What are your expectations for the new FO?

[GameBredAPBT]

It sounds to me that a lot of posters here vastly underestimate how long it takes to build a playoff contender. Unless lightening strikes and the Bulls draft a sleeper that turns into a superstar, or a Lebron James wants to move into town, rebuilding is a long, laborious process. Which team would be the gold standard for building a winner without a heavy dose of draft good fortune? Brooklyn has done a better job than almost anyone thought possible. They have had one winning season (42-40) in the last six years. Indiana has been impressive, but they have not had home court advantage in the playoffs even once in the last six seasons. Boston has been near the top of the East, primarily because the Nets gave them a ton of draft assets for aging Garnett and Pierce. Miami was on top when Lebron was there, but in the six seasons since he left they have not had back to back seasons over .500 . Toronto has been the most successful team in the East in recent years. The Raptors have won a title and finished over .500 for 7 straight years, but even then, their playoff record over that period is 37-39 and fans were generally disgruntled until Kawhi gave them a year of magic.

So maybe the Bulls could one day be like the Raptors. More likely the best that can be expected is something like the Nets or Pacers, a bottom of the playoffs team that is quickly eliminated from the playoffs. The Bulls will be in the scrum with Atlanta, New York, Detroit, Charlotte, Orlando, Cleveland and Washington trying to crawl out of the lottery. New front office leadership will add interest, but it is really luck that is needed to elevate the team to a perennial playoff contender. Even then, with draft lottery (or even G-League) luck, the turn-around takes several years.

If AK can turn our rep around we have HUGE advantage of any of those teams you mentioned. Chicago should be top 5 free agent destination. Incompetent ownership and management destroyed what should have been a major built-in advantage.

I think Chicago is a solidly potential free agent destination, but who has ever signed here? I don't see the Bulls as ever being a top five destination. Golden State, Lakers, Clippers, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Miami all seem more attractive. Is Chicago more desirable than New York, Brooklyn, Boston, Phoenix, Denver, or Philadelphia? All have cities or rosters that give them an edge over Chicago is one or more respects.

The Bulls toxic & comically shady ownership is why no one wants anything to do with them

The Bulls are the most globally famous NBA team. They are located in a top 3 city in that area of the world

What do those other cities have to do with the post you’re responding to?

[GameBredAPBT]

Why? Free agents are individual human beings with extremely specific preferences and motivations, not a generic collections of attributes equally applied to all.

Because a really good Bulls is the talk of the world. Not so much for any of those cities outside of maybe Boston. Athletes like recognition. You get more in Chicago. Look how big Rose was globally.

Kevin Durant achieved just as much notoriety in Oklahoma. Luka Doncic is probably a top ten star in the world, in Dallas. Ja Morant is as beloved and closely followed a rookie as we see, and he’s in Memphis. Not to mention that Williamson guy in New Orleans. He’s doing pretty well on the fame and marketability front.

It’s no longer the factor it once was. Rose would have been a mega-star in any city.

That said, some free agents will want the every day lifestyle that comes with living in a major metropolitan area. And Chicago has that. So for that specific type of player it’s a plus. But that’s the whole point. Every player is different. What appeals to some, discourages others.

Bulls fans want to believe we have a built in generally applicable advantage to attract talent because “this is Chicago.” But it’s a just not true.

This is absolute nonsense. Rose would not have been a mega star anywhere. He became the star he became overnight because the entire world has been desperate for Chicago to be back on top for over twenty years now, and he was a glimmer of hope. His story & the fact that he was the hometown kid on the greatest sports franchise ever & might be the one to lead them back to where they belong. Can’t believe this needs to be explained to a Bulls fan

Some of the stuff you read on this forum is really cringe. As a person who is from Europe & has spent time in other areas around the world talking basketball with locals, this is how the rest of the world views basketball: the Bulls & Michael Jordan & everything that came after it is considered secondary knowledge, and “not as good” as the Bulls during the glory years

The fact that the Bulls are run like a strip club rather than the most glorious NBA team that ever was is one of the biggest head scratching ironies in pro sports & has been obsessed over & pondered over ad nauseum, to the point where people (Bulls fans, even) came to the conclusion long ago that “I guess the Bulls just don’t want to win or be good, they must be using the franchise to launder money or something, because nothing else can explain it. They should be the premier nba destination but the owner actively shuns attention & chases away good people”.

Now you’ve got Bulls fans on RGM coming up with ridiculous fantasy alternate universe narratives for why no one in the NBA will touch them with a street lamp. Even though players have COME OUT & said why no one wants anything to do with them. Even though we have countless examples of them crapping on & burying their own players. Even going back to Krause’s allegations of open & careless racism. We could keep going with these reasons why the Bulls brass have willingly transformed themselves into the Alcatraz of the NBA

[bullsnewdynasty]

The reality is that star players leave small markets for big markets all the time. Players almost never go from big markets to small markets.

Chicago is also a great sports city. If you win here, you become an icon. Rose never won a championship yet still gets MVP chants and tons of love.

If you look at a guy like AD, does he really want to spend his prime being second fiddle? If I were Karnisovas I would at least try and make a pitch.

[Dez]

Because a really good Bulls is the talk of the world. Not so much for any of those cities outside of maybe Boston. Athletes like recognition. You get more in Chicago. Look how big Rose was globally.

Kevin Durant achieved just as much notoriety in Oklahoma. Luka Doncic is probably a top ten star in the world, in Dallas. Ja Morant is as beloved and closely followed a rookie as we see, and he’s in Memphis. Not to mention that Williamson guy in New Orleans. He’s doing pretty well on the fame and marketability front.

It’s no longer the factor it once was. Rose would have been a mega-star in any city.

That said, some free agents will want the every day lifestyle that comes with living in a major metropolitan area. And Chicago has that. So for that specific type of player it’s a plus. But that’s the whole point. Every player is different. What appeals to some, discourages others.

Bulls fans want to believe we have a built in generally applicable advantage to attract talent because “this is Chicago.” But it’s a just not true.

This is absolute nonsense. Rose would not have been a mega star anywhere. He became the star he became overnight because the entire world has been desperate for Chicago to be back on top for over twenty years now, and he was a glimmer of hope. His story & the fact that he was the hometown kid on the greatest sports franchise ever & might be the one to lead them back to where they belong. Can’t believe this needs to be explained to a Bulls fan

Some of the stuff you read on this forum is really cringe. As a person who is from Europe & has spent time in other areas around the world talking basketball with locals, this is how the rest of the world views basketball: the Bulls & Michael Jordan & everything that came after it is considered secondary knowledge, and “not as good” as the Bulls during the glory years

The fact that the Bulls are run like a strip club rather than the most glorious NBA team that ever was is one of the biggest head scratching ironies in pro sports & has been obsessed over & pondered over ad nauseum, to the point where people (Bulls fans, even) came to the conclusion long ago that “I guess the Bulls just don’t want to win or be good, they must be using the franchise to launder money or something, because nothing else can explain it. They should be the premier nba destination but the owner actively shuns attention & chases away good people”.

Now you’ve got Bulls fans on RGM coming up with ridiculous fantasy alternate universe narratives for why no one in the NBA will touch them with a street lamp. Even though players have COME OUT & said why no one wants anything to do with them. Even though we have countless examples of them crapping on & burying their own players. Even going back to Krause’s allegations of open & careless racism. We could keep going with these reasons why the Bulls brass have willingly transformed themselves into the Alcatraz of the NBA

Yes he absolutely would have and it's laughable to suggest otherwise.

[Southpaw]

I honestly don't have a lot of expectations for the FO the next 2-3 years. I just want to see the team have a vision on how they want it built, a plan on how to build it and the execution. I'm hoping that by year 2 at least, we'll be competing for a low seed playoff spot with optimism that the team can be a contender in the future.

If all that happens and our young players look promising, whoever is still here or we got, then we'll have a big summer in 2021 with lots of capspace and lots on big name free agents.

[Friend_Of_Haley]

You have no idea whether Chicago as a market had "no influence." We all know it was not enough to convince LBJ to come here, but there's a non-zero chance that he never meets with the Bulls in the first place if the franchise is located in Salt Lake City.

If it has, where are the results to back it up?

This is not a question of how I "feel", but rather where is the appreciable evidence to justify the notion?

SLC did not have Derrick Rose , Luol Deng, Joakim Noah nor newly hired coach Tom Thibodeau. Any team with an impressive young roster could have been a contender for LBJ's attention. I would argue that these were bigger pieces to LBJ taking a meeting versus the market itself.

The difference between I and others is pretty simple. People rate the market in terms of a top 5 component. I rank somewhere near 20 because history does not demonstrate that is a relevant criteria in the acquisition of free agents in the pantheon of Chicago sports. If someone wants to counter that position, then do so. I'd love to be illuminated to how free agents flock to Chicago franchises because of the media market. I think once most people take an exploration of that informational trek they will be left disappointed and have incorrectly placed its importance too high on their charts.

We cannot sell the market. We can sell the culture. We can sell tradition. We can present dollars. But market? The city? Not really.

Chicago is a top 5 market. Market just isnt that important for players.

There also are big drop offs from 1 (NY) to 2 (LA) to 3, 4, 5, etc before it really levels off. But if market was a significant factor, NY would have done a lot better over time.

[WookieOnRitalin]

You have no idea whether Chicago as a market had "no influence." We all know it was not enough to convince LBJ to come here, but there's a non-zero chance that he never meets with the Bulls in the first place if the franchise is located in Salt Lake City.

If it has, where are the results to back it up?

This is not a question of how I "feel", but rather where is the appreciable evidence to justify the notion?

SLC did not have Derrick Rose , Luol Deng, Joakim Noah nor newly hired coach Tom Thibodeau. Any team with an impressive young roster could have been a contender for LBJ's attention. I would argue that these were bigger pieces to LBJ taking a meeting versus the market itself.

The difference between I and others is pretty simple. People rate the market in terms of a top 5 component. I rank somewhere near 20 because history does not demonstrate that is a relevant criteria in the acquisition of free agents in the pantheon of Chicago sports. If someone wants to counter that position, then do so. I'd love to be illuminated to how free agents flock to Chicago franchises because of the media market. I think once most people take an exploration of that informational trek they will be left disappointed and have incorrectly placed its importance too high on their charts.

We cannot sell the market. We can sell the culture. We can sell tradition. We can present dollars. But market? The city? Not really.

Chicago is a top 5 market. Market just isnt that important for players.

There also are big drop offs from 1 (NY) to 2 (LA) to 3, 4, 5, etc before it really levels off. But if market was a significant factor, NY would have done a lot better over time.

That was main thesis.

[TheStig]

Kevin Durant achieved just as much notoriety in Oklahoma. Luka Doncic is probably a top ten star in the world, in Dallas. Ja Morant is as beloved and closely followed a rookie as we see, and he’s in Memphis. Not to mention that Williamson guy in New Orleans. He’s doing pretty well on the fame and marketability front.

It’s no longer the factor it once was. Rose would have been a mega-star in any city.

That said, some free agents will want the every day lifestyle that comes with living in a major metropolitan area. And Chicago has that. So for that specific type of player it’s a plus. But that’s the whole point. Every player is different. What appeals to some, discourages others.

Bulls fans want to believe we have a built in generally applicable advantage to attract talent because “this is Chicago.” But it’s a just not true.

This is absolute nonsense. Rose would not have been a mega star anywhere. He became the star he became overnight because the entire world has been desperate for Chicago to be back on top for over twenty years now, and he was a glimmer of hope. His story & the fact that he was the hometown kid on the greatest sports franchise ever & might be the one to lead them back to where they belong. Can’t believe this needs to be explained to a Bulls fan

Some of the stuff you read on this forum is really cringe. As a person who is from Europe & has spent time in other areas around the world talking basketball with locals, this is how the rest of the world views basketball: the Bulls & Michael Jordan & everything that came after it is considered secondary knowledge, and “not as good” as the Bulls during the glory years

The fact that the Bulls are run like a strip club rather than the most glorious NBA team that ever was is one of the biggest head scratching ironies in pro sports & has been obsessed over & pondered over ad nauseum, to the point where people (Bulls fans, even) came to the conclusion long ago that “I guess the Bulls just don’t want to win or be good, they must be using the franchise to launder money or something, because nothing else can explain it. They should be the premier nba destination but the owner actively shuns attention & chases away good people”.

Now you’ve got Bulls fans on RGM coming up with ridiculous fantasy alternate universe narratives for why no one in the NBA will touch them with a street lamp. Even though players have COME OUT & said why no one wants anything to do with them. Even though we have countless examples of them crapping on & burying their own players. Even going back to Krause’s allegations of open & careless racism. We could keep going with these reasons why the Bulls brass have willingly transformed themselves into the Alcatraz of the NBA

Yes he absolutely would have and it's laughable to suggest otherwise.

Russell Westbrook was a mega star in OKC. It's safe to say Rose would have been one anywhere. He had a very dynamic game.

[jnrjr79]

You have no idea whether Chicago as a market had "no influence." We all know it was not enough to convince LBJ to come here, but there's a non-zero chance that he never meets with the Bulls in the first place if the franchise is located in Salt Lake City.

If it has, where are the results to back it up?

I think we're missing each other here. My point was the market is a plus, but market alone isn't enough to close the deal. So you wouldn't necessarily expect "results" based on market alone. And I would say the importance of market has lessened with time as the league has become more of a national league and as a lot of kids root for players and not teams.

This is not a question of how I "feel", but rather where is the appreciable evidence to justify the notion?

SLC did not have Derrick Rose , Luol Deng, Joakim Noah nor newly hired coach Tom Thibodeau. Any team with an impressive young roster could have been a contender for LBJ's attention. I would argue that these were bigger pieces to LBJ taking a meeting versus the market itself.

100% agreed having a ready-to-compete roster is a bigger deal than market, with the caveat that Miami basically closed the deal based on Pat Riley + market + so much cap space that the roster didn't matter. Ironically, the Bulls may have been better off with a worse roster but space to sign all three of Wade + Bosh + LBJ. Instead, they only had room for 2.

One thing you did not note is Thibs was voted the coach NBA players want to play for the least, so...

The difference between I and others is pretty simple. People rate the market in terms of a top 5 component. I rank somewhere near 20 because history does not demonstrate that is a relevant criteria in the acquisition of free agents in the pantheon of Chicago sports. If someone wants to counter that position, then do so. I'd love to be illuminated to how free agents flock to Chicago franchises because of the media market. I think once most people take an exploration of that informational trek they will be left disappointed and have incorrectly placed its importance too high on their charts.

We cannot sell the market. We can sell the culture. We can sell tradition. We can present dollars. But market? The city? Not really.

What are the biggest FA signings in the last 20 years that involved a change of team? Shaq to L.A., the big 3 to Miami, LBJ to Cleveland on stint #2 LBJ to the Lakers, Durant to the Warriors, Durant to the Nets, Kyrie to the Nets, maybe Kemba to the Celts? The fact of the matter is clear-cut #1 max salary type players don't move around much via free agency, at least in their primes. So, fist of all, there is a very small sample size from which to draw conclusions. But, of the list above, only LeBron back to his hometown team, which was a decision obviously made for that reason, did not involve a good market (basically, really populous urban areas and/or places with good weather/glamour). It seems pretty clear market still matters. The fact that Chicago hasn't been the big market that lucked out on those signings is not sufficient evidence that Chicago isn't an appealing market in general. If you thought that was sufficient proof, then you necessarily would have to believe that New York isn't a good market, because the Knicks have also signed nobody in that same period.

Like I said, market appears to be a necessary but not a sufficient condition to recruiting star talent. If you want to argue that Chicago isn't as attractive a market at L.A., the Bay Area, or Miami, sure, I'd agree with you. But it's probably not behind many other markets than that.

Put another way, I think the Bulls' failure to recruit a big free agent is more about organizational perception, roster construction, and luck than some deficiency in the market.

[WookieOnRitalin]

One thing you did not note is Thibs was voted the coach NBA players want to play for the least, so...

That was not the perception of TT in 2010 who garnered a lot of positive press from around the league, Kobe, the players in Boston, and Doc Rivers.

https://www.espn.com/chicago/nba/news/story?id=5839022

What are the biggest FA signings in the last 20 years that involved a change of team? Shaq to L.A., the big 3 to Miami, LBJ to Cleveland on stint #2 LBJ to the Lakers, Durant to the Warriors, Durant to the Nets, Kyrie to the Nets, maybe Kemba to the Celts? The fact of the matter is clear-cut #1 max salary type players don't move around much via free agency, at least in their primes. So, fist of all, there is a very small sample size from which to draw conclusions. But, of the list above, only LeBron back to his hometown team, which was a decision obviously made for that reason, did not involve a good market (basically, really populous urban areas and/or places with good weather/glamour). It seems pretty clear market still matters. The fact that Chicago hasn't been the big market that lucked out on those signings is not sufficient evidence that Chicago isn't an appealing market in general. If you thought that was sufficient proof, then you necessarily would have to believe that New York isn't a good market, because the Knicks have also signed nobody in that same period.

Like I said, market appears to be a necessary but not a sufficient condition to recruiting star talent. If you want to argue that Chicago isn't as attractive a market at L.A., the Bay Area, or Miami, sure, I'd agree with you. But it's probably not behind many other markets than that.

Put another way, I think the Bulls' failure to recruit a big free agent is more about organizational perception, roster construction, and luck than some deficiency in the market.

There's also Duncan (resigned SAS), T-Mac (ORL), Grant Hill (ORL), Dwight Howard (HOU), Kobe (resigned with LAL). Prime players do shake loose.

So it's luck? I see. My main thesis is that this trend permeates not just basketball, but also all Chicago franchises whom always seem to miss out on large free agents as well. Also, my thesis does not say that market is not a factor. Rather, the Chicago market is not a factor because that is what history has to tell us.

On the latter point is where you and I agree. I just think the Chicago market is not a large factor for free agents and ends up as a minus more often as a positive.

[nitetrain8603]

I think players, now more than ever, look at franchises that are serious about winning. They're not just looking at who they will play with (though this is a big factor). They're also looking at perception of the organization, coaching, loyalty, front office execs and perks as much as anything.

I do think that Art should at least have a pitch ready for Anthony Davis. The expectation would be that we wouldn't get him, but if you make a good pitch, you have a great shot. And that could really jump start the rebuild. I mean, it gives you a ton of roster flexibility if you could pull it off. I think he loves LA, however. Let's just dream though. You pull it off, you deal Porter and could deal away one of Lauri or Wendell. You would have a nice core of AD, LaVine, Lauri (i think he's better than Wendell). You draft a wing or a true PG and you might be cooking really really quickly.

[Hangtime84]

Four years unless some home run player comes here

[Michael Jackson]

This is absolute nonsense. Rose would not have been a mega star anywhere. He became the star he became overnight because the entire world has been desperate for Chicago to be back on top for over twenty years now, and he was a glimmer of hope. His story & the fact that he was the hometown kid on the greatest sports franchise ever & might be the one to lead them back to where they belong. Can’t believe this needs to be explained to a Bulls fan

Some of the stuff you read on this forum is really cringe. As a person who is from Europe & has spent time in other areas around the world talking basketball with locals, this is how the rest of the world views basketball: the Bulls & Michael Jordan & everything that came after it is considered secondary knowledge, and “not as good” as the Bulls during the glory years

The fact that the Bulls are run like a strip club rather than the most glorious NBA team that ever was is one of the biggest head scratching ironies in pro sports & has been obsessed over & pondered over ad nauseum, to the point where people (Bulls fans, even) came to the conclusion long ago that “I guess the Bulls just don’t want to win or be good, they must be using the franchise to launder money or something, because nothing else can explain it. They should be the premier nba destination but the owner actively shuns attention & chases away good people”.

Now you’ve got Bulls fans on RGM coming up with ridiculous fantasy alternate universe narratives for why no one in the NBA will touch them with a street lamp. Even though players have COME OUT & said why no one wants anything to do with them. Even though we have countless examples of them crapping on & burying their own players. Even going back to Krause’s allegations of open & careless racism. We could keep going with these reasons why the Bulls brass have willingly transformed themselves into the Alcatraz of the NBA

Yes he absolutely would have and it's laughable to suggest otherwise.

Russell Westbrook was a mega star in OKC. It's safe to say Rose would have been one anywhere. He had a very dynamic game.

Rose got that huge Addidas contract because it was the Bulls which was an international brand much larger than Seattle or OKC was. There is no doubt that Chicago helped him and being the hometown guy helped him too. He absolutely would have been a star but if not on that Bulls team and say it was the Pistons he doesn't get the MVP. The mix of him being from Chicago and playing in Chicago who was a storied franchise and a resurgent one absolutely helped his fame. It was not wholly responsible for it by any means but it was a very good marriage.

[DuckIII]

Because a really good Bulls is the talk of the world. Not so much for any of those cities outside of maybe Boston. Athletes like recognition. You get more in Chicago. Look how big Rose was globally.

Kevin Durant achieved just as much notoriety in Oklahoma. Luka Doncic is probably a top ten star in the world, in Dallas. Ja Morant is as beloved and closely followed a rookie as we see, and he’s in Memphis. Not to mention that Williamson guy in New Orleans. He’s doing pretty well on the fame and marketability front.

It’s no longer the factor it once was. Rose would have been a mega-star in any city.

That said, some free agents will want the every day lifestyle that comes with living in a major metropolitan area. And Chicago has that. So for that specific type of player it’s a plus. But that’s the whole point. Every player is different. What appeals to some, discourages others.

Bulls fans want to believe we have a built in generally applicable advantage to attract talent because “this is Chicago.” But it’s a just not true.

This is absolute nonsense. Rose would not have been a mega star anywhere. He became the star he became overnight because the entire world has been desperate for Chicago to be back on top for over twenty years now, and he was a glimmer of hope. His story & the fact that he was the hometown kid on the greatest sports franchise ever & might be the one to lead them back to where they belong. Can’t believe this needs to be explained to a Bulls fan

Some of the stuff you read on this forum is really cringe. As a person who is from Europe & has spent time in other areas around the world talking basketball with locals, this is how the rest of the world views basketball: the Bulls & Michael Jordan & everything that came after it is considered secondary knowledge, and “not as good” as the Bulls during the glory years

The fact that the Bulls are run like a strip club rather than the most glorious NBA team that ever was is one of the biggest head scratching ironies in pro sports & has been obsessed over & pondered over ad nauseum, to the point where people (Bulls fans, even) came to the conclusion long ago that “I guess the Bulls just don’t want to win or be good, they must be using the franchise to launder money or something, because nothing else can explain it. They should be the premier nba destination but the owner actively shuns attention & chases away good people”.

Now you’ve got Bulls fans on RGM coming up with ridiculous fantasy alternate universe narratives for why no one in the NBA will touch them with a street lamp. Even though players have COME OUT & said why no one wants anything to do with them. Even though we have countless examples of them crapping on & burying their own players. Even going back to Krause’s allegations of open & careless racism. We could keep going with these reasons why the Bulls brass have willingly transformed themselves into the Alcatraz of the NBA

I’m confused as to how any of this (except the comedy part about Rose not being a superstar in a different market) addresses anything I wrote.

Premise: Market is not the factor it once was in attracting players (with really only Los Angeles being the exception). Players today become superstars with all the extra endorsements and fame that follows, in all markets. As such, players today make free agency decisions on more highly particularized personal choices, some which may benefit Chicago and similar markets, some which may hurt those markets.

Response: Bulls are super famous in Europe and Jerry Krause was a racist! This ownership group is horrible and mean!

Good talk.

[jnrjr79]

One thing you did not note is Thibs was voted the coach NBA players want to play for the least, so...

That was not the perception of TT in 2010 who garnered a lot of positive press from around the league, Kobe, the players in Boston, and Doc Rivers.

https://www.espn.com/chicago/nba/news/story?id=5839022

What are the biggest FA signings in the last 20 years that involved a change of team? Shaq to L.A., the big 3 to Miami, LBJ to Cleveland on stint #2 LBJ to the Lakers, Durant to the Warriors, Durant to the Nets, Kyrie to the Nets, maybe Kemba to the Celts? The fact of the matter is clear-cut #1 max salary type players don't move around much via free agency, at least in their primes. So, fist of all, there is a very small sample size from which to draw conclusions. But, of the list above, only LeBron back to his hometown team, which was a decision obviously made for that reason, did not involve a good market (basically, really populous urban areas and/or places with good weather/glamour). It seems pretty clear market still matters. The fact that Chicago hasn't been the big market that lucked out on those signings is not sufficient evidence that Chicago isn't an appealing market in general. If you thought that was sufficient proof, then you necessarily would have to believe that New York isn't a good market, because the Knicks have also signed nobody in that same period.

Like I said, market appears to be a necessary but not a sufficient condition to recruiting star talent. If you want to argue that Chicago isn't as attractive a market at L.A., the Bay Area, or Miami, sure, I'd agree with you. But it's probably not behind many other markets than that.

Put another way, I think the Bulls' failure to recruit a big free agent is more about organizational perception, roster construction, and luck than some deficiency in the market.

There's also Duncan (resigned SAS), T-Mac (ORL), Grant Hill (ORL), Dwight Howard (HOU), Kobe (resigned with LAL). Prime players do shake loose.

I specifically noted I'm talking about stars changing teams. I don't think players re-signing with their current squad is what we're talking about here. Those players didn't "shake loose," after all. And I think the ones you noted that did switch teams only confirms my point. Orlando has weather + taxes. Houston is the 4th largest city in the country and has weather + taxes. This just seems to be further evidence that markets have some bearing on player movement.

So it's luck? I see.

Yeah, I said " organizational perception, roster construction, and luck." Not just luck. Do you discount the idea that luck is involved (e.g. a player wanting to play for a hometown team, which has nothing to do with the merit of that team other than the happy accident of where a player grew up)?

My main thesis is that this trend permeates not just basketball, but also all Chicago franchises whom always seem to miss out on large free agents as well. Also, my thesis does not say that market is not a factor. Rather, the Chicago market is not a factor because that is what history has to tell us.

I don't think the "thesis" that Chicago franchises always miss out on large free agents is true.

On the latter point is where you and I agree. I just think the Chicago market is not a large factor for free agents and ends up as a minus more often as a positive.

Do you have specific examples of the market itself being a minus? The closest thing I can think of would be someone not wanting to come here due to winter weather, but do you have any concrete examples of a star player saying "this seems like a good fit, the money is right, and they're ready to win, but I just can't see myself living in Chicago"?

Last, don't forget Pau Gasol came here for culture and opera.

[jnrjr79]

Kevin Durant achieved just as much notoriety in Oklahoma. Luka Doncic is probably a top ten star in the world, in Dallas. Ja Morant is as beloved and closely followed a rookie as we see, and he’s in Memphis. Not to mention that Williamson guy in New Orleans. He’s doing pretty well on the fame and marketability front.

It’s no longer the factor it once was. Rose would have been a mega-star in any city.

That said, some free agents will want the every day lifestyle that comes with living in a major metropolitan area. And Chicago has that. So for that specific type of player it’s a plus. But that’s the whole point. Every player is different. What appeals to some, discourages others.

Bulls fans want to believe we have a built in generally applicable advantage to attract talent because “this is Chicago.” But it’s a just not true.

This is absolute nonsense. Rose would not have been a mega star anywhere. He became the star he became overnight because the entire world has been desperate for Chicago to be back on top for over twenty years now, and he was a glimmer of hope. His story & the fact that he was the hometown kid on the greatest sports franchise ever & might be the one to lead them back to where they belong. Can’t believe this needs to be explained to a Bulls fan

Some of the stuff you read on this forum is really cringe. As a person who is from Europe & has spent time in other areas around the world talking basketball with locals, this is how the rest of the world views basketball: the Bulls & Michael Jordan & everything that came after it is considered secondary knowledge, and “not as good” as the Bulls during the glory years

The fact that the Bulls are run like a strip club rather than the most glorious NBA team that ever was is one of the biggest head scratching ironies in pro sports & has been obsessed over & pondered over ad nauseum, to the point where people (Bulls fans, even) came to the conclusion long ago that “I guess the Bulls just don’t want to win or be good, they must be using the franchise to launder money or something, because nothing else can explain it. They should be the premier nba destination but the owner actively shuns attention & chases away good people”.

Now you’ve got Bulls fans on RGM coming up with ridiculous fantasy alternate universe narratives for why no one in the NBA will touch them with a street lamp. Even though players have COME OUT & said why no one wants anything to do with them. Even though we have countless examples of them crapping on & burying their own players. Even going back to Krause’s allegations of open & careless racism. We could keep going with these reasons why the Bulls brass have willingly transformed themselves into the Alcatraz of the NBA

I’m confused as to how any of this (except the comedy part about Rose not being a superstar in a different market) addresses anything I wrote.

Premise: Market is not the factor it once was in attracting players (with really only Los Angeles being the exception). Players today become superstars with all the extra endorsements and fame that follows, in all markets. As such, players today make free agency decisions on more highly particularized personal choices, some which may benefit Chicago and similar markets, some which may hurt those markets.

Response: Bulls are super famous in Europe and Jerry Krause was a racist! This ownership group is horrible and mean!

Good talk.

I 100% agree market is less important than it used to be. However, even now, when a player makes an affirmative decision to leave his team, it's basically exclusively been to go to what would be considered a "good" market. If market were immaterial, you'd see your share of Memphises or Utah's with the occasional superstar signing, no?

[Michael Jackson]

One thing you did not note is Thibs was voted the coach NBA players want to play for the least, so...

That was not the perception of TT in 2010 who garnered a lot of positive press from around the league, Kobe, the players in Boston, and Doc Rivers.

https://www.espn.com/chicago/nba/news/story?id=5839022

What are the biggest FA signings in the last 20 years that involved a change of team? Shaq to L.A., the big 3 to Miami, LBJ to Cleveland on stint #2 LBJ to the Lakers, Durant to the Warriors, Durant to the Nets, Kyrie to the Nets, maybe Kemba to the Celts? The fact of the matter is clear-cut #1 max salary type players don't move around much via free agency, at least in their primes. So, fist of all, there is a very small sample size from which to draw conclusions. But, of the list above, only LeBron back to his hometown team, which was a decision obviously made for that reason, did not involve a good market (basically, really populous urban areas and/or places with good weather/glamour). It seems pretty clear market still matters. The fact that Chicago hasn't been the big market that lucked out on those signings is not sufficient evidence that Chicago isn't an appealing market in general. If you thought that was sufficient proof, then you necessarily would have to believe that New York isn't a good market, because the Knicks have also signed nobody in that same period.

Like I said, market appears to be a necessary but not a sufficient condition to recruiting star talent. If you want to argue that Chicago isn't as attractive a market at L.A., the Bay Area, or Miami, sure, I'd agree with you. But it's probably not behind many other markets than that.

Put another way, I think the Bulls' failure to recruit a big free agent is more about organizational perception, roster construction, and luck than some deficiency in the market.

There's also Duncan (resigned SAS), T-Mac (ORL), Grant Hill (ORL), Dwight Howard (HOU), Kobe (resigned with LAL). Prime players do shake loose.

I specifically noted I'm talking about stars changing teams. I don't think players re-signing with their current squad is what we're talking about here. Those players didn't "shake loose," after all. And I think the ones you noted that did switch teams only confirms my point. Orlando has weather + taxes. Houston is the 4th largest city in the country and has weather + taxes. This just seems to be further evidence that markets have some bearing on player movement.

So it's luck? I see.

Yeah, I said " organizational perception, roster construction, and luck." Not just luck. Do you discount the idea that luck is involved (e.g. a player wanting to play for a hometown team, which has nothing to do with the merit of that team other than the happy accident of where a player grew up)?

My main thesis is that this trend permeates not just basketball, but also all Chicago franchises whom always seem to miss out on large free agents as well. Also, my thesis does not say that market is not a factor. Rather, the Chicago market is not a factor because that is what history has to tell us.

I don't think the "thesis" that Chicago franchises always miss out on large free agents is true.

On the latter point is where you and I agree. I just think the Chicago market is not a large factor for free agents and ends up as a minus more often as a positive.

Do you have specific examples of the market itself being a minus? The closest thing I can think of would be someone not wanting to come here due to winter weather, but do you have any concrete examples of a star player saying "this seems like a good fit, the money is right, and they're ready to win, but I just can't see myself living in Chicago"?

Last, don't forget Pau Gasol came here for culture and opera.

And our medical district!

[TheStig]

Yes he absolutely would have and it's laughable to suggest otherwise.

Russell Westbrook was a mega star in OKC. It's safe to say Rose would have been one anywhere. He had a very dynamic game.

Rose got that huge Addidas contract because it was the Bulls which was an international brand much larger than Seattle or OKC was. There is no doubt that Chicago helped him and being the hometown guy helped him too. He absolutely would have been a star but if not on that Bulls team and say it was the Pistons he doesn't get the MVP. The mix of him being from Chicago and playing in Chicago who was a storied franchise and a resurgent one absolutely helped his fame. It was not wholly responsible for it by any means but it was a very good marriage.

I think that's obsurd. Bron has a shoe deal in Cle. Durant has a show deal in OKC. Russ had a shoe deal in OKC. This isn't the 90's. There is league pass and a bunch of national televised games for good team or dynamic stars. Zion is in NO and they started nationally televising games and he's not even an all star yet.

Why wouldn't Rose be a MVP in Detroit? The Bulls were not very condusive to his stats with a defense team. Maybe in Detroit they open up the offense, spread the court and play a super quick pace and his stats are even better. I think MVP Rose was good enough to get that team into the playoffs.

[Michael Jackson]

Russell Westbrook was a mega star in OKC. It's safe to say Rose would have been one anywhere. He had a very dynamic game.

Rose got that huge Addidas contract because it was the Bulls which was an international brand much larger than Seattle or OKC was. There is no doubt that Chicago helped him and being the hometown guy helped him too. He absolutely would have been a star but if not on that Bulls team and say it was the Pistons he doesn't get the MVP. The mix of him being from Chicago and playing in Chicago who was a storied franchise and a resurgent one absolutely helped his fame. It was not wholly responsible for it by any means but it was a very good marriage.

I think that's obsurd. Bron has a shoe deal in Cle. Durant has a show deal in OKC. Russ had a shoe deal in OKC. This isn't the 90's. There is league pass and a bunch of national televised games for good team or dynamic stars. Zion is in NO and they started nationally televising games and he's not even an all star yet.

Why wouldn't Rose be a MVP in Detroit? The Bulls were not very condusive to his stats with a defense team. Maybe in Detroit they open up the offense, spread the court and play a super quick pace and his stats are even better. I think MVP Rose was good enough to get that team into the playoffs.

Rose's shoe deal was predicated not on domestic sales and was based a lot on overseas sales especially china. Adidas took a big gamble (lost) on that too but the fact that the Bulls are the most international brand helped. There is in my mind no doubt Rose MVP was helped because he was the first player to shine in the house the MJ built (there was a major dialog that no one wanted to play in MJ's shadow before that). There is also a lot of opinion that Rose didn't deserve that MVP and that LeBron should have gotten it that year. Stats aside if the Piston's (or any team theoretically he is on) don't have a season like the Bulls did in 11 he would be in conversation somewhere are 3-5 in votes. He also had the nice quiet kid playing in his hometown going for him, where Lebron after the decision was likened to to the "Yankee's Evil Empire" so being the underdog going against goliath, considered an unbeatable team at the time had a lot to do with it. Not just the playoffs but that they came out that season tough as nails and Rose was as exciting.

I still see Rose getting a shoe deal on any team and being a superstar. His hype was huge out of HS and out of Memphis and as we all know he was absolutely great until injury and would have been anywhere. Narrative helps though in the media. I would say LeBron playing for his hometown (although it wasn't) Cavs helped his early nice guy narrative too (I mean he still was going to be huge but it surely helped early on - pre the "Decision") The Rose situation was a good marriage on all sides, for teh Bulls and Rose. It was ideal narrative, well until it wasn't and it got ugly. With Russ too, if he isn't on that stupidly stacked young super team who made the Finals his long term narrative is not as attractive IMHO. The Narrative also favored Russ MVP,because he preformed when he lost KD, may feel it was almost a sympathy MVP for him, not that he didn't deserve it but the narrative hedged votes.

[WookieOnRitalin]

I don't think the "thesis" that Chicago franchises always miss out on large free agents is true.

Yes it is and no one has provided any objective opinion to the contrary outside of "I don't think, I don't believe, etc..."

Do you have specific examples of the market itself being a minus? The closest thing I can think of would be someone not wanting to come here due to winter weather, but do you have any concrete examples of a star player saying "this seems like a good fit, the money is right, and they're ready to win, but I just can't see myself living in Chicago"?

Outside of almost all top tier free agents passing on our teams? No I do not.