KC predicts: Bulls strike out

[drosestruts]

Weird. Didn't know the Bulls played baseball.

[DuckIII]

secondary ballhandler/shot creator, both are a need in the starting unit. Kirk Hinrich is a back up pg, never intended to play with Rose, but merely back him up. Signing back up point guards is not what I mean when I say "seriously addressing the need for a secondary ballhandler"...obviously, I thought you guys knew what I meant?

That isn't accurate. Hinrich was signed with a dual role. He was to back up Rose, and he was to be the backup shooting guard so that he could play with Rose at times to spell his ballhandling responsibilities. Paxson openly talked about it at the time.

I wouldn't be wasting my breath screaming about a back up pg.

As for Nate, he played at a star level for us, he elevated his game in the playoffs against Bron, he was a consistent offensive threat as he has been for his entire career pretty much and most importantly, he WANTED TO BE HERE. Apparently the big FA's don't want to be here and there's nothing the FO could do to change their minds, here's a guy that wanted to be here and they treated him like garbage.

They did not treat him like garbage. They literally were prohibited by the CBA to match what Denver offered. They never said a bad word about him, and he still talks about how much he loved it here. Clearly he does not share your belief that he was treated like garbage.

The FO make the perfectly rational decision, that with Rose returning, and Hinrich being his primary back-up, that signing a backup-2-3 with excellent 3pt range was a bigger priority for roster balance than a 3rd point guard. Now, you may very well disagree with that and so be it. You aren't alone. But its a facially logical roster composition decision.

Despite his size and position I strongly suspect Nate would produce more for us than Dunleavy ever will. Dunleavy is just another guy someone else has to force feed. Nate was dynamic, aggressive, and a natural scorer. Everything we need.

Except that at the time the decision was made, it was believed a league MVP would be starting in front of him, playing 37 minutes a game.

[TheJordanRule]

Are you even trying to understand my point or are you just looking for factual errors to make me look bad?

Kirk Hinrich is our secondary ballhandler, you're right you win, you proved me wrong. We did sign a second ballhandler! You win, Bulls lose, Bulls fans lose...because thats just a terrible example to wave around as a victory for this FO

if you address a need but do it poorly is that really a success?

We can strike out on great free agents, but the contingency plan can't be signing a bunch of mediocre crap in order to have a great flexible cap situation. Kirk was one of those type of signings and now they're supposedly trying to bring Shaun Livingston into the picture to be "that guy." Which can't possibly be true because we never needed "that guy". Ever. KC is off his rocker. Even if we were to go that route, I can think about a million things better than signing Shaun Livingston, including a bag of chips. Throw me an Evan Turner or Trevor Ariza if you must along with a capable backup center... Livingston is Plan F... as in the front office ****ed up.

[TheJordanRule]

if you address a need but do it poorly is that really a success?

You are the one who said they never addressed the need. Not only did they address it, they over-addressed it. Which is why they had to sacrifice Nate to address another need that arose, and did so by signing Dunleavy instead.

Also, you are upset at the FO for not retaining Nate and Marco. It appears you did think the need was addressed, and well addressed with desirable players. Just that the FO kept the wrong one of the group. That's an opinion, and one I don't share. With a healthy Rose back, which is the assumption the FO was operating on, I take Kirk and Dunleavy over Kirk and Nate every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Both of you may be on crack. This is revisionist history of the highest order. Signing Nate and Marco poorly addressed our needs for a secondary play maker. If that's the best example you can think of, then this front office has never come close to addressing this issue.

[Magilla_Gorilla]

if you address a need but do it poorly is that really a success?

You are the one who said they never addressed the need. Not only did they address it, they over-addressed it. Which is why they had to sacrifice Nate to address another need that arose, and did so by signing Dunleavy instead.

Also, you are upset at the FO for not retaining Nate and Marco. It appears you did think the need was addressed, and well addressed with desirable players. Just that the FO kept the wrong one of the group. That's an opinion, and one I don't share. With a healthy Rose back, which is the assumption the FO was operating on, I take Kirk and Dunleavy over Kirk and Nate every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Both of you may be on crack. This is revisionist history of the highest order. Signing Nate and Marco poorly addressed our needs for a secondary play maker. If that's the best example you can think of, then this front office has never come close to addressing this issue.

You know what would be great? If you and others would at least settle on a term for the mythical creature too elusive for the Bulls FO to grasp. Is it ballhandler? Secondary creator? Secondary playmaker? Parallel sphere distributor? Which of those is what you're looking for?

[DuckIII]

if you address a need but do it poorly is that really a success?

You are the one who said they never addressed the need. Not only did they address it, they over-addressed it. Which is why they had to sacrifice Nate to address another need that arose, and did so by signing Dunleavy instead.

Also, you are upset at the FO for not retaining Nate and Marco. It appears you did think the need was addressed, and well addressed with desirable players. Just that the FO kept the wrong one of the group. That's an opinion, and one I don't share. With a healthy Rose back, which is the assumption the FO was operating on, I take Kirk and Dunleavy over Kirk and Nate every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Both of you may be on crack. This is revisionist history of the highest order. Signing Nate and Marco poorly addressed our needs for a secondary play maker. If that's the best example you can think of, then this front office has never come close to addressing this issue.

We weren't talking about secondary playmakers. We were talking about secondary ballhandlers. Those aren't the same thing. The Bulls had both needs. I agree that they haven't adequately addressed the first one with a long term solution.

[WesleyExChiFan]

You are the one who said they never addressed the need. Not only did they address it, they over-addressed it. Which is why they had to sacrifice Nate to address another need that arose, and did so by signing Dunleavy instead.

Also, you are upset at the FO for not retaining Nate and Marco. It appears you did think the need was addressed, and well addressed with desirable players. Just that the FO kept the wrong one of the group. That's an opinion, and one I don't share. With a healthy Rose back, which is the assumption the FO was operating on, I take Kirk and Dunleavy over Kirk and Nate every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Both of you may be on crack. This is revisionist history of the highest order. Signing Nate and Marco poorly addressed our needs for a secondary play maker. If that's the best example you can think of, then this front office has never come close to addressing this issue.

You know what would be great? If you and others would at least settle on a term for the mythical creature too elusive for the Bulls FO to grasp. Is it ballhandler? Secondary creator? Secondary playmaker? Parallel sphere distributor? Which of those is what you're looking for?

we need someone who can score without needing an assist. A.K.A someone else for LeBron to cover so Derrick can score. Got any of those lying around?

[nitetrain8603]

Haven't read this thread other than the 1st page. I will say this: Melo is not a realistic option unless the Bulls plan to give up the max. Love is an option.

Whether you choose to believe it. Love does want to come to the Bulls and has re-iterated that to Derrick over the past year. The plan was for Love, Rose and Westbrook to all join forces in LA. When it became apparent that Chicago was an option for Love, he stated to Rose, he's more than willing to sign an extension as long as Rose's here and will be here. If that happens, they still plan on recruiting Russell as Noah's contract next contract will be less if he isn't gone. I have this on damn good authority too.

[Magilla_Gorilla]

Haven't read this thread other than the 1st page. I will say this: Melo is not a realistic option unless the Bulls plan to give up the max. Love is an option.

Whether you choose to believe it. Love does want to come to the Bulls and has re-iterated that to Derrick over the past year. The plan was for Love, Rose and Westbrook to all join forces in LA. When it became apparent that Chicago was an option for Love, he stated to Rose, he's more than willing to sign an extension as long as Rose's here and will be here. If that happens, they still plan on recruiting Russell as Noah's contract next contract will be less if he isn't gone. I have this on damn good authority too.

Appreciate you posting it. The only real question is will Love assert whatever leverage he does have to say he will only sign an extension with Chicago?

[Chitownbulls]

Haven't read this thread other than the 1st page. I will say this: Melo is not a realistic option unless the Bulls plan to give up the max. Love is an option.

Whether you choose to believe it. Love does want to come to the Bulls and has re-iterated that to Derrick over the past year. The plan was for Love, Rose and Westbrook to all join forces in LA. When it became apparent that Chicago was an option for Love, he stated to Rose, he's more than willing to sign an extension as long as Rose's here and will be here. If that happens, they still plan on recruiting Russell as Noah's contract next contract will be less if he isn't gone. I have this on damn good authority too.

Go get Love then!!! Let's do it!!! When is Russ available?

[DuckIII]

Haven't read this thread other than the 1st page. I will say this: Melo is not a realistic option unless the Bulls plan to give up the max. Love is an option.

Whether you choose to believe it. Love does want to come to the Bulls and has re-iterated that to Derrick over the past year. The plan was for Love, Rose and Westbrook to all join forces in LA. When it became apparent that Chicago was an option for Love, he stated to Rose, he's more than willing to sign an extension as long as Rose's here and will be here. If that happens, they still plan on recruiting Russell as Noah's contract next contract will be less if he isn't gone. I have this on damn good authority too.

I never doubt guys like you who post the information they get, and appreciate it when you do, but I'm always skepctical of the accuracy of the information itself just because that's how I am.

Anyway, I'll say this. In my opinion trading for Love should absolutely be priority 1 over Carmelo Anthony. Regardless of the "Supafwendth 2.0" potential you describe.

[nitetrain8603]

Haven't read this thread other than the 1st page. I will say this: Melo is not a realistic option unless the Bulls plan to give up the max. Love is an option.

Whether you choose to believe it. Love does want to come to the Bulls and has re-iterated that to Derrick over the past year. The plan was for Love, Rose and Westbrook to all join forces in LA. When it became apparent that Chicago was an option for Love, he stated to Rose, he's more than willing to sign an extension as long as Rose's here and will be here. If that happens, they still plan on recruiting Russell as Noah's contract next contract will be less if he isn't gone. I have this on damn good authority too.

Appreciate you posting it. The only real question is will Love assert whatever leverage he does have to say he will only sign an extension with Chicago?

Love will push for Chicago and LA privately. In the end, he will accept a trade to any of the teams rumored minus Cleveland. I am told, under any circumstance he would not resign there. Sacramento intrigues him, but nothing more than that.

[Chitownbulls]

Haven't read this thread other than the 1st page. I will say this: Melo is not a realistic option unless the Bulls plan to give up the max. Love is an option.

Whether you choose to believe it. Love does want to come to the Bulls and has re-iterated that to Derrick over the past year. The plan was for Love, Rose and Westbrook to all join forces in LA. When it became apparent that Chicago was an option for Love, he stated to Rose, he's more than willing to sign an extension as long as Rose's here and will be here. If that happens, they still plan on recruiting Russell as Noah's contract next contract will be less if he isn't gone. I have this on damn good authority too.

Melo wanting Max money makes sense....I mean Noah did say I want Melo but I wouldn't trade Taj to get him.

[Chitownbulls]

Haven't read this thread other than the 1st page. I will say this: Melo is not a realistic option unless the Bulls plan to give up the max. Love is an option.

Whether you choose to believe it. Love does want to come to the Bulls and has re-iterated that to Derrick over the past year. The plan was for Love, Rose and Westbrook to all join forces in LA. When it became apparent that Chicago was an option for Love, he stated to Rose, he's more than willing to sign an extension as long as Rose's here and will be here. If that happens, they still plan on recruiting Russell as Noah's contract next contract will be less if he isn't gone. I have this on damn good authority too.

Appreciate you posting it. The only real question is will Love assert whatever leverage he does have to say he will only sign an extension with Chicago?

Love will push for Chicago and LA privately. In the end, he will accept a trade to any of the teams rumored minus Cleveland. I am told, under any circumstance he would not resign there. Sacramento intrigues him, but nothing more than that.

If TWolves want to get the most for Love...they should probably trade him by draft time. His value will drop big time if they keep him until the trade deadline.

[nitetrain8603]

Haven't read this thread other than the 1st page. I will say this: Melo is not a realistic option unless the Bulls plan to give up the max. Love is an option.

Whether you choose to believe it. Love does want to come to the Bulls and has re-iterated that to Derrick over the past year. The plan was for Love, Rose and Westbrook to all join forces in LA. When it became apparent that Chicago was an option for Love, he stated to Rose, he's more than willing to sign an extension as long as Rose's here and will be here. If that happens, they still plan on recruiting Russell as Noah's contract next contract will be less if he isn't gone. I have this on damn good authority too.

I never doubt guys like you who post the information they get, and appreciate it when you do, but I'm always skepctical of the accuracy of the information itself just because that's how I am.

Anyway, I'll say this. In my opinion trading for Love should absolutely be priority 1 over Carmelo Anthony. Regardless of the "Supafwendth 2.0" potential you describe.

To be honest, I feel like Melo would help much more, especially in the shortterm. I also feel he's the better fit. Long term, I think Durant would be a better fit over Russell if we're picking superstars with Rose and Love, but I do think it would work. Two dynamic guards and a heck of a big man.

In the end, it's up to the Bulls to be aggressive and make it happen.

LA is the first choice, but Love sees the Bulls as an opportunity to really make it happen.

[nitetrain8603]

Appreciate you posting it. The only real question is will Love assert whatever leverage he does have to say he will only sign an extension with Chicago?

Love will push for Chicago and LA privately. In the end, he will accept a trade to any of the teams rumored minus Cleveland. I am told, under any circumstance he would not resign there. Sacramento intrigues him, but nothing more than that.

If TWolves want to get the most for Love...they should probably trade him by draft time. His value will drop big time if they keep him until the trade deadline.

Saunders, from all accounts, will not rush to deal him and he'll make a move once he feels it's appropriate for the TWolves. As a GM, I'm not much of a fan of his, but as a coach, I think he's pretty decent. I could see Love staying with Minny until the deadline.

[Chitownbulls]

[TheJordanRule]

You are the one who said they never addressed the need. Not only did they address it, they over-addressed it. Which is why they had to sacrifice Nate to address another need that arose, and did so by signing Dunleavy instead.

Also, you are upset at the FO for not retaining Nate and Marco. It appears you did think the need was addressed, and well addressed with desirable players. Just that the FO kept the wrong one of the group. That's an opinion, and one I don't share. With a healthy Rose back, which is the assumption the FO was operating on, I take Kirk and Dunleavy over Kirk and Nate every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Both of you may be on crack. This is revisionist history of the highest order. Signing Nate and Marco poorly addressed our needs for a secondary play maker. If that's the best example you can think of, then this front office has never come close to addressing this issue.

You know what would be great? If you and others would at least settle on a term for the mythical creature too elusive for the Bulls FO to grasp. Is it ballhandler? Secondary creator? Secondary playmaker? Parallel sphere distributor? Which of those is what you're looking for?

Basically, a guy who can score and pass and not be a defensive sieve. This is obviously a very conservative front office that promotes flexibility and cap space at every turn, and as a result consistently fails to use that flexibility to find a guy like that. For instance, we passed on Jamal Crawford twice when we had $5 mil to spend, and he ended up signing $5 mil per year contracts. Randy Foye and Mo Williams fit the requirements and they were within our price range. Hell, we could have dumped a couple million and signed Dragic or Stuckey. What's the point of having flexibility if you never leverage it as a means of addressing our team's most glaring need?

[RememberLu]

play makers, ball handler, another scorer, whatever you want to call it. Everyone knows what we need yet people are getting stuck on labels and semantics

[aaqubed]

Haven't read this thread other than the 1st page. I will say this: Melo is not a realistic option unless the Bulls plan to give up the max. Love is an option.

Whether you choose to believe it. Love does want to come to the Bulls and has re-iterated that to Derrick over the past year. The plan was for Love, Rose and Westbrook to all join forces in LA. When it became apparent that Chicago was an option for Love, he stated to Rose, he's more than willing to sign an extension as long as Rose's here and will be here. If that happens, they still plan on recruiting Russell as Noah's contract next contract will be less if he isn't gone. I have this on damn good authority too.

Appreciate you posting it. The only real question is will Love assert whatever leverage he does have to say he will only sign an extension with Chicago?

Love will push for Chicago and LA privately. In the end, he will accept a trade to any of the teams rumored minus Cleveland. I am told, under any circumstance he would not resign there. Sacramento intrigues him, but nothing more than that.

It looked like he was pushing for Boston. Or was that just to send a message to the FO to trade him anywhere?