# What if the bulls dont make the playoffs ?



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

At the moment the bulls are 12-8 as are the heat and pacers.

the Celtics are 13-9

the hawks are 14-10

a virtual 5 way tie for the last 5 seeds 
the magic are 12-10 and the pistons are 12-11 in a surprisingly competitive eastern conference .

between the 1st team and the conference(cavs) and the 10th team (pistons) the difference is only 3 games and most of the advanced statistics that judge a teams level of play have the bulls somewhere along the lines of 6-10 best team in the conference .

So what should happen if the bulls do not make the playoffs?


----------



## K4E (Jun 29, 2015)

The message from the front office will be its Rose's fault. 

The truth IMO is that the job of a NBA head coach is to get the most out of the roster he's given. Thibs almost always did this and that's one of the reasons he was a great NBA head coach. Many players on this roster are playing worse under Hoiball than under Thibs.

Hoiball isn't working so far. 20 games in and it is one of the worst offenses in the NBA. I'll have to look back but I can't imagine the Bulls have ever been this poor in offensive efficiency 20 games in.

This may be the worst Bulls offense to start a season ever. Hoiball. The front office undermined an actual shot to make the NBA Finals for Hoiball.

I guess that's why in 12 seasons they have 0 championships, 0 Finals appearances and only 1 Eastern Conference Finals appearance.

It could happen but the Bulls should make the playoffs with this roster. It will be a real cluster**** if they can't pull that off.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

It depends "how" it happens. If it's more injuries and to certain players, that stuff happens. Context is important, so it's impossible to say unless it happens. 

I'll say this though, the East is very deep this year. Alot of that young talent accumulated by EC lotto picks the past 5-7 years is finally coming together. The Bulls have been lucky to score with alot of their draft picks, b/c with Rose going downhill, we'd be sinking fast. I've never seen this much parity in a single conference; 8-9 teams that are playing fairly equal, and no clear front runner. Actually you could expand that to around a dozen NBA teams all living in that "good but not great" territory. Really just Golden State & San Antonio are clearly a step above the next 12 teams, and then those 12 teams are only footsteps from each other.

I say this b/c missing the playoffs this year in a loaded EC isn't the same as missing the playoffs in a weak EC the past 5 years where the 7/8 seeds were barely at or even below .500. Regardless it would be disappointing. Unlikely, but a possibility with how tight the top 9 teams appear to be in standings. You could just as easily say the same thing for any other EC team, except perhaps Cleveland.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

K4E said:


> The message from the front office will be its Rose's fault.


The sad reality is that it probably would be Rose's fault, if he continues what he's been doing so far. Can you legitimately deny that to be the case, or are you going to keep on with this non-sense about Fred Hoiberg causing Derrick Rose to regress.


----------



## K4E (Jun 29, 2015)

yodurk said:


> Can you legitimately deny that to be the case, or are you going to keep on with this non-sense about Fred Hoiberg causing Derrick Rose to regress.


Why do you think its happening?

Why are Rose, Noah, Gibson, Mirotic and Snell all playing worse than last season?

Why is the offense suddenly the 2nd worst offense in the league? What else changed?

There is no way to prove this one way or the other of course, but I'd like to hear some other theories.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

K4E said:


> Why do you think its happening?
> 
> Why are Rose, Noah, Gibson, Mirotic and Snell all playing worse than last season?
> 
> ...



Why is the defense massively improved? I guess Thibs was a bad defensive coach.


The truth is probably that the sample size is too small at this point (which is also the answer to the thread title). It's fun to make quick judgments, and while I do certainly believe there is a roster imbalance that needs to be corrected via trade, particularly if Dunleavy continues to be on the sidelines, the NBA season is a slog and I wouldn't conclude the Bulls are likely to remain the 29th worst offensive team all year just because they have been so thus far. (Nor do I believe they will necessarily finish #2 in defense).


----------



## K4E (Jun 29, 2015)

jnrjr79 said:


> Why is the defense massively improved? I guess Thibs was a bad defensive coach.


Thibs (and many of these players) has a track record of success on defense.

11th, 2nd, 5th, 1st and 1st in defensive efficiency as a head coach and a ring / reinventing NBA defense as an assistant with the Celtics.

Hoiberg has no track record other than fielding teams that didn't do much in the NCAA tournament for 5 seasons and in 20 games as a NBA head coach guiding an established group of winning veterans that had the 11th most efficient offense in the NBA last season to the 2nd worst so far this season.

Yes, small sample size, but that's all we have to go on. There really is nowhere to go but up from here and an orangutan coaching with this roster would be able to coach it better than the 2nd worst offense in the league. 


Hoiberg is far from a finished product and likely will improve (if he wants to remain employed). But, this is all we have to talk about to this point. Otherwise every post / thread would be "let's just wait and see......"

The defensive output does seem to indicate that the players are giving strong effort. Kind of makes the brutal offense even more troubling.


----------



## K4E (Jun 29, 2015)

jnrjr79 said:


> I do certainly believe there is a roster imbalance that needs to be corrected via trade,


This roster coached by Thibs was the 11th most efficient offense in the NBA last season.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

K4E said:


> Why do you think its happening?
> 
> Why are Rose, Noah, Gibson, Mirotic and Snell all playing worse than last season?
> 
> ...


Regardless of what your precious PER says, I have watched the Bulls alot this year, and my eyeballs say that Snell & Noah are playing better than last year, Gibson is the same, and Mirotic & Rose are both slightly worse. Snell is among the league leaders in 3-pt % and a key part of our #3 rated defense; he looks less hesitant than last year. Noah looks far more energized and game impacting than last year, I don't care what stats say; though if you want a stat, I believe his plus/minus is very good. Gibson looks literally identical to last year to me. Mirotic is a mystery to me, like he didn't practice or workout this off-season or something. He played poorly for the Spanish team this past summer too, and physically I said from Day 1 was disappointed he didn't appear to put any weight room time in, compared to say McDermott who looked great physically. 

Anyway, we are talking about Rose here...I give up on what goes through this guy's head TBH. He frustrated the heck out of me last year, and this year is no different. Statistically he is worse, but he also had this eye contusion/blurred vision, which some in the media say is still affecting him. So maybe that is making him go from bad last year to horrendous this year. It's as valid reason as any that I can conceive; at least it makes sense, more than saying his coach of all of 6 months has caused his play to regress.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

K4E said:


> Why is the offense suddenly the 2nd worst offense in the league? What else changed?
> 
> There is no way to prove this one way or the other of course, but I'd like to hear some other theories.


Other theories besides Hoiberg came and screwed everything up...

-- Gasol is a year older (36 now?) when players historically decline
-- Dunleavy hasn't played a single game minute, who played a lot of minutes last year. Thibodeau's record was very poor without Dunleavy last year, BTW.
-- Rose didn't have a training camp or pre-season / out of rhythm; he is the PG, this can trickle to his teammates.
-- Rose still has blurred vision
-- More developmental minutes this year to younger players (McD, Snell, Mirotic)
-- Backup PG quality is worse (Brooks injured, Hinrich older)
-- Overall quality of competition is better this year; fewer joke teams who are tanking compared to last year

I won't pretend to know the reason, but what bothers me is you seem so sure that it's Hoiberg. Almost none of these alternate factors are in Hoiberg's control, except perhaps the developmental minutes if you want to call it that.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

K4E said:


> T
> Hoiberg has no track record other than fielding teams that didn't do much in the NCAA tournament for 5 seasons and in 20 games as a NBA head coach guiding an established group of winning veterans that had the 11th most efficient offense in the NBA last season to the 2nd worst so far this season.


Hoiberg coached a team to the Sweet Sixteen and won a Big 12 tourney championship; also got his team to the Big Dance 4 out of 5 years after his predecessor had much lesser success. That is a major accomplishment for anyone at the NCAA, let alone a program like Iowa State that isn't a premier program like Duke or North Carolina. This is silly you are trying to discredit his college success. He turned the Iowa State program around and not many NCAA coaches have the success he did in his 5 years at Iowa State.


----------



## K4E (Jun 29, 2015)

yodurk said:


> Other theories besides Hoiberg came and screwed everything up...
> 
> -- Gasol is a year older (36 now?) when players historically decline
> -- Dunleavy hasn't played a single game minute, who played a lot of minutes last year. Thibodeau's record was very poor without Dunleavy last year, BTW.
> ...


I'm not sure. Something is causing the offense to become far less efficient. Its not just Rose. Its a whole bunch of players.

The Bulls are playing with far greater pace which is the Hoiberg way but are getting very low percentage shots. Much worse than last year. 

If the issue with Rose is the blurred vision, then it should improve and Hoiberg should be able to coach him to at least the level of production we was able to achieve last season.

Nearly the entire team that matters has a lower TS% than last year.

Butler: 58.3 -> 57.1
Rose: 49.3 -> 41.3
Gasol: 55.0 -> 48.9
Mirotic: 55.6 -> 51.8
Snell: 55.0 -> 48.5 
Gibson: 54.5 -> 51.5
Noah: 48.2 -> 37.3

Whatever Hoiberg has done here with his "Hoiball" has caused almost the entire team to score less efficiently.

Only guy better? Dougie. Problem is he does nothing else of value on the basketball court other than shoot. 

Hoiberg's offense has made almost the entire team worse at offense. 

That's no gouda!


----------



## K4E (Jun 29, 2015)

yodurk said:


> Hoiberg coached a team to the Sweet Sixteen and won a Big 12 tourney championship; also got his team to the Big Dance 4 out of 5 years after his predecessor had much lesser success. That is a major accomplishment for anyone at the NCAA, let alone a program like Iowa State that isn't a premier program like Duke or North Carolina. This is silly you are trying to discredit his college success. He turned the Iowa State program around and not many NCAA coaches have the success he did in his 5 years at Iowa State.


He had a solid run. Nothing very notable though. Nothing that a guy like Tim Floyd couldn't do. He wasn't a bad college coach. Nothing very notable in the big dance. A couple conference tournament wins in five years. Not bad.

And college success doesn't necessarily even translate into pro success as we all know.

Not worth smearing one of the best NBA coaches in the business over during a season where the Bulls were close to making the Finals, that's for sure.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

K4E said:


> This roster coached by Thibs was the 11th most efficient offense in the NBA last season.


Which is just ok?

And, it's important to recognize the loss of one of your starters for the whole season so far. If you think going from MDJ to Tony Snell isn't significant, I don't know what to tell you.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

K4E said:


> He had a solid run. Nothing very notable though. Nothing that a guy like Tim Floyd couldn't do. He wasn't a bad college coach. Nothing very notable in the big dance. A couple conference tournament wins in five years. Not bad.
> 
> And college success doesn't necessarily even translate into pro success as we all know.
> 
> Not worth smearing one of the best NBA coaches in the business over during a season where the Bulls were close to making the Finals, that's for sure.


Whether Hoiberg is deserving of the job and/or a good coach has nothing to do with the issue of Thibs' treatment, though you keep oddly suggesting it does.

Thibs got treated like shit on his way out the door. Maybe he deserved it due to his conduct behind the scenes, but it was a bad look for the FO regardless. I'd prefer the high road. 

I like that you believe that if Hoiberg was in fact a totally awesome coach that it would have justified smearing Thibs. Stay classy!


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Which is just ok?
> 
> And, it's important to recognize the loss of one of your starters for the whole season so far. If you think going from MDJ to Tony Snell isn't significant, I don't know what to tell you.


MDJ is better than snell obviously 

but is he 18 spots in offensive efficiency better , obviously not , besides Dunleavy jr took all of 7 shots a game last season (actually McDermott takes the same amount with similar efficiency after being essentially worthless last season so shooting wise its been a non-issue)

and the bulls are actually a little better off than last year in the games missed out of their top 10 guys ...so health really isn't a significant factor .


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> MDJ is better than snell obviously
> 
> but is he 18 spots in offensive efficiency better , obviously not



Sure, of course. It seems the Bulls don't really grasp the offensive system at this point, and revert to a slower-paced, ball-stopping posture from time to time. I would guess the team will perform better offensively as the season goes along. I don't think the Bulls will be as bad offensively as their current rating suggests, nor do I think their #2 defensive rating is actually how they'll perform for the rest of the year.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Sure, of course. It seems the Bulls don't really grasp the offensive system at this point, and revert to a slower-paced, ball-stopping posture from time to time. I would guess the team will perform better offensively as the season goes along. I don't think the Bulls will be as bad offensively as their current rating suggests, nor do I think their #2 defensive rating is actually how they'll perform for the rest of the year.


maybe , history tends to tell this , 

if you are really good at something after 15-20 games, you'll be good at it all season, the same for things a team is bad at ....

its probably a pretty safe bet the bulls will finish in the top 10 defensively and the bottom 10 offensively, unless injuries greatly alter the bulls or the league I feel pretty confident of that 

which leaves them a rather average team even though they supposedly have above average talent.

we will see.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> which leaves them a rather average team even though they supposedly have above average talent.


The performance so far this year has not been "average" by any accurate definition of that word.

They have above average talent and have performed above average. It's just been due to the defensive side of the ball, which is unexpected.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> The performance so far this year has not been "average" by any accurate definition of that word.
> 
> They have above average talent and have performed above average. It's just been due to the defensive side of the ball, which is unexpected.


Sagarin's statistical measures (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nba/sagarin/) ranks the Bulls #9 in the league overall, as of today FWIW. We've floated between #7 and #12 for most of the year. Alot of shuffling though due to the crazy parity in team performance thus far from #3 (OKC) through #18 (Orlando). Of course as Cleveland gets healthy I think they'll stand out from the crowd to round out the top 3 of GS, SA, and CLE. Which were the no-brainer top 3 ranked teams heading into the season.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Sagarin's statistical measures (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nba/sagarin/) ranks the Bulls #9 in the league overall, as of today FWIW. We've floated between #7 and #12 for most of the year. Alot of shuffling though due to the crazy parity in team performance thus far from #3 (OKC) through #18 (Orlando). Of course as Cleveland gets healthy I think they'll stand out from the crowd to round out the top 3 of GS, SA, and CLE. Which were the no-brainer top 3 ranked teams heading into the season.


that metric today has them at 18th


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> maybe , history tends to tell this ,
> 
> if you are really good at something after 15-20 games, you'll be good at it all season, the same for things a team is bad at ....
> 
> ...


10th on defense 
25th on offense 
101.2 points a game 
101.9 points allowed a game

but 2nd in attendance so I guess its not so bad


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

In the words of Michael Ray Richardson, "the ship be sinking"


----------



## K4E (Jun 29, 2015)

What happens?

Paxson lkeeps his job.
Gar probably does as well, but a bit less likely than Paxson.
Hoiberg keeps his job.

Bulls are still one of the top teams in attendance next year.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Pretty much. The repetitive garbage that is just spewed by this front office tells me that ownership could care less about titles, as long as they keep bringing in the money. 

No sense of urgency is a result of an owner who is hands off. The damn near life long contact's that Reinsdorf honors gives guys like Garpax a sense of professional immortality. 

It's all about that money. Jerry would be happy if we make that 8th seed and play 2 free home games.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

K4E said:


> What happens?
> 
> Paxson lkeeps his job.
> Gar probably does as well, but a bit less likely than Paxson.
> Hoiberg keeps his job.


If they miss the playoffs, I think there's a reasonable chance Gar is gone. I agree with you there's no way Reinsdorf cans Pax, and it would be utterly shocking to see the Bulls can Hoiberg and potentially be paying 2 coaches to sit out simultaneously.



> Bulls are still one of the top teams in attendance next year.


Yup. Though a lot of that is probably just being the largest single market for a basketball team in the country (NY and LA are divided among 2 teams apiece). 

I seem to remember a back-and-forth years ago with you where you indicated you weren't going to give up your tickets to the team, despite your severe distaste for how the franchise was being managed, because your kid enjoyed going to games with you. I'm not critical of that. I only mention it to point out that Bulls games are marketed as family and corporate entertainment products. If they were utterly miserable, attendance might drop off some, but ticket sales were remarkably durable in the gloom and doom post-MJ years. The Bulls and other NBA franchises do whatever they can to market the game "experience" as something more than just the basketball product on the floor.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Pretty much. The repetitive garbage that is just spewed by this front office tells me that ownership could care less about titles, as long as they keep bringing in the money.
> 
> No sense of urgency is a result of an owner who is hands off. The damn near life long contact's that Reinsdorf honors gives guys like Garpax a sense of professional immortality.
> 
> It's all about that money. Jerry would be happy if we make that 8th seed and play 2 free home games.



Ehh, I'm angry, too, at the lack of activity at the deadline, but you and I both know that the notion that ownership "could[n't] care less about titles, as long as they keep bringing in the money" isn't fully accurate. The most profitable thing the team could do is win an NBA championship. That would be a massively, massively profitable outcome.

The real issue may just be risk-aversion. The Bulls don't want to suck (and lose profits) to try to maximize draft assets and rebuild to become a contender again. They are more like Dallas (which is actually one of the few non-profit-driven teams given the unique-ish ownership situation) that wants to stay relatively competitive at all times in order to lure free agents and be able to rebuild quickly. Now, if you want to argue that's not the way to build a team, sure, that's a perfectly fair position. But the team obviously wants championships, even if they aren't going about it the right way.

I do agree that Reinsdorf is loyal to his guys to a fault, but there has been enough newspaper chatter about Gar being on the hotseat that I quite doubt he thinks his job is safe. That, and I seem to recall reports that Gar was basically told with the Hoiberg hire that this was his last shot at finding a coach that would lead the team to success, but maybe I'm just regurgitating message board chatter on that.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

I don't know that ownership doesn't care about championships. For one, the owner himself said he would trade all the bulls championships for one world series championship. 

Second, the bulls haven't even come close to even reaching the finals since Jordan retired. Shit, there is no doubt NO doubt in my mind that this franchise would have never sniffed a title if it wasn't for Jordan. 

It's not about being angry, it's about being fed up with a franchise so content with being mediocre. It's about being fed up with the embarrassment that is this front office.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> I don't know that ownership doesn't care about championships. For one, the owner himself said he would trade all the bulls championships for one world series championship.
> 
> Second, the bulls haven't even come close to even reaching the finals since Jordan retired. Shit, there is no doubt NO doubt in my mind that this franchise would have never sniffed a title if it wasn't for Jordan.
> 
> It's not about being angry, it's about being fed up with a franchise so content with being mediocre. It's about being fed up with the embarrassment that is this front office.



Ehh, this is just venting, it's not really addressing whether the org wants to win. It obviously does. It just may not have the right way of achieving it, because it views the 2nd best option as being a non-contending playoff team rather than a bottom-feeder that amasses picks.

The no titles without Jordan thing isn't much of a point. Take the greatest player off of any title team and it's not a title team anymore.

I agree with you that the FO is responsible for the roster and the coach and should be held accountable. I'm only disagreeing that there isn't an interest in winning a championship, which is obviously false.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> thebizkit69u said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know that ownership doesn't care about championships. For one, the owner himself said he would trade all the bulls championships for one world series championship.
> ...


Do I think they say the want to win a title? Sure. Do I think the bulls are one of the few franchises in all of basketball that lose sleep over losing and not competing for titles? Nope. 

You basically say that their desire to win a title shouldn't be questioned.... Ok, but nothing they have done resembles what championship caliber teams do. Constant salary dump trades, constant "oh we don't have an injury free year" excuse, constantly bringing back flawed teams to repeat the pointless circle. 

The Lakers have won 5 titles since losing their greatest player (Magic), The Celtics won 2 since Bird retired, The Pistons won after the end of the badboys, The Spurs won with and without Robinson, the Cavalier's were able to get Lebron twice lol. Don't give me that lame ass excuse. Great franchises do whatever it takes to get back to greatness. 

Again, I never said the organization doesn't want to win. They just don't have a top to bottom urgency to win a title. They are in the business in lucking into situations and juicing those situations till there is nothing left. 

They lucked into Jordan, they lucked into Rose, they lucked into Thibs and have never EVER been considered a visionary front office. Those are facts. So I'm sorry if my well supported views on this front office doesn't gel with your feelings on the front office.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Do I think they say the want to win a title? Sure. Do I think the bulls are one of the few franchises in all of basketball that lose sleep over losing and not competing for titles? Nope.


You think only a few franchises in basketball care about winning titles? Weird.



> You basically say that their desire to win a title shouldn't be questioned.... Ok, but nothing they have done resembles what championship caliber teams do. Constant salary dump trades, constant "oh we don't have an injury free year" excuse, constantly bringing back flawed teams to repeat the pointless circle.


I don't say it shouldn't be questioned. I say that if you believe their primary motivation is profits, championships are very profitable, so criticizing them for money-grubbing doesn't necessarily support your argument that they don't want to win titles.

I like that you say championship caliber teams don't salary dump. Cleveland just executed a salary dump yesterday. Miami just executed a salary dump yesterday. Oklahoma City just executed a salary dump yesterday. The Houston Rockets just executed a salary dump yesterday.

So, teams with championship aspirations don't engage in salary dumps, right? Riiiiiight.

And I agree with you that constantly bringing back flawed rosters is bad. The Bulls have not "constantly" done that. This is the 2nd season of this incarnation of the Bulls. If Gar was actually telling the truth yesterday and not just blowing smoke because it would be GM malpractice to say anything different when he said the team wants Pau and Noah both back, then yeah, I'd agree that would be nuts. But I don't believe the team actually does want both of those guys back. If they did somehow bring both back next year, I'll be with you in the streets with pitchforks and torches.

I'm still pissed about the lack of meaningful activity yesterday, but your particular points are just way off the mark.



> The Lakers have won 5 titles since losing their greatest player (Magic), The Celtics won 2 since Bird retired, The Pistons won after the end of the badboys, The Spurs won with and without Robinson, the Cavalier's were able to get Lebron twice lol. Don't give me that lame ass excuse. Great franchises do whatever it takes to get back to greatness.


The Spurs have not won without Duncan, which is actually the meaningful point you should cite, so they can be thrown out as an example.

The Lakers drafted Kobe and acquired Shaq. They have performed better than the Bulls, obviously. They are now a dumpster fire, FWIW, but I'd take some dumpster fire years if I also got more championships.

The Pistons did sneak one. That was nice.

You should probably note the Cavaliers have won 0 NBA championships, so perhaps that's not your best example. But yes, they were lucky enough to draft the hometown superstar in a obvious #1 pick, lose his best years, and then convince him to come back for both PR, emotional, and competitive reasons. I'm sure the Bulls would have signed him if he were from Chicago. He's not. GarPax is clearly losing the OBGYN recruiting competition.



> Again, I never said the organization doesn't want to win. They just don't have a top to bottom urgency to win a title. They are in the business in lucking into situations and juicing those situations till there is nothing left.
> 
> They lucked into Jordan, they lucked into Rose, they lucked into Thibs and have never EVER been considered a visionary front office. Those are facts. So I'm sorry if my well supported views on this front office doesn't gel with your feelings on the front office.


Ha, your "well supported" views are pretty ridiculous as expressed above. They didn't luck into Jordan. They were bad, had a high draft pick, and drafted him. *This is the most common means of superstar acquisition in the NBA.* They were "lucky" to get the slot to draft Rose, but in hindsight, I'm not sure you should be describing that as good luck.

They didn't "luck" into Thibs at all. That's just asinine. The dude was in his 50s and no other NBA team wanted to give him a head coaching job! He was considered here one time, then they stupidly hired VDN instead, and guess what? Thibs was still available years later when VDN was fired!

Lucked into him. Sheesh. One of the more out-there things I've seen someone post, and it's been thirteen years on this site.


----------



## K4E (Jun 29, 2015)

jnrjr79 said:


> I seem to remember a back-and-forth years ago with you where you indicated you weren't going to give up your tickets to the team, despite your severe distaste for how the franchise was being managed, because your kid enjoyed going to games with you. I'm not critical of that. I only mention it to point out that Bulls games are marketed as family and corporate entertainment products. If they were utterly miserable, attendance might drop off some, but ticket sales were remarkably durable in the gloom and doom post-MJ years. The Bulls and other NBA franchises do whatever they can to market the game "experience" as something more than just the basketball product on the floor.


Going to Bulls games is certainly an entertainment purchase, much like a movie or a concert. And it is entertaining, they do a good job with that. Its a lot more fun when its a competitive product on the floor. But, hardcore fans like the ones that frequent message boards are the minority.

Krause got fired when the seats stopped selling. Their business model is sound, I will never dispute that. If they miss the playoffs this season, I suspect it won't be a long time occurrence. They will get back to the first round soon enough, if they miss this year. 

This team is perfectly content do well enough in the regular season and make the first round of the playoffs. Given the fanbase, market, etc, they could set their sights higher for sure, with better upper management.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> You think only a few franchises in basketball care about winning titles? Weird.


They say they care, but there is no doubt that there are teams in the NBA that value titles more than other franchises. The bulls aren't one of them.



> I don't say it shouldn't be questioned. I say that if you believe their primary motivation is profits, championships are very profitable, so criticizing them for money-grubbing doesn't necessarily support your argument that they don't want to win titles.


Yet for the longest time they refused to pay the luxury tax. Guess what, it costs money to win titles. Nothing they have done tells me that they value titles over money. If titles meant more than money, they would have tanked the season, because a higher draft pick gets them closer to a title, not another couple of months of Pau.



> I like that you say championship caliber teams don't salary dump. Cleveland just executed a salary dump yesterday. Miami just executed a salary dump yesterday. Oklahoma City just executed a salary dump yesterday. The Houston Rockets just executed a salary dump yesterday.
> So, teams with championship aspirations don't engage in salary dumps, right? Riiiiiight.


I said constant. The Bulls are the champions of the salary dump. Also, Cleveland added a shit ton last year. 



> The Spurs have not won without Duncan, which is actually the meaningful point you should cite, so they can be thrown out as an example.


And they would not have won their last title without Leonard or do you think Tim Duncan has been the best player on the Spurs during the current run?



> The Lakers drafted Kobe and acquired Shaq. They have performed better than the Bulls, obviously. They are now a dumpster fire, FWIW, but I'd take some dumpster fire years if I also got more championships.


They actually acquired both. They traded Divacs to Charlotte to pick Kobe.




> Ha, your "well supported" views are pretty ridiculous as expressed above. They didn't luck into Jordan. They were bad, had a high draft pick, and drafted him. *This is the most common means of superstar acquisition in the NBA.* They were "lucky" to get the slot to draft Rose, but in hindsight, I'm not sure you should be describing that as good luck.
> 
> They didn't "luck" into Thibs at all. That's just asinine. The dude was in his 50s and no other NBA team wanted to give him a head coaching job! He was considered here one time, then they stupidly hired VDN instead, and guess what? Thibs was still available years later when VDN was fired!
> 
> Lucked into him. Sheesh. One of the more out-there things I've seen someone post, and it's been thirteen years on this site.


Lol yeah, cause Portland not taking Jordan #2 isn't luck at all gtfo. 

The only reason Thibs was even available a second time was because he didn't want to just coach anywhere. Heck if it wasn't for the colossal failure that was VDN Thibs might not have ever coached for the Bulls.


----------

