular season performance has likely been above average (I'm not going to check he math on this one) and the playoff performances have been average to slightly above average.


"Not good" in the playoffs. We can agree on that.




> The plain meaning of poor is not average, so it's hyperbolic when you characterize it that way, but sure, we definitely both agree that the results have not been excellent.


"Not good."






> Twice, you mean? So did almost all the other teams in the league. And honestly, the Gasol signing is a major, major coup.


Gasol was a great signing, no doubt. Not the franchise altering signing of getting superstar (which is what the Bulls need to win a title for the mostpart) via free agency.





> You may characterize them as salary dumps, but turning Eddy Curry into Joakim Noah and Luol Deng into Pau Gasol (and very possibly Sacto's relatively high draft pick this year) is more than that, which you're well aware of.


Mostly salary dumps. Paxson stated he didn't expect the Curry trade to result in those high picks and he also stated he would have signed Curry to a large contract if he took / passed the test. That is Paxson's finest trade though, correct. 




> It is not my opinion that the Bulls' big need at the moment is high lottery picks, because the team is trying to contend now.


But you also agree that the roster isn't equipped to win the title this season. Ariza isn't enough, right? I'm not crapping all over the idea, but you don't think they really shifts the balance of power much, right?




> Failing to appreciate that the more thoughtful way to evaluate a franchise is through its decisions rather than outcomes is the difference between being thoughtful about sports and being Stephen A. Smith.


Its not a question of being thoughtful or not. 

Its the nature and the appeal of sport in general in many ways. 

The fact that there are true outcomes and the purity of that. 

In boxing you have two men slugging it out and the best one should win. In the NBA the best team usually navigates through the playoffs to win the title, or at least getting to the conference finals or finals to be one of the Final teams.

Its the appeal of sport and why many flock to it as a diversion. The pure, true outcomes and the nature of competition, in a world run by shady politicians/lawyers/CEOs where it seems like the deck is stacked against many and the "best" often doesn't win.

So, yah, I disagree with you. The outcomes are pretty much the whole thing.





> A front office can't win rings themselves. All they can do is try to create the best conditions for so doing. After that, it's in the hands of the people on the floor.


Yup, they build the roster and help create the environment.

Last season the front office chose to implement a smear campaign and ran off a coach that consistently got the most out of the roster he was given.




> Interestingly, you cited the White Sox earlier as being the thing you would want the Bulls to become.


No, I was just telling transplant that its fun to win championships and that should be the goal, IMO. Not just being content winning January and February regular season games. I was responding to his comment about me being miserable if the Bulls don't win a championship. 

I was reminding him about how fun having "your" team win the championship is.

The White Sox are not a model franchise by any stretch.


----------



## jnrjr79

Just to address one thing in that post - let me put it this way on Ariza: I'm not convinced he's _not_ enough, at least to get by the Cavs. I think the Bulls and Cavs match up fairly well if the Bulls have another wing defender to take some pressure off of Butler. I think this year's roster just needs a balancing tweak, as opposed to a giant move. If a more major move is available, then I'm all ears, but when you speak of star players, you're normally talking about guys who put the ball in the bucket. I think Butler, Pau, and Rose are fine as #1 , 2, and 3 options.

As I've said before, I'm not sure anyone can get by the Warriors, so I think the goal is just to maximize your chances to get into the Finals and see what happens from there.


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> Just to address one thing in that post - let me put it this way on Ariza: I'm not convinced he's _not_ enough, at least to get by the Cavs. I think the Bulls and Cavs match up fairly well if the Bulls have another wing defender to take some pressure off of Butler.


I like Gibson as the starting 4 so I don't think I'd swap him for Ariza.

Portis in a "win now" move? Perhaps.

The issue with Ariza with me when I look at what he's been doing as of late is the 35% 3 point shooting. Given that Rose is a poor 3 point shooter and Jimmy has gone south for some reason they really need the 3 part of that D and 3 player to be strong at that position.

I'm not sure what to make of Rose anymore. I have a hard time seeing him as part of a "big three" this season, but he's such a conundrum who knows if he'll improve. 

If Dunleavy can come back this season and play like last year you have one of the stronger 3 point shooters in the league at the 3. Who knows if that will happen though. And not a stout defender but adequate.

With Ariza, not as good a 3 point shooter but a better defender. 

And then you have Niko, McDermott, Snell. Both Snell and McDermott are shooting 40%+ from behind the line this season and Snell is also a good defender. Many have liked what Niko has been doing at the 3. McDermott can shoot but is awful at defense and other aspects of the game.

Ariza might be a good piece as the starter if Dunleavy can't go. Is it worth losing Gibson in a "win now" season though is the question.

Its hard to find what the "missing piece" is other than a large trade for another superstar to truly round out a "big 3" and also to consolidate all the average to above average players that exist on this roster.


----------



## jnrjr79

So, I am with you that Snell and Dunleavy are serviceable defenders generally, but they are not for the specific purpose I think the Bulls need to worry about. 

LeBron is the issue. Snell and Dunleavy might be good-ish against your league average 3, but not LBJ. Jimmy is the only one that can be serviceable there at this point. To me, that's the most glaring issue. You know the path out of the East goes through Cleveland, so I think your eye toward trade deadline strategy has to be focused on that specific matchup, and not just the roster as a general proposition.


----------



## yodurk

Gosh, hard to ignore the fact that before Noah's injury the Bulls were looking terrible, and now that he returns they look horrible again. Granted it is not the biggest sample size but it is still suspicious. Have to wonder if he really is just a net negative out there in that his terrible offense outweighs his rebounding & defense. And not just because he can't shoot or finish, but that having him out there clogs things up for everyone else; by virtue of Noah's defender basically having the luxury of ignoring him to focus on our other guys. Even Noah's passing isn't really a fit for this team anymore with how he tends to hold the ball and stagnate the offense, not to mention he has a bit of a turnover problem which is killing the Bulls as well. And even the team's defense has gone to hell in spite of his return. I'm becoming more convinced we just need to trade Noah and give all his minutes to Bobby Portis.


----------



## jnrjr79

yodurk said:


> Gosh, hard to ignore the fact that before Noah's injury the Bulls were looking terrible, and now that he returns they look horrible again. Granted it is not the biggest sample size but it is still suspicious. Have to wonder if he really is just a net negative out there in that his terrible offense outweighs his rebounding & defense. And not just because he can't shoot or finish, but that having him out there clogs things up for everyone else; by virtue of Noah's defender basically having the luxury of ignoring him to focus on our other guys. Even Noah's passing isn't really a fit for this team anymore with how he tends to hold the ball and stagnate the offense, not to mention he has a bit of a turnover problem which is killing the Bulls as well. And even the team's defense has gone to hell in spite of his return. I'm becoming more convinced we just need to trade Noah and give all his minutes to Bobby Portis.



Don't forget the losing streak started in Atlanta before he came back, but I take your point.

The Ls are really coming mostly from turnovers and 2nd chance points, to my eye, which isn't really Noah's department. The team is still scoring.


----------



## yodurk

jnrjr79 said:


> Don't forget the losing streak started in Atlanta before he came back, but I take your point.
> 
> The Ls are really coming mostly from turnovers and 2nd chance points, to my eye, which isn't really Noah's department. The team is still scoring.


I'll give a pass on the Atlanta game, they are a good team, you're on the road, etc. No excuse to lose how we did to the Wizards (a depleted team to boot) and Bucks. Just terrible defense and bad turnovers. We should've had the Bucks beaten based on rebounds & 3-pt shooting alone. 

The latest report suggests the Bulls are banged up so maybe that is playing a factor. Gasol hasn't played well the past few games for instance and now we're hearing about some nagging pains. Butler apparently sprained an ankle. We already know Rose is hurting again after last night. So maybe all one crazy coincidence with Noah's return, just a weird pattern though. This team's play just reinforces a trade is needed regardless of how 2 excellent weeks almost seduced us into thinking otherwise.


----------



## Da Grinch

K4E said:


> I like Gibson as the starting 4 so I don't think I'd swap him for Ariza.
> 
> Portis in a "win now" move? Perhaps.
> 
> The issue with Ariza with me when I look at what he's been doing as of late is the 35% 3 point shooting. Given that Rose is a poor 3 point shooter and Jimmy has gone south for some reason they really need the 3 part of that D and 3 player to be strong at that position.
> 
> I'm not sure what to make of Rose anymore. I have a hard time seeing him as part of a "big three" this season, but he's such a conundrum who knows if he'll improve.
> 
> If Dunleavy can come back this season and play like last year you have one of the stronger 3 point shooters in the league at the 3. Who knows if that will happen though. And not a stout defender but adequate.
> 
> With Ariza, not as good a 3 point shooter but a better defender.
> 
> And then you have Niko, McDermott, Snell. Both Snell and McDermott are shooting 40%+ from behind the line this season and Snell is also a good defender. Many have liked what Niko has been doing at the 3. McDermott can shoot but is awful at defense and other aspects of the game.
> 
> Ariza might be a good piece as the starter if Dunleavy can't go. Is it worth losing Gibson in a "win now" season though is the question.
> 
> Its hard to find what the "missing piece" is other than a large trade for another superstar to truly round out a "big 3" and also to consolidate all the average to above average players that exist on this roster.


the used their excess assets to round their team out already .

that is how they got McDermott.

they traded 2 1st rounders for him but he cant guard a kinko's let alone LeBron and no one can seriously think Garpax ever thought he could.

I don't think people understand they were never going for the brass ring they aren't now and I doubt this will ever change.

teams going for titles don't let asik go for nothing...they access his value and trade him for something or they match his offer sheet

they take risks (in season deals to get better ,acquire talented but suspect characters like rodman, jr smith or Rasheed because they are getting talent for pennies on the dollar)

they plan their course of action and then they execute that plan

they put their teams in a position to succeed not put everyone through this season of flux in which they have proven nothing and despite their record people are generally pretty pessimistic about their chances

in almost 13 years despite inheriting a team with assets which they pissed away and then drafting at least 7 times in the lottery and twice gutting the team for cap space and lotto picks they have the feeling of a slightly above average team 

its a disappointment because i feel the FO is content with that despite what they say .

they generally draft safe, trade safe and sign safely , manage their cap so they can blow it up easily and buy another couple of years

they don't take risks , but the best teams do....which is why the bulls aren't one of them


----------



## Dornado

Well, we're down 20 to the 76ers as I type this, and I'm about to lose my shit. Back on the ledge. 

We are a really hard team to judge, and right now, a very hard team to watch.


----------



## Dornado

Lead cut to 2...


----------



## Dornado

Jimmy G. Buckets.


----------



## yodurk

Dornado said:


> Well, we're down 20 to the 76ers as I type this, and I'm about to lose my shit. Back on the ledge.
> 
> We are a really hard team to judge, and right now, a very hard team to watch.


Great by Jimmy putting the team on his back for 53 for the come from behind win. I'll definitely take it. It was an amazing performance. He looked exhaused at the end; I'm expecting a flat performance against Dallas tonight due to fatigue.

Props to Moore for carrying the team in OT, and McDermott for showing what he can do. Awesome dunk by McDermott BTW.

I attribute the terrible 1st half in large part to no Gasol. Hoiberg started revolving the offense around Gasol earlier in the year when the team proved incapable of doing a complete share the ball offense like Hoiberg was trying to do originally. (side note, this change is when Gasol's production started taking off for the better). However when you lose Gasol, he's now your centerpiece and the whole offense turns to @#$%. It took a whole half for the team to re-adjust to playing with Jimmy as the centerpiece. Literally, half the possessions Jimmy was posting up at the elbow where Gasol often gets the ball. 

I've said before, if the team wants to win this year, they pretty much have to keep Gasol and have to make Gasol the central cog which frees things up for everyone. If the Bulls want to wave the white flag and play for next season, and also play true "Hoiball", they really should start making these trades sooner rather than later, starting with Gasol, and then waive Rose in the off-season to spread his last year of his contract over the next few years, which would open up a bunch of salary cap. 

Basically I just want to see them pick a direction and then commit to it. At this point I don't care the direction, just pick one. The team as it is constructed now is stale, and we're seeing too many performances like this 1st half against Philly. Though 1 thing is clear, you have to build this team around Jimmy Butler. His recent play I think is a statement by Jimmy to make that point loud and clear.


----------



## Dornado

McBuckets showing some lift...


----------



## Dornado




----------



## yodurk

Dornado said:


> McBuckets showing some lift...


Doug has a reputation as a poor athlete, but I disagree. I've seen him display these hops in the past. He showed a good vertical at the draft combine and has shown it in-game before too. He also runs the floor well (good straight line speed when he has a head of steam behind him). The thing he sucks at is 2-fold: poor lateral movement & slow speed with the ball in the hands. This is why people call him a poor athlete and understandably so, but it's also an oversimplication.


----------



## jnrjr79

That Philly game gives me such weird mixed feelings. Yes, Pau and Rose were out. But it's still the Sixers. They have four friggin' wins. I'm glad Jimmy has become such a fantastic player, but it still bugs me you needed 53 points out of him to get the win. 

Awesome and sucky, simultaneously.


----------



## K4E

Yup. Should not need Jimmy to do that to beat the Sixers.

It just shows you what this team would be without Gasol. Yes, Rose was out, but oftentimes he hurts the team when on the floor this season.


----------



## yodurk

Not that i disagree persay but the Sixers have been playing better lately. Theyve got some talent. Okafor is a monster and Nerlens is back healthy. Theyve been a different team since Ish Smith came aboard who is a real actual PG, and in fact the guy who killed the bulls all game. They destroyed Portland last night. Probably still the worst team in the league but not intheir own class of bad anymore and unlikely they break the record.


----------



## K4E

yodurk said:


> Not that i disagree persay but the Sixers have been playing better lately. Theyve got some talent. Okafor is a monster and Nerlens is back healthy. Theyve been a different team since Ish Smith came aboard who is a real actual PG, and in fact the guy who killed the bulls all game. They destroyed Portland last night. Probably still the worst team in the league but not intheir own class of bad anymore and unlikely they break the record.


Yes.

In other news....

The best team in the West, the Golden State Warriors are enjoying a mind boggling .902 winning percentage. The missed the playoffs several years in a row to build up their core of Curry, Thompson and Barnes. 

In the East, the Cavs are leading the conference with a .737 winning percentage. Irving and Love were added to the team as a result of having high lotto picks by being bad.

Northwest division leader Thunder (.707 winning percentage) are led by Durant and Westbrook, high lotto picks as a result of the team being bad.

SA Spurs keep on rolling. Over the last decade their best player was #1 pick Tim Duncan, added to the team by the team being bad. 


Bulls will probably make the 1st round of the playoffs yet again this season but its hard to see them making meaningful advancement at this point. Woot.


----------



## Dornado

I believe basketball purgatory is what they call this.


----------



## yodurk

Yes, it is hard to simultaneously acquire & develop young high-end talent while also trying to build up a contender. The Spurs are the gold standard in large part because they have done this successfully, striking gold on Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, and Kawhi Leonard with mid-to-late draft picks. Though it's made significantly easier when you have an all-time great cornerstone like Tim Duncan, and even the Spurs needed 1 terrible season long ago and alot of lottery luck to have that luxury. Though huge credit to them for the solid picks combined with judicious spending and smart trades/FA acquisitions.

Most other teams need to land in the crapper for a while to build up that talent. The Warriors were terrible for a long time. The Cavs were just as terrible for just as long before lucking into winning the Lebron sweepstakes long ago and later getting three #1 overall picks in the span of four years (Kyrie Irving + the Wiggins pick that got them Kevin Love). Most of the other good teams right now share a similar story, even if to a lesser extent. 

History suggests the Bulls should be working to get some high draft picks if they're going to improve past their current state. The best way to do that is to be a bad team. But most fans don't have the patience for that, and least of all, Jimmy Butler is our cornerstone and I doubt he is in favor of that too. It's a dilemma. No matter what path they take, somebody is going to be displeased. The only way to evade this dilemma is to land a big-time free agent this summer or next, which could put you theoretically back into the contender path. (which again, even the Spurs had to do via Aldridge signing)


----------



## transplant

The Bulls are in a bad place right now. They were in a similar spot around Christmas when they lost to the woeful Nets at the UC, dropping them to 15-11.

If the season ended today, I'd call it disappointing and I'd similarly characterize Hoiberg.

The team collectively needs to get it's head out of its backside. They're better than they've played.


----------



## thebizkit69u

transplant said:


> If the season ended today, I'd call it disappointing and I'd similarly characterize Hoiberg.
> 
> The team collectively needs to get it's head out of its backside. They're better than they've played.


The truth is they aren't better than what they are. They have a first year coach who is on the edge of being a bust. Even if there is a legit personnel issue on the court, there really is no excuse for not being able to draw up a competent set in the last 2 minutes of last night's game. 

For all the praise that Jimmy Butler is getting, he's doing his best when working outside of Hoibergs desired offense. The bulls are an ISO offense, that's not what Hoiberg wants. 

This whole thing is a mess... I've been saying it for a long time.


----------



## yodurk

thebizkit69u said:


> The truth is they aren't better than what they are. They have a first year coach who is on the edge of being a bust. Even if there is a legit personnel issue on the court, there really is no excuse for not being able to draw up a competent set in the last 2 minutes of last night's game.
> 
> For all the praise that Jimmy Butler is getting, he's doing his best when working outside of Hoibergs desired offense. The bulls are an ISO offense, that's not what Hoiberg wants.
> 
> This whole thing is a mess... I've been saying it for a long time.


I agree with alot of this, but this is partly Jimmy's problem too. It's on the players to buy into the coach's system. I don't even know what the so-called Hoiball looks like b/c our players haven't been running it. I can't think of many championship teams who consistently break the offense and play iso ball. Jimmy's best work has been iso ball, but in the playoffs iso ball doesn't work -- it's too stoppable when you are scouted closely by a playoff opponent. So Jimmy needs to grow as a player and learn to play a team concept. Fact of the matter is Jimmy has been quite a ball stopper on offense this year. I had the same complaint with Noah. Good passers but they don't keep the ball moving. Watch the Spurs or Warriors and that's the gold standard for team ball movement. Hoiberg is preaching it but I literally don't think our players know how to play that brand of ball. Which is a big frigging problem b/c I don't think you can win a championship unless players learn how to do that. So we either go get new players, or Hoiberg's challenge is to teach them on the fly (which leads to more losses). It goes back to the Bulls needing to choose a path and commit to it. They are stuck at a crossroads and need to pick a direction. This is on the front office to figure out at this point and I'm still waiting for some personnel movement. I'd like to give Hoiberg a fair shot (he hasn't had one) and it's also up to Jimmy and the players to play the team concept rather than iso ball.


----------



## transplant

thebizkit69u said:


> The truth is they aren't better than what they are. They have a first year coach who is on the edge of being a bust. Even if there is a legit personnel issue on the court, there really is no excuse for not being able to draw up a competent set in the last 2 minutes of last night's game.
> 
> For all the praise that Jimmy Butler is getting, he's doing his best when working outside of Hoibergs desired offense. The bulls are an ISO offense, that's not what Hoiberg wants.
> 
> This whole thing is a mess... I've been saying it for a long time.


OK, I get that, in the end, your record defines you so the Bulls are an inconsistent slightly above average team.

This said, Butler and Gasol are top-line players. Rose has shown recently that, when reasonably healthy, he can be effective. Gibson's a very good low-usage player. Mirotic? Wild card...I just don't know. McDermott? Good shooter/scorer/ Portis is a promising newcomer. IF Dunleavy can be what he was last season, it would solidify the SF some.

IMO, this team doesn't lack talent. It doesn't have the athleticism I'd like to see, but IF they can somehow come together at playoff time, they can make it interesting.

This said, the more I see GSW play, the more I think 29 teams might as well tank it this season.


----------



## Da Grinch

yodurk said:


> I agree with alot of this, but this is partly Jimmy's problem too. It's on the players to buy into the coach's system. I don't even know what the so-called Hoiball looks like b/c our players haven't been running it. I can't think of many championship teams who consistently break the offense and play iso ball. Jimmy's best work has been iso ball, but in the playoffs iso ball doesn't work -- it's too stoppable when you are scouted closely by a playoff opponent. So Jimmy needs to grow as a player and learn to play a team concept. Fact of the matter is Jimmy has been quite a ball stopper on offense this year. I had the same complaint with Noah. Good passers but they don't keep the ball moving. Watch the Spurs or Warriors and that's the gold standard for team ball movement. Hoiberg is preaching it but I literally don't think our players know how to play that brand of ball. Which is a big frigging problem b/c I don't think you can win a championship unless players learn how to do that. So we either go get new players, or Hoiberg's challenge is to teach them on the fly (which leads to more losses). It goes back to the Bulls needing to choose a path and commit to it. They are stuck at a crossroads and need to pick a direction. This is on the front office to figure out at this point and I'm still waiting for some personnel movement. I'd like to give Hoiberg a fair shot (he hasn't had one) and it's also up to Jimmy and the players to play the team concept rather than iso ball.


jimmy isn't the problem here.

he plays a slashing game that is often iso based and on defense he is expected to put out maximum effort on the other team's best scorer for 38 minutes a game.

and in addition you want him to run and push the tempo?

that is an unrealistic request in my opinion.

most teams that play fast limit the minutes given to their top players for obvious reasons and jimmy leads the league in minutes so how serious can hoiberg be about how fast the team plays?


----------



## Da Grinch

transplant said:


> OK, I get that, in the end, your record defines you so the Bulls are an inconsistent slightly above average team.
> 
> This said, Butler and Gasol are top-line players. Rose has shown recently that, when reasonably healthy, he can be effective. Gibson's a very good low-usage player. Mirotic? Wild card...I just don't know. McDermott? Good shooter/scorer/ Portis is a promising newcomer. IF Dunleavy can be what he was last season, it would solidify the SF some.
> 
> IMO, this team doesn't lack talent. It doesn't have the athleticism I'd like to see, but IF they can somehow come together at playoff time, they can make it interesting.
> 
> This said, the more I see GSW play, the more I think 29 teams might as well tank it this season.


the bulls don't lack talent but at the same time they are clearly a notch or 2 below the top teams


----------



## yodurk

Da Grinch said:


> jimmy isn't the problem here.
> 
> he plays a slashing game that is often iso based and on defense he is expected to put out maximum effort on the other team's best scorer for 38 minutes a game.
> 
> and in addition you want him to run and push the tempo?
> 
> that is an unrealistic request in my opinion.
> 
> most teams that play fast limit the minutes given to their top players for obvious reasons and jimmy leads the league in minutes so how serious can hoiberg be about how fast the team plays?


Did I say Jimmy was THE problem? I said Jimmy has A problem. As great as he's been overall, he has not been useful when it comes to proficient team ball movement. Again I ask you to look at the Warriors and Spurs, and tell me how Jimmy's offensive style of play would fit into that. In those systems Jimmy would either need to change his style of play, or accept scoring 12-14 ppg. Jimmy has been a ball stopper and could be better off the ball as well (though that Gasol alley-oop play has been money). 

Let me be clear, this is not to target Jimmy. There are problems well beyond Jimmy on this team. But I do think Jimmy has been a participant in 1 of the team's biggest problems, and as our best player & now a max paid player, he can fairly be critiqued for it. Jimmy's likely not going to ever win a championship unless he does a better job with a move-the-ball team style offense.


----------



## thebizkit69u

transplant said:


> OK, I get that, in the end, your record defines you so the Bulls are an inconsistent slightly above average team.
> 
> This said, Butler and Gasol are top-line players. Rose has shown recently that, when reasonably healthy, he can be effective. Gibson's a very good low-usage player. Mirotic? Wild card...I just don't know. McDermott? Good shooter/scorer/ Portis is a promising newcomer. IF Dunleavy can be what he was last season, it would solidify the SF some.
> 
> IMO, this team doesn't lack talent. It doesn't have the athleticism I'd like to see, but IF they can somehow come together at playoff time, they can make it interesting.
> 
> This said, the more I see GSW play, the more I think 29 teams might as well tank it this season.


I don't think anyone is saying this team lacks talent, heck the Kings don't lack talent, the Rockets dont lack talent, Miami has some talented players as well. The problems are you don't have a team identity, you don't have a cohesive unit on the court... EVER, you have one of the worst SF situation in basketball and you have a head coach who isn't even coaching. 

The front office told this team last year to basically stop listening to Thibs because the savior Hoiberg is coming. And then once Hoiberg arrives you basically cut his coaching nuts off by empowering Jimmy to say and do whatever the hell he wants on and off the court. 

Now Garpax has the opportunity to reshape this team to give their hand picked coach a chance at actually building something here that resembles what he wants to do on offense. Are they going to do it? I doubt it. Their only real trade-able asset is Gasol and I doubt they will trade him now that Gasol is gone, they value playoff income over the big picture. 

If Pat Riley offered Winslow, Tyler Johnson and Birdmans contract for Gasol, I would jump on that in a heartbeat.


----------



## yodurk

This is fairly big news on the trade front. Atlanta is shopping one of their PGs, Jeff Teague and Dennis Schroeder. My guess is they will trade whichever one nets the best package in return. 

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2016/1/27/10840682/jeff-teague-trade-rumors-atlanta-hawks

I would LOVE Jeff Teague on this team. Teague is exactly the type of PG that fits what Hoiberg has been trying to get this team to do. He can play fast, drive and create for others, shoot the 3-ball, keep everyone involved, and defend. He is everything that we want Derrick Rose to do but isn't capable of. 

If we go after Teague (and not sure we have pieces Atlanta wants), the thing is you're still stuck with Derrick Rose. So would probably force us into alot of small ball where you're starting Rose at SG and Jimmy at SF. Though this is far and away a better team than what we have today. Teague, Rose, Jimmy, Gibson, Gasol. Long term I like the Teague/Jimmy backcourt alot assuming Rose is gone at some point.


----------



## yodurk

thebizkit69u said:


> The front office told this team last year to basically stop listening to Thibs because the savior Hoiberg is coming. And then once Hoiberg arrives you basically cut his coaching nuts off by empowering Jimmy to say and do whatever the hell he wants on and off the court.


This was a nice fan narrative last year, true, but I feel pretty confident in saying the front office did not say or even imply this message to its player. Either the tuning out Thibs part, nor the fact that a savior coach was on the way. Bulls message boards and fans said these things, sure, you're absolutely right. Fan narratives have a way of not matching reality unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately). This goes for alot of things BTW.


----------



## thebizkit69u

yodurk said:


> I agree with alot of this, but this is partly Jimmy's problem too. It's on the players to buy into the coach's system. I don't even know what the so-called Hoiball looks like b/c our players haven't been running it. I can't think of many championship teams who consistently break the offense and play iso ball. Jimmy's best work has been iso ball, but in the playoffs iso ball doesn't work -- it's too stoppable when you are scouted closely by a playoff opponent. So Jimmy needs to grow as a player and learn to play a team concept. Fact of the matter is Jimmy has been quite a ball stopper on offense this year. I had the same complaint with Noah. Good passers but they don't keep the ball moving. Watch the Spurs or Warriors and that's the gold standard for team ball movement. Hoiberg is preaching it but I literally don't think our players know how to play that brand of ball. Which is a big frigging problem b/c I don't think you can win a championship unless players learn how to do that. So we either go get new players, or Hoiberg's challenge is to teach them on the fly (which leads to more losses). It goes back to the Bulls needing to choose a path and commit to it. They are stuck at a crossroads and need to pick a direction. This is on the front office to figure out at this point and I'm still waiting for some personnel movement. I'd like to give Hoiberg a fair shot (he hasn't had one) and it's also up to Jimmy and the players to play the team concept rather than iso ball.


Jimmy is feeling himself, try telling him that ISO doesn't work.. It sure as hell has worked getting him paid. 

What it all comes down to is, are the Bulls willing to re-shuffle THIS YEAR? If they let Gasol walk for nothing, just so they can get a short term financial boost in the playoffs, I would be absolutely disgusted. We all know they are going to lose to Cleveland, heck they might lose to someone in the first round. 

The front office continues to fail miserably at their jobs. Niko sucks, McDermott sucks, Snell sucks, Taj is meh, Noah is done, Rose is meh, Jimmy does what Jimmy does and Hoiberg sucks. This whole team is just mediocre suckage, their offense sucks, Stacy King is starting to get on my damn nerves when having to remind us every fucking basket that Jimmy is the best player on the court, the lovabull's suck, I'm tired of seeing Hinrich's sucky face for the past decade.... :vuvuzela: Just to throw that in there too.


----------



## yodurk

Post liked...it made me genuinely laugh.


----------



## thebizkit69u

yodurk said:


> This was a nice fan narrative last year, true, but I feel pretty confident in saying the front office did not say or even imply this message to its player. Either the tuning out Thibs part, nor the fact that a savior coach was on the way. Bulls message boards and fans said these things, sure, you're absolutely right. Fan narratives have a way of not matching reality unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately). This goes for alot of things BTW.


Come on, how many years have we heard now that Hoiberg was going to be the next coach? 2? You think players don't see/hear that and then stop playing as hard for Thibs or listen to Thibs as much because they all know hes gone anyways? 

You think implementing minute restrictions, practice restrictions, personal masseuses for individual players and so on doesn't undermine what a coach is trying to do?

I get you don't like Thibs, I get that you are in the small minority that think the players just all of a sudden magically gave up on Thibs, just because. So there is no real reason to debate back and forth on this topic. BUT, Hoiberg is a different topic worth talking about. 

I do feel like the front office cut Hoibergs coaching nuts off by not punishing Jimmy for calling out Hoiberg in the first quarter of the SEASON! You think Hoiberg doesn't want to sit Jimmy on the bench when he does stop the ball on almost every single offensive possession?


----------



## Da Grinch

yodurk said:


> Did I say Jimmy was THE problem? I said Jimmy has A problem. As great as he's been overall, he has not been useful when it comes to proficient team ball movement. Again I ask you to look at the Warriors and Spurs, and tell me how Jimmy's offensive style of play would fit into that. In those systems Jimmy would either need to change his style of play, or accept scoring 12-14 ppg. Jimmy has been a ball stopper and could be better off the ball as well (though that Gasol alley-oop play has been money).
> 
> Let me be clear, this is not to target Jimmy. There are problems well beyond Jimmy on this team. But I do think Jimmy has been a participant in 1 of the team's biggest problems, and as our best player & now a max paid player, he can fairly be critiqued for it. Jimmy's likely not going to ever win a championship unless he does a better job with a move-the-ball team style offense.


on those teams (spurs, warriors) jimmy wouldn't play as much and if he didn't play the way they wanted him to play he'd play even less...especially on the spurs where pop wouldn't stand for it.

so I will ask it again is hoiberg's style really that important ?


draymond avg 34.4 minutes to lead the warriors
kawhi leonard leads the spurs in minutes with 32.6 no one else is even at 30

if playing fast was soo important jimmy would play less.

as much as its jimmy's responsibility to play within the confines of a system its up to his coach to enforce that system.

not just for jimmy but for everyone, and it isn't happening.


----------



## yodurk

Da Grinch said:


> so I will ask it again is hoiberg's style really that important ?


There is not really a need to even call it "Hoiberg's style" since Hoiberg is trying to just coach general good team basketball principles. This unicorn that is called "Hoiball" took on a life of its own, primarily by fans from what I've seen, probably b/c it was successful in the college ranks and has a catchy name to it. But really the so-called Hoiball has another name, and it's just good team basketball that is hard for opponents to defend. 

So...with that being said, YES the style of play that Hoiberg emphasizes really is that important. Because it's the same fundamental principles that have won many championships. Contrast that to Thibodeau who only wanted to practice defense, and as such his teams were ill prepared to score in playoff basketball situations. I thought the goal is win in the playoffs so that's kind of a big deal.


----------



## yodurk

thebizkit69u said:


> Come on, how many years have we heard now that Hoiberg was going to be the next coach? 2? You think players don't see/hear that and then stop playing as hard for Thibs or listen to Thibs as much because they all know hes gone anyways?
> 
> You think implementing minute restrictions, practice restrictions, personal masseuses for individual players and so on doesn't undermine what a coach is trying to do?
> 
> I get you don't like Thibs, I get that you are in the small minority that think the players just all of a sudden magically gave up on Thibs, just because. So there is no real reason to debate back and forth on this topic. BUT, Hoiberg is a different topic worth talking about.
> 
> I do feel like the front office cut Hoibergs coaching nuts off by not punishing Jimmy for calling out Hoiberg in the first quarter of the SEASON! You think Hoiberg doesn't want to sit Jimmy on the bench when he does stop the ball on almost every single offensive possession?


That's well and good, but not what you said. Maybe I just took it too literally.

Thibs is a fine coach. I don't dislike him. I think he made some poor decisions and it was time for a change. He'd be great for a team that needs to be micromanaged, for instance a young talented roster in need of direction. I don't think that was this Bulls team anymore. He was a great breath of fresh air after Del *****. I'd love Thibs as an assistant coach like he was for Boston. Let him focus on what he does best (defense) where you have a shield like Doc Rivers to communicate with players and manage minutes. 

It's funny because when Blatt got fired the other day, I wondered if Cleveland would reach out to Thibodeau. Someone mentioned jokingly that Lebron might want to quit with Thibodeau yelling at him constantly. It was a joke but most jokes have some truth to them. I really couldn't see Coach Lebron wanting to be micromanaged by Thibodeau like he did in Chicago.

So as for Hoiberg, I've already said I wasn't a fan of what Jimmy said earlier in the year, and especially the timing of it so early in Hoiberg's tenure here. There are alot of coaches with Hoiberg's personality style who have succeeded just fine -- some coaches yell alot, some don't. I've said many times before Hoiberg is bringing a paradigm shift to this team that not everyone will adjust to. In reality whether it was planned or unplanned, this season is a transition year to figure out who fits into this philosophy and who doesn't. Let me point out Hoiberg was .500 his 1st year of college coaching and improved his team nearly every year as he recruited players he likes; so there could be merit to his success being tied to a good coupling of personnel to his system. (Let's hope because that is what would help the Bulls success, right?)

Maybe Hoiberg did lose credibility from what Jimmy said, maybe he didn't; we haven't heard much on that front though, so let's not pretend to know.


----------



## Da Grinch

yodurk said:


> There is not really a need to even call it "Hoiberg's style" since Hoiberg is trying to just coach general good team basketball principles. This unicorn that is called "Hoiball" took on a life of its own, primarily by fans from what I've seen, probably b/c it was successful in the college ranks and has a catchy name to it. But really the so-called Hoiball has another name, and it's just good team basketball that is hard for opponents to defend.
> 
> So...with that being said, YES the style of play that Hoiberg emphasizes really is that important. Because it's the same fundamental principles that have won many championships. Contrast that to Thibodeau who only wanted to practice defense, and as such his teams were ill prepared to score in playoff basketball situations. I thought the goal is win in the playoffs so that's kind of a big deal.


you know he got the job selling them something right ?

every coach interviews for his job and they all have to bring something to the table that would make a front office pay them 7 figures.

fred hoiberg got this job off his rep of being an offensive guru whether it was well deserved or not .

just like the front office had to then try to sell us on why hiring hoiberg was a good idea, and in truth it really hasn't worked out at all

they are 6th overall in defensive efficiency and 22nd on offense 

last season in a season thibs supposedly lost the team they were ranked 11th in both offense and defense and by every objective metric this season isn't as good as last season.

personally I think he was set up and was given an entrenched team made for a power style of basketball , physically this team is big and slow and a little long in the tooth .

at the same time I believe fred told them he could make it work however unrealistic that may be

its not really made to play an uptempo style of basketball and it neither fred not thibs fault , its the front office at fault in this, its their job to access the team and make adjustments and it clearly wasn't done.

thibs clearly practiced offense , that eyesore of an offense didn't happen by accident , and last years version was11 spots better than the "general good team principles" hoiberg is drilling into the bulls this season and in thibs 2nd season its was 5th overall in offensive efficiency.

he was simply a very good coach who had his team and its fanbase believing they were title contenders 

at the end of it all this bulls team is essentially scores like your average lottery team and that isn't what the hoiberg era was supposed to be about.


----------



## yodurk

Da Grinch said:


> you know he got the job selling them something right ?


Pretty sure Hoiberg didn't have to "sell them" anything, since the front office basically handpicked him and didn't interview anyone else. I assume that largely due to Hoiberg's excellent 5-year stint at Iowa State.



> thibs clearly practiced offense , that eyesore of an offense didn't happen by accident , and last years version was 11 spots better than the "general good team principles" hoiberg is drilling into the bulls this season and in thibs 2nd season its was 5th overall in offensive efficiency.


Thibodeau ran basic offensive sets that his players proved capable of running and did not require much practice time. There was enough talent in Pau, Jimmy, Dunleavy, even Rose, where that is all it took to have a decent regular season offensive rating. This approach is not adaptable to the playoffs though, when your opponent scouts you and adjusts closer than ever. This is why we struggled with Milwaukee in the first round and why Cleveland beat us without 2 of their 3 best players. Our offense was too simple and easy to stop when you're playing against it in 6-7 straight games. Now granted I am not pinning that all on Thibodeau. I've said here before, Thibodeau tried but quickly gave up on a more complex offense b/c the players sucked at running it (literally identical to this season). So he went to a simpler offense that cranked out more regular season wins, but was easier to pick apart by a playoff opponent. I honestly can't predict if our current players are capable of playing in a complex Spurs/GS like offense, but I do know Thibodeau and Hoiberg have both tried it and it hasn't worked out. Hoiberg seems more reluctant to give up on it cold turkey, though, which again hurts you in the short term, and has the risk that it may never pan out, but if it works out you have a more potent team in the long run.



> at the end of it all this bulls team is essentially scores like your average lottery team and that isn't what the hoiberg era was supposed to be about.


The Hoiberg era has a ways to go. It is not pretty so far but like I said, this has turned into a transition season, as far as transition seasons go you could do worse than floating around .600 winning % for most of the year. The front office wanted to invest in Hoiberg, so it's up to them to give him the horses he needs, like they did for Thibodeau when he came aboard. Again I'll point to Hoiberg's 1st season at Iowa State: 16-16 overall record & 3-13 in conference. He was handed a roster that he didn't help mold. The more he molded his roster, the better success he had. As far as I know, the plan was that Hoiberg and Bulls front office were going to be a collaborative relationship where Hoiberg can help mold the team. He deserves more than a half season or even 1 full season to fully judge.


----------



## Da Grinch

yodurk said:


> Pretty sure Hoiberg didn't have to "sell them" anything, since the front office basically handpicked him and didn't interview anyone else. I assume that largely due to Hoiberg's excellent 5-year stint at Iowa State..



c'mon now obviously they endorsed him because he sold them on him.





> Thibodeau ran basic offensive sets that his players proved capable of running and did not require much practice time. There was enough talent in Pau, Jimmy, Dunleavy, even Rose, where that is all it took to have a decent regular season offensive rating. This approach is not adaptable to the playoffs though, when your opponent scouts you and adjusts closer than ever. This is why we struggled with Milwaukee in the first round and why Cleveland beat us without 2 of their 3 best players. Our offense was too simple and easy to stop when you're playing against it in 6-7 straight games. Now granted I am not pinning that all on Thibodeau. I've said here before, Thibodeau tried but quickly gave up on a more complex offense b/c the players sucked at running it (literally identical to this season). So he went to a simpler offense that cranked out more regular season wins, but was easier to pick apart by a playoff opponent. I honestly can't predict if our current players are capable of playing in a complex Spurs/GS like offense, but I do know Thibodeau and Hoiberg have both tried it and it hasn't worked out. Hoiberg seems more reluctant to give up on it cold turkey, though, which again hurts you in the short term, and has the risk that it may never pan out, but if it works out you have a more potent team in the long run.


golden state and san Antonio's offenses aren't complex at all, pretty much all of the league runs the same stuff and simply emphasizes different things...golden state learned Kerr's offense in a preseason and from the start of the season were the best offense in the league.




> The Hoiberg era has a ways to go. It is not pretty so far but like I said, this has turned into a transition season, as far as transition seasons go you could do worse than floating around .600 winning % for most of the year. The front office wanted to invest in Hoiberg, so it's up to them to give him the horses he needs, like they did for Thibodeau when he came aboard. Again I'll point to Hoiberg's 1st season at Iowa State: 16-16 overall record & 3-13 in conference. He was handed a roster that didn't he didn't help mold. The more he molded his roster, the better success he had. As far as I know, the plan was that Hoiberg and Bulls front office were going to be a highly collaborative relationship where Hoiberg can help mold the team. He deserves more than a half season or even 1 full season to fully judge


its college , all nba coaches excel there , saying he did well at college is like saying jimmy butler did well at college 

of course he did its a lower form of basketball. and in college he could recruit , heck tim Floyd did well at iowa state 

and in truth head coaches deserve the least time to evaluate and judge , there are no "projects" in coaching I am reserving judgement on freddy but early returns have him at mediocre , the players seem to like him but aren't exactly bending to his will.


----------



## Dornado

Da Grinch said:


> draymond avg 34.4 minutes to lead the warriors
> kawhi leonard leads the spurs in minutes with 32.6 no one else is even at 30
> 
> if playing fast was soo important jimmy would play less.


On this topic, I do think that if the Bulls had the kind of favorable point differential the Warriors and Spurs have had Jimmy Butler would likely play less. The Warriors and Spurs are blowing people out and have the luxury of resting guys for much of the 4th quarter... the Bulls are grinding it out against average NBA teams, leaving Hoiberg to rely on Butler for heavier minutes. Not having Mike Dunleavy Jr. doesn't help either.


----------



## Da Grinch

Dornado said:


> On this topic, I do think that if the Bulls had the kind of favorable point differential the Warriors and Spurs have had Jimmy Butler would likely play less. The Warriors and Spurs are blowing people out and have the luxury of resting guys for much of the 4th quarter... the Bulls are grinding it out against average NBA teams, leaving Hoiberg to rely on Butler for heavier minutes. Not having Mike Dunleavy Jr. doesn't help either.


the bulls aren't the only team that have to grind out games but jimmy still leads the league in minutes

as a head coach hoiberg has to decide what is more important and so far he has clearly decided its more important for players to play instead of playing the style he coaches


----------



## Dornado

Da Grinch said:


> the bulls aren't the only team that have to grind out games but jimmy still leads the league in minutes
> 
> as a head coach hoiberg has to decide what is more important and *so far he has clearly decided its more important for players to play instead of playing the style he coaches*


Yeah, I'm just saying he'd likely be playing less if we had more 4th quarter leads (since you brought up the Spurs and Warriors).

The bolded part seems a little odd... don't you think Hoiberg probably believes he can play Jimmy Butler _and _get him to play his preferred style? Why should those things be mutually exclusive?


----------



## yodurk

Da Grinch said:


> the bulls aren't the only team that have to grind out games but jimmy still leads the league in minutes
> 
> as a head coach hoiberg has to decide what is more important and so far he has clearly decided its more important for players to play instead of playing the style he coaches


What are your thoughts on Jimmy Butler alluding to wanting to play more than he was? You keep bringing this up as a Hoiberg decision without addressing the Jimmy Butler part of the decision.

Jimmy averaged 35 min/game in the season's first 10 games. As we got into December, I recalled Jimmy post-game comments about not wanting to come out of games. Something like "I can handle a few extra minutes, I want to be out there, etc.). I doubt it's coincidence that his minutes started going up after that and now he's at 38 per game. 

I still don't like it, and I think Jimmy needs to be smart enough to know this is a marathon. Though understandable given he is a competitor. He has earned the right to ask for more time as our best player. Of course some will perceive as Hoiberg being a pushover. I'd hope the conversation went down more as two guys talking and coming to an agreement. Though I won't pretend to know.


----------



## thebizkit69u

yodurk said:


> Thibs is a fine coach. I don't dislike him. I think he made some poor decisions and it was time for a change. He'd be great for a team that needs to be micromanaged, for instance a young talented roster in need of direction. I don't think that was this Bulls team anymore. He was a great breath of fresh air after Del *****. I'd love Thibs as an assistant coach like he was for Boston. Let him focus on what he does best (defense) where you have a shield like Doc Rivers to communicate with players and manage minutes.
> 
> So as for Hoiberg, I've already said I wasn't a fan of what Jimmy said earlier in the year, and especially the timing of it so early in Hoiberg's tenure here. There are alot of coaches with Hoiberg's personality style who have succeeded just fine -- some coaches yell alot, some don't. I've said many times before Hoiberg is bringing a paradigm shift to this team that not everyone will adjust to. In reality whether it was planned or unplanned, this season is a transition year to figure out who fits into this philosophy and who doesn't. Let me point out Hoiberg was .500 his 1st year of college coaching and improved his team nearly every year as he recruited players he likes; so there could be merit to his success being tied to a good coupling of personnel to his system. (Let's hope because that is what would help the Bulls success, right?)
> 
> Maybe Hoiberg did lose credibility from what Jimmy said, maybe he didn't; we haven't heard much on that front though, so let's not pretend to know.


THIS team needs micromanagement! Lol. He's also literally better at Everything than Hoiberg, but alas, that chapter is over.

He did lose credibility, he lost some when he flat out lied about Joakim Noah sitting, he was pantsed by Butler and was even slapped down by Rose when Hoiberg talked about improving the pace, Rose said his pace was fine. 

Don't get me wrong, I want Hoiberg to succeed but in order for that to happen the front office has to support him and he flat out needs to prove that he can actually coach in the NBA.


----------



## K4E

Thibs was chastised for playing Jimmy Butler heavy minutes. 

Hoiberg is doing the same thing.

What in the name of Jen Swanson is going on over there?


----------



## yodurk

Thibs was chastised for playing several players - more than just Jimmy Butler - heavy minutes. With Hoiberg you can really only nitpick Jimmy, and you guys keep ignoring the fact Hoiberg was playing him 35 min/game in the first 10 games until Jimmy commented on it. Also context is key, let's look more than just 1 number on a piece of paper. With Thibs it was things like 42 minutes for Jimmy or Gasol on their 4th game in 5 nights...or up/down 12 points with 2 minutes to go (game essentially decided) and your starters are still out there on the floor. Thibs did that sort of stuff all the time and it drove me nuts. So far I've seen less of that from Hoiberg, though sample size is still small.


----------



## thebizkit69u

yodurk said:


> Thibs was chastised for playing several players - more than just Jimmy Butler - heavy minutes. With Hoiberg you can really only nitpick Jimmy, and you guys keep ignoring the fact Hoiberg was playing him 35 min/game in the first 10 games until Jimmy commented on it. Also context is key, let's look more than just 1 number on a piece of paper. With Thibs it was things like 42 minutes for Jimmy or Gasol on their 4th game in 5 nights...or up/down 12 points with 2 minutes to go (game essentially decided) and your starters are still out there on the floor. Thibs did that sort of stuff all the time and it drove me nuts. So far I've seen less of that from Hoiberg, though sample size is still small.


LOL, Hoiberg would play these guys 40 minutes a night if he could and at times he does. I can make the easy argument that Hoiberg is running Jimmy into the ground more so than Thibs did last year, you forget that last years offense actually resembled an offense, you think playing 40 minutes of Thibs ball is more taxing than Hoibergs 40 minute offense of constant ISO, make your own damn plays type of sets for Jimmy? Pau also plays big minutes, lets not act like hes getting the Tim Duncan treatment lol.


----------



## K4E

Jimmy Butler was leading the league in MPG last season. He's leading the league this season.

Gasol's are down to 31.7 from 34.4. This is natural for a 35 year old player and 30+ is likely too many for guy his age, if you are a minutes zealot. St Popovich would not play his 35 year old center 31.7 minutes a game. Abuse, if you are of that ilk.

Other than that, its pretty much the same. Certainly not a huge change at all. Other than the offense being much worse.


----------



## yodurk

thebizkit69u said:


> LOL, Hoiberg would play these guys 40 minutes a night if he could and at times he does. I can make the easy argument that Hoiberg is running Jimmy into the ground more so than Thibs did last year, you forget that last years offense actually resembled an offense, you think playing 40 minutes of Thibs ball is more taxing than Hoibergs 40 minute offense of constant ISO, make your own damn plays type of sets for Jimmy? Pau also plays big minutes, lets not act like hes getting the Tim Duncan treatment lol.


Well I'm glad you can pretend to know what any person "would do if he could", or that you are tracking precisely how much tax Jimmy is putting on himself out on the floor. Not sure I would call less than 32 minutes per game "big minutes" but whatever. I was mainly re-stating some of the major complaints about Thibodeau. Reality is the sample is too small on Hoiberg to make a long term conclusion as I said, and these comments were more about Thibodeau, less about Hoiberg. Though since you guys love railing on Hoiberg like it's a hobby, it'd be great to take some of the additional context into consideration rather than just looking at 1 number on a piece of paper. I brought up some of these points and it doesn't seem to be resonating. So whatever, moving on.


----------



## yodurk

BTW...Golden State hits a late 3-pointer to beat lowly Philadelphia by 3 points. Sound familiar? Philly has been a different team ever since getting Ish Smith; he seems to bring some of that raw talent together. I'm less concerned about the Bulls nearly losing to Philly as even a legendary team like GS can do that. The bigger head scratcher is how they can be 11-6 against top 10 teams (undefeated vs CLE and TOR, top 2 teams in East), but then be 1-7 against Charlotte, Boston, & Detroit combined.


----------



## thebizkit69u

yodurk said:


> Well I'm glad you can pretend to know what any person "would do if he could", or that you are tracking precisely how much tax Jimmy is putting on himself out on the floor. Not sure I would call less than 32 minutes per game "big minutes" but whatever. I was mainly re-stating some of the major complaints about Thibodeau. Reality is the sample is too small on Hoiberg to make a long term conclusion as I said, and these comments were more about Thibodeau, less about Hoiberg. Though since you guys love railing on Hoiberg like it's a hobby, it'd be great to take some of the additional context into consideration rather than just looking at 1 number on a piece of paper. I brought up some of these points and it doesn't seem to be resonating. So whatever, moving on.


I don't think anyone is railing on the guy, the facts are what they are. He can't coach an NBA team... Well let me be fair, he cant coach this team. Hes failed miserably at trying to install his offense, if that even exists.


----------



## yodurk

thebizkit69u said:


> I don't think anyone is railing on the guy, the facts are what they are. He can't coach an NBA team... Well let me be fair, he cant coach this team. Hes failed miserably at trying to install his offense, if that even exists.


You are making 2 very different points. One I agree with, the other I can't agree with yet b/c it's way too soon. 

I agree he has failed to install his offense. The players aren't running it, and based on Thibodeau's failure to play a similar read and react offense 2 years ago, I'm inclined to believe this group of players is just incapable of it. Has Hoiberg failed thus far, yes. Is it his fault? Maybe, maybe not. There is pretty strong evidence we don't have a good group of players capable of playing a share the ball offense. You said it yourself right, this team plays its best in iso ball. Sadly that's not good enough even when they're at their best. I am 99.9% certain the players bear a large part of the blame (+front office for bringing a poor fit of players to the coach/system they were bringing in). It's sort of like investing in a Playstation 4 purchase and complaining that it doesn't play XBox One games. There is quality in both items but they don't function together. (terrible analogy, LOL)

All this being said, I can't fathom how this gets anyone to the conclusion he is incapable of coaching an NBA team, period. Dude has all of 50 games under his belt, with a PG playing half blind for half of that time and 2 other starters from last year being out for all/most of the season. Granted this isn't all of the team's problems but it's certainly having an impact. To be completely honest, Gar Forman is the man on the hot seat right now. People are realizing clear as day the flaws with the roster and he's first in line to fix it. There are even recent reports suggesting some divergence between Gar and the rest of the Bulls front office; this is usually the first step to a GM change. Unless Gar knocks his next few moves out of the park, I bet he's not with the Bulls 12 months from now.


----------



## yodurk

Speaking of canning Gar: I think the Bulls should try to get Matt Lloyd back. He left the Bulls a few years ago to be assistant GM of the Magic. He was valued for his role as a scout and now has GM level experience. Taking lead GM of the Bulls would be a big promotion for him, and there is a comfort level with Paxson and above. IIRC he left on good terms. Wouldn't surprise me at all if Gar is out of here even by season's end and frankly I wouldn't mind it.


----------



## truebluefan

Deadline is coming up. Having both Noah and Niko hurt has put a damper on how many choices, players they could have traded. 

I want the team to blow up. We may be .500 or below at deadline. Enough with this group. Some moves need to be made sooner than later. 

Ralph at realgm said he has heard some GMs say that despite the injuries we have, Gasol could still be moved at deadline. 

Build the team around Butler, Rose. Keep Portis. I and divided on Niko. He has not turned out to be the player he was hyped up to be. He can go. If he stays, well we could do worse at a stretch four. 

We need players here that can run. Run the offense that Fred wants to run. Dunleavy, and Hinrich are old. Brooks can score some nights, but too small when it comes to the playoffs, He needs to go as well. We need a young center that can run, we need a real SF that can run. We need a younger, taller pg that run as well. 

I would be very surprised if we make a trade at deadline, although it is needed. More than one trade actually!


----------



## yodurk

Hey man, good to see you posting here!



truebluefan said:


> Deadline is coming up. Having both Noah and Niko hurt has put a damper on how many choices, players they could have traded.
> 
> I want the team to blow up. We may be .500 or below at deadline. Enough with this group. Some moves need to be made sooner than later.


I'd be OK with that. This season has quickly become a feeler/transition type of season. Intentional or not, that's just reality. In the past I've been OK standing pat at the trade deadline, but this isn't one of those seasons. Really want to see us mix something up. Hoiberg is on a 5-year contract and so with that type of commitment you've got to give him players that fit. The Bulls will be better positioned for future success here if we get value for the guys who won't be here next season or the one after, and also getting a lottery pick wouldn't hurt.



> Ralph at realgm said he has heard some GMs say that despite the injuries we have, Gasol could still be moved at deadline.


I hope so, Gasol is gone anyways so might as well get something for him if you can. The only thing the Bulls get by keeping him is the chance at a first round series win and some playoff revenue. We saw that last year though so that isn't really high on the priority list, at least for me.



> Build the team around Butler, Rose. Keep Portis. I and divided on Niko. He has not turned out to be the player he was hyped up to be. He can go. If he stays, well we could do worse at a stretch four.


Might as well, Butler is a stud and locked in long-term, while we're stuck with Rose for 1 more season. Though he's played better recently, Rose's next injury is always around the corner, he's still unreliable/inconsistent, doesn't fit with Jimmy very well, and will probably sign somewhere else when he's a free agent (I'd guess the Lakers since he loves L.A.). 

Portis seems like a keeper. Niko is IMO a trade candidate if you can get value for him now, but I'd be OK giving him 1 more shot next year. Seems like he didn't get any practice or weight room time being with the Spanish National Team last summer and it showed. Maybe his appendectomy will be a blessing in disguise where he gets some needed time off and refresh mentally. Really needs to work out hard in the off-season, otherwise what you see if what you'll get. Too bad b/c he'd be quite a player if he had a Jimmy Butler like work ethic. Has a ton of talent. 



> We need players here that can run. Run the offense that Fred wants to run. Dunleavy, and Hinrich are old. Brooks can score some nights, but too small when it comes to the playoffs, He needs to go as well. We need a young center that can run, we need a real SF that can run. We need a younger, taller pg that run as well.


Agreed. Though Hinrich is probably retiring after this year, I would assume. Dunleavy I'll need to see how he bounces back; hard to get hopes up at age 36, though anything resembling last year's Dunleavy I think fits Hoiberg. Dunleavy actually runs alot (the tracking data backs this up) and he should fit a move the ball type offense better than most. Brooks should've never been brought back, I wanted Jeremy Lin, though not many other alternatives available. I'm hoping we draft PG this year (e.g., Demetrius Jackson) who becomes our backup PG with starter potential down the road.



> I would be very surprised if we make a trade at deadline, although it is needed. More than one trade actually!


----------



## yodurk

Yikes. Bulls are currently down to borderline D-league level team. 5 rotation players now out. 3 of the top 4 bigs out. Top 2 wings out. Team's best player out. 

I tuned in last night briefly and I think it was Rose, Moore, McDermott, Gibson, Portis out there. Sadly that was the best lineup we had to offer.

Alot has gone wrong this year, but these injury pileups certainly aren't helping matters. I sincerely hope this helps accelerate some a trade deadline move of some kind, e.g., Pau trade. And missing the playoffs wouldn't be the end of the world anymore to guarantee a top 14 pick. At this point we're playing for next season and beyond.


----------



## transplant

yodurk said:


> Yikes. Bulls are currently down to borderline D-league level team. 5 rotation players now out. 3 of the top 4 bigs out. Top 2 wings out. Team's best player out.
> 
> I tuned in last night briefly and I think it was Rose, Moore, McDermott, Gibson, Portis out there. Sadly that was the best lineup we had to offer.
> 
> Alot has gone wrong this year, but these injury pileups certainly aren't helping matters. I sincerely hope this helps accelerate some a trade deadline move of some kind, e.g., Pau trade. And missing the playoffs wouldn't be the end of the world anymore to guarantee a top 14 pick. At this point we're playing for next season and beyond.


Cameron Bairstow started for the Chicago Bulls at center last night in a game that counted.

Let that sink in for a moment.

Oh, and E'Twaun Moore also started the game.

AND THEN Jimmy Butler had to leave the game due to injury.

Brutal. Simply brutal.


----------



## Da Grinch

yodurk said:


> What are your thoughts on Jimmy Butler alluding to wanting to play more than he was? You keep bringing this up as a Hoiberg decision without addressing the Jimmy Butler part of the decision.


last season jimmy played a similar amount and it was thibs fault,

you think jimmy didn't want big minutes last season ?(a contract year)

if it was thibs fault last season, its fred's fault this season. 




> Jimmy averaged 35 min/game in the season's first 10 games. As we got into December, I recalled Jimmy post-game comments about not wanting to come out of games. Something like "I can handle a few extra minutes, I want to be out there, etc.). I doubt it's coincidence that his minutes started going up after that and now he's at 38 per game.
> 
> I still don't like it, and I think Jimmy needs to be smart enough to know this is a marathon. Though understandable given he is a competitor. He has earned the right to ask for more time as our best player. Of course some will perceive as Hoiberg being a pushover. I'd hope the conversation went down more as two guys talking and coming to an agreement. Though I won't pretend to know.


its not really butler's decision how much he plays , if it was they wouldn't need head coaches


----------



## jnrjr79

Da Grinch said:


> last season jimmy played a similar amount and it was thibs fault,
> 
> you think jimmy didn't want big minutes last season ?(a contract year)
> 
> if it was thibs fault last season, its fred's fault this season.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its not really butler's decision how much he plays , if it was they wouldn't need head coaches



Yeah, I have found it concerning that Fred a couple of times this year has said something akin to "Jimmy wouldn't let me take him out" when he has played huge minutes in 2nd halves of games. You're the head coach!


----------



## yodurk

jnrjr79 said:


> Yeah, I have found it concerning that Fred a couple of times this year has said something akin to "Jimmy wouldn't let me take him out" when he has played huge minutes in 2nd halves of games. You're the head coach!


The better situation would be Jimmy accepts it's not ideal to play 38 minutes per game, or much more in certain games, so then he and Hoiberg agree and it's an easy decision.

From Fred's POV I get it -- Jimmy is your star player, you want to respect him, let him lead, have a say. Fred is trying not to come in Day 1 and breed conflict with the team's best player. I get it, and honestly it's a tough spot, really lose-lose no matter how you go. Conventional wisdom would be you're the coach, you overrule the players and Jimmy should respect that. Real world doesn't work that way. I do think, however, Fred may be trying too hard not to upset the balance. Just a tough balance and I don't know how you achieve it, that's why coaching is hard I suppose, you're never going to please everyone.


----------



## thebizkit69u

You know what else is making this whole thing look like the shit show that it is? Derrick Rose and the offense playing much better without Butler on the court lol.

This franchise is a joke. Has been for over a decade, been saying it for several years now. Never got the credit I deserve, I forgive you guys.


----------



## yodurk

thebizkit69u said:


> You know what else is making this whole thing look like the shit show that it is? Derrick Rose and the offense playing much better without Butler on the court lol.


Wish I could say I'm surprised. I love Butler, he's my guy, but I became a fan because of his defensive tenacity and relentless energy, not because he can score in isolation plays. Credit to him for that, and it CAN make us a more dangerous team at times. However both last year and this year, the scoring version of Jimmy Butler makes the ball stick too much. It's something he needs to work on, and I'm sure he will if he acknowledges it is an issue. Hard to say if he actually will. BTW, this problem is not new -- alot of great players go through this stage of their careers: Kobe, Harden, etc. Would love to see Jimmy model himself after Paul Pierce for instance who seemed to strike a great balance between iso abilities and team ball movement.


----------



## Dornado

I'm falling into a Bulls fan depression again. We're running on a treadmill... trapped in NBA purgatory. 

I knew we were going to downgrade from a coaching perspective (even if you were optimistic, Fred Hoiberg was going to have a transition/learning period) but I was somewhat hopeful that our personnel would get us over that hump, or at least keep us competitive. Between the carousel of injured vets and the uneven play of the younger players that I hoped would give us a boost, this has been a really tough season to watch for me. 

So, I'm with bizkit (who deserves credit for sticking with a name that is ostensibly an ode to the blight on american pop culture that was Limp Bizkit). Time to rebuild/reshuffle. Let's blow it up. The season is a wash. 

When do pitchers and catchers report? Ah shit, that's right... the White Sox did the same thing to me over the summer.


----------



## yodurk

So can we shift this thread somewhat toward a more interesting "what should the Bulls do next?" discussion. That to me is far more interesting and useful than lingering on the team's problems. We all agree there are problems with this team and have beat that horse to death.

I think you start with, who are the players worth keeping around mid-to-long term. As in guys you want to give at least 1-2 more seasons on this team. For me it's a short list:

- Jimmy Butler -- team's centerpiece and new leader
- Bobby Portis -- multi talented big man who is young (20 yrs old) and already able to contribute somewhat
- Doug McDermott -- many will disagree but he has 1 thing that has been evasive for us, and that's a consistent 3-pt shooter. At a minimum that's worth minutes in a bench role, and he's on a cheap contract for another 2 seasons minimum.

Though let me say, nobody is untouchable if the right deal comes up. Just that these are the guys I'm not looking to escort out of town.

Taj Gibson is a guy I wouldn't mind keeping as a vet role player, as I believe you always need guys like him, but fact remains he is past 30 and should explore getting value while we can.


----------



## Dornado

yodurk said:


> So can we shift this thread somewhat toward a more interesting "what should the Bulls do next?" discussion. That to me is far more interesting and useful than lingering on the team's problems. We all agree there are problems with this team and have beat that horse to death.


Fair enough, but I can't promise I won't continue to beat that horse a few more times. It is cathartic. 



> I think you start with, who are the players worth keeping around mid-to-long term. As in guys you want to give at least 1-2 more seasons on this team. For me it's a short list:
> 
> - Jimmy Butler -- team's centerpiece and new leader


Jimmy is our best player, but he isn't a franchise player. I agree that we should absolutely keep him around (and he's under contract, obviously). So, we have a 2 guard... done, taken care of... one piece in place.


> - Bobby Portis -- multi talented big man who is young (20 yrs old) and already able to contribute somewhat


I like what I've seen out of Portis so far but I'm not entirely sure what his ceiling is. I worry that the hype has gotten out in front of him a little bit from the Chicago fan-base. He's young and under team control for the foreseeable future so I'd definitely plan on him being part of the mix going forward. That being said, he's not untradeable (as you mention later). 



> - Doug McDermott -- many will disagree but he has 1 thing that has been evasive for us, and that's a consistent 3-pt shooter. At a minimum that's worth minutes in a bench role, and he's on a cheap contract for another 2 seasons minimum.


I'm a big Dougie McBuckets fan but the jury is still out from my perspective. I think he's shown enough to convince me that he's an NBA player, and that he can play a role for us stretching the floor. I don't know that he's an NBA starter, but he has some untapped potential yet. The thing that worries me about McDermott is that I think he gets passive at times, and I didn't really expect that when we drafted him. I hate nights where he plays good minutes and puts up 3-4 shots... some of that is the failure of our team to get him properly involved in the offense, but some of it is Doug passing up opportunities. Some nights he's gunning, some night he isn't... I'd like him to have a permanent green light. Defensively he gets lost a little and he obviously struggles with lateral quickness... he's like the SF version of Drew Gooden defensively at this point.



> Though let me say, nobody is untouchable if the right deal comes up. Just that these are the guys I'm not looking to escort out of town.
> 
> Taj Gibson is a guy I wouldn't mind keeping as a vet role player, as I believe you always need guys like him, but fact remains he is past 30 and should explore getting value while we can.


I love Taj, but we know what he is and he isn't getting any younger. If Gasol opts out (I'd like to try to move him pre-deadline) without us getting anything for him Taj may be one of our more valuable trade assets.

I can't figure out Niko Mirotic. Noah is probably done physically. Hinrich is old. Brooks is bad. Moore is a dime-a-dozen NBA reserve. Dunleavy is over the hill. Tony Snell can't be relied on.

So... do you keep Butler (and Rose, for a year at minimum) and try to move the other pieces in an effort to assemble something that better fits Hoiberg's system (you know, assuming he has a system)?


----------



## jnrjr79

Who you trade seems to depend on what type of a rebuild you are going for. If it's a swing-for-the-fences trade for an established star-type player, then pretty much anyone can go. If it's retooling to get younger/more athletic with more of a long-term outlook, then you're going to be more inclined to hang on to Portis and Dougie McBuckets and look mostly at just moving vets. I'm ok with either approach at this point.


----------



## thebizkit69u

Nobody should be considered untouchable, not even Jimmy. The fact is, the Bulls are so far away from a title that it honestly makes no sense to consider anyone on this team untouchable. 

If someone is crazy enough to offer you a top 5 pick for Jimmy and Pau, you jump on it in a heartbeat. 5 years of Jimmy at this point isn't all that much better than 5+ years of Ben Simmons.

Doug's potential is not going to be realized here. Hes a lifetime scorer, not a Dunleavy clone. So this whole idea that one day he can develop into a bench 3 and rotating D wing is just dumb. He needs to be on a team that's going to force him into a position where he needs to get the ball in his hands and go to work. 

Snell is not an NBA player and needs to go. Bairstow needs to go. Who even knows what Portis is. Taj can go, Pau needs to be traded for something in return. 

It's just time to clean house. Pax needs to go also. The Bulls need fresh eyes on this team. A new direction.... Heck I honestly think they should rebuild now.


----------



## yodurk

I'd trade our whole roster and maximum allowable picks for Ben Simmons, honestly. That kid is going to be ridiculous. Already is really.

Who in the world is saying McDermott will be a 3 and D guy? McDermott could be a valuable as a scoring punch off the bench, and within that skillset happens to have elite 3-pt shooting ability. Honestly based on his career trajectory that appears to be where he is headed. I say keep him for another few seasons because he's young, cheap contract, and elite 3-pt shooters are just hard to find in today's NBA. I don't see what the Bulls gain by trading him, and don't see some other team offering some major value for him either.


----------



## truebluefan

yodurk said:


> So can we shift this thread somewhat toward a more interesting "what should the Bulls do next?" discussion. That to me is far more interesting and useful than lingering on the team's problems. We all agree there are problems with this team and have beat that horse to death.
> 
> I think you start with, who are the players worth keeping around mid-to-long term. As in guys you want to give at least 1-2 more seasons on this team. For me it's a short list:
> 
> - Jimmy Butler -- team's centerpiece and new leader
> - Bobby Portis -- multi talented big man who is young (20 yrs old) and already able to contribute somewhat
> - Doug McDermott -- many will disagree but he has 1 thing that has been evasive for us, and that's a consistent 3-pt shooter. At a minimum that's worth minutes in a bench role, and he's on a cheap contract for another 2 seasons minimum.
> 
> Though let me say, nobody is untouchable if the right deal comes up. Just that these are the guys I'm not looking to escort out of town.
> 
> Taj Gibson is a guy I wouldn't mind keeping as a vet role player, as I believe you always need guys like him, but fact remains he is past 30 and should explore getting value while we can.


Completly agree with you on all of the post.


----------



## K4E

yodurk said:


> I'd trade our whole roster and maximum allowable picks for Ben Simmons, honestly. That kid is going to be ridiculous. Already is really.


When you start thinking about it, it usually ends up with the Bulls needing high lottery picks.

Either by trade, tank, whatever. Hard to win the title without the elite talent. Hard to get the elite talent (for Paxson's style) without high lottery picks, given the lack of success landing the true big fish via free agency or trade.


----------



## thebizkit69u

Not saying you said it, but a lot of people try to make the Dunleavy career trajectory for Doug, I think it's a dumb argument.

I just don't see him developing over here. The offense stagnates with Butler and he's going to be the guy for 5 years. For Doug to ever be more than just the occasional shot maker, he needs to take damn near every shot available just to assert himself into the offense.


----------



## Dornado

We've seen Jimmy Butler develop quite a bit over the last 3-4 years... optimistically, maybe he can develop into someone who doesn't stop the ball from moving on offense?


----------



## thebizkit69u

Not without Thibs on his ass.


----------



## yodurk

K4E said:


> When you start thinking about it, it usually ends up with the Bulls needing high lottery picks.
> 
> Either by trade, tank, whatever. Hard to win the title without the elite talent. Hard to get the elite talent (for Paxson's style) without high lottery picks, given the lack of success landing the true big fish via free agency or trade.


Replace "the Bulls" with "NBA teams" and what you stated is equally accurate. 

"When you start thinking about it, it usually ends up with NBA teams needing high lottery picks."

Yes I agree.


----------



## yodurk

thebizkit69u said:


> Not saying you said it, but a lot of people try to make the Dunleavy career trajectory for Doug, I think it's a dumb argument.
> 
> I just don't see him developing over here. The offense stagnates with Butler and he's going to be the guy for 5 years. For Doug to ever be more than just the occasional shot maker, he needs to take damn near every shot available just to assert himself into the offense.


Agree with all of this, except that Doug can turn into a great scoring spark in the right situation. I don't see Doug being a reliable starter. He is too one-dimensional. But scoring sparks off the bench are valuable assets. Think Jamal Crawford (different position, but same problem). Give him plenty of touches, run some plays for him, get him clean looks -- he will do well in that role. Good for 25+ min/game and 12-14 ppg of high efficiency scoring and floor spacing. This is basically Doug's rookie year, and he's making a good enough stride to become this player I'm describing. 

If Butler won't run our offense and is making the ball stick to the point where others aren't getting involved, then you have to look hard at perhaps trading Butler at some point. I don't know how your team can win anything beyond a 1st round playoff series with this sort of team dynamic. You're basically Joe Johnson and the mid-2000's Atlanta Hawks.


----------



## K4E

yodurk said:


> Replace "the Bulls" with "NBA teams" and what you stated is equally accurate.


Some teams (not the Bulls) have been able to lure elite free agent talent or to pull off blockbuster trades.

For the Bulls, it will have to be solely the draft it seems, if history is any indication.

Many people don't want to be a lottery team. How are the Bulls going to get those lotto picks tho?


----------



## thebizkit69u

yodurk said:


> Agree with all of this, except that Doug can turn into a great scoring spark in the right situation. I don't see Doug being a reliable starter. He is too one-dimensional. But scoring sparks off the bench are valuable assets. Think Jamal Crawford (different position, but same problem). Give him plenty of touches, run some plays for him, get him clean looks -- he will do well in that role. Good for 25+ min/game and 12-14 ppg of high efficiency scoring and floor spacing. This is basically Doug's rookie year, and he's making a good enough stride to become this player I'm describing.
> 
> If Butler won't run our offense and is making the ball stick to the point where others aren't getting involved, then you have to look hard at perhaps trading Butler at some point. I don't know how your team can win anything beyond a 1st round playoff series with this sort of team dynamic. You're basically Joe Johnson and the mid-2000's Atlanta Hawks.


I actually think Doug is a bit more than one dimensional. Hes more athletic than most people give him credit. The problem is hes not a great ball handler and isn't particularly fast. I think if he learns how to use proper angles off even the softest of screens, he can become much more dangerous. 

Again, the problem with that is that you need to implement some sort of ball movement offense, its not going to happen unless Jimmy adapts his game.


----------



## yodurk

K4E said:


> Some teams (not the Bulls) have been able to lure elite free agent talent or to pull off blockbuster trades.
> 
> For the Bulls, it will have to be solely the draft it seems, if history is any indication.
> 
> Many people don't want to be a lottery team. How are the Bulls going to get those lotto picks tho?


You're talking about the vast minority. 

Consider the following: Lakers & Kobe. Spurs & Duncan. Cavs & James/Irving/Wiggins (to land Love). Curry/Klay & Warriors. The list goes on. 

There are 2 golden truths in NBA team building. One is you need superstars to win NBA titles. The other is that to acquire superstars, the highest probability to acquire one is through the draft. This really can't even be debated. There are exceptions, but those are few and far between.


----------



## K4E

yodurk said:


> You're talking about the vast minority.
> This really can't even be debated. There are exceptions, but those are few and far between.


Yes, some teams are able to acquire in their prime stars via free agency and trade and the Bulls are not one of them.

In recent memory you have the Heat, Lakers, Cavs, Rockets, Spurs, Clippers, Knicks....

Anyway, Paxson's Bulls are certainly not one of of them.

So, what is being done to get those lotto picks?

Is this a "win now" team? Go Pau! Go Jimmy! Go Derrick!

Or a "win later" team? Make sure you get a lotto pick.


What's the plan, stan? Is there one?


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> Yes, some teams are able to acquire in their prime stars via free agency and trade and the Bulls are not one of them.
> 
> In recent memory you have the Heat, Lakers, Cavs, Rockets, Spurs, Clippers, Knicks....
> 
> Anyway, Paxson's Bulls are certainly not one of of them.
> 
> So, what is being done to get those lotto picks?
> 
> Is this a "win now" team? Go Pau! Go Jimmy! Go Derrick!
> 
> Or a "win later" team? Make sure you get a lotto pick.
> 
> 
> What's the plan, stan? Is there one?



The last question is the salient one. And it is perfectly obvious the plan going in to this year was to win now. Now, you might not have been on board with that plan, but it was indeed the plan.

This trade deadline should tell you whether that remains the plan. If they stand pat, it's clear they intend to do whatever they can do in the playoffs this year (if they make it!) and delay any retooling until this offseason.

I would not be on board with standing pat. Even if you think there's some chance at contention this year, this group is going to need a shakeup of some sort. The whole is less than the sum of the parts.


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> The last question is the salient one. And it is perfectly obvious the plan going in to this year was to win now. Now, you might not have been on board with that plan, but it was indeed the plan.


It doesn't matter which one I was on board with. It matters if the Bulls have one.

Sure, "win now" you say, but Thibs was getting criticized for not giving rookies like Doug McDermott entitlement minutes last season during a year where the Bulls had a legit path to the NBA Finals.

The Bulls are in danger of missing the playoffs this season. Yeesh, what a dumpster fire.




> This trade deadline should tell you whether that remains the plan. If they stand pat, it's clear they intend to do whatever they can do in the playoffs this year (if they make it!) and delay any retooling until this offseason.


The Bulls as an organization appear happy to make the 1st round of the playoffs and make sure the attendance numbers stay high.

They also like to have a stockpile of young players ready to replace the old ones.

1st round of the playoffs but little meaningful playoff advancement has been the Paxson way.

Is this ever going to change?




> I would not be on board with standing pat. Even if you think there's some chance at contention this year, this group is going to need a shakeup of some sort. The whole is less than the sum of the parts.


This team is a mess. Its going to be a long ride through NBA hell it seems for a few years unless they can get some elite talent in here. Trade and FA are pretty much off the table with Paxson running things.


----------



## Dornado

jnrjr79 said:


> The last question is the salient one. And it is perfectly obvious the plan going in to this year was to win now. Now, you might not have been on board with that plan, but it was indeed the plan.


And this is the problem - if the plan was to try to win this year they never should have fired one of the best coaches in the league. I understand that Thibs was a 'different' kind of guy that didn't necessarily possess the social skills you might hope for in a coach - but for our front office to let things get to the point they did was an absolute organizational failure. Thibs ultimate undoing was losing the loyalty of the perennially-loyal Reinsdorf (which I think was the result of him leaking things to the press/JVG in a way that rubbed Reinsdorf the wrong way), but I can't help but think that all could have been avoided by Foreman and Paxson. 

I keep having to remind myself that things started to sour under Thibodeau on the actual basketball court and that there were times last year where it seemed like the team wasn't playing well for him, or that he wasn't reaching the team the same way he had before... either way, this idea that Fred Hoiberg could come in and win now while he learned how to coach an NBA team was obviously a massive miscalculation.


----------



## K4E

Dornado said:


> *I keep having to remind myself that things started to sour under Thibodeau on the actual basketball court and that there were times last year where it seemed like the team wasn't playing well for him, or that he wasn't reaching the team the same way he had before... either way*, this idea that Fred Hoiberg could come in and win now while he learned how to coach an NBA team was obviously a massive miscalculation.


While that is somewhat true, it wasn't anywhere close to this bad. Last year the team won 50 games and was a whisper from getting to the Finals all while the front office was focused more on publicly undermining the head coach with the media, fans and some players. Thanks for that GarPax. 

This team is a shambles.

Like many have said, its unwatchable.


----------



## Dornado

K4E said:


> While that is somewhat true, it wasn't anywhere close to this bad.
> 
> This team is a shambles.
> 
> Like many have said, its unwatchable.


You'll get no argument from me on that.


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> It doesn't matter which one I was on board with. It matters if the Bulls have one.


Uhh, this is a Bulls message board. Discussing whether you are on board with the plan is kind of the point, no?


----------



## thebizkit69u

Oh and let's not forget that the front office basically making up their mind on Thibs 2 years ago is the biggest reason why his players started tuning him out. Oh also not drafting Draymond Green, not surrounding MVP Rose with real talent, firing one of the best assistant coaches in the game, never making progressive moves to improve the contending teams..... How the fuck does this front office still have a job. These guys aren't going anywhere, Jerry will never fire pax.


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> Uhh, this is a Bulls message board. Discussing whether you are on board with the plan is kind of the point, no?


My point is that they should pick either "win now" or "win later" not try and do both at the same time.

They are not good enough to do both at the same time and the likely trajectory to the "make the 1st round" strategy is NBA hell.

"Pick a lane" as it were.


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> My point is that they should pick either "win now" or "win later" not try and do both at the same time.
> 
> They are not good enough to do both at the same time and the likely trajectory to the "make the 1st round" strategy is NBA hell.
> 
> "Pick a lane" as it were.



They are quite obviously trying to win now and have picked a lane. They are just failing at executing that plan. Badly.

The question is now whether they will do nothing, make further moves in pursuit of "win now," or shake things up to take a longer term approach.


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> They are quite obviously trying to win now and have picked a lane.


Perhaps, but why so much pressure on Thibs last season to give an average at best rookie like McDermott entitlement minutes? And integrate rookie Mirotic into a logjam at the 4/5 as well. Not very "win now."

At least Mirotic was a 17+ PER player last season under Thibs. Production way down under Hoiball. 

And of course publicly smearing the head coach while trying to "win now" is not to go about doing things either.




jnrjr79 said:


> The question is now whether they will do nothing, make further moves in pursuit of "win now," or shake things up to take a longer term approach.


The safe bet to answering that question will be "stand pat" and try and make the 1st round of the playoffs.


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> Perhaps, but why so much pressure on Thibs last season to give an average at best rookie like McDermott entitlement minutes? And integrate rookie Mirotic into a logjam at the 4/5 as well. Not very "win now."


You may not believe it's the best "win now" move, but it's pretty clear the FO wanted the youngins to play because it would both preserve vets and make the Bulls deeper. And I think with McDermott there was a particular (and perhaps quite inaccurate) belief that he could contribute right away and be an offensive threat.

Mirotic I'm sure was believed to be a win now player given he was the best player in Europe. Again, may not have been actually true, but that was presumably the FO belief.



> At least Mirotic was a 17+ PER player last season under Thibs. Production way down under Hoiball.
> 
> And of course publicly smearing the head coach while trying to "win now" is not to go about doing things either.


Well, we've covered quite thoroughly that there was a smear campaign going in both directions, but you just keep your blinders on to that fact. Frankly, neither side comes off looking terribly professional.




> The safe bet to answering that question will be "stand pat" and try and make the 1st round of the playoffs.


I'm not going to disagree with you here. This regime has not shown much ability to improve the team at the trade deadline.


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> Mirotic I'm sure was believed to be a win now player given he was the best player in Europe. Again, may not have been actually true, but that was presumably the FO belief.


Mirotic was a 17+ PER player in his role under Thibs last season. People were going balisitc for some reason that guys like Gasol, Noah and Gibson were playing more than him but Mirotic was getting minutes and making a solid impact. All 4 of those guys were decent to very good NBA players last season.

And you are right, Mirotic was a more established player due to his Euro exp. Thibs got a lot out of him last year. He did better under Thibs than he is with seemingly unencumbered playing time under Hoiball.

Now when he doesn't get minutes its because he's sucking for the most part. Or in the hospital.




> Well, we've covered quite thoroughly that there was a smear campaign going in both directions, but you just keep your blinders on to that fact. Frankly, neither side comes off looking terribly professional.


Actually, Thibs will be the guy with the ring with the Celtics and known for doing a pretty kick ass job with the Bulls. Team USA coach and he'll coach again soon enough in the NBA. He's fine. 

Most people see that the FO was trying to turn the team and the media against him and now look very foolish with the Bulls in free fall. 

What a bunch of clowns, right? Especially during a season where the Bulls had a clear path to the NBA Finals.

Paxson and his Bulls will remain a bit of a joke. I guess you can just "attack the source" of anyone who reports that though. We're seeing what they are without Thibs doing his thing. Its Freddy Del Hoiberg time.






> I'm not going to disagree with you here. This regime has not shown much ability to improve the team at the trade deadline.


In other news, the sun sets in the west.


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> Mirotic was a 17+ PER player in his role under Thibs last season. People were going balisitc for some reason that guys like Gasol, Noah and Gibson were playing more than him but Mirotic was getting minutes and making a solid impact. All 4 of those guys were decent to very good NBA players last season.


Do you believe Holberg is making Niko shoot worse? It seems a lot of his regression is just due to people having figured out his pump fake and him not being able to manufacture points for himself.




> Now when he doesn't get minutes its because he's sucking for the most part. Or in the hospital.


It's news to me that Niko isn't getting minutes.




> Actually, Thibs will be the guy with the ring with the Celtics and known for doing a pretty kick ass job with the Bulls. Team USA coach and he'll coach again soon enough in the NBA. He's fine.
> 
> Most people see that the FO was trying to turn the team and the media against him and now look very foolish with the Bulls in free fall.


Well, Pax actually wins the rings competition with Thibs, so I'm not sure I'd go down that road (and it's totally non-responsive to my point).

Last year, I totally agree that the FO attempted to make Thibs look bad in the media. And I agree it's bad form. What is mind-bendingly bizarre is that you act like that was a one-way street. Thibs openly railed against Jen Swanson/minutes limits in the media. He used his close friend JVG to blast the FO during broadcasts (attacks which were frankly more severe than anything the FO did to him). None of this is to excuse the FO's conduct, but the way you frame it is misleading in order to serve your particular agenda.




> Paxson and his Bulls will remain a bit of a joke. I guess you can just "attack the source" of anyone who reports that though. We're seeing what they are without Thibs doing his thing. Its Freddy Del Hoiberg time.


You are seemingly now staking out the position in multiple posts that this current roster is very good - potentially an NBA Finals-ready roster, and that the coaching change is the only thing inhibiting it from reaching those heights. I do not agree. We do seem to agree that Fred has not been an improvement, but the team's problems are bigger than just that.


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> Well, we've covered quite thoroughly that there was a smear campaign going in both directions, but you just keep your blinders on to that fact. Frankly, neither side comes off looking terribly professional.


Its also clear that the front office initiated the exchange, seemingly in an attempt to poison the team and media against the head coach to prepare for an inevitable firing. (unless the team made it to the NBA Finals perhaps) All this was during a season where the Bulls had a legit shot at getting to the NBA Finals. 

Any countermeasures taken by Thibs' camp (agent, JVG, etc) were purely defensive and an attempt to preserve the good name of a fine coach. I don't see Team USA or the Celtics saying terrible things about Thibs, and those two organizations have accomplished more than the Paxson Bulls. Paxson Bulls are known for choking and smearing coaches at this point and of course not winning much of consequence. This wasn't a fight Thibs wanted to have. He was playing defense. And of course focusing on winning. Tough to do when being smeared by your bosses though.

Thibs did look professional coming out of it. He's still a super respected coach with a great track record (Celtics, Bulls, Team USA) and will work again.

The Bulls front office on the other hand came out of it looking like a bunch of clowns / bad human beings.

Given the end result was replacing Thibs with Hoiberg its turned out to make the front office look even worse, from a "win now" standpoint at the very least.

Terrible decision to this point.


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> Do you believe Holberg is making Niko shoot worse? It seems a lot of his regression is just due to people having figured out his pump fake and him not being able to manufacture points for himself.


Its unclear why much of the team is playing poorer under Hoiberg.

Most troubling


Derrick Rose
PER Last Year: 15.9
PER This Year: 12.4

Former MVP went from being a decent NBA player last season to a bad one this year. 

Nikola Mirotic
PER Last Year: 17.9
PER This Year: 14.5

Promising rookie last season with a close to 18 PER. This year he's below average. What a dropoff.


Taj Gibson
PER Last Year: 16.1
PER This Year: 14.6

The always solid Taj under Thibs has been a below average NBA player under Hoiball.

Tony Snell
PER Last Year: 10.2
PER This Year: 6.8

This promising D and 3 guy has turned into a really bad NBA player under Hoiberg. Another younger asset moving in the wrong direction.


Aaron Brooks
PER Last Year: 14.4
PER This Year: 12.2

Our instant offense guy is now a bad NBA player under Hoiball. No DJ / Nate signing this year. No Thibs.

A bit worse

Joakim Noah
PER Last Year: 15.3
PER This Year: 14.2

Worse under Hoiberg. Also hurt under Hoiberg.


Lots of players are doing worse under Hoiberg. Not just Niko.





> It's news to me that Niko isn't getting minutes.


Some nights he's getting 15-20. Some nights he's getting more than that.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/4905/gamelog/

On the nights he's getting less minutes, oftentimes its due to poor play.

Many were outraged at Thibs last season for not giving Niko HEAVY minutes ahead of Noah, Gasol, Gibson, etc. He was playing much better under Thibs last season, that's for sure. 

That's the case for many of the players though. And the team in general. Hoiball has not been kind to Bulls players or Bulls fans. Awful.




> Well, Pax actually wins the rings competition with Thibs, so I'm not sure I'd go down that road (and it's totally non-responsive to my point).


Pax has 0 rings as a front office professional.

Pax's track record is this.

12+ seasons
0 championships
0 NBA Finals appearances
1 ECF appearance.

Those are the the basketball operations. The team does make the first round of the playoffs fairly regularly. That very well might happen again this year, in what is considered to be a failing campaign.




> Last year, I totally agree that the FO attempted to make Thibs look bad in the media. And I agree it's bad form. What is mind-bendingly bizarre is that you act like that was a one-way street. Thibs openly railed against Jen Swanson/minutes limits in the media. He used his close friend JVG to blast the FO during broadcasts (attacks which were frankly more severe than anything the FO did to him). None of this is to excuse the FO's conduct, but the way you frame it is misleading in order to serve your particular agenda.


Thibs and people that supported him did try to preserve his good name playing defense against the Bulls smear. That wasn't a fight Thibs wanted to have.





> You are seemingly now staking out the position in multiple posts that this current roster is very good - potentially an NBA Finals-ready roster


That was Paxson's position during the Thibs firing press conference last season. He was disappointed that Thibs didn't get this roster (without Portis) to the NBA Finals. 

We all saw this roster almost defeat the Cavs in a 7 game series last season as well. It was a Gasol ankle sprain / Lebron missed three away it seemed. How long will it be until we as fans get that close again?

This team under Hoiberg doesn't look like its heading in that direction, despite having mostly the same guys.

Its hard to prove what "the only thing" is behind it and I would never attempt to do that. 

One thing that changed for certain is the head coach and you and I seemingly agree that it hasn't been a good move to this point.


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> Its also clear that the front office initiated the exchange, seemingly in an attempt to poison the team and media against the head coach to prepare for an inevitable firing. (unless the team made it to the NBA Finals perhaps) All this was during a season where the Bulls had a legit shot at getting to the NBA Finals.
> 
> Any countermeasures taken by Thibs' camp (agent, JVG, etc) were purely defensive and an attempt to preserve the good name of a fine coach. I don't see Team USA or the Celtics saying terrible things about Thibs, and those two organizations have accomplished more than the Paxson Bulls. Paxson Bulls are known for choking and smearing coaches at this point and of course not winning much of consequence. This wasn't a fight Thibs wanted to have. He was playing defense. And of course focusing on winning. Tough to do when being smeared by your bosses though.
> 
> Thibs did look professional coming out of it. He's still a super respected coach with a great track record (Celtics, Bulls, Team USA) and will work again.
> 
> The Bulls front office on the other hand came out of it looking like a bunch of clowns / bad human beings.
> 
> Given the end result was replacing Thibs with Hoiberg its turned out to make the front office look even worse, from a "win now" standpoint at the very least.
> 
> Terrible decision to this point.



This may be your read on the situation, but it's not supported with facts and is clearly just the interpretation of someone who is inclined to dislike the FO and like the coach. That's fine! You could be right. But I don't think there's any clear evidence that it played out in the manner you suggest.

There is also two wrongs don't make a right, taking the high road, etc. If my boss is acting like an ass, it doesn't mean the right decision for me is to sink down to that level and engage.


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> This may be your read on the situation, but it's not supported with facts and is clearly just the interpretation of someone who is inclined to dislike the FO and like the coach. That's fine! You could be right. But I don't think there's any clear evidence that it played out in the manner you suggest.


What is the alternate read on the situation? What is yours?

Do you think that Thibs by proxy just started public ally smearing the management for no reason?

The facts are that the media smear against Thibs started before JVG started talking. That's why JVG started talking, to help out his friend who was being pilloried in the media.

What facts am I missing? Fill me in. 

Any fan of the Bulls knows that Thibs isn't a slimy lawyer / politician / manager type. He's a guy that is bad/uninterested in playing politics and is 100% devoted to coaching his basketball team and wanted to be left alone to do his job. And my goodness, he did it well. Good times to be a Bulls fan. Unlike the pretty much bad / meaningless times when he wasn't the Bulls coach under Paxson.











What's the plausible alternate take? The one where Thibs initiated this and he wasn't (or his supporters) were not playing defense. State the case.

At the end, Thibs is still one of the more respected coaches in the league and will work again.

Paxson is the head of a dysfunctional basketball operation that is taking on water in a hurry. What a joke.


----------



## K4E

Damning quote from Jimmy Butler.

https://twitter.com/KCJHoop/status/698197729076379648

Butler said opponents used to fear playing the Bulls. Now, they look forward to it because of team defensive slide.



Can't attack the source on KC Johnson, right?

Thibs is gone and GarPax remain. And this is what you have. Same roster pretty much as last year.


----------



## thebizkit69u

I think it's fair to say that those like myself who never thought Thibs was a problem, are vindicated. I've been saying it for several years now about how bad Garpax are and that we will never win a title under their regimes. It's a lost cause to argue otherwise, so let's move on guys. 

Now let's talk about a potential player who I think can really help the bulls out next season and could help Hoiberg look like an actual head coach.... Buddy Hield! He may not be a franchise player, he may lack elite athleticism, supreme handles and size, but I think he would be a fantastic starter in a heavy ball rotation offense that Hoiberg wants to run. 

Move Jimmy back to the 3 spot where he can still be a slashing scorer but you HAVE to get a push the pace PG who is a pass first point. Hoiberg also has to grow some balls and tell Jimmy to stop killing the offense.


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> What is the alternate read on the situation? What is yours?
> 
> Do you think that Thibs by proxy just started public ally smearing the management for no reason?
> 
> The facts are that the media smear against Thibs started before JVG started talking. That's why JVG started talking, to help out his friend who was being pilloried in the media.
> 
> What facts am I missing? Fill me in.
> 
> Any fan of the Bulls knows that Thibs isn't a slimy lawyer / politician / manager type. He's a guy that is bad/uninterested in playing politics and is 100% devoted to coaching his basketball team and wanted to be left alone to do his job. And my goodness, he did it well. Good times to be a Bulls fan. Unlike the pretty much bad / meaningless times when he wasn't the Bulls coach under Paxson.
> 
> What's the plausible alternate take? The one where Thibs initiated this and he wasn't (or his supporters) were not playing defense. State the case.
> 
> At the end, Thibs is still one of the more respected coaches in the league and will work again.
> 
> Paxson is the head of a dysfunctional basketball operation that is taking on water in a hurry. What a joke.



Listen, as I've said repeatedly, I think Thibs is a great coach. I really like him. He got a longer run here than most coaches get, and he's getting paid $9 million not to work. We don't need to feel bad for Thibs.

What is really odd to me is this child-like characterization of what happened. It's all good guys and bad guys. White hats and black hats. It's not possible that it's murkier than that, with fault being properly attributed to everyone involved. Paxson and Gar are slimeballs, while Thibs is "uninterested in playing politics." "Uninterested in playing politics" just means "acts like an asshole," but spun to be somehow virtuous.

In any event, life doesn't normally involve heroes and villains so neatly drawn. Here, it's pretty clear that both sides acted poorly. While I respect that Thibs eked out wins at an impressive rate, that has nothing to do with whether he handled his relationships with Bulls players and management correctly. 

If you go back and look at the timeline, the first JVG broadcast comments about the Bulls mistreating coaches really predates most of anything coming from the other side. I'm confident, though, that both sides believe the other started it. I can't find instances of any public Thibs criticism before those first JVG comments, but maybe I'm missing it.

And you can post all the articles you like that criticize the Bulls FO. There's plenty of ammo! But there's plenty of bad reports about Thibs as well.



> Thibodeau, for his part, *has been defiant with his public comments* about the core issue dividing him from the organization: the workload of the Bulls' most important players in the wake of continuing injuries.
> 
> In a Thursday interview with USA Today's Sam Amick, Thibodeau defended his full-throttle approach to rotations, pointing to practice habits and the need to build chemistry and continuity.
> 
> The war has raged behind the scenes for some time, but now it's being fought through the press, *which is a bad look for everybody involved*.
> 
> It's hard to say that the Bulls' concerns are misplaced. Minutes have been a point of contention with Thibodeau for years. In each of his last two full seasons with the Bulls, Luol Deng led the league in minutes per game, and the 2012-13 season ended in a near-death experience for the two-time All-Star forward when he came down with a bout of viral meningitis.
> 
> Thibodeau is working Jimmy Butler similarly hard. Last season, Butler was second in the NBA in minutes per game at 38.7; this season, he's leading the league with 39.5.
> 
> At age 34, in his first season with the Bulls, Pau Gasol is averaging 35 minutes per game, the most he's played since the 2011-12 season. His last three seasons with the Lakers were plagued by injuries that prevented him from playing at an All-Star level. This season has been a return to form, but with his age and workload, the risk of burnout is real.
> 
> That's to say nothing of Noah, who had knee surgery in the offseason that was more serious than previously thought. He has been playing on a bad knee and ankle all season, looking like a shell of the game-changing force that won the league's Defensive Player of the Year award last season. This isn't the first time Noah has played hurt either: He pushed through a case of plantar fasciitis in his right foot during the 2013 playoffs.
> 
> The Bulls have the frontcourt depth to shut Noah down for a few weeks to let him recharge and get healthy, as the Cleveland Cavaliers did with LeBron James earlier this month. *A more forward-thinking coach would at least entertain the possibility. Unless the Bulls take the decision out of his hands, Thibodeau is as likely to go for that as Kobe Bryant is to go for early retirement.*
> 
> But this is who Thibodeau is. This has always been who he is. He's an elite basketball coach, *but the same qualities that make him elite*—a relentless work ethic, an obsessive dedication to perfection, an encyclopedic knowledge of X's and O's—*are the ones that can grate on the wrong group of players. This has always been the case.*


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...nevitable-between-tom-thibodeau-chicago-bulls



> Thought to be a contender to win the Eastern Conference, the Bulls now look dangerously close to falling apart. Derrick Rose's play has been up and down, center Joakim Noah can't get healthy, breakout star Jimmy Butler is regressing each month, and there seems to be tension between coach Tom Thibodeau and the front office.
> 
> At the center of it all is Thibodeau. While Thibodeau is one of the better coaches in the NBA, making the Bulls a perennial playoff team despite a glut of injuries each year, *his glaring weakness is minute management for players.*
> 
> Thibodeau continues to disregard the notion that he overworks players.
> 
> There's evidence that heavy minutes are wearing certain Bulls players down, particularly Butler, who began the season as a possible MVP candidate. From November to January, Butler's minutes have hung around 40 per night, but his points per game and field goal percentage have decreased each month. According to the Wall Street Journal, Butler has run an NBA-high 126 total miles this season.


http://www.businessinsider.com/chicago-bulls-slump-leads-to-thibodeau-quesitons-2015-2

Heck, if you want a really even-handed history, Friedell put together an opus on, step by step, how Thibs came to be fired:

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/12890745/tom-thibodeau-tenure-chicago-bulls

That story indicates very clearly that Thibs was the first one bristling about the FO - complaining about minutes restrictions. It also puts the Van Gundy comments on the timeline before any other inflammatory public comments, which basically torpedoes your notion that these were mere "countermeasures."

It also indicates Thibs lost the locker room, more or less, which you seem to deny without basis.

But hey, you like Thibs and you hate GarPax, so why let facts get in the way of a good story?

Anyway, I'm not saying all of this because I think the front office handled the Thibs thing well. They didn't, and they've got a history of difficulties with coaches! And I'm not even a big proponent of keeping the FO intact. I'd be perfectly comfortable with a new GM. But to act like it's as one sided as you do just because you've got an axe to grind is simply dishonest.


----------



## Da Grinch

as far as the front office thibs situation , I don't see any reason not to give thibodeau the benefit of the doubt , he has gotten along with everyone everywhere, whether its the knicks, celts ,team USA before he was the head coach you never heard one bad word about his personality or temperament.

the bulls front office has fired like 4 head coaches now and none of them went well, thibs was not not the 1st coach to lose the team while the FO was actively looking for their replacement, that happened over 12 years ago with cartwright.

as for the current team , I don't know what people expected , this is an old big slow team , its not built to beat people in an uptempo game ,it cant beat teams by outrunning them

its a so-so shooting team , so its not built to consistently outshoot teams . 

pace and space style is unwise when your starting point guard is not a good shooter , nor a gifted playmaker 

it was doomed from the start because the front office was still trying to blame its former head coach for its woes

and all it did was prove him right by showing the world how pigheaded the bulls front office can be by doggedly sticking to a roster that had lost passion and was a poor fit for its new coach's style of play .

how can a reasonable person be expected to deal with mindsets that are so stuck in their ways they essentially threw this season away on principle?

my opinion is they need to rebuild immediately and bring in guys who will play in the way hoiberg wants so he can establish his own culture.

give him a real chance to succeed


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> But hey, you like Thibs and you hate GarPax, so why let facts get in the way of a good story?


I'll pretty much agree that Thibs is a difficult person to get along with if weaselly lawyer/politician/manager/ front office types start infringing on his head coaching turf. Things like minutes allocation. He certainly bristled against it. 

The public leaking of "minutes issues" and "thibs being difficult" and the like is what JVG was initially responding to during his national broadcasts. That story, that constant drumbeat over the last 1.5 of Thibs' tenure was basically created by the Bulls local beat media, who many, including JVG, feel are "in the pocket" of the Bulls org. If you follow the team long enough, which I know you do, you know this is how the Bulls operate.

Those steady streams of leaks were occurring long before JVG said anything on national TV and were what he was responding to.

And its unclear still if JVG was acting independently. JVG says he was. The Bulls Front Office says he wasn't. JVG is a colorful fellow who doesn't like the Bulls front office and is friends with Thibs. The Bulls front office don't exactly have a great track record of professionalism. Paxson attacked Del *****. Gar has a checkered past to begin with and went after JVG in an unprofessional manner after the JVG broadcast. 

----

I'll ask you this. Do you think Thibs was interested in initiating a public media war against the front office last season? Or would he have just been happy coaching his team last season in a drama free manner if he wasn't being undermined by media leaks? 

Based on all the years watching him, I think its the latter. Do you think its the former? Its not good guys and bad guys, Thibs is a gruff fellow who links a clear line between the locker room and the front office. The front office knew this when they renewed his contract. 

Basically, who started it? And by started it I mean making it into the media shitshow last season became.

The front office wanted more control over minutes, just like they did with Del *****. Thibs wanted there to be a line. 

What did the front office do? Started leaking to the press, as the Bulls often do when they are trying to turn public perception in their favor. Supposedly Thibs "lost the team" and was "hard to get along with."

If last season was "lost the team" under Thibs what the heck to you call what their boy Hoiberg has done?


Well, now they have a real mess on their hands. The players have been taught its OK to disrespect a coach. They saw their organization do it to an elite one last season. Now Jimmy Butler, the best player on the team, a couple times has publicly undermined Hoiberg. Gibson is publicly questioning what is going on. Its a real mess. And one of their own creation.


The Bulls Front Office currently looks like a bunch of clowns and Thibs still has a great reputation. The smear didn't work and it certainly didn't help matters during a season where the Bulls had a clear path to the NBA Finals.


----------



## K4E

Da Grinch said:


> as far as the front office thibs situation , I don't see any reason not to give thibodeau the benefit of the doubt , he has gotten along with everyone everywhere, whether its the knicks, celts ,team USA before he was the head coach you never heard one bad word about his personality or temperament.
> 
> the bulls front office has fired like 4 head coaches now and none of them went well, thibs was not not the 1st coach to lose the team while the FO was actively looking for their replacement, that happened over 12 years ago with cartwright.



This also is a great point and one I try to make.

The Celtics and Team USA have great things to say about Thibs.

Guys like Doc and JVG who have worked with him swear by him. Coach K wants him by his side. 

If dopey Paxson the coach choker and Gar can't deal with someone much smarter then them telling them to back off, well, I guess we see what happens then. Thibs walks away and will have a new job soon enough. GarPax look silly and us Bulls fans are stuck with the mess they have created.

Poor Paxson supporters. Their boy has done a bad job in 12+ years. Poor Bulls fans too.


----------



## K4E

thebizkit69u said:


> Move Jimmy back to the 3 spot where he can still be a slashing scorer but you HAVE to get a push the pace PG who is a pass first point. Hoiberg also has to grow some balls and tell Jimmy to stop killing the offense.



They have a real issue now.

Their best player is publicly taking shots more than once now about against the head coach and how the team operates. He's firing away on all-star weekend it seems.

Not sure how they are going to deal with that. He's been taught its OK to undermine a head coach, and an elite one at that. He's certainly not going to have issues undermining a guy like Hoiberg who is still wet behind the ears if things get rough.

What a mess.


----------



## jnrjr79

K4E said:


> I'll pretty much agree that Thibs is a difficult person to get along with if weaselly lawyer/politician/manager/ front office types start infringing on his head coaching turf. Things like minutes allocation. He certainly bristled against it.
> 
> The public leaking of "minutes issues" and "thibs being difficult" and the like is what JVG was initially responding to during his national broadcasts. That story, that constant drumbeat over the last 1.5 of Thibs' tenure was basically created by the Bulls local beat media, who many, including JVG, feel are "in the pocket" of the Bulls org. If you follow the team long enough, which I know you do, you know this is how the Bulls operate.


Oh, I totally agree that the Bulls FO leaks their desired messages through local beat writers who put food on the table by relaying that sort of info. I more or less view anything that KC says that is of an inside info nature as something that must have come from the FO.



> Those steady streams of leaks were occurring long before JVG said anything on national TV and were what he was responding to.
> 
> And its unclear still if JVG was acting independently. JVG says he was. The Bulls Front Office says he wasn't. JVG is a colorful fellow who doesn't like the Bulls front office and is friends with Thibs. The Bulls front office don't exactly have a great track record of professionalism. Paxson attacked Del *****. Gar has a checkered past to begin with and went after JVG in an unprofessional manner after the JVG broadcast.


I think it's pretty naive to think that JVG wasn't a Thibs surrogate when he made those comments. They are very close friends. I wouldn't trash one of my best friend's employers in an extremely public way unless I knew it was kosher to do it. Those JVG comments were in no way subtle. It was a full-on flamethrower.




> I'll ask you this. Do you think Thibs was interested in initiating a public media war against the front office last season? Or would he have just been happy coaching his team last season in a drama free manner if he wasn't being undermined by media leaks?


So, given the fact that there were weird-ish leaks going all the way back to Thibs refusing to sign the extension he'd agreed to, it's sort of hard to put a finger on exactly where the drama started and who would have been happy to live with it or without it.

Broadly, here's what I think happened: the FO told Thibs that they were concerned about players being hurt and/or burned out come playoff time, and they were concerned with the health of two players returning from serious knee injuries. Therefore, Thibs was informed that Jen Swanson was going to have the authority to institute minutes limits with respect to players with health concerns.

I think this drove Thibs nuts and he was unable to control himself with the media and accept these strictures. So, when you asked whether Thibs would have kept things out of the media if not undermined by media leaks - no, I think the answer is he absolutely would not have been. Now, if you take away Jen Swanson and anyone having control over players' minutes, then yes, I do think he would have been totally quiet in the media.

So, basically, I think it was taking away his minutes-management authority with respect to certain players that guaranteed there was going to be a media battle.

I also think it was completely appropriate to tell Thibs that he needed to defer to medical staff on minutes and it was totally nuts of Thibs to flip out in response to that. From all reports, the only players on limits were Jo and Derrick, two guys coming off major injuries. It makes all the sense in the world that you'd have actual medical professionals determine how much those could play as opposed to a basketball coach with no medical training.



> Based on all the years watching him, I think its the latter. Do you think its the former? Its not good guys and bad guys, Thibs is a gruff fellow who links a clear line between the locker room and the front office. The front office knew this when they renewed his contract.
> 
> Basically, who started it? And by started it I mean making it into the media shitshow last season became.
> 
> The front office wanted more control over minutes, just like they did with Del *****. Thibs wanted there to be a line.


So, I agree with this, basically. Thibs believed minutes should be exclusively determined by him, and believed the FO taking over some of that authority through their surrogates was over the line.

I disagree with Thibs on that. 



> What did the front office do? Started leaking to the press, as the Bulls often do when they are trying to turn public perception in their favor. Supposedly Thibs "lost the team" and was "hard to get along with."


I don't know how much it matters, but I'm not sure that the FO leaks (which I totally agree occurred) predated Thibs bitching to the media about minutes (which also obviously occurred).

In terms of actually losing the team, I don't think those reports come exclusively from the FO. It appeared that the reporters last season who were stating that multiple Bulls would refuse to train in Chicago in the offseason because they couldn't stand to be around Thibs were not just sourced from the FO but were sourced, at least in part, from actual Bulls players.

Put it this way - it seems painfully obvious Thibs wore out his welcome with a very significant portion of the Bulls roster. That is consistent with coaches of Thibs' style. It doesn't make him a bad coach. Most coaches have a limited shelf life. But reading the reports and watching the team in the 2nd half of last season, it's pretty obvious his domineering style had begun to grate on players and many were tuning him out.




> If last season was "lost the team" under Thibs what the heck to you call what their boy Hoiberg has done?


Not relevant. As I've said before, you have to evaluate whether Thibs should be fired and whether Fred was the right replacement separately. You aren't going to hear a big Holberg endorsement from me at this point. 



> Well, now they have a real mess on their hands. The players have been taught its OK to disrespect a coach. They saw their organization do it to an elite one last season. Now Jimmy Butler, the best player on the team, a couple times has publicly undermined Hoiberg. Gibson is publicly questioning what is going on. Its a real mess. And one of their own creation.


I know you are cribbing the whole "taught it's OK to disrespect a coach" from Cowley's article today (without acknowledging the same), but I think that's bogus and there's no evidence for it. 

I do agree that Jimmy Buckets seems to have undermined Holberg to a degree. He refuses to be taken out, as has been acknowledged a couple of times, and insists on the big minutes. More than that, by my eyes he is refusing to run the offense and is playing a lot of unscripted ISO ball. He's good at that style, and for all I know it's not contrary to winning, but I'd be shocked if that style of play has been sanctioned by Holberg.

Re: Gibson's comments, or the "damning" ones you referenced earlier today or yesterday from Butler, I don't view those as clear-cut coaching criticisms as you seem to. Both basically are saying that guys aren't playing hard and guys aren't playing D. Is there any reason why a new coach would suddenly have that impact? It seems the ills must go deeper than that. 



> The Bulls Front Office currently looks like a bunch of clowns and Thibs still has a great reputation. The smear didn't work and it certainly didn't help matters during a season where the Bulls had a clear path to the NBA Finals.


I would agree that the Thibs-FO sniping was not helpful. I would only stress that it was an absolutely two-way street on that front. 

I don't think the Bulls FO are considered "clowns" by most, but obviously they don't look good vis a vis the Thibs dismissal and it's not the first time they have had curious difficulty in getting along with coaches.

I agree that overall Thibs has a good reputation and will assuredly be a head coach again. It's also quite obvious that he's a maniac and that some people are freaked out by him. I'm sure you saw in the wake of the Derek Fisher firing in NY that Thibs quickly had someone close to him leak that NY would be his dream job, and then almost instantaneously sources close to Phil Jackson indicated that Thibs was basically the polar opposite of Phil temperament-wise and that he would never hire Thibs. Also, apparently Phil has been toward the whole JVG crowd. So, I'd be shocked if Thibs doesn't have a new gig by next season, but it's also true that there are lots of teams that would want no part of him.

He's a really good coach that hates sports medicine-related issues. He famously rallied against the Bulls when they wanted to implement bio-monitoring systems like the Warriors use. He's kind of a relic, but an extremely talented one. My whole point in our back-and-forth, which you seem to acknowledge to some extent, is that Thibs is no diplomat, and it's been well-reported that the animosity that led to his firing was not all from the FO directed at Thibs. Both sides engaged in some pretty petty behavior and waged a campaign in the media agains the other.


----------



## K4E

Its good we agree that most of the local media is pretty much a Bulls front office message machine. 

OK, so here’s a version of what could have went down. 

And its bigger picture than just Thibs.

The Bulls front office are controlling types who have long wanted to allocate player minutes as they see fit, which is usually under the purview of the head coach.

This was the case with Vinny Del *****. Paxson didn’t like that Vinny was playing Noah heavy minutes in an attempt to win basketball games. Arguing over this resulted in Paxson physically attacking the head coach. There were no mentions of the buzzwords “sports science” or any Jen Swanons involved publicly. Just a front office executive wanting to control the coaching decisions. Paxson, being the type of person he is, behaved unprofessionally.

Vinny was an average coach at best, which can certainly happen when you decide to hire a guy that has never head coached NBA before, so it was easy to let him go.

Enter Thibs. Thibs turned out to be an elite head coach. Now, Thibs wasn’t the first choice of Gar or Pax. He entered the organization through Uncle Jerry and some outside recommendations. Supposedly Gar and Pax had different first choices.

Thibs doesn’t suffer fools. Thibs believes in a clear line between the locker room and the front office. In a room where Gar, Pax and Thibs are it it, Thibs is the smartest basketball guy in the room and when challenged I imagine will let the other guys know that. He’s gruff. He’s territorial. That’s Thibs. They decided to hire him.

Thibs did a bang up job. Great coach. Sure, he does things his own way and he’s no lawyer/politician type, but he’s a great coach. Lots of winning and the Bulls are one of the elite teams in the NBA.

The Bulls, knowing full well what type of person and coach Thibs is, decided to sign him to a four year extension. 

The Rose injury issues plague the team but the team still does better than expected under Thibs. Metrics in hindsight show that Thibs is one of the best coaches of all time in terms of exceeding the preseason expectations of what team should do. He’s considered one of the finest head coaches in the league.

The Bulls front office are still very controlling though and Thibs is getting the “genius” label and treatment. GarPax feels that they are not getting enough credit and Thibs doesn’t suffer fools. A Woj article goes into this in detail. It wrong to just discount what Woj reports IMO, and Bulls front office apologists love to “attack the source” against him, 

The Bulls front office decide to exert some authority against their excellent head coach. 

They are not going to physically attack him, but they are going to let go his favorite assistant coach in Ron Adams. He doesn’t suffer fools either and apparently told Gar Foreman where to shove it. Now, in a talent industry, it’s a good idea to keep the talent happy and productive for the most part, but the Bulls front office decided to not let one of the best head coaches in the league pick his own assistant coaches anymore. 

That’s odd behavior. Head coaches usually get to pick their assistants, especially the elite ones. Ron Adams of course goes to the Warriors and does a bang up job there.

Now the minutes thing comes up again. GarPax decides they know what is best and want to exert even more control over Thibs. Now it’s the minutes thing again, just like with Del *****. Arguing with the coach / physically attacking him isn’t going to work. 

He doesn’t suffer fools. Also, he’s unquestionably one of the best coaches in the league, so you can’t call him incompetent. Enter the Bulls smear machine.

Hire a Jen Swanson and couch minutes control using “sports science.” Use the expert to exert the control they wanted with Del *****. This time they do it a bit smarter. Thibs of course bristles against this. Everyone knows he will, because that’s how he is. 

Minutes are dictated by the coach. They knew this when they signed him to an extension. If you didn’t want a coach that felt that way, don’t give Thibs an extension or hire him to begin with.

Thibs grumbles to the media at times but still works as a professional. He certainly doesn’t lose it or go nuts. He certainly doesn’t physically attack GarPax. He “does his job.” I would also imagine he either explicitly tells or infers behind the scenes that 

Paxson et all should just leave him alone and they don’t really know what they are talking about. He doesn’t suffer fools.

The Bulls Org want to start beating the drum of running Thibs out of town. They want to Ron Adams him, but he’s one of the best coaches in the league and beloved by most of the fans. They have to smear him. The players are super loyal to him, so they have to get Swanson and that team in their ear. “Does he really have your best interests at heart?” “Other teams don’t work this hard” That type of thing.

“Thibs plays his players too many minutes.” Get that to be the story the media focuses on day after day.

“Thibs doesn’t embrace sports science” “Thibs doesn’t like wearable tech” “Thibs is losing the team”

What he does do is excel at being a NBA Head Coach at an elite level, but that isn’t the story anymore.

The Bulls didn’t adopt “sports science.” The front office just wanted to control minutes allocation and such, just like with Del *****, and were just using that as the vehicle to get the control they wanted. If this organization really embraces “sports science” Butler would not be leading the league in MPG right now. Most of the organizations that do this “smartly” don’t play their players heavy minutes like that. If Butler is playing heavy minutes because he is defying the will of the coach and the front office, well, that’s just a silly thought or another sign of the Bulls current organization dysfunction. 

Anyway, enough of that aside.

The smear is underway. Thibs isn’t going to politic to the media and openly call out the front office. He might grumble but he “does his job” but his good name and reputation are being sullied by the Bulls org. Enter the JVG salvo.

JVG doesn’t like the Bulls Org to begin with and is friends with Thibs. Did Thibs instruct 
JVG to say what he said or did JVG decide to speak on his own on behalf of his friend? Or did Thibs’ agent or something like that decide to help Thibs help himself? I don’t know that and you don’t either. Thibs seems like a guy that is content to coach his basketball team and win basketball games. I imagine it really sucks to have snakes sullying your good name in public. Even worse if its your employer who you have done a great job for, but I don’t think anyone knows for sure how the JVG stuff came about. 

The Bulls Org has most of the Chicago media under their control. What devices does Thibs have? I would not fault Thibs for trying to counterpunch. What’s the alternative, just let your reputation be destroyed? Most of what JVG said is true. The Bulls front office doesn’t like it when scrutiny is thrown their way in the media. 

The smear machine should not have been turned against Thibs to begin with, especially during a season where the Bulls had a legit shot to make the Finals. But, that isn’t how the Bulls org operates.

Anyway, then the shit really hits the fan, since the Bulls front office are the ones who behave like maniacs on the rare occasion they lose control of the media. If it was a local guy, his or her career would be over or he’d be “joe Cowleyed.” Respected national guys like Woj, who you love to attack the source, also begin telling their story. 

The Bulls front office can’t control the national media, so you get a very different take on the issue than the one you get from the Chicago media. The radically different reporting on the same issue, combined with knowing that the local media is basically under the control of the Bulls org, indicates that something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Thibs behaves professionally on the way out. The Bulls front office does not, ending with the terrible press release from the Bulls Org on the day of his firing. 

Now that Thibs is gone, we really see what “lost the team” looks like. The team is playing poorly. The star player is saying he needs to be coached harder. He’s also playing heavy minutes and gets hurt. This minutes thing was supposed to be one of the failings of Thibs, and after all that Butler is playing heavy minutes under Hoiberg and get hurt. Gasol is still playing heavy minutes under Hoiberg for his age. The minutes restriction is lifted for Rose apparently but who cares, he’s a 12 PER player now under Hoiberg. Noah is out for the year under Hoiberg. 

It doesn’t appear that the coaching change helps in any way. 

Are they all geared up in wearable tech now? Does it really matter if the team isn’t relevant anymore?

If Thibs “lost the team” winning 50 games and almost knocking off the Cavs, I don’t know what you call this. 

If playing Butler the most minutes in the league is what happens when the “anti sports science” coach is let go do the Bulls Org really embrace those principles or were they just being used to smear / exert control. 

Or maybe its just incompetence. The Bulls Org under Paxson hasn’t done much without Thibs as the coach.

Thibs had a great career before the Bulls, left the Bulls considered one of the best coaches in the NBA and will work again soon enough. The years when he was coaching the team were the best years to be a Bulls fan since MJ. Good times.

The front office got what they wanted. A head coach that will let them control what they want to control. This Thibs-less team so far is worse off and many fans are starting to find the product unwatchable.


----------



## jnrjr79

Your story is plausible enough, save for a few details here and there. I'm not even sure it's that different than mine, other than being told from the perspective of Thibs.

I would say, though, that "not suffering fools" just means acting like an asshole to your bosses, which isn't ok in any workplace. Even if GarPax suck, they are still the bosses.

Long story short, I've spilled enough words on the topic at this point. I think it's totally appropriate that the FO institute minutes limits for injured players, and disagree that this is somehow the purview of the coach. (Uninjured players, yes.) Thibs had every reason to know minutes limits for injured players would be part of the deal, because he knew VDN got choked over it. Yet, he couldn't handle it when the inevitable came. Hence the conflict that led to his termination.


----------



## K4E

jnrjr79 said:


> Your story is plausible enough, save for a few details here and there. I'm not even sure it's that different than mine, other than being told from the perspective of Thibs.
> 
> I would say, though, that "not suffering fools" just means acting like an asshole to your bosses, which isn't ok in any workplace. Even if GarPax suck, they are still the bosses.


I totally think Thibs can be an asshole to meddling bosses. If they didn't know that when they initially hired him they had to have when they extended his contract.



> I think it's totally appropriate that the FO institute minutes limits for injured players, and disagree that this is somehow the purview of the coach. (Uninjured players, yes.) Thibs had every reason to know minutes limits for injured players would be part of the deal, because he knew VDN got choked over it. Yet, he couldn't handle it when the inevitable came. Hence the conflict that led to his termination.


I guess the thing is he did handle it. He still worked hard last season and abided by the minutes restrictions. At times there was mild grumbling from him to the press (Noah reached his minutes limit game) and I imagine there was much more than that going on behind the scenes, but he did his job and was graceful on his exit and since.

The JVG stuff was a lightning rod. I think I have stated how I feel about that.

Also, this situation didn't rear its head, publicly at least until after his extension. The Fridell timeline says that Gar "had enough" after the Bobcats game in April 2014. You don't "re-up" Thibs if you are planning on imposing minutes restrictions. Or if you decide to do that, don't be surprised on how he reacts. 

Its a shame that GarPax decided to go to war with him during a season where the Bulls could have made the Finals. If they wanted to fire him, sack up and fire him, the smear isn't needed. And it didn't really work well. The Bulls FO came out of it looking pretty terrible and Thibs is still a respected guy in the NBA.

Well, now we have a coach that will do pretty much whatever GarPax wants I imagine. GarPax got their way.


----------

